Posted on 08/20/2007 6:26:08 AM PDT by John Galt 72
Giuliani? Thompson? No President Will Lead a Moral Revival
By Dan Calabrese
August 20, 2007
A friend recently indicated his strong preference for Fred Thompson over Rudy Giuliani in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. The issue, he said, is morality. Giuliani’s past marital infidelity, fractured relationships with his children and support for abortion rights and gay rights call his moral judgment into question.
That, say this friend and many other social conservatives, is not the kind of man we want to elect to lead a moral nation.
Any defense of Giuliani on these points can wait for another day. But a look at statistical indicators of Americans’ morality over the past 30 years shows an interesting lack of correlation between moral trends and the moral character of the person sitting in the White House.
Read the entire column here: http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc102.htm
In that era, Sodomy was not tolerated at all in our society. Nobody would have ridiculed preachers for preaching against the sins of the society or even the sins in the government.
Nobody from 1815 to 1835 would have criticized a president or other elected representative for naming God, for invoking the Name of Jesus Christ, or quoting from the Bible.
Virtually all, if not all Christian preachers in the United States from 1815 to 1835, regardless of denomination, used the King James Bible.
In those years, most Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists could cooperate to some extent in city-wide evangelistic campaigns and other efforts, without being accused of compromising the essentials or fundamentals of the Christian Faith.
In those years, Christian churches disciplined their members for offenses that might cause a reproach (bad testimony) against Christ. And the church members accepted this as necessary.
Most members of churches today would not have been accepted into the membership of the Christian churches from 1815 to 1835 because of their worldliness.
Most Christian churches in those years were not incorporated, nor did they have state charters. NONE had 501(c)(3) status because there was no I.R.S. Therefore, preaching and publishing were not restricted or tailored by public policy or fear of violating I.R.S. or other Fed agency rules.
Simple - just stop subsidizing the consequences for immoral behaviors and choices,
and the immoral behaviors and choices reduce significantly.
This is conservativism 101 - which natural leads to a more moral and responsible culture and nation.
_________________________________________________________
I do not agree. True, we do not just need to get a victory in 2008 BUT without that victory nothing else matters. I would rather, much rather, have any of the republicans running become president than have any of the democrats running become president.
I personally would not vote for Rudy in the primary but if he wins the nomination I will vote for him and try to convince others to do the same.
Fred Thompson looks good, sounds good but has a few skeletons in his closet just like the rest of us. I could perhaps even vote for him in the primary but I wish he had managed something before. I don’t think Mr Thompson is the most moral character in the republican party. While he is not the most moral, is morality really the most important consideration? Whose morality. There are many pro lifers who think that pro life status defines morality. There are many others that think a man should keep his pants zipped until marriage and that that defines morality. They of course both have valid points but what is the most important thing going. The WOT is the most important. If we don’t win that then the other things don’t really matter.
Mr. Romney really sounds good. He might bring votes from the northeast which would really help us a lot. He would blow Hillary or Obama either one away in debates. He looks presidential, sounds intelligent and has executive experience. If he just had been on the right side of life all along he would likely be near perfect, but had he been on the right side of life he would have never been elected Governor.
Duncan Hunter seems like a really great guy, it is possible that he would make a great president. He tows the Conservative line the way I would. His personal life seems fine. His only problem is the question of what has he managed? Administration is more than standing for something. Managing people is a skill, that is what they teach at these business schools. A president needs to be a manager, without a proven track record it may be hard to convince knowledgeable people that you are fit for the office of president unless you have a good resume. If we had Rudy Mitthompson we would have a good combination if we got the best parts of all three. That won’t happen so we really have to select our qualities carefully.
I personally believe that Mitt Romney is the most electable followed by Fred Thompson and Rudy. I mean most electable in the general. I don’t know what we will get in the primary but hope it will be a wise choice of someone who can make a difference, someone who can get elected.
Bob dole was a great guy, really a good person but a terrible candidate, we don’t need another Bob Dole.
_________________________________________________________
I do not agree. True, we do not just need to get a victory in 2008 BUT without that victory nothing else matters. I would rather, much rather, have any of the republicans running become president than have any of the democrats running become president.
I personally would not vote for Rudy in the primary but if he wins the nomination I will vote for him and try to convince others to do the same.
Fred Thompson looks good, sounds good but has a few skeletons in his closet just like the rest of us. I could perhaps even vote for him in the primary but I wish he had managed something before. I don’t think Mr Thompson is the most moral character in the republican party. While he is not the most moral, is morality really the most important consideration? Whose morality. There are many pro lifers who think that pro life status defines morality. There are many others that think a man should keep his pants zipped until marriage and that that defines morality. They of course both have valid points but what is the most important thing going. The WOT is the most important. If we don’t win that then the other things don’t really matter.
Mr. Romney really sounds good. He might bring votes from the northeast which would really help us a lot. He would blow Hillary or Obama either one away in debates. He looks presidential, sounds intelligent and has executive experience. If he just had been on the right side of life all along he would likely be near perfect, but had he been on the right side of life he would have never been elected Governor.
Duncan Hunter seems like a really great guy, it is possible that he would make a great president. He tows the Conservative line the way I would. His personal life seems fine. His only problem is the question of what has he managed? Administration is more than standing for something. Managing people is a skill, that is what they teach at these business schools. A president needs to be a manager, without a proven track record it may be hard to convince knowledgeable people that you are fit for the office of president unless you have a good resume. If we had Rudy Mitthompson we would have a good combination if we got the best parts of all three. That won’t happen so we really have to select our qualities carefully.
