Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Social Issues Unlikely To Hurt Giuliani
The State ^ | 8/21/06

Posted on 08/21/2006 6:16:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-391 next last
To: areafiftyone

No more big government statists will get my vote.


81 posted on 08/21/2006 7:52:58 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

If his wives can't trust him why should we?

I wouldn't vote for Newt either. I don't vote for public adulterers who betray their families. We can do better than that.


82 posted on 08/21/2006 7:53:13 AM PDT by Sail The Blue Sea (I said it and I mean it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; martin_fierro; TommyDale; jla
Rudy isn't just 'all puckered up' to gays. He is a member.

(Chortle) Gotta be careful how you use the word "member" if gays are listening.

Same with using the term "point of entry." Get's 'em all het up. LOL.

83 posted on 08/21/2006 7:53:44 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
Have we any real conservative candidate who would have Rudy's impact, a probable winner?

No. Which means that only the most obstinate fringers would sit on their hands on election day, while the rest of the GOP, lots of moderates, and not a few Democrats would vote for Guliani overwhelmingly.

84 posted on 08/21/2006 7:55:49 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale; areafiftyone
Is the 2nd amendment a social issue?

Do the Christians on the right think that God doesn't care about social issues.

Is there a relationship between a countries position on social/religious issues and "being threatened or attacked"?

If a country is "threatened or attacked" is that an act of God in the eyes of Christians or is it simply a natural event?

To many Christians social issues have more to do with a countries security than any other issue. Me included.

85 posted on 08/21/2006 7:57:51 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I have no doubt the party hacks will support Giuliani, but the base voters won't.

The base already supports him. He leads every poll, over McCain, and Allen and everybody else.

If it's Guliani or Hillary, he'll be nominated and he'll win the election.

86 posted on 08/21/2006 7:58:12 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

If the lack of concern about "social issues" means we are willing to become more and more wicked as a society, that IMO is just as much a threat to our security as the Islamists.


87 posted on 08/21/2006 8:01:26 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

88 posted on 08/21/2006 8:01:27 AM PDT by martin_fierro (If we're still here tomorrow I never said this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

If the Republicans decide to throw overboard one part of the Republican coalition (social conservatives, in this case), it is unlikely that the Republican candidate will win.




I might argue that its the social conservatives who are doing all the threatening at this point.

How anyone be thrown overboard - unless the rest of ships crew decides they should be?

Be a part of the crew and you remain a part of the ship.

Nice post by the way - I like your thought process.


89 posted on 08/21/2006 8:01:45 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Sail The Blue Sea
I wouldn't vote for Newt either. I don't vote for public adulterers who betray their families. We can do better than that.

Like George Allen, who's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth?

90 posted on 08/21/2006 8:01:55 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; All
If that was his explanation, then he has utterly disqualified himself from serious consideration for the White House among conservatives for TWO reasons . . . 1) he's on the wrong side of about 90% of the issues, and 2) he's completely full of sh!t.

Go back and look at his track record in New York when it comes to illegal aliens. He openly and proudly proclaimed that he would ignore the 1996 Federal statute that made it explicitly illegal for local governments to implement "sanctuary" policies. (In case you aren't aware of this, a "sanctuary" policy effectively prevents local government employees from cooperating with the INS in identifying and apprehending illegal aliens.)

I never thought I'd see the day when so-called "conservatives" would come here on FreeRepublic and shill for a leftist presidential candidate who ought to be sitting in a Federal prison right now.

91 posted on 08/21/2006 8:07:10 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose

Thanks God that there are many more than 5,000 real conservatives in SC who will not vote for Rudy.


92 posted on 08/21/2006 8:07:56 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Liz

I'm safe with using member. He isn't JUST a member, he is PARTNERED.

Their words, not mine.

