Perspectives : The way to electoral suicide — vote Giuliani

One News Now ^ | Feb 20, 2007 | Matt Friedeman

[Reagan Man]

The Republicans, and even some socially conservative and evangelical leaders, are beginning to adjust to the possibility of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee for president.

But not all. The Southern Baptist’s Richard Land, for instance, predicts massive defections from Rudy in the event of a Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton race. Hugh Hewitt, evangelical talk-meister in the syndicated stream of radio shows doubts this ; "... If Rudy is persuasive on the judges he will nominate, he wouldn’t have a problem with the social conservatives in the general election." So tell us you’ll nominate the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito to the Supreme Court, and we will line up behind you no matter your substantial views that run counter to the Judeo-Christian ethic, he and his handlers are undoubtedly thinking.

Well, I won’t.

And I bet I speak for hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions when I say that I cannot in good conscience vote for a man with significant moral problems in his personal life, a radically wrong view of abortion (against it personally, but for women making their own pro-abortion choice), and oh-so-very Times Square and Hollywood on the issues of homosexual rights and guns (for and against, respectively).

Can’t vote for him, even if his opponent is Hillary Rodham Clinton ? No, I cannot.

Aw, c’mon, Team Republican says, nobody who purports to be socially conservative, evangelical, or who voted twice for Ronald Reagan will be able to muster a vote for Hillary over Rudy.

Probably right. But voting for her isn’t the only option. When the electorate isn’t excited about the candidates, they are capable of staying home — particularly those who don’t much care to think political thoughts 24/7 and are not enthused about the choices. There are others of us who will either leave the presidential portion of the ballot unmarked or decide for the first time in our lives to vote, say, the Constitution Party.

Next argument — Then you’ll just be putting Hillary into office. Next rebuttal — No, rather, my precious vote won’t be responsible for putting into office a man who thinks we will vote for him because he is best suited and capably prepared to keep America safe but can’t guard his own soul from moral perdition.

But, in all of this, there is something else to think about. The President of the United States guides his own political party and its platform. And the party of President Rudy Giuliani will soon become the party of the same kind of governing mushiness that has absorbed the Democrats. Give the party to Rudy and the moral code and political sensibilities of Reagan are lost, perhaps for good.

Better to lose an election and reload ideologically than try to cheer on and take cues from a man with a worldview radically divergent from your own.

May the primaries be kind to the GOP ; and kindness means Giuliani loses.

[Matt Friedeman (mfriedeman@wbs.edu) is a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary. Respond to this column at his blog : evangelismtoday.blogspot.com.]

[Reagan Man]

STOP RUDY PING

[Chi-townChief]

Nah - way too many pics of Rudy G in women's clothing for him to get many votes.

[beltfed308]

Better to lose an election and reload ideologically than try to cheer on and take cues from a man with a worldview radically divergent from your own.

The money line.

[snarks_when_bored]

Aw, c’mon, Team Republican says, nobody who purports to be socially conservative, evangelical, or who voted twice for Ronald Reagan will be able to muster a vote for Hillary over Rudy.

Probably right. But voting for her isn’t the only option. When the electorate isn’t excited about the candidates, they are capable of staying home — particularly those who don’t much care to think political thoughts 24/7 and are not enthused about the choices. There are others of us who will either leave the presidential portion of the ballot unmarked or decide for the first time in our lives to vote, say, the Constitution Party.

Only a moron would fail to notice that a non-vote for Rudy would redound to Hillary's benefit.

[Minn]

Better to lose an election and reload ideologically than try to cheer on and take cues from a man with a worldview radically divergent from your own.

Yea. just like it was better to let Nancy take over the house than get off couch last November. That worked out just swell. You "I'm not going to vote for anybody other than Ronald Reagan" types are morons.

[RockinRight]

That'll lock up San Francisco for him.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Gun grabber.......strike 1

Pro abortion......strike 2

Pro illegal immigration....strike 3

[AxelPaulsenJr]

You "I'm not going to vote for anybody other than Ronald Reagan" types are morons.

Amen to that!

[FreedomNeocon]

Yeah.. the 'money line' that won us fruits in Nov 2006.

You people are pathetic... and no matter how much you pat yourselves on the back about being "pure", it doesn't change the fact that your "pureness" got Rummy fired, Bolton kicked out of the UN, Polici in as house speaker, Murtha closer to running the Iraq war, and every other thing DIRECTLY counter to everything you believe in.

But thats right... tell yourself that you are doing a good thing. Like the libs that say they support the troops because they want to get them out of harms way... you're psychotic if you don't see the results of your attitude on this.

Vote for whoever you want in the primaries... all out, thats exactly what I'd expect and would never suggest people should 'fall in line' at this point.

BUT you better not screw the rest of us, and elect a Hillary or Obama, just so you can brag about how "pure" you are.

Honestly... its like the libs who say it is the ultimate 'patriotic' thing to do to be willing to bash your own country... IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Only here there are republicans who think it is the ultimate 'conservative' thing be willing to allow a democrat to be elected to the highest office in our country.

GROW UP and stop being so SELFISH.

