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 ...
It's called forced censorship,, a lot of good people have had their membership revoked.
How can anyone learn anything when everyone in the room thinks the same?
Debate is always good - closing off debate - well.......
But the Golden Rule is what it is - the man makes the rules..
What you suggest will not happen. Instead, the democrat party will win elections and will continue to move the country more and more to the left. If conservatives could have formed a viable national party, we would have done so by now. In truth, conservatives represent about 20-30% of the republican base, and as such, can exert real influence but cannot dictate every national policy. Best to use that influence wisely and to support candidates who are best (or least harmful) for our county’s future.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Remember Jake, the rules for the GOP were made a long time ago.
Life has a need to keep moving along. It is at its best when we do not promote in any way the immoral, self serving destruction of it. Convenience, is comfort without taking any responsibility.
I have noticed when I visit WideAwakes, they all seem to march to the same drummer.
At least at FR, the people are for the little babies and for promoting the human condition! We are at least promoting the furtherance of our culture rather than than acquiescence to the destruction of it!
Viking Kitties have a way of doing that.
LOL! How true.
Is TommyDale guilty?
"You should change your screen name to Jake the Horse's Ass".
I expect others to follow the same guidelines I was rightly held to.
Jake, you accused the owner of this conservative website as being a censor. You know better than that!
I apologize to Jim Robinson.
Now - you owe me an apology.
I don't know Jim Robinson, but I do believe he is only promoting this site as a conservative site.
It seems very natural to oppose liberals and liberal candidates on FR.
I believe it is wise, just wise, to keep that in mind. Rooty is a very liberal guy, not conservative material. Opposition to him here is what most would expect!
Actually, you should apologize to who you made the statement to as well, and others on the thread who read it. Meanwhile, I apologize.
OMG, apologies all around, I'm buyin!
IndyLindy
I respect your civility - but some seem to “have it out for me” - sounds paranoid.
I don’t oppose opposing views on any issues - that’s my point - I welcome it.
I feel like some continuously threaten me for my opinions?
It’s crazy.
Why can’t I engage people with my views - I am not asking anyone to join my views - I simply expect I should be able to speak my mind.
Everyone should have the right - right?
Again - thanks for your tone - it is appreciated.
Scotch?
I apologize to everyone for my tone in this thread.
I got hostile - and I am sorry.
I want to feel like I can express my opinions without being tagged or flagged, etc.
FR is great site for anyone who wants to talk about just about anything.
If we differ in our views - I hope I personally can maintain a civil tone - and invite anyone to express any view they might have. I want open dialog.
Debate is our best opportunity to learn.
Again - to all - I apologize for my bad tone earlier.
No excuse.
We all think open dialog and debate is healthy, but trying to constantly defend someone who violates our core beliefs is not acceptable.
Incredible.
What is incredible? The fact that we hold a set of core beliefs, which are regularly stated by the owner of the website? Do you really think you could go somewhere like DU and get an open dialog or debate with them by defending President Bush?
Wow - you really are an incredible example of ..........
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.