Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block Giuliani!
Vanity/The American Spectator ^ | 4/19/2007 | By W. James Antle III

Posted on 04/26/2007 1:26:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson

It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.

Excerpts from the American Spectator:

The Real Deal

4/19/2007

~~snip~~

"Despite the calls to leave litmus tests behind, pro-life Rudy reluctance is justified. If nominated, Giuliani would be the most pro-choice Republican presidential candidate in history. Even Gerald Ford, an archetypal Republican for choice, backed a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade during the 1976 campaign. Barry Goldwater, who was nominated before abortion became a national issue and outspokenly pro-choice in retirement, backed the human life amendment in his final Senate race."

"Giuliani has feted NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He has praised Margaret Sanger and repeatedly accused mainstream pro-lifers of wanting to put pregnant women in jail. His concessions to date have been minor and offered without enthusiasm."

"Abortion opponents can ill afford to give up their leverage in the GOP. Their position has little support among the cultural elite; many in the Republican establishment would like nothing better than to “get beyond issues like that.” If pro-lifers support Giuliani because he “hates” abortion, it will be difficult for them to criticize “personally opposed” Democrats like John Kerry in the future. Their campaign to get bishops to withhold communion from pro-choice Catholic Democrats will seem partisan and hypocritical. And the whole movement may be seen as less serious and less influential."

~~snip~~

Don't be fooled. Don't betray your principles or the cause due to fear of Hillary and the moonbats. Would Ronald Reagan cower in fear and betray his principles?

Keep the faith!!

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; elections; giuliani; prolife; stoprudy2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2007 1:26:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
It's absolutely crucial to the conservative pro life movement to block the pro choice, pro gay agenda Rudy Giuliani from obtaining the GOP nomination. It would kill the movement and ultimately destroy the credibility of the GOP.

Agreed

2 posted on 04/26/2007 1:28:23 AM PDT by WorkerbeeCitizen (Anti Islam and a Global Warming denier - piss on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I am pro-life.

I’m not voting for him.


3 posted on 04/26/2007 1:29:16 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

It would certainly re-define conservatism.


4 posted on 04/26/2007 1:32:25 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Ignoring the social issues for the moment...

There’s another good reason that Rudy shouldn’t be the nominee...

BERNIE KERIK.


5 posted on 04/26/2007 1:38:26 AM PDT by Omega Man II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I couldn’t live with myself if I voted for him. It’s just not going to happen.


6 posted on 04/26/2007 1:57:25 AM PDT by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I find Rudy’s name on a company that does business with cuckoo Chavez more disturbing than his age old position on abortion.

You’re up late. Got insomnia? I do, and I might break my three day record of no bleepin’ sleep.


7 posted on 04/26/2007 2:00:44 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Head Caterer for the FIRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

See my post #7.


8 posted on 04/26/2007 2:01:20 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Head Caterer for the FIRM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Good article. Thanks for posting. Jim, thanks for everything that you have done.


9 posted on 04/26/2007 2:29:06 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: durasell
"It would certainly re-define conservatism."
Conservatism is already defined as a reasonably broad notion, including "social conservatives", "economic conservatives", "libertarian" and so on. If anything, the attempt to restrict "conservatism" to its "social" branch only would be a re-definition. And since any social movement in a democratic system needs to be sufficiently attractive to the mass of electorate outside of itself, one could argue that the "base" - any base [ours, sharptonite, or moveon variety] - is good only at foaming at the mouth and scaring everyone else away. Joe Lieberman in his most recent election provided an excellent example of where the "base" rightfully belongs.
10 posted on 04/26/2007 2:34:01 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

I would vote for Rudy over the pantsuit or the emptysuit if I were forced to vote. I am, however, not forced to vote, and would choose none of the above. The final result will be the same and by 2012 a 2008 victory for “our side” will be cold comfort when the demographics have changed in such away as to make a conservative POTUS nearly impossible. In my opinion, so far, there is only one real choice, someone who will put political correctness and multiculturalism aside and enforce our existing immigration laws, fight terror (without our hands tied behind our backs), put the ChiComs on notice and deal a major blow to Roe vs Wade. No, I don’t mean Rudy McRomney, or that we need to unpack an actor out of mothballs or waste time salivating over any other future “fantasy Candidate”. We already have a man who will do all that is needed and more, Duncan Hunter.


11 posted on 04/26/2007 2:35:47 AM PDT by WildcatClan (Just wait till the Pretendicans have to debate, Hunter in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

A discussion of the concept of “base” would be of great interest to me.

Any chance of getting a new “base” thread going?


12 posted on 04/26/2007 2:37:02 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Well, maybe trying to bring concept of “base” from chemistry could give us insights. Bronsted base is something capable of absorbing a proton [not usable for us, at least not directly], while Lewis base is the source/carrier of unshared electron pair available for binding. Similarly, political “base” could be seen as a source/carrier of “ideas” [usually half-baked in any mass implementation]. More, the base ideas better be wrong - but simple and catchy, i.e. infectious. The test of the “base idea” is its capacity to form slogans, like “workers of the world, unite!” The right ideas normally do not make good slogans, and take too much effort for comprehension and transmission, i.e. have low affinity for the potential recipient [aka voter to be attracted]. Thus one could say that their Lewis basicity is low.


