Posted on 05/14/2007 2:30:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Rudolph Giuliani is making a gamble, which, if successful, will change the face of partisan politics in America: You don’t have to be pro-life or pro-traditional family to be a Republican — you just have to be tough on terror.
After his debut at the first Republican debate, Giuliani infamously wiggled on the question of abortion. On Friday, Giuliani spoke to a conservative group in Texas and clarified his solidly pro-choice position.
In effect, Giuliani reaffirmed his 1997 answers to NARAL Pro-Choice America’s questionnaire in which he supports tax dollars going to every form of abortion, including partial-birth abortion and abortions for minors without parental notification.
On almost every social issue, Giuliani is separating himself from the official party platform. Last week, I highlighted his very mixed record on immigration reform. Add to this his support for gay marriage, strict gun control, embryonic stem-cell research, and above all his renewed advocacy for every type of abortion, and it’s fair to say, that if the Republican party nominates him as their candidate, they will be saying social issues don’t really matter … that much.
Rudolph Giuliani’s gamble is not a secret. On Friday, he explained his rationale:
“The mere fact that I am standing here running for president of the United States with the views that I have, that are different in some respects on some of these issues, shows that we much more adequately represent the length and breadth and the opinions of America than the other party does.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“If Rudolph Giuliani is nominated as the Republican candidate, it will signify a monumental shift in American politics. Republicans would be telling their leaders they care less about who they are and what they stand for, and more about being around, safely, to talk about it. That kind of shallow thinking, I suggest, would be hard for thinking people to get excited about.”
~~Father Jonathan Morris
“It is logical to assume that if the Republican platform changes on the issues its constituents care about deeply, they will change parties or start their own.”
Yep. Nails it absolutely.
Cmon now Jim. You know as well as I that Rudy only praised Margaret Sanger, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Bella Abzug because of their commitment to adoptions.
**************
The primaries in '08 will be crucial to the survival of the Republican Party. We must nominate a conservative.
OMG MONK and Wagglebee get in here NOWWW ROFL
What’s the point of safety, if the reasons to protect it are no longer safe and mean nothing? Geez, Why is that such a toughie for most people?
I must be nuts to think that if there is nothing to protect that means anything, why trouble yourself with it? Okay it must be another Rudy ploy.
Rudy just wants to win.
For me, the boat left the GOP pier quite some time ago. Although I still vote for most of their candidates for lack of a viable alternative, especially since so far I am not really into casting protest votes with any of the current crop of Third Parties.
I agree. The good Father is right, of course. But we have an abundance of unthinking people even in the GOP. Sadly.
By the time Giuliani gets finished separating himself from the Republican platform, he will only have half of the the New Yorkers left in the entire GOP! LOL!
************
I don't know, but it's a worthwhile question to debate.
And who would defend gay marriage. And who would redefine the second amendment as applying only to the National Guard. And who would approve of experimentation on unborn human beings. And who would support assisted suicide and euthanasia of useless eaters as constitutional rights. And who would find a constitutional right for illegal aliens to go on welfare and get free schooling and medical care. And so on.
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Strict construction is as strict construction does.
His renewed stance as pro-abortion, his continued stance regarding gun control, his developing campaign plan that he can win as a Republican solely on the issue of security, all tell me that he is either way out of touch, is getting extremely bad advice, or both.
Regardless of the answer, it makes me happy.
"So long, Rudy
It's been good to know ya
So long, Rudy
It's been good to know ya
So long, Rudy
It's been good to know ya
It's time to leave ya now".
Bye Bye!
Is it just me, or does it seem like the pro-Rudy crowd on FR has been noticeably quieter the last couple of weeks?
I think the only "safety" that is really under consideration here is the safety of certain political sinecures long held by GOP hacks. Apparently a sizable group of our Republican elites have decided that this kind of safety can only be achieved by tossing the social conservatives overboard--except for those who, like Sean Hannity, are persuadable.
It’s a commentary on his contempt for social conservatives that Rooty demands ONLY pro-life conservatives compromise their principles.
Every other group gets a free ride.
Rooty’s power-tripping on the backs of the unborn is unconscionable.
“It is logical to assume that if the Republican platform changes on the issues its constituents care about deeply, they will change parties or start their own.”
So true. We must however fight to ensure a Conservative Candidate on the Republican Party ticket for ‘08 as should Conservatives find it necessary to form a third party, or join an existing third party, then it will take considerable time and expense to build that party to National prominence necessary to be viable in future elections.
Switching to a third party in the current run-up to the ‘08 elections would present tremendous advantage to the Democraps leaving America’s fate to the insidious Left and the IslamoFascist Vultures will be picking meat from our bones soon thereafter.
Thanks for posting these articles. I’m starting to notice that the remaining rudybots seem to avoid the ones you post. So maybe you could post some “pro” rudy articles, with the immediate deconstructions and then when the rudybots get on them and say we’re being too harsh, we could say to take it up with the owner of the thread and the website?
Ah, but Rooty is supposedly promising us that the erradication of social issues from his agenda is just a temporary thing. We are voting for him for his toughness.
Damn, I just can't quite believe a cross dresser and a liberal when they make promises.
Could it be Rooty is just a social liberal out to destroy the GOP and promote the liberal agenda?
Not quieter; gone.
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.