NO TO RUDI

Nealz Nuze ^ | 11/15/06 | Neal Boortz

[steve-b]

Earlier this week we learned that Rudolph Giuliani has filed papers to form an exploratory committee. That's the first step to running for president. Well .. .it didn't take long for the religious right to announce that up with this they will not put. Colleen Parro, the head of some group called the Republican National Coalition for Life says that Giuliani is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances." The two issues she cited? Homosexuals and abortion.

Now ... what was it I said earlier this week that made so many zealots so unhappy? Oh yeah .. it was something about us needing a political movement dedicated to individual and economic liberty, limited government with a strong defense, cutting government spending, school choice and strong capitalist instincts .. and one that had no desire to force the people of this country to live under any particular codification of religious dogma.

Good luck on that.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Boortz has a valid point, but in his libertarian approach he overlooks a very salient, important point -- one that is the driving force behind much of the "social conservative" agenda in this country. "

Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide. We want less government yet we are trying to impose our social agenda on the courts. Gee, the left does the same thing and we condemn them for it.

[Bahbah]

Maybe we could try to win Rudy over rather than dump him under the bus. It would be a worthy effort even if he decides not to run.

[Rummyfan]

Rudy's got three problesm as a Republican candidate. He's an All-Pro: pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and pro-gun control. While that's not a problem in New York politics, it is nationally. Plus those pictures of him dressed in drag......

[Emmett McCarthy]

Or any kind of liberty for that matter.

[Iowegian]

Jim Leach, Lincoln Chaffee, are they conservatives? (Just to name a couple).

[E Rocc]

Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide. We want less government yet we are trying to impose our social agenda on the courts. Gee, the left does the same thing and we condemn them for it.

President Reagan recognized that attempted social engineering by the so-called "cultural conservatives" was just as big as an electoral loser as when the left does it.

I like Rudi in general but I can't back him for President unless and until he at least quits supporting gun grabbing. In the Bill of Rights, it's the Second Amendment that truly guarantees the other nine.

-Eric

[LiveFree99]

Patton? More like an Eisenhower is needed.

[DManA]

If that's Guilianni than I'm a Guilianni man. I'm just very very skeptical about whether that these are his passions.

needing a political movement dedicated to individual and economic liberty, limited government with a strong defense, cutting government spending, school choice and strong capitalist instincts ..

[JamesP81]

There's going to have to be a fusion of social conservatism and libertarian conservatism. Until that happens, we are dead in the water.

Libertarians need to learn to live with the fact that we aren't going to abide on demand abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research. I hear libertarians talking about individual rights, but as long as they think that letting a man starve his infirm wife to death for the insurance money is OK, they are NOT serious about individual rights. We at least think the states should make their own laws about marriage.

Social conservatives are going to have to forget this instinctive 'law and order' and big govt tendencies we have. We don't go around asking the government for its permission; it's supposed to ask ours. Media censorship is a loser of an issue and it needs to be discarded and forgotten as quickly as possible. Excessive tobacco and other vice taxes are not interpreted as efforts to get people to quit smoking, but as efforts to butt into people's personal lives (which it is). Govt charity and education spending are also big losers. Social cons need to actually read the Constitution and then learn and understand the significance of the fact that that same Constitution doesn't detail the full extent of the people's rights; it details the full extent of the government's granted privileges.

[Flintlock]

Yeah, sure. Let's just turn the argument against the shibbolith of the Left--that 'ol "Religious Right". You know--Gays and such.
In case you forget, Rudy is Pro:
High taxes.
More Gov't $ for everything.
A much bigger Gov't to boot.
Wierd social systems.
Very "creative" prosecutions for invented crime.
Highly intrusive laws (see Bloomberg, transfats, smokes).
Illegal Immigration/amnesty and free medical care for those breaking the law--sending YOU the bill.
No guns for citizens--for Rudy self-defense is the crime.

The MSM loves him, but the more you learn, the less electable he is.
BTW this goes double for McCain.

[Alberta's Child]

Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

That is complete bullsh!t in today's political/legal climate. It is impossible for states to maintain any social conservative climate whatsoever until the Federal judiciary has been rightly repudiated for its past transgressions in overturning previous state laws along these lines. This cannot happen until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns each and every one of those prior decisions -- and it won't happen if we delude ourselves into thinking that these are "state issues" even as a majority of the sitting justices on the U.S. Supreme Court bench insist that they're not.

Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide.

As per my comment above -- this is a pointless exercise until AFTER the Federal judiciary acknowledges that local ballots and/or "the people" are legitimate arbiters of these issues.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Neal makes a great point. America needs a Patton in the White House, not a Falwell.

Tom Tancredo...

[JamesP81]

Santorum? Talent? Allen? Are you kidding me?

Actually, IIRC, the majority of the republicans that lost were, in fact, RINOs. Some conservative pubbies did lose, and the media is anxious to play that up to make it look like conservatism lost.

[Brilliant]

If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him. If it's a choice between him, Romney and McCrazy, I'll vote for Rudi.

The only influence that the President has on abortion is by virtue of his role in appointing Supreme Court justices. I think Rudi would appoint conservative justices, irrespective of his views on abortion. He supported Alito and Roberts. That's good enough for me.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Get rid of the gun grabbing and I will support Rudy. Unless Gingrich runs in which case I am voting Newt.

[JamesP81]

BTW this goes double for McCain.

McCain is also straight out opposed to free speech.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

Wrong. You need to read the Constitution...

States ratify Amendments...

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

[steve-b]

Please stick to the subject and do not spam the thread with irrelevancies.

[Mariner]

Abortion and Marriage are not CONSTITUTIONALLY in the federal realm.

If Social Conservatives insist on nation-wide laws that govern these issues they will continue to drive small (l) libertarians out of the party.

I believe we should be able to join under the banner of "strict constructionism"...solidly constituional judges...that put these issues back to the states. We also share the desire to beat the jihadis...and close the border. To a lesser degree we share the desire to reduce the overall size of the federal governement...and "fair" trade.

If we cannot agree to form a coalition around these basics we don't belong in the same party and should formally split.

[BunnySlippers]

YES TO RUDY !!!