13 posted on 04/26/2007 3:02:31 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Typically I distrust analogies like the one you presented, but as analogies go, that’s pretty good.

I would counter that the slogans adopted by a “base” are:

A)A short hand for broad and more complex ideas that aren’t always perfectly understood by even the base, i.e. “workers of the world unite!” or “dyslexics of the world untie!”

B)there is some other broad idea or demographic that unites a base other than slogans.


14 posted on 04/26/2007 3:10:31 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I'm not a hard core pro-lifer as would be indicated by my otherwise paleo-conservative philosophy.

(I'm not pro-abortion either; I'm kind of a weaselly moderate in that one respect. While I think that most women who get 'abortions of convenience' will 'burn in hell' for it, I don't think it is MY right to force them not to.... I know I'd rather have been killed before I reached full awareness than grow up unwanted and despised by my parents.)

I'll work against Guliani until the primaries are over. If, God Forefend, he is the Republican nominee, I'll hold my nose and vote for him as the lesser of the evils. (There is only one GOP candidate that I will not vote for under any circumstances... {Call him 'Maverick'}).

But in the meantime, I'm praying that FRED! enters the race soon, or that a miracle happens and Duncan Hunter, (or even Tom Tancredo) get competitive enough to stand 'a snowball's chance".

15 posted on 04/26/2007 3:17:04 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
When Giuliani was first blipped on the radar screen, it took me about five minutes of looking around the net to make my decision.

The right to life is fundamental and vital to ALL our rights.

16 posted on 04/26/2007 3:19:16 AM PDT by don-o (Proudly posting without reading the thread since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Omega Man II

Another good reason he SHOULD be president ...terrorism...
Unless we pick someone who can ACTUALLY WIN ,Klinton will be president and then it will be all over for the USA.
If we get nuked a lot of social issues wont seem so important . I’m pro life for sure but unless we win you will see major terrorism deaths in the USA .


17 posted on 04/26/2007 3:19:35 AM PDT by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan

Then be prepared for Klinton in the White House .


18 posted on 04/26/2007 3:20:33 AM PDT by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: durasell
I would argue that the base [by its definition as a mass phenomenon] is not capable of understanding anything beyond the level of slogans. Thus whatever unites it, has to be either slogan-primitive, or primitivizable to the level of a slogan [for example, "demographic ideas" are perceived at "us vs. them" level - try to make it more "basic" [pun intended] and slogan-like!]. Now, how many correct conservative ideas are driveable to such level? - not many, beyond national security and low taxation. One could include "limited government" in its slogan form "ef off and leave me alone!"
19 posted on 04/26/2007 3:20:42 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’ve said it before and I’m going to keep saying it. This election isn’t about abortion. Or guns. It’s about who is the best choice to defeat the clintns and lead the Global War on Terror.

Think about it: is President Giuliani going to force your daughter to have an abortion? Is he going to take away your precious gun? Of course not.


20 posted on 04/26/2007 3:22:20 AM PDT by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cloud8
It's not that simple.

NOW is our chance to seize the White House with a TRUE conservative. We have not had this chance since 1980. And 27 years is just too long.

21 posted on 04/26/2007 3:23:46 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (Psychos with weaponry is unsustainable. Delink the two, ASAP, or guns will be taken from all of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

So, if I understand you correctly, a base is just some hybrid beast with a lot of energy and not much smarts?

If that’s the case — and I don’t necessarily agree — then there must be some other underlying thing that unites them. Maybe it’s not a complex concept — just similar situations in life, but something.


22 posted on 04/26/2007 3:23:58 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cloud8
A nation that does not permit self protection (guns) and refuses to protect the defenseless (the unborn) lacks the moral vigor to defeat a ruthless and fanatical enemy.
23 posted on 04/26/2007 3:28:46 AM PDT by don-o (Proudly posting without reading the thread since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820378/posts?page=420#420

To: MindBender26

“Failure to vote for ANY candidate opposing a Hillary is a vote for Hillary.”
Even if the two have essentially the same political convictions? You are delusional. If the GOP can do no better than the liberal abortionist, gungrabbing, queer-bot Giuliani, it deserves a very hard fall.

You vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay to regulate your Second Amendment rights away.

Not me.

You vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay to require you embrace homosexual unions equal to your marriage vows, regardless of your religious convictions.

Not me.

You vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay to allow a baby to be slaughtered as long as its head is still partially concealed and that you have no choice but to help fund those “procedures”.

Not me.

And you vote for Giuliani. You tell Congress it’s okay that they require you believe the government is the all-powerful, final authority - not the people from whom that power comes and you must cede any of your rights upon its demand.

Definitely, not me.

420 posted on 04/20/2007 9:16:06 AM EDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I stand by my conviction.


