Posted on 12/28/2007 2:45:08 PM PST by wagglebee
here’s one!
He is a liberal and no conservative should support him. I was one of his supporters at first. Then I started learning more and more about his views and that quickly changed. We do not need anyone like him near the White House.
We can and we have to.
No, he's not. Duncan Hunter is more "pure" than Fred is! ;o)
While I like Rudy, I can’t vote for him for president. Our values are too far apart. I’m concerned that if he gets the nomination, all the GOP’s men will not be able to put the elephant back together again.
...makes more sense that the knee-jerk reactions of the other foreign policy know nothings from EITHER "party".
Hillary and Obama are limited EXCEPT for naming judges too. And I don't believe any promises any politician makes when trying to pander to me to get my vote UNLESS his past record dovetails with the promise, which Giuliani's does NOT.
Also...Rudy’s love for NAFTA and his willingness to admit it, alone, makes him a traitor!
Randall Terry?!!! Gotta be kidding!
He’s sooooo 1980’s.
Oh, and I like Rudy (Fred, too)
He's never denied that he enjoys dressing up like a woman. In fairness to him, though, he did say that his cross-dressing days are a thing of the past and that he can resist the temptation in the future.
Can these guys be cured?
This obsession with whatever candidate the two political parties are marketing this week or next misses the bigger picture. Our primary job as Christians is not to act as unpaid support squadrons for one or the other of these politicians.
Let’s take infanticide as an issue to expand on what I’m talking about. Say that one or another of these politicians actually had a snowballs chance of reversing Roe v Wade. I don’t think that any of them actually do, but let’s say for the sake of discussion that they not only could obtain a reversal of Roe v Wade, but would. I would agree that reversing Roe v Wade would be a wonderful thing and a great step forward. However, infanticide in the U.S. would not end. Those who were strongly inclined to kill their unborn children would still find a means to do so; legal or otherwise.
So I ask the question: what is the more effective means to obtain the end of infanticide; partisan politics or working to change the hearts and minds of those who would engage in the practice? I think that some combination of both is necessary, but the extent to which many Christian conservatives overly emphasize the partisan politics aspect is obsessive and self-defeating. And it’s not just infanticide, it’s other hot-button issues such as marriage and education. “If only we were to elect XYZ candidate or political party the problems would go away.” Well, the history of Christian conservatism for the last 20 or so years would indicate otherwise.
To conclude, I prefer to call things what they are. This obsession with the partisan political melodrama on the part of many Christian conservatives is bordering on idolatry.
Interestingly, just one month later Mike Huckabee produced his financial disclosure statement indicating that he had been paid a $17,500 consulting fee by a leading pharmaceutical company engaged in embryonic stem cell research to find a treatment for diabetes.
http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=1712
My feeling is that if we select a candidate that is openly against abortion - not only do we have the hope that he will be able to affect some change in the current laws - but that he will serve as a role model - especially for the young people, that abortion is morally wrong. Thus, we will have someone working within the system to change it - and also working on the hearts and minds of people to change their feelings about it.
If we elect a candidate that will not come out publicly to say he is against abortion - we send mixed signals to the people - especially the youth - it's just more of the same, "do as I say, not as I do" stuff. Kids can see through that type of hypocrisy very easily.
“Interestingly, just one month later Mike Huckabee produced his financial disclosure statement indicating that he had been paid a $17,500 consulting fee by a leading pharmaceutical company engaged in embryonic stem cell research to find a treatment for diabetes.”
Can’t say I’d be surprised.
‘My feeling is that if we select a candidate that is openly against abortion - not only do we have the hope that he will be able to affect some change in the current laws - but that he will serve as a role model - especially for the young people, that abortion is morally wrong.”
With respect, I question the value of politicians as role models. Except perhaps as negative ones.
Sadly, I must agree - this is the result of people having to vote for the "lesser of two evils".
ROFL. We must unite and hold hands to vote for POS Rudy or Huckster but not for pro-constitutionalist Dr. Paul? BTW none of Paul's donations is from Soros.
“Conservatives” that want a Pyrrhic victory for the sake of “principle” run the risk of losing the chance to regain the presidency in a generation and at worst lose our form of government to a bunch of eurosocialist wannabees or way of life to Islamofascist capitulation.
Uh Paul still supports border security (Rudy and Huckster does not) and still supports a strong national defense. If these Islamofascists attack us again they'll be obliterated and we don't have to clean up after them.
I prefer Thompson but I’ll take my chances with Rudy as the least of evils if he is the nominee.In the end, National Security trumps all.
Ben Franklin told me never to give up my liberty for security. With Rudy, you'll get a police state and national ID card, among other things. No thanks. If Rudy's nominated, I'm voting 3rd party.
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.