I personally believe that Mitt Romney is the most electable followed by Fred Thompson and Rudy. I mean most electable in the general. I don’t know what we will get in the primary but hope it will be a wise choice of someone who can make a difference, someone who can get elected.
Bob dole was a great guy, really a good person but a terrible candidate, we don’t need another Bob Dole.
But this is exactly what Rudy has done. He cheated on his 2nd wife, hired corrupt associates, and flip-flopped on abortion.
As a conservative-libertarian, I want my leaders to have a moral compass yet at the same time not advance laws that try to legislate it.
But, the reason to oppose Giuliani is that he is a liberal, especially on social issues, and that does matter.
If illegal immigration is an important issue to you, why would you even consider voting for the only Republican to file lawsuits on behalf of illegals while in office — RINO Rudy? Giuliani in the past week has been touting citizenship for illegals as well.
At least, he hasn't openly cheated on his wife while in office while alienating his children in the process.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794584/posts?page=66#66
Excerpt:
Bad as the 1995 parade was, it was no match for last year's debacle ("Stonewall at 25," October 1994). On June 26, 1994, scores of fully naked men and women marched in an illegal parade yelling "F___ You" at those on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral. They masturbated in the street, pointed their middle fingers at the Cathedral, did satanic dances and dressed as cardinals, nuns, and priests. All of this was done in full view of Police Commissioner William Bratton and the New York City police force. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani watched from above in a helicopter. No one was arrested for anything.
...
...(re the '95 parade...): ..."All the usual suspects were there: drag queens, cross-dressers on Rollerblades, the Butch/Femme Society, the sado-macho brigade in black leather, Men of Discipline and other lovely types. Commercialism was most evident as about a third of the floats were sponsored by various gay bars and clubs. Though there were no signs indicating that the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was there, the child molesters were listed in the program..."
...There were men dressed as women and there were fairies on stilts. Hundreds of men wore nothing but jock straps, shaking their bodies to the beat of the blaring rock music. Olympic diving champion Greg Louganis was one of the grand marshals and pop singer Cyndi Lauper danced and sang her hit "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." Strange looking people were everywhere and often it was difficult to tell whether it was a man or a woman, and in some cases it appeared that it was both. And yes, some of the girls did bare their breasts (a few of them apparently spray painted their chests), but in all fairness it must be said that most of the girls managed to keep their clothes on. The police carried yellow blankets to cover the girls up but decided against using them. Following tradition, no one was arrested.
There's a fat and ugly guy who shows up every year dressed as the pope carrying a sign "My church organ is bigger than yours." He was there again this year. There was one car that passed by with a string of unrelated four letter words and sexual terms on it. Some marchers wore shirts with various vulgarities inscribed on them. There were large pictures of men performing oral sex and there were several examples of men simulating oral sex live atop the floats. The latter exhibition led Norm Siegel of the ACLU to declare "I love watching the First Amendment in action," thus demonstrating how far we've come in our understanding of free speech.
No Gay Pride Parade would be complete without a little Catholic bashing. It should be noted that the place where the march began, 52nd Street, is not a major cross street, making it all the more conspicuous what the intent was in starting there. If Catholic bashing wasn't central to the parade, then surely the request to start the march just south of the Cathedral would have been granted. Indeed, when Janice Thom, the co- chairman of the parade's sponsors, Heritage of Pride, was asked to comment on my statement that her group had deliberately targeted St. Patrick's, she responded briskly, "That's an interesting idea."
The most flagrant anti-Catholicism came from Catholic Ladies for Choice. In this group, there were gays and lesbians dressed as nuns carrying coat hangers and lesbians dressed as nuns carrying tambourines. Most incredible was the gay man who wore a black bra and a black jock strap with a huge set of rosary beads wrapped around his otherwise naked body. There was also someone dressed as the pope with a banner that read, "The Catholic Church, a history of murder, lies, censorship, oppression, and hypocrisy."
And what did Mayor Giuliani have to say about all this? He called it a "very dignified parade."
There is NO comparison between Reagan's conservative record in California and Giuliani's liberal record in New York or Romeny's moderately liberal record in Massachusetts:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/new200406100853.asp
Reagan made conservative ideas an important part of his campaign. He came out strongly in favor of property-tax relief, and opposed the withholding of state income taxes because he felt that it would make subsequent tax increases easier. In contrast, his Democratic opponent, Governor Pat Brown, had hiked taxes, increased state support for schools, and enacted a massive welfare-liberalization package. Overall, the rising tax burden, coupled with the urban riots in Watts and the unrest on college campuses, propelled Reagan to a surprisingly easy victory.
During his entire term as governor, Reagan faced Democratic majorities in both chambers of the California state legislature. This made it very difficult for Reagan to implement a number of policy reforms. However, he did sign a sweeping welfare-reform bill in 1971. During this time, Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) caseloads were rapidly expanding across the country. In California, they quadrupled between 1963 and 1970. In fact, by 1971 one out of 13 Californians was receiving AFDC. Reagan's desire to both promote self-sufficiency and to reduce state spending led him to promote welfare reform aggressively during his time as governor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.