Posted on 10/04/2007 10:19:26 PM PDT by Soft Bigotry
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If you want to use military metaphors, wouldn’t we want as many people on our side as possible?
If you want to insist Rudy’s a traitor in our midst, fine; you’ve picked a side. I just can’t promise you it’ll be the victorious one.
“Indeed... I’ve been saying this for months. Hillary may very well be the toughest with the WOT. She’s going to want to prove she has testicles... She may even overreact.”
I believe, of all the candidates, she is the most likely to nuke any country that attacks us... It’s just in her personality to want to completely destroy those who oppose her. Unfortunately, that includes us.
Don’t be so blind... Rudy truely IS a traitor in our midst.
Actually it is very easy to see Giuliani's views. Read his views in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs. This is not a journal geared towards constituents, but rather academics and those in foreign policy. In other words, those that would tell if he was just pandering. John Edwards also has an article in it, and while he isn't Hillary, you can assume his views would be similar. The difference in each article is significant.
It's amazing that the Rudy-apologists canNOT understand that!!!
Dobson needs to seek the face of the L-rd.He needs to address issues and not people.
Black-and-white thinking is often helpful - but not always.
If you want to see Rudy as the antichrist, or like cherry, consider HRC a “Satanist” and “Hitler”, then I suspect no one’s going to change your mind.
Good luck with that third party.
I don’t have a problem with nuking our enemies, but that’s just me. I offered my (correct) assessment to the idiots that think Rudy would be the toughest with the WOT.
Now let’s get busy and nominate Fred.
Seriously?
Your reply wasn’t to my post but I read it so I’m replying.
I’m a Christian. Heck, I’m a practicing Catholic, I follow the catholic doctrine and not some willy nilly thing that changes each year.
My moral principles are important but I understand the rest of the country doesn’t follow my moral principles thus I will support any candidate who most closely follows my principles on this country continuing its existence. And I will continue to follow the moral principles as taught in the Bible and in my Faith as a Catholic (catholic doctrine editors of the Bible shared by all prostestant religions) and teach my children such principles. I can’t change the world but I can parent my kids.
So say it’s Rudy and Hillary or Obama or Edwards or anyone on that side but those are the 3 who will be. So, it’s unchristianlike to vote for Rudy but it’s okay to allow Hillary/Obama/Edwards to win? I completely disagree.
I also disagree that voting for Rudy would question my Christianity/Catholicism. Same as Romney, who I’ve read is sorta for gay marriage and all, and McCAin - too long to list, and Thompson, there’s his issues. So if we Christians vote for any of these candidates or the nominee, we’re not Christians?
I would be so happy if any candidate came out against abortion, in all situations. We see where that got Bob Casey of PA (former dem Gov.). Same for Santorum, former senator of PA.
I’ll vote for Rudy if he gets the repub nom BECAUSE he’s better than any dem running. And at least we have a shot with him. I won’t vote for him in the primary because of my Faith. I also won’t vote 3rd party yet, losing battle right now, nor will I vote for any dem nom, ever.
The only shot we have of limiting and eventually doing away with abortions is to elect presidents and congressmen who don’t support murdering babies on demand. And electing presidents who will appoint SC Justices who are conservative. We will never get a shot with any of the current dems but we do have a shot with a repub president even one who isn’t a social conservative imo. So we have Romney, McCain, Rudy, Thompson, none really social conservatives imo. I like Hunter and more and more Tancredo. But I will vote for the repub nom even if it’s Rudy or Romney or McCain, et al. It doesn’t make me less of a Christian or a Catholic, it makes me politcially smart, imo. I’m all for a grass roots movement and I will support it but I don’t see it helping in this election. I’m not willing to sacrifice our military and this mission for ideals. I want a POTUS who will support the military at all costs and none of the dems will do that.
Don’t be so blind... Rudy truely IS a traitor in our midst.
~~~
I thought the Bug~Zapper~Thread and the FR~Mission~Statement
Made it clear ...
Perfectly reasonable thinking.
Most people fail to see the coalitionist nature of representative politics; Rudy would still have the support of Republicans in Congress and the backing of a national party, however weakened.
Well said. That’s my attitude too. I understand the single issue votes and those who cast them. I once voted pro life during an election thus voted for a candidate who had no chance of winning. My Dad, pro lifer, told me I threw away my vote. And I did.
I’m not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face and I’m NOT willing to sell out this country over one or two issues. I want change in my party but I also want a repub to win in 2008 because at least we have a shot then.
I will vote for whomever is the repub nom, like it or not. I won’t throw away my vote/vote 3rd party, to make a point that will be lost on the majority of this country. I’m not willing to chance this country/POTUS to make a point. I’m not willing to end up with a Hillary/Obama/Edwards/whomever dem POTUS for a point. We have to change this party, repub party, imo and give it a few years but not this election year. It’s too new imo.
Does that mean FR agrees with Dobson and will go third party, then?
You are so right!
Even giving credence to goofballs like Dobson indicates our political discourse is sadly lacking.
Rudy can beat Clinton in 2008.
I will not vote for Rudy the liberal.
Same here and I have problems with those mentioned but better them than the others.
Can't let that go by ... How would a New York City Mayor and noted former federal prosecutor be worse than Hillary?
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.