Posted on 04/26/2007 1:26:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.
Excerpts from the American Spectator:
The Real DealDon't be fooled. Don't betray your principles or the cause due to fear of Hillary and the moonbats. Would Ronald Reagan cower in fear and betray his principles?4/19/2007
~~snip~~
"Despite the calls to leave litmus tests behind, pro-life Rudy reluctance is justified. If nominated, Giuliani would be the most pro-choice Republican presidential candidate in history. Even Gerald Ford, an archetypal Republican for choice, backed a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade during the 1976 campaign. Barry Goldwater, who was nominated before abortion became a national issue and outspokenly pro-choice in retirement, backed the human life amendment in his final Senate race."
"Giuliani has feted NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He has praised Margaret Sanger and repeatedly accused mainstream pro-lifers of wanting to put pregnant women in jail. His concessions to date have been minor and offered without enthusiasm."
"Abortion opponents can ill afford to give up their leverage in the GOP. Their position has little support among the cultural elite; many in the Republican establishment would like nothing better than to “get beyond issues like that.” If pro-lifers support Giuliani because he “hates” abortion, it will be difficult for them to criticize “personally opposed” Democrats like John Kerry in the future. Their campaign to get bishops to withhold communion from pro-choice Catholic Democrats will seem partisan and hypocritical. And the whole movement may be seen as less serious and less influential."
~~snip~~
Keep the faith!!
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
NOW is our chance to seize the White House with a TRUE conservative. We have not had this chance since 1980. And 27 years is just too long.
So, if I understand you correctly, a base is just some hybrid beast with a lot of energy and not much smarts?
If that’s the case — and I don’t necessarily agree — then there must be some other underlying thing that unites them. Maybe it’s not a complex concept — just similar situations in life, but something.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820378/posts?page=420#420
To: MindBender26
“Failure to vote for ANY candidate opposing a Hillary is a vote for Hillary.”
Even if the two have essentially the same political convictions? You are delusional. If the GOP can do no better than the liberal abortionist, gungrabbing, queer-bot Giuliani, it deserves a very hard fall.
You vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay to regulate your Second Amendment rights away.
Not me.
You vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay to require you embrace homosexual unions equal to your marriage vows, regardless of your religious convictions.
Not me.
You vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay to allow a baby to be slaughtered as long as its head is still partially concealed and that you have no choice but to help fund those “procedures”.
Not me.
And you vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay that they require you believe the government is the all-powerful, final authority - not the people from whom that power comes and you must cede any of your rights upon its demand.
Definitely, not me.
420 posted on 04/20/2007 9:16:06 AM EDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I stand by my conviction.
By using “not much” you paid the base a completely unmerited compliment. It is the mass effect: the IQ of a collectivity cannot be higher than that of the most smart person in it, and even then only on the condition and to the extent that the collectivity obeys such a person. Otherwise it is much lower, and precipitously drops with the size of the group.
The base is good only at foaming at the mouth and at scaring everyone else away, which is not associated with having ANY smarts. Thus a winning candidate rapidly subsumes one’s “base”, brings it to heel and keeps it in place - or dispenses with the base, like Joe Lieberman did.
Sure, right. No one else understands the nation’s predicament. You’re totally clueless.
NO !
Whether I’m clueless or not, is besides the point. I see it as the right and proper gut reaction, much preferable to the “religion of peace” flatulence emanating from our C-I-C.
And how many of, say, San Francisco crowd would be voluntarily enlisting, may I ask? Besides, after a few egregious examples are roughed up, the morale would not be sagging.
Oh, I see you’re a gay activist yourself. Also an abortion pusher?
On May 3rd we'll get to see him in debate with the Rudy McRomney's.
Neither. With abortion providers I have not had any contacts, and as for gay activists - the only time I got in contact with them was 18 years ago when some demonstration of theirs was passing by me and they tried to give me some of their literature. I told them that I was not interested, and that ended the conversation. I am not foaming at the mouth at the mentioning of them, though, so that must make me an activist.
Besides, he probably would have been another Bush when it came to making friendly with the socialist enemy within running Congress.
How is this even a point of debate? Rudy’s not going to get the nomination. Far too many skeletons in his closet and he has nothing close to approaching the right skill set or temperment.
No, but pushing for gay rights in the military might. The military is for blowing up things and killing the enemy. Not for liberal social engineering.
You are 100% correct!
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.