Posted on 11/15/2006 7:30:55 AM PST by 300magnum
"The views of the Founders are what are in need of restoration."
Thank you,once again, for the history lesson (p.s. I hold a Master's in history, so it's wholly unneccessary, but it is interesting to see where you're coming from).
Again, I don't disagree, but you still haven't answered the question; at what point are religion and politics separated?
Perhaps that's a question that cannot be adequately answered (taking human nature into account), but I find many unwilling to even make the attempt to work it out for themselves.
Rudy Guiliani has marched in lockstep with liberals on affirmative action, gay rights, gay marriage, gun control, school prayer, tuition tax credits, liberal immigration policies, and he's reinforced it, time and time again. Just about everytime Rudy opens his mouth, offensive liberal words come pouring out. As Mayor, Rudy put liberals in high-paid city jobs, an indication what a Rudy WH would look like. Here then is Rudy in his own words:
--The New York State Liberal Party on its endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for Mayor: "When the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party's stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party's views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion." N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of Candidate Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989
--On the Republican Party: "Mr. Rockefeller represented 'a tradition in the Republican Party' I've worked hard to re-kindle - the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition." Rudy Giuliani told the New York Times July 9, 1992
--Village Voice Interview with Guiliani: He was asked: "What kind of Republican Is [Giuliani]? A Reagan Republican?" Giuliani pauses before answering: "I'm a Republican." Village Voice January 24, 1989
--On Attending 1996 Republican Convention: Rudy expressed his pleasure when he wasn't invited to the Republican National Convention in San Diego. "If I take three or four days off from city business, I want to do it for a substantive purpose. It didn't seem to me any substantive purpose could be served by going to the Republican convention." said Rudy. Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Page 459, by Wayne Barrett
--On Barry Goldwater: Giuliani described John Kennedy as "great and brilliant. Barry Goldwater as an "incompetent, confused and sometimes idiotic man." New York Daily News, May 13, 1997
--On President Bill Clinton: Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, Giuliani told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett.
--The Daily News quoted Giuliani as saying March 1996: "Whether you talk about President Clinon, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group." An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett.
--Revealing at one point that he was "open" to the idea of endorsing Clinton, Rudy said: "When I ran for mayor both times, '89 and '93, I promised people that I would be, if not bipartisan, at least open to the possibility of supporting Democrats." Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, Page 459
---Rudy Giuliani Endorses Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo October 1994: "From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, ˜Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City book by Andrew Kirtzman, Page 133
--Reaction to Giuliani Endorsement of Cuomo: "Once again, Rudolph Giuliani has demonstrated that liberalism is the foundation of his political philosophy. While Giuliani sold a bill of goods to trusting Republicans and Reagan Democrats that he had abandoned his roots as a McGovern Democrat, in his endorsement of Mario Cuomo, Mr. Liberal himself, he has shown his true colors. Giuliani's argument that Cuomo will be better for the city has a hollow ring to it. Perhaps Rudy wants a governor who will sign over a blank check to constantly bail out the city from its fiscal problems. Giuliani knows, as do all New Yorkers, that Cuomo's liberal policies have been an economic disaster for our city and state." "But Rudy doesn't care. He has proven he will do anything to stop the election of a conservative Republican - but he won't succeed." Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S. Conservative Party Press Statement, October 25, 1994
--"[Quite] frankly, you have to understand the fact that Rudy Giuliani was a McGovern Democrat, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party when he ran for Mayor. In his heart, he's a Democrat. He's paraded all over this country with Bill Clinton and, in fact, he's very comfortable with Mario Cuomo. But what Rudy Giuliani wants is to be bailed out in the city, in the mess he's in, and everybody understands very clearly in politics that they struck a deal, that Mario's going to continue to be the big spender, save Rudy the options of raising taxes by pouring money statewide into the City of New York and bailing it out. Quite frankly, I predict that he will join the Democratic Party." Interview with Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S. Conservative Party, CNN Crossfire, October 25, 1994
--On Gay Domestic-Partner Rights: "National Republicans can lump it if they don't like his new domestic-partners bill, "Mayor Giuliani said yesterday. "I really haven't thought about what the impact is on Republican politics or national politics or Democratic politics," Giuliani said. The bill he submitted to the City Council would extend the benefits city agencies must grant to gay and lesbian couples. "I'm proud of it," Giuliani said of the bill. "I think it puts New York City ahead of other places in the country." New York Daily News, May 13, 1998
--On Gay-Rights/Gay Rights Bill: Giuliani favors extended civil-rights protection for gays and lesbians. Giuliani urged, by letter, to the New York Senate Majority Leader to pass the state's first ever gay rights bill, but did it privately. "I am writing to convey my support for the current legislation to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, and to urge you to allow the bill onto the floor of the Senate for prompt action." ".......It is my belief that we can penalize discrimination [against gays] without creating any potentially objectionable special privileges or preferential treatment." New York Post, June 5, 1993
--Now Rudy Giuliani has jumped on the bandwagon, pressing the state Republican Party to release a gay-rights bill to the Senate floor for a vote. Marching in Sunday's [Gay Pride] parade, he has enlisted in the struggle to destroy the family. What a perfectly abominable springboard to seek high political office. Ray Kerrison New York Post, June 30, 1993
--Giuliani said homosexuality is "good and normal." quoting Ray Kerrison New York Post, July 7, 1989
--On Gay Domestic Partnership: "I have no objection to the concept of domestic partnership," said Rudy Giuliani on Informed Sources New York T.V. Show (PBS), May, 1992
--On Abortion: Leaflets distributed by the Giuliani campaign .... said that he opposes restrictions to Federal Medicaid financing for abortions and opposes the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to deny support for that financing. New York Times, June 18, 1993.
