Posted on 01/07/2007 11:46:24 AM PST by wagglebee
There you go again.
The circumstances of Reagan's divorce were not the same. Moreover, the divorce was more than thirty years behind him. He had consitently demonstrated exceptional emotional and moral stability and integrity by the time he ran for president.
Giuliani has not demonstrated requisite emotional and moral stability and integrity. A man who cannot exercise the necessary self-discipline to be faithful to his wife and children cannot be trusted to be faithful in other things.
Ding ding ding... we have a winner...
Perhaps they just want to set us true conservatives up with another round of "it your fault that republicans didn't win" in 2008 arguments.
-----------------------------------
Guiliani is a loser on so many levels that is appalls me that people even consider him.
I'll vote for Bullwinkle too. We might just be getting a grass-roots movement going here.
I haven't decided who I'm voting for, but I hate to see everyone dumping on someone who has clearly shown backbone when we are in the middle of a war of survival.
If this were another time, I probably wouldn't even consider the man, but I want someone in there who is going to stand up to the terrorists and make them quake in their boots.
-he won't last the year out. Just my prediction.
It does not matter who did what long ago... it only matters what happens now...
Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary will not get my vote.
Period.
I'll take Reagan's advice and vote with my feet...
The problem with Ex-Wives is they remember EVERYTHING. Every tittle and jot. They have photographic memories. Shakespeare was right about women scorned.
Giuliani's problem is he was so flagrant about it...He publically humiliated his wife. Infidelity is one thing. Flagrant in your face ,public infidelity is another.
If Hannover wants to keep Giuliani on the tabloid front pages I'm sure she has a quiver full.
Who would marry a woman that would do "Vagina" anything?
And the majority of Americans just voted for the dems who promised to cut and run out of Iraq. Queen nancy is reveling in her plans to do just that.
But there was a time when a divorced person such as Reagan could not have been elected, just as Catholics were out of the running prior to Kennedy. After Clinton, what can anyone say about infidelity, the media is showing a lot of hypocricy here. When we find the perfect candidate with all the morality and views some here wish for, he or she probably won't have the other qualities needed to reach the electorate or to lead if by some miracle there is a victory by the GOP in '08 with a currently unknown perfectly devoted husband/father/conservative.
Of course, any real conservative won't even get that far because they will already know that Rudy is not a conservative in any sense of the word.
Opps, after three kids, I retract my previous statement as misleading.
I can't support someone who is a scum. Maybe you will lower yourself with that kind of rationale, I won't.
What? Are you entitled to your own facts and version of history? What a stupid post.
only if you're a 'rat
Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt come to mind. They were cousins too, twice removed I think.
First off, Hollywood of the 30`s, 40`s and 50`s wasn't the same Hollywood of today. Since the beginning of civil marriages, most divorces ahve been acrimonious. Until 1962, Reagan was a Democrat, a conservative Democrat! Finally, Patty and Ron Jr were the two Reagan children who didn't get along with their Father in their younger days. Maureen and Michael never had big problems with their Father.
Btw, Rudy Giuliani is no Ronald Reagan. The comparision is insulting to the legacy and memory of a great American.
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.