Posted on 03/03/2007 1:05:48 PM PST by gpapa
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I wasn't saying "pro-life groups." Many of the pro-life people I know got tired of the name organizations and did their own thing quietly. But I know some people who were died-in-the-wool Right-to-Life stalwarts, and they tell me that they would back Rudy. I'm not making this up. How extensive these numbers are, I don't know. But if you think the pro-life vote alone is enough to do much, Ken Blackwell, the strongest pro-life candidate we have had in OH in a long time, absolutely got killed. DeWine was strongly pro-life, and got whipped.
I wish to know how posting the Partial Birth Abortion procedure makes me sound Psychotic. Were you not aware this is what that procedure is? have you not heard the stories from abortion workers themselves who describe the atrocities being committed in abortion clinics. Are you not aware of the stories about clinic's farming out the organs of aborted babies? I submit sir that if your are and support this this you are the one who is psychotic 'CUPCAKE'
Just think of how much more fun EVERYTHING would be--if we could ALL act without those outrageous constraints on our lives--and a big government to guarantee that the burdens of religious and moral constraints are FINALLY lifted from our shoulders!!....lol
See for yourself, in rudy's own words.
Culture of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
Great literary reference.
For the rest of this ping list, I'd like you to take a look @ post 210 on this thread and ask you if this is the kind of rhetoric true conservatives should be supporting.
***I looked at post 210 and saw nothing out of bounds. Maybe I'm missing something, but the video shows rudy supporting PBA. About 90% of americans favor banning PBA, so that puts rudy on the extreme left with this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
That is what we get if we elect Giuliani as well as ending the conservative opposition at the same time.
I agree. This country just DOES NOT NEED two political parties to the left-of-center!
I'd also note the following strong pro-lifers who've had their poltical careers ended last November: Jim Talent, Rick Santorum, George Allen, and JD Heyworth.
I'm "pro-life": the protection of my life and that of my family takes precedence over everything else, including the unborn. I have always supported pro-life candidates, and can't remember voting for any pro-choicers in 30 years. But that will change if Hillary is the only alternative, and do not fool yourself: a non-vote is a vote. Ask the Germans who refused to vote for the anti-Hitler parties for whatever reasons.
This is why I'm ignoring you. You're just stalking threads trying to bait others.
***Feel free to back up that accusation. That post wasn't even to you. Your candidate is getting lots of blowback on this forum and now is the time we see the frustration in his followers. Make the case for your candidate, let us all know why socons should vote for a solib who splits the party base. Someone's got to vet your candidate. If he can't survive free republic, he'd get completely smoked by hillary.
Agreed. Let's not be confused that their positions hurt them, but it no longer is enough to win an election for someone. I think when Pat Robertson starts to support someone like Rudy, it's becoming clear that other things besides that issue are needed to win elections.
Why not? I'd like to see two parties to the RIGHT of the center. But historically, there have been plenty of times in the past where the candidates were substantially the same. Grant in his 1972 election, Hayes/Tilden, Nixon/JFK, Ike/Stevenson. When a single specific issue (slavery, gold standard) no longer is sufficient to by itself command a majority, and other issues begin to tug at the party fabric, you frequently get people of "less pure" credentials heading the ticket. Cleveland in the late 1800s was quite outside the Dem "mainstream," but won twice, just as Hoover was really outside the Republican mainstream and won.
Four years later, pro-life groups pulled Republican nominee Bob Dole through a knothole, torturing him for a week before denying his suggestion that an expression of "tolerance" for those who dissented be inserted into the plank.
And justified it was too. Dole wanted to have it both ways, and conservatives would not let him.
This kind of thinking doesn't help the Republican Party at all; and the threat that the socons must dictate party policy or they'll take their ball and go home reveals not a little political immaturity.
What I do know about you LS, (besides the fact we signed up for this forum the same day!) is that you are indeed an intelligent member of FR community, that you've published several books on conservative history and policy, and you've been doughty enough to appear on lefty public radio to debate conservative policy.
The readers of this thread are well-served by your cogent analysis.
Guess your lordship is unable to back up his ad hominem attack on me. Guess your Lordship doesn't speak to the 'sniff' socon scum.
And while FR may be considered a social conservative site, the homepage also states
Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a noncommerical site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site. No one likes spam.
Some of what we've had to endure here from the anti-Rudy caucus violates these principles of civility.
OK, then, let's start with the video. Tell me why I should vote for such a candidate as a socon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
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.