--Rudy Guiliani on abortion: "I'd give my daughter the money for it [an abortion]."
--"I never called for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade." Rudy Giuliani, New York Newsday, September 1, 1989
--As mayor, Rudy Giuliani will uphold a woman's right of choice to have an abortion. Giuliani will fund all city programs which provide abortions to insure that no woman is deprived of her right due to an inability to pay. He will oppose reductions in state funding. He will oppose making abortion illegal. New York Times, August 4, 1989
--On Partial Birth Abortion: Mr. Giuliani has said that New York State law should not be changed to outlaw the procedure. New York Times, January 7, 1998
--On School Choice: "He doesn't support tuition tax credits and vouchers." Sandra Feldman, President of N.Y.C. Teacher's Union, 1993
--On Taxes: [Giuliani] says ruling out a tax increase is "political pandering." Newsday, August 31, 1989
...as you can see, it's far more than one issue. For example, about halfway down that list, Guliani admits that "he agrees with Clinton on most of his policies."
The reason Rudy would lose an election in a landslide is by his own admission he is no better than the Clintons.
Their propaganda worked well for this election; they will continue to use it to attempt to shape, mould and destroy the Rep Party.
"So you're in New York as well, eh? Geeze."
Predictable. So now political accumen is part and parcel of where one lives? You call that a reasonable argument? It smells of geoghraphic chauvanism, if you ask me. Why many "conservatives' continue to try and make this argument is beyond me, since it's so easily disproved. It gets made everyday on FR without regard to how stupid it is. New Yorkers "must" be brain-dead-libertine-social-liberals, while Southererns and Midwesterners are all fine, upstanding moral pillars of the community. Yeah, right.
If I engaged in that sort of chauvanism, like to say that New Yorkers are all sophisticated and have a monopoly on intelligence, and that shoutherners are all ignorant,inbred social retards, I'd be castigated from the highest rooftops FR can provide. And rightly so. Advancing a badly-flawed stereotype to advance an already weak argument does not reason make, friend.
Not that it's any of your business, but, I am a native New Yorker, who lives more than half the year in North Carolina.
Did I somehow become politically smarter, or more acceptable to you, because Charlotte is not New York? Quite frankly, while I enjoy living in Charlotte, I love New York much more. Not just because it is home, but because it offers a whole lot that Charlotte simply can't.
Be serious. I've heard so many Freepers run New York down so much as a den of sin that it's becoming a joke. Just remember: without that den of sin, you probably don't have a job and this nation is pretty much bankrupt. It is, after all, the economic engine which runs the planet. And by the way, with the exception of a few, easily identifiable groups (i.e. the democratic race bloc, unionized labor) the majority of the so-called "New York Liberals" aren't even New Yorkers; they are the Iowan farm girl, the Missouri businessman, the college professor from Kansas, the doctor from Minnesota. They are, in fact, mostly YOUR liberals, not ours. They come here to earn the kind of living that Davenport, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Minneapolis cannot provide for them.
That they happen to mostly live in Manhattan (where our own "liberals" happen to also live) does not make them a) New Yorkers and b)any less "liberal" than the inhabitants of a Harlem housing project. There's more to New York City than Manhattan (which no one who runs the city down seems to recall -- admitting that undercuts their stupid argument ot begin with), and the outer boros are far more repoublican/conservative than you care to admit. They are, however, outnumbered and outmanuevered, because "conservatives" nationally have arbitrarily decided that New York is a lost cause.
For all that, we've still somehow managed to elect republicans to the Governorship, Mayorality and Congress. For quite a long time, and regularly, no less. Perhaps they are not your "sort" of republicans, but they are republicans nonetheless.
And I'd hardly call a place where trillions of dollars change hands on a daily basis under the auspices of market capitalism "liberal", in the sense in which you mean the word. Most of what you rail against are the compromises that often must be made when 9 million souls live within an enclosed space in the name of relative peace.
