Posted on 01/17/2007 7:55:38 AM PST by seanmerc
Morris is an agent of disinformation, and the intent of this article is to participate in the pre-campaign gutting of any adversary who might rise against liberal candidates of the Republican Party.
We have watched the orchestrated gutting of Frist, Allen, DeLay, etc. The WP even said that was their objective with Allen.
Nonetheless, we will have a conservative candidate in the Republican Party. I will never vote for McCain in primary or general. Rudi could conceivable get my vote if he publically and totally renounces his pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay positions.
Without that I will vote for the conservative Republican of my choice by write-in during the general election.
I refuse to vote for an anti-life, anti-family, anti-freedom candidate. I simply will not do it. Period. Ever.
You must put National Security first and Rudy will do that.
So will McCain I believe but he is so hated here he is unlikely to get the nomination. Most of those opposed to Guiliani do not loathe him with the same degree of loathing nor do they think he is nuts as they do McCain.
I don't know about Romney but find him less likely to get the nomination.
Any of the others who would be fine in the National Security area are simply extremely unlikely to get the nomination. Most are running for the VP spot in any case and would be excellent in that spot building a national following for the next contest for the Presidency.
Pardon me -- I meant combat veteran.
There have been only three Presidents since Harry Truman who have not been combat veterans: Ronald Reagan, who served in the Army during World War II but never went into combat; George W. Bush, who served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War but never went into combat; and Bill Clinton, who didn't serve a day and resisted the draft.
Just to be clear, Truman did serve. Every previous President going back to Spanish-American War hero Theodore Roosevelt -- including FDR -- did not.
Glad that you are willing to give Rudy a chance to explain his position once he decides to run. Regarding abortion, he already has said that he will nominate constitutional originalist judges to the Supreme Court. He has also said, “I don’t think abortion is a good thing. I think we ought to find some alternative to abortion, and that there ought to be as few as possible.”
Now, before you or anyone tells me that he is just fooling pro-lifers, let me tell you that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, and Sen. Brownback were all pro-choice in the past. I trust you will give Rudy the same chance as those men to explain his position, and hopefully you'll be able to believe him, just as many believed Ronald Reagan when he changed his views from pro-choice to pro-life.
I agree, we need more information and clarification about his anti-gun stance.
The thing that baffles me is this “Rudy is pro-gay.” What does that mean?
Rudy is against homosexual marriage, though he's in favor of civil unions, just like President GW Bush.
So how is Rudy pro-gay? What does pro-gay mean? Is it his sense of humor and confidence is his manhood that he could laugh at himself by going in drag at a social party?
Does being friendly to homosexuals make someone pro-gay? I must be pro-gay as well, since a few of gay hairdressers are friends of mine.
Could you define, pro-gay for me?
Was GW Bush pro-gay when he was friendly to the Log Cabin Republicans, and when they endorsed his presidency in 2000? They did withhold their endorsement in 2004 due to GW's opposition to gay marriage. But was GW pro-gay in 2000? And was Bob Dole pro-gay when the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed him in 1996?
Is being anti-gay wanting to incarcerate gays and punishing them for their sins? How do you define pro-gay? Why is it wrong for someone to be friendly to gays or to anyone for that matter, as long as he or she doesn't compromise his or her values? How could we claim to follow Christ's teaching and hate everyone who isn't like as at the same time?
I will repeat this again... Rudy is against homosexual marriage, so how is he pro-gay?
Thanks to those fine principled conservatives who decided to sit it out last November and gave us a Democrat House and Senate, the danger of more aggressively pro-gay legislation is now a real possibility. I have read threads by those principled conservatives saying things like "that will teach them! Let them lose a few times until they get it right! If the Republicans won't do this or that, it's OK for them to lose a few elections."
In 1993 Clinton, with the help of a Democratic Congress and the likes of Barney Frank passed the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation in which homosexuals were free to serve in the military, and the military wasn't allowed to ask them about their sexual orientation. With the help of the principled conservatives in November 2006, the Democrats are in position once again to expand on such legislation. Take a look at this:
I'm sure principled conservatives patted themselves on the back for sitting it out last November and upholding their highly-held virtues by not voting for Republicans. This allowed a Democrat take-over of the House and the Senate. I imagine these same principled conservatives are more than eager to give us a Democrat President as well, all the while claiming that the GOP losing to corrupt Democrats is good for the country.“Frank, likely to become chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said Democrats could pass a number of bills that would expand gay rights.
Aside from ending "don't ask, don't tell," he said, Democrats want to impose federal penalties for hate crimes aimed at gays, lesbians, and transgendered people and to outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Perhaps the most important effect of the majority shift, Frank added, is that the GOP's plan to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment is dead. link
Where did Nixon and Carter see combat?
Nixon was a Lieutenant Commander in New Caledonia with Naval Air Transport. Carter was a Lt. Commander serving under Hyman Rickover in the Pacific during the Korean War.
My post was indication that I'm willing to listen about Giuliani.
My concerns are as listed, and more information will come out in the near future.
1. Pro-Abortion
2. Anti-Gun
3. Pro-Gay (incidentally, that means, when you see it, pro-gay AGENDA. No one is talking about hating individuals.)
Let me add a #4:
4. Electability. Rudi's had some problems with a messy personal life. So far as I can tell he's pretty astute in front of a live camera. He needs to be watched so far as his ability in debates. Finally, under this category, could he actually deliver New York State. That would be interesting.
He will be scrutinized by me based on the above. That's only fair. I'll do the same to any other candidate, too.
Thats exactly what I was trying to say.
There are some spinners out there trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes,somehow trying to convince them that a pro abortion pro gay candidate is the best way to go in order to get pro life judges etc.Makes absolutely no sense at all.
Yes. They were in a hazardous fire area. So was Johnson. Where did they see combat?
I will scrutinize Rudy based on the above. That's only fair. I'll do the same to any other candidate, too.
Yes, I gathered that from your previous post. Thanks very much for keeping an open mind - I appreciate it.
By the way, is being against same-sex marriage a pro-gay position?
No, the Republican candidate who happens to have the best chance to beat Hillary, Obama, or any other Democrat and has the best chance to win the presidency happens to be pro-abortion and a gay sympathizer. What doesn't make any sense is why would anyone think that this is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
I like your memory.
There are nuances with the whole subject. Being against same-sex marriage could be the same as those who are "against it" but finesse the subject by saying it's a "states rights" issue.
That is, don't expect help with a federal definition of marriage. Don't even expect Congress to take that subject off the table of federal judges.
There are also nuances with those who hold to the "civil union but no gay-marriage" position.
The bottom line for me is that the nation has every reason to grant special consideration to heterosexual couples because they are the pro-creative units of our culture and they are the best locus of child-rearing for the society. To grant that type of UNION a special name (marriage) is logical, and it is a result of a particular function they fulfill for the culture.
Any "civil union" position that grants those same concessions to non-procreative "couples" is a waste of my tax dollars....there is absolutely no societal benefit in gay bumping and grinding.
I know that GW's position in the matter is on the side of civil unions, but at this point the subject is probably moot since Barney Frank has stated that with a Democrat congress they will pass some accommodation for same sex marriage.
JEB BUSH the wild card.
Only if the Senate and the President go along.
That will be telling, won't it?
Indeed.
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.