Posted on 03/08/2007 6:23:01 AM PST by TommyDale
The National Catholic Register is out with an editorial where they say the following: No deal Rudy. We cannot support you. Here's why:
"Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.
We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.
Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.
A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. It’s the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend."
Echoed!
Done.
No.
NO!
ROFL.
That is one of your more stupid posts, and you have lots to choose from.
All Christians of good conscience with a traditional understanding of humanity ("Thou knew me from my mother's womb. . ."), and a normal regard for one of the roles of government as the protection of the innocent, should oppose Guiliani in the primaries and caucuses.
If we turn out to be in the minority within the Republican party, and he gets the nomination, we must face reality--defecting to a pro-life third party will not then prevent a pro-abortion president from taking office. At that point, while I realize some disagree with me, it seems that it becomes a matter of what the Latins call prudential judgement whether it is better to vote for Giuliani in the general election, or to make a witness by voting for a pro-life candidate doomed to electoral failure, thereby guaranteeing that not merely a pro-abortion candidate is elected, but one committed to withdrawal from the fight to defend Western civilization (both Christian and secular) against the Jihad, one committed to installing activist pro-abortion judges on the bench (Guiliani is wrong on the issue, but at least *seems* to recognize that it should be decided by the political process, not unelected judges), one committed to the continued aggressive secularization of American society.
It is possible that it would be both necessary and good for Christians to take both positions: I recall that in the disupte between the "Possessors" and the "Nonpossessors" (over whether monasteries should or should not have extensive land-holdings), both of the parties were lead by saints. Should Guiliani get the nomination, the optimal outcome might well be for the pro-life movement to split, with enough voting for him that he wins (and telling exit-pollers that they held their nose to vote for him), and enough making the witness for life that it gets noticed.
You can't be a Catholic and support abortion.
As a matter of fact, I don't think you can be an Orthodox Jew, or conservative Proestant and support abortion.
I think even MUSLIMS oppose abortion.
Good morning back atcha.
Am I correct or am I incorrect in my thinking?
Would you rather see a demoncrat in the White House along with a demoncrat controlled congress?
I understand all the arguments against Rudy and agree with a great many of them. But a nominal "R" is better than a full fledged "D" any day.
Once again, the place to beat Rudy is in the primaries.
NO
Nice work, TD.
An "election" thread that conforms to conservative principles----which is to INFORM the electorate so that THEY CAN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS regarding electing a candidate.
Julie-Annie's mantra----Vote-For-Me-Or-Else----is more conducive to "selections" in a Third World banana republic.
Hopefully, stepping aside for a more conservative candidate.
Matter of fact, I'm sure he is stepping out of the race before then.
Let us hope you are right about this RINO.
I cannot in good conscience vote for the man, though his leadership impresses me. His history just does not lead me to believe he is being sincere, simply politically expedient.
I hope this G-lib epidemic is like the flu and goes away soon.
Bump!
Rooty's function in this race is to pull the party to the left, for the purpose of eventually making someone to the left of GW Bush palatable to enough folks to win the nomination. The result? A crushing loss to the Democrats, for which the RINOs will once again blame conservatives.
Depends on how big a picture you are looking at. If Mayor Giuliani becomes president as the Republican nominee, the party bigwigs will translate that as tolerance of his liberal positions. The next candidate put forth will push the party further to the left, and so on.
Supporters of the 2nd Amendment, Pro-lifers, and opponents of McCain-Feingold will be marginalized and told "we don't need you" (as some have already stated). The Republican party will survive, but it will look an awful lot like the Democrat party of the 1990s.
Hillary as president is truly undesirable, but I have been reading a lot of posts in recent days and have to question: what damage could she do? I think she would do such an awful job that the Republicans would pick up seats in both Houses, regaining control of Congress and setting up a possible 2012 defeat reminiscent of Reagan/Carter.
Before any overzealous supporter of Mayor Giuliani takes it out of context: I DO NOT WANT THE DEMOCRAT TO WIN IN '08. However, in my opinion, a Giuliani win would be worse for the conservative movement and the country as a whole, than would a Hillary presidency. We are a nation of values, of beliefs, and of pride. We should not set those aside, just so we can "win" with a false candidate.
And like you, I believe the primaries need to be the place. Because if Mayor Giuliani wins the nomination - every argument against him and every quote dug up that you are seeing on Free Republic will be blasted across the MSM 24/7. You thought the incessant stories on Bush's National Guard service or the "16 words" or Valerie Plame stories were overexposed? Wait until we're locked in.
You may be willing to face God someday and try to justify voting for a man who would willingly pay someone to murder his own grandchild....I am not.
You hit the nail squarely on the head! (Sound of crickets)
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.