“There is no historical evidence that the Republican party without the support of social conservatives has been anything other than a minority party in the last fifty years. Republican successes were only possible with the support and votes of the social conservatives.”
In this particular instance, which is more important to you, the health of the Republican Party or the deaths of more babies under a Dem administration? You can make your point about the success of the Party, which I actually concur with. However, I would rather our wing of the party not have as conservative a leader as we would wish as opposed to trying to build our wing of the party up by teaching the less conservative wing of our party a lesson, which will cause the further deaths of innocent babies under a Dem policies administration. Which is more important to you, teaching our Party a lesson or keeping ever more abortions from taking place under a Dem gov’t?
There will be no fewer babies killed in a Giuliani administration than in a Clinton administration. There is nothing in Giuliani’s long record to indicate that there is any material difference in policy stances or record in nominating judges than any classic Democratic pro-abortion candidate. A Giuliani presidency would not make a material difference in the number of abortions - it would, however, do long term damage to the Republican party and the principles that the party has historically stood for. Therefore, long term, his candidacy, whether he wins or loses, with cause much more damage to conservative efforts in many areas that most of us would agree on.