[Amalie]

"How much do we HATE Hillary" is a crappy reason to cast a vote. Does Rudy give me something to believe in is a better question, and one of the reasons why this story will have more merit than some people give it. People will sit at home, and likely in bigger numbers if Hillary's out -ie how much do we hate Bill Richardson, or Obama, or whoever.

[xhrist]

its amazing how "hard-core win at all cost" Republicans sound like "mean spirited leftist" Democrats..

"your a moron, your an idiot and more"
all for not supporting "their" choice of candidate...

[flashbunny]

Here come the rudyboosters!

[flashbunny]

Pro campaign finance reform laws - strike four!

[JohnnyZ]

Anyone who is unwilling to uphold minimum standards for who they will support is critically lacking in principle.

I have a fairly lax set of standards as the minimum threshhold for competing for my vote, but Rudy and Romney fail to meet even minimum qualifications -- which is pathetic. Even frickin John McCain is above minimum.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Only a moron would fail to notice that a non-vote for Rudy would redound to Hillary's benefit.

If you're a conservative and you're considering voting for the liberal Rudy Giuliani or the liberal Hillary Clinton, you're a person without a conscience, principles and integrity.

[beltfed308]

Selfish? YOU people have no clue what Rudy is all about. YOU refuse to accept his statements and actions on these issues. Grow up.

[Reagan Man]

LOL Great slogan flashbunny.

[ex-Texan]

I hate to say this: But it looks like a McCain and Guiliani ticket opposing a Hillary plus Obama ticket. I know it is really too early too tell. Mitt Romney may surprise me. But it looks like McCain-Guiliani today to me.

[TSchmereL]

Not only that, the Conservatives will NOT "stay home."

The Republicans lost in 2006, not because Conservatives "stayed home," but because "Undecideds" or "Independents" voted for Democrats.

If it gets to a choice between a Liberal like Rudy Giuliani and a Commie like Clinton, they will vote for Giuliani.

[xhrist]

"BUT you better not screw the rest of us, and elect a Hillary or Obama, ... GROW UP and stop being so SELFISH."

so if I don't vote for your R candidate or the D candidate
I am being selfish???

The freedom to vote is that fickle huh?

[FreedomNeocon]

There is a difference between choosing to not actively support a republican primary candidate, and actively seeking to tear down and 'rule out' voting for a republican primary candidate that might end up being our choice (and everyone conditioned to rather a democrat, like its an IMPROVEMENT or something)

Its just so selfish.. its all about 'them' and showing everyone else how 'pure conservative' they are and how they only will accept perfection.

I think some people got spoiled being in power and don't really understand how completely USELESS all of their concerns will be, if they 'expect' that every issue will just magically line up for them in some karmic alignment of Reganism.

[Antoninus]

GROW UP and stop being so SELFISH.

You want to win the election? Give us a conservative. Failing that, prepare to embrace defeat.

Fair warning, friend.

[flashbunny]

Politicians have to EARN my vote. They are not granted a right to it by the letter next to their name.

[paudio]

Better to lose an election and reload ideologically than try to cheer on and take cues from a man with a worldview radically divergent from your own.

And for sure getting somebody like A. Fortas, T. Marshall, R. Ginsburg, and/or S. Breyer? Of course, a Republican president may appoint a 'wrong' person as well, but with a Democrat as a president and Democrat Congress, we'll get 100% liberal. If this happens for 8 yrs, God help us.

[snarks_when_bored]

Last time I checked, Reagan was still dead. Politics is the art of the possible.

[flashbunny]

Thanks. I have more on the way, all for appropriate situations / threads.

[Usually_Disappointed]

"YOU people have no clue what Rudy is all about. YOU refuse to accept his statements and actions on these issues. Grow up."

Why would I accept his statements on issues when his actions on the same issues prove he is simply lying to get my vote? Maybe when you grow up you will develop some principals...

[TSchmereL]

You are right. It is moronic because we haven't had a Conservative Republican president like Ronald Reagan since Ronald Reagan.

[beltfed308]

We're on the same side :>)

[dmw]

Put me on your ping list please. Thanks!

[Little Ray]

Actually, NO, I won't vote for Rudy. Under any circumstances. If the Pubbies despise conservatives so much that they'll go for Rudy, then I can bloody well skip that line on the ballot. My Senators and Congresscritter are are okay (usually), and there are local races, but if the GOP wants to hand the banner to Rudy, then they can kiss my vote good-bye. Hillary! can have it. If you're gonna vote for evil, why settle for the lesser evil?

[FreedomNeocon]

No, you have every right to be selfish and myopic...

Just like I have the right to burn down my house if my wife burns dinner.

I mean... that will show her.

Does that mean its a good idea?

Actions have consequences and it seems to me you are more concerned with how you look, or how you are perceived, than about what actually happens.

You seem perfectly fine with a democrat getting elected, because you wanted to "make a point" and vote some 3rd party. Its fine in your mind because "you knew better" and it wasn't you that made the mistake, it was the rest of the republican party that didn't agree with you.


Again... purely selfish... you you you.