S.V.A. Honorary Members
(all 14 are supportive, considered and voted upon)

Liz J. Abzug, Rebuild Our Town Downtown, Co-Chair
(www.Abzug.com)
N.Y.C. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
(www.MikeBloomberg.com)
N.Y.C. Councilmember James E. (Jed) Davis, In Memorium
(www.Council.nyc.ny.us)
Congressmember Geraldine A. Ferraro
(www.search.Britannica.com)
Borough President C. Virginia Fields
(www.NewYorkers4Fields.com)
America's Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani
(www.GiulianiPartners.com)
B. Thomas Golisano, Paychex, President
(www.Paychex.com)
N.Y.C. Public Advocate Betsy F. Gotbaum
(www.PubAdvocate.nyc.gov)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
(www.Riverkeeper.org)
Councilmember Margarita L. Lopez
(www.MargaritaLopez.com)
Martha Reeves, Motown Singer & Detroit Councilwoman
(www.STONEWALLvets.org/songsofStonewall-7.htm)
N.Y.S. Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer
(www.Spitzer2006.com)
Steven L. Wesler, R.D.P. Group, President
(www.RDPgroup.com)
N.Y.S. Assemblymember Keith L.Wright
(www.WrightForTheFuture.com)


93 posted on 08/21/2006 8:11:49 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose

Dear Jake The Goose,

"Be a part of the crew and you remain a part of the ship."

We may not be much interested in the ship if we think it's being steered to Hell, and we are told that we may not alter its course.

The nomination of Mr. Giuliani would represent total defeat for social conservatives. For folks for whom the social issues are the most fundamental, there is little difference between the potential candidacy of Mr. Giuliani and that of most liberal Democrats.

That's throwing the social conservatives overboard.

If you throw out the party's support of our issues, then you throw us out with it. If the presidential nominee is indistinguishable from the Democrat nominee on key social issues, then we social conservatives have already lost the election.

It doesn't really matter at that point for whom we vote, a liberal has already won.

Whether or not you or anyone feels that social conservatives SHOULD toe the line and vote for someone completely repugnant to ourselves and our consciences, I'm not very interested in shoulds and shouldn'ts. I'm dealing in wills and won'ts.

Social conservatives will not vote overwhelmingly for Mr. Giuliani. Even against Mrs. Clinton. I doubt that Mr. Giuliani will even get a simple majority of the social conservative vote in the general election.


sitetest


94 posted on 08/21/2006 8:12:37 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sail The Blue Sea; Calpernia; TommyDale; jla; Just mythoughts
If his wives can't trust him why should we? I wouldn't vote for Newt either. I don't vote for public adulterers who betray their families. We can do better than that.

N-i-c-e, very nice take.

Rudy was still married to his first wife when he took up with wife #2. He then tried to annul the first marriage----clueless Rudy saying he didn't know his first wife was his cousin. This from the man who wants to handle state secrets (belly laugh).

Rudy then became involved with future wife #3 while still married to wife #2. Not only did Rudy become involved in an adulterous affair while still married---- Rudy showed his contempt for the citizenry, and for established mores, when he insisted his wife move out so he could move his girlfriend into Gracie Mansion.

The windup was that Rudy moved out, and lived with two gay friends while his wife and two kids (who refused to move out) stayed at Gracie Mansion---

95 posted on 08/21/2006 8:13:22 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Like George Allen, who's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth?

No, he is also a problem. I know several of his staffers. I haven't seen anyone yet who I can fully back.

96 posted on 08/21/2006 8:14:31 AM PDT by Sail The Blue Sea (I said it and I mean it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I am begining to think its time to tell the social conservatives to either work with the party, and stop telling everyone how to live their lives.... or

Walk the plank.

I for one am getting a little sick and tired of being preached to.

We're at war overseas - we don't need to be at war at home.

Mind your home - I will mind mine.


97 posted on 08/21/2006 8:15:20 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Jake The Goose
You're approaching this the wrong way. It would be foolish for the GOP to ignore the concerns of social conservatives, especially when you consider how close the last two presidential elections were even as these social conservatives turned out to support the Republican candidate in record numbers.
98 posted on 08/21/2006 8:15:46 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If Rudy is pro illegal aliens and for that treasonous amnesty bill the Senate passed, then he not competent or willing to deal with terrorist attacks to this country.


99 posted on 08/21/2006 8:17:20 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I don't want to ignore the social conservatives.

On the contrary - I want to debate them at every opportunity.

That said - look at this thread - social conservatives are not exactly open to anyone who does not walk in lock step.

Some (not all) socical conservatives are damn scary people.

The President is Commander in Chief - not Preacher in Chief.


100 posted on 08/21/2006 8:18:32 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 381-391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson