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 ...
No more posts to you my adversary.
We have nothing in common - so no sense posting to one another.
I hope I can maintain my discipline and ignore you.
I’m gonna give it the old Citadel effort.
Jake, keep in mind that when it comes to issues of life and death, people DO feel very strongly about it
I think most of us wish we could look each other in the eyes to communicate our passion.
Part of the problem here, is that ever since Rudy entered this campaign, many have been told our beliefs and wishes are no longer important.
You would agree that that type of approach is not very diplomatic.
The reason so many are opposed to Rudy is quite frankly, he is too liberal and a media hog. He is seen as no friend to conservatives and the issues he is being promoted for, are very weak in his corner.
If Rudy is so great, he should be more than a one trick pony and be realistic that his liberal views are a no sale to conservatives.
Honest to God Jake, the only worse Republicans are Bloomberg and Hagel, that ain't saying much.
Understand that those who are fighting for conservatism may some times come on strong. They are just fighting for the huge differences between the excellence of the conservative as opposed to the mainstream frailty of the liberal Democrats!
What a great statement. I thank you for it.
Honest - heart felt - and I won’t argue any of it.
I am just not a social conservative I guess - I’m OK with that.
I don’t need or want to battle through a keyboard - too easy - as you say.
I am a life time Republican (save that Perot thing).
Maybe I should dialog with folks who at least give Rudy some daylight - even if they openly oppose him.
Thanks again for your consideration - you’re a clean thinker.
I respect that - more than you might expect.
There’s a BIG i-net world out there-——room for everybody.
People who don’t like the tone here on FR should go elsewhere....where they will feel more comfortable.
Since its inception, FR has been a haven for conservatives.....to get away from the liberal whine.
I don’t see the need to change now just becuse Rooty’s got a yen for the presidency and wants to climb on our backs to do so.
There’s a BIG i-net world out there-—Rooty Tooters should go give agita to someone else.
I want to ask a question.
I accept that FR is a conservative site - ok - I get that.
But help me understand - if everyone in FR is a conservative - why have so many threads on Rudy open for discussion?
- Why have a "Rudy Truth File" (who is for if everyone agrees?)
If everyone is against Rudy inside FR - why allow any threads about the man?
See the point of my question? Why talk about Rudy if everyone is in agreement to be against him?
Am I making sense?
How is FR going to advance it's campaign against Rudy - if it's not open to those who need their minds changed about Rudy?
Am I not a model project for FR members to engage with and convince?
Am I making sense?
You're kidding right?
We have threads on here bashing liberals all the time. The Clintons, Dean, Obama, Kerry, etc. Why should we give a liberal who happens to have an "R" after his name a pass?
Ok - you’re making my point.
You’re saying it’s OK to debate Rudy - right?
~snip~
How is FR going to advance it's campaign against Rudy - if it's not open to those who need their minds changed about Rudy?
Based on this logic, should FReepers become "open" to changing their minds about Clinton, Obama and Edwards?
We don't debate Hillary, do we?
No but you should be open to changing the minds of people who support those candidates.
I think you have my logic backwards?
I hoped I made sense.
FR has an intellectual base that could broaden it’s ideological base - I think that should be FR’s goal. (if I may be so bold)
Widen the community through debate.
Does that help?
I assume you would if someone pro-Hillary came into FR.
I know that's an incredible stretch.
Forget the Democrats - let's stay inside the GOP for this discussion.
Ok?
Free Republic is a CONSERVATIVE forum, PERIOD. IT IS NOT a conservative/liberal debating society.
Don’t conservative debate one another?
You’re losing me - I apologize.
Free Republic IS NOT (and Jim Robinson will correct me if I am wrong) a Republican forum, it is a CONSERVATIVE forum -- there is an enormous difference, and with Rudy in the mix that becomes much clearer.
Conservatives are generally in agreement when it comes to liberals like Rudy.
The mission of this website is not up for debate. You seem to keep purposely avoiding that mission. We're not here to debate issues or candidates, we're committed to promoting conservatism and conservative candidates. Why do you keep ignoring that? You can debate the merits of each conservative candidate, or the best way to push a conservative issue or cause. But promoting a liberal, one of the worst ever seen in the Republican Party, isn't an option as it is in opposition to the stated mission of this site.
As I've said before: get with the program, get out of the way, or just get out. Those are your options. And if you don't make a choice, that choice may be made for you as it has been made for those people who ended up having their memberships revoked.
There have been other Republicans that were more liberal than Rudy, but none of them were ever serious contenders for the GOP presidential nomination.
Let the issue come to a full on debate -- it's about time it did.
You may be right. I've never seen one with the depths of liberalism in his public and private life that I see in Rudy. The more I dig, the more I find wrong with him. I guess I've never explored as deeply the records, statements, and lives of some of the more liberal Republicans you may be thinking of.
But who are you "committed to promoting conservatism and conservative candidates." to - if everyone is already "conservative"?
See what I mean?
Why do you need a "Rudy Truth File" is everyone already knows Rudy is liberal.
I remain confused at the logic.
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.