What about the rest of us?

What about the results of your 3rd party 'protest' vote?

What about the democrats in office, running all branches again?

What about the conservatives who are primarily worried about National Security and Foreign Policy, where Rudy is just as strong as Bush?

What about the rest of us?

... or is it all about you?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

If you're gonna vote for evil, why settle for the lesser evil?

Good gawd!

[TSchmereL]

Rudy isn't fooling anyone. Rudy is a Liberal with a capital L.

That being said, I do not join those who say they would never vote for him. If it comes down to a choice between Rudy, the Liberal, and Hillary, the Communist, I will vote and even campaign for Rudy.

We don't have to change the definition of "Conservative." It is still important to defeat the Democrats.

[Usually_Disappointed]

Did I miss a sacrasm tag?

[Rudder]

There are others of us who will either leave the presidential portion of the ballot unmarked or decide for the first time in our lives to vote, say, the Constitution Party.

The author sounds like a spoiled child.

[Lucas McCain]

"You 'I'm not going to vote for anybody other than Ronald Reagan" types are morons.'"

Amen to that.

[Reagan Man]

If you look at Rudy`s track liberal record as Mayor of NYCity, instead of accepting his recent rhetoric at face value, you'll better understand his politics. Mayor Rudy appointed mostly liberal judges to the NYCity courts. Few Republicans and NO cosnervatives. Even other positions in the city government were awarded to liberals.

Using Rudy`s record as a guide, its a good bet as Prez he would nominate jurists in the mold of Lawrence Tribe, George Mitchell and Alan Dershowitz, then he would nominate originalists like Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.

[stephenjohnbanker]

LOL!

[dmw]

"YOU people have no clue what Rudy is all about. YOU refuse to accept his statements and actions on these issues. Grow up."

So, only the elite Rudy supporters have a clue, but not those of us who oppose him? Interesting.

Which statements are you referring to? His statements while he was Mayor of NYC, or his statements since he's announced he's running for president? Which do I believe, before, or after? Please advise.

[Lucas McCain]

"Politicians have to EARN my vote. They are not granted a right to it by the letter next to their name."

In the mean time, we get a Clinton/Obama administration for 8 years.

[TSchmereL]

If you're gonna vote for evil, why settle for the lesser evil? Why not just vote for the GREATER of two evils? There is no better way to cut off your nose to spite your face! You deserve to have Hillary as your next president. You really do. I also hope that someone better than Rudy comes along. But you sound like the kind of person who would shoot a hole in the bottom of the only boat on the sea that is headed any where near your destination all because you want a bigger boat. SOS, I guess. We all go down together.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

In the mean time, we get a Clinton/Obama administration for 8 years.

Yes, but it's the principle of the thing.......

[FreedomNeocon]

Politicians have to EARN my vote. They are not granted a right to it by the letter next to their name.

I agree in primaries, and to a lesser extent other races (local election certainly, house and senate its sometimes worth it (chaffee) but usually not)

But after the primaries, in the national presidential election... thats where I'm saying I'd expect people to have a bit of perspective and not be so selfish.

Listen, I hate, and I mean HATE McStain... but if he somehow miraculously won the primary, you better believe I'd vote for him.

It comes down to comparing two thing you "don't want" if you are anti-Rudy.

Would you rather vote for a guy that has liberal beliefs on some things and conservative believes on others and get him in?
Or would you rather vote for a 3rd party guy that doesn't have a chance, make your "point", but end up getting a lib on all issues in office?

Right now I'm hearing that there are an awful lot of people who would rather pat themselves on the back (ignoring the consequences), and delude themselves into thinking they are actually advancing the conservative cause.

(P.S. I'd ask 'those people' if they've heard the media and dems talking about how "the people spoke" in November. Did they 'infer' your message when they describe "what the people said"? I didn't think so)

[beltfed308]

Didn't think I needed one but I could have been more clear.

Rudy has NARAL to explain. I just read up on Margaret Sanger and the start of PP. Never knew any of that before.

Rudy is anti gun and thinks the 2nd amendment means it can be "regulated".

Rudy is po-amnesty. Mr. law and order refuses to enforce the law and then has the audacity to got to court to fight it. He loses and still refuses to obey the law.

On core issues Rudy is a loser.

[inkling]

Giuliani/Kyl 2008!

[flashbunny]

"In the mean time, we get a Clinton/Obama administration for 8 years."

And whose fault is that? The people who stuck to their beliefs, or the party who continues to sell them out?

Show me anywhere in life where rewarding negative behavior produces positive results. Work, family - it doesn't happen. If you fail to say "no", your employees or kids or political party will continue to walk all over you.

I'm sure glad the founding fathers had more guts to say "no" than a lot of people on this site. If this board was around then, there would have been people saying "Yeah, I don't like soldiers being quartered in my home or being taxed without representation, but I don't want to risk the consequences of saying no!"

[beltfed308]

The context I was speaking is the pro rudy crowd refuses to acknowledge his statements and actions are contrary to core beliefs of the Republican party and conservatism.

[dynachrome]

Posted yesterday, but I won't tell. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788021/posts