"Rudy Giuliani is no conservative."
I beg to differ. Separating his social views from his economic and governing philosophies, there's nothing BUT conservatism on display. You make the mistake of believing that conservatism is simply a moral philosophy or that there isn't more than one form of conservatism. This is why people like you are continually disappointed at the polls. You are narrowly focused on two or three issues where it is impossible for government to fundamentally change society (except at the margins) and you neglect the rest.
"Yes, some candidates considered "conservative" did indeed violate a number of issues that would be considered conservative issues."
This makes no sense. Either the issues were always viewed through a conservative lens (like federal spending and national defense) or they haven't been. They aren't "sometimes" conservative or "considered conservative" as it suits your argument. They are or they aren't. If restraint of government spending was always a conservative prinicple, then Rudy Guliani has a better record in that regard than Trent Lott. The premise is not mutable between "acceptable" candidates and "non-acceptable" ones. Compare the Guliani spedning record with Lott, Frist, DeLay, Hastert, and you tell me: which one upheld that "conservative" ideal better? The panty-bunched-prayer=warrior or the cross-dressing-thrice-divorced-anti-Christ-du-jour?
"However, we're not purists here."
I certainly hope you were drunk or under the influence of a cold medicine when you made this statement, because it is patently false.
Besides, Rudy has an even bigger problem than trying to navigate a safe course through a rigged and prejudicial primary system; everywhere he goes, Al Sharpton will be right behind him shouting "Amadou Diallo" and "Abner Louima". Of course, many here didn't recognize that becaus they were caught up in the cross-dressing and abortion arguments.
On another thread a few days ago, this Protestant had a debate with a Catholic who claimed there was no valid definition of "Protestant" because there was no unifying authority that could define what a Protestant was, but that the Catholic Church had a unifying hierarchy, led by the Pope, that had divinely appointed authority and could thus lawfully define who is a Catholic. Thus, in his view, Mormons, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, and theological liberals whose heritage was Protestant had as valid a claim to being Protestant as any conservative Reformed, Lutheran, or Baptist.
Where the Catholic whom I debated is wrong is in that we can reasonably define what a Protestant is by whether that person adheres to the commonly held doctrines promulgated by the Reformers. The same can be said for the term "conservative", in the American context. American conservatism is rooted in the political philosophy reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In the post-World War II era, the philosophy was defined by writers and intellectuals such as William Buckley, Frank Meyer, Russell Kirk, Henry Hazlitt, and others. A summary of this philosophy includes the following elements:
* A strong national defense, including active and aggressive engagement of overseas enemies (Communist and Islamic)
* Strict limitation of the national government to the powers specifically delineated in the Constitution, in the context of the Founders' original intent.
* Free market economics, with the Federal role restricted to overseas trade, weights and measurements, and the issuance of currency. (The Austrian school of economics would even privatize that.)
* Preservation of the right to self-defense and the effective and firm punishment of crime by local and state authorities.
* Preservation of the right of freedom of association.
* Preservation of private property and the protection of producers (manufacturers, farmers, miners, oilmen, lumbermen) from regulatory interference.
* Fiscal responsibility and economy in government.
* Protection of the Western, Judeo-Christian based civilization of America.
The political careers of all three of the most prominent candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency reflect poorly in a majority of these areas. If they are better than Hillary Clinton, the difference is minimal.
With twice as many Republicans as Democrats up for reelection to the Senate in 2008, it is probable that the upper chamber will be more Democratic than it is now. As for the House, if Pelosi and Hoyer can keep the leftists in their party in line (a big if), it is probable the Democrats will hold the House. In such a situation, it is easy to see that a President McCain, Giuliani, or Romney might accept new gun control measures, socialized medicine (especially Romney), full coverage for homosexuals in the military and under the civil rights laws, or revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
The Republican Party can do better than this. America needs better.
If so many Republicans are so unenthusiastic or even opposed to him now, it doesn't bode well for his candidacy in 2008.
Put it all together and it looks like Republicans will lose the Presidency in 2008.
We won't be united until we're hungry enough to get it back.
This obviously means separation of the institutional church from the state. It does not mean that Christians, or anyone else, is obliged to check his moral principals at the door when he votes or runs for public office. Political decisions are not made in a moral vacuum, irrespective of the political system or the prevalent philosophy of the time. A "value free" or pragmatic governing philosophy itself represents a value judgment.
Knock yourself out.
As a member of the New York minority party myself, I understand exactly how the continued election of liberals from within the Republican Party has ensured that minority status in perpetuity.
Geographic chauvanism is what you imagined. My statement originated from the fact that I too am from New York, and I know...know without equivocation...that the problems in New York are due to the fact that liberals exert significant control over the Republican Party here.
Which means...you ain't half as smart as you think you are...on more than one level.
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.