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

To: Jake The Goose

Dear Jake The Goose,

LOL!

So, you really ARE getting ready to throw us overboard.

Either get on the program or "walk the plank," eh?

Sorry, that approach isn't exactly going to entice us to vote for liberals with "R"s pasted to their backs.

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

I'm not preaching to anyone. I'm just stating openly, loudly, forcefully, clearly, unambiguously - I won't vote for Mr. Giuliani. And neither will a large number of social conservatives.

No preaching, just simple facts.

My goal is merely to make sure that all the folks who support Mr. Giuliani understand the consequences of nominating this liberal. Should we fail to stop his nomination, many of us will not ever vote for him in the general election.

My goal is that when his supporters come back, after suffering defeat in the general election, whining about us social conservatives, I will be able to say, "Hey, we were upfront about things. We told you we wouldn't vote for this man. You shoved him down our throat, anyway. Take your lumps."

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

We've been at war at home for decades. The liberal left (including Mr. Giuliani) has been warring against the United States for quite some time. Social conservatives believe that legal abortion on demand up until the point that the baby is 9/10s already born, the homosexualist agenda, etc., have been undermining our country for a long time, and that we won't need the external threat of Islamofascism to defeat us if we continue on the path that we're on.

The Islamofascist threat doesn't make all these other threats to our country go away.

You want my vote for the Republican presidential nominee? Don't nominate a liberal. There! Wasn't that easy?


sitetest


108 posted on 08/21/2006 8:26:59 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]


To: All
DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS ISSUE MEMO ON LOSS OF CATHOLICS

Washington, DC, Apr. 13, 2005 (Culture of Life Foundation/CWNews.com) - A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats "striking" and "a big part of the 2004 election story." One of the analysis' key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life, which the authors called "a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest."

The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.

The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called "Democratic defectors" who either identified themselves as Democrats or voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last election. Among this group, "26 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic Democrats."

The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled "Reclaiming the White Catholic Vote," it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than 1,000 white Catholic voters.

The decline in the white Catholic vote has been steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points. The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.

It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would.

The poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied Communion by the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.

The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going away. "Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors, Catholics' current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with time.

While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal, voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be illegal in most cases." The pro-life position could be a winning one for Democrats according to the study.

Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24 point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life, a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion candidate.

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]elieves in a woman's right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."

This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a "tragic choice." In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for "family planning services," a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients, and abortions.

SOURCE http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=36492

110 posted on 08/21/2006 8:29:21 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: sitetest; Calpernia; TommyDale; jla; Alberta's Child
Heads-up conservatives---this brillian post by sitetest deserves a repeat read: ======================================================

RUDYPHILE ENDLESS WAR HOPEFUL POSTED: "We're at war overseas - we don't need to be at war at home."

SITETEST: "We've been at war at home for decades. The liberal left (including Mr. Giuliani) has been warring against the United States for quite some time.

Social conservatives believe that legal abortion on demand up until the point that the baby is 9/10s already born, the homosexualist agenda, etc., have been undermining our country for a long time.............

..... we won't need the external threat of Islamofascism to defeat us if we continue on the path that we're on. The Islamofascist threat doesn't make all these other threats to our country go away.

119 posted on 08/21/2006 8:39:55 AM PDT by Liz (The US Constitution is intended to protect the people from the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

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