24 posted on 04/26/2007 3:33:02 AM PDT by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cloud8
What are Rudy’s qualifications for commander in chief? (photo ops on 911 don’t count). He’s no more qualified than any other Republican candidate. Probably less than most.
25 posted on 04/26/2007 3:33:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: durasell

By using “not much” you paid the base a completely unmerited compliment. It is the mass effect: the IQ of a collectivity cannot be higher than that of the most smart person in it, and even then only on the condition and to the extent that the collectivity obeys such a person. Otherwise it is much lower, and precipitously drops with the size of the group.
The base is good only at foaming at the mouth and at scaring everyone else away, which is not associated with having ANY smarts. Thus a winning candidate rapidly subsumes one’s “base”, brings it to heel and keeps it in place - or dispenses with the base, like Joe Lieberman did.


26 posted on 04/26/2007 3:35:13 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"What are Rudy’s qualifications for commander in chief? (photo ops on 911 don’t count)."
His understanding of the nation's predicament, like his telling that saudi hairyarse where to shove his blood money check. One could count it as a photo-op, but I see it as more than that.
27 posted on 04/26/2007 3:38:26 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Sure, right. No one else understands the nation’s predicament. You’re totally clueless.


28 posted on 04/26/2007 3:40:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Would I vote for Rudy?

NO !

29 posted on 04/26/2007 3:41:24 AM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Oh, I know. He’ll open up the military to gays and transvestites. That’ll up the morale of the troops.
30 posted on 04/26/2007 3:42:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Whether I’m clueless or not, is besides the point. I see it as the right and proper gut reaction, much preferable to the “religion of peace” flatulence emanating from our C-I-C.


31 posted on 04/26/2007 3:42:45 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

And how many of, say, San Francisco crowd would be voluntarily enlisting, may I ask? Besides, after a few egregious examples are roughed up, the morale would not be sagging.


32 posted on 04/26/2007 3:47:01 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Oh, I see you’re a gay activist yourself. Also an abortion pusher?


33 posted on 04/26/2007 3:58:23 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WildcatClan
...Duncan Hunter.

On May 3rd we'll get to see him in debate with the Rudy McRomney's.

34 posted on 04/26/2007 3:58:28 AM PDT by johnny7 ("Issue in Doubt." -Col. David Monroe Shoup, USMC 1943)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Neither. With abortion providers I have not had any contacts, and as for gay activists - the only time I got in contact with them was 18 years ago when some demonstration of theirs was passing by me and they tried to give me some of their literature. I told them that I was not interested, and that ended the conversation. I am not foaming at the mouth at the mentioning of them, though, so that must make me an activist.


35 posted on 04/26/2007 4:04:00 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
There are a lot of things about Giuliani that are commendable but when he had the chance to clarify his views on abortion recently he still said a woman "ultimately has a right to choose" to abort a live baby he lost his chance at the nomination.

Besides, he probably would have been another Bush when it came to making friendly with the socialist enemy within running Congress.

36 posted on 04/26/2007 4:05:21 AM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GSlob; Jim Robinson

How is this even a point of debate? Rudy’s not going to get the nomination. Far too many skeletons in his closet and he has nothing close to approaching the right skill set or temperment.


37 posted on 04/26/2007 4:07:53 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

No, but pushing for gay rights in the military might. The military is for blowing up things and killing the enemy. Not for liberal social engineering.


38 posted on 04/26/2007 4:10:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: durasell

You are 100% correct!


39 posted on 04/26/2007 4:11:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
I’m not voting for him.

Even if he's the GOP candidate?

I can appreciate fighting hard against the man during the primaries. But cutting your nose off to spite your face in the general is nothing less than insane.

You would end up with the Marxist Hillary or the Muslim Obama.
40 posted on 04/26/2007 4:13:29 AM PDT by Beckwith (dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

“Thought crimes” on the radar:

Christians in bull’s-eye in new ‘hate crimes’ plan [Urgent we block Giuliani and gay agenda!]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823754/posts

Goodnight all.


41 posted on 04/26/2007 4:14:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

If we’re going to run a NYC pol, then we should run Marty Markowitz. Okay, he’s a dem, but he gives these great speeches that invariably mention eight or nine different restaurants regardless of whether he’s talking about budgets or speaking at a high school graduation ceremony.


42 posted on 04/26/2007 4:15:17 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

With, or without, their “rights” the environment in the military is rather unhospitable for them, and this is not likely to change regardless of official policies and pronouncements. Plus, the gay subculture is not quite conducive to driving them into military en masse. Thus I see no need for getting agitated.


43 posted on 04/26/2007 4:15:58 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

“I am not foaming at the mouth at the mentioning of them, though, so that must make me an activist.”

Perhaps not “activist”, but certainly “tolerant”, which places you perhaps unwittingly in support of their disgusting advocacy.


44 posted on 04/26/2007 4:20:13 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

“tolerant”? - why, yes - to an extent. As somebody said it in a somewhat similar context about 100 yrs ago, “as long as they do not do it in the street and frighten the horses”. Beyond that, from my libertarian leanings I learned the the phrase “none of my business” is a profound one.


45 posted on 04/26/2007 4:26:54 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

the the = that the


46 posted on 04/26/2007 4:27:40 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

I’d give it up on the rudy thing. He doesn’t stand a chance and really isn’t qualified.

His entire campaign will revolve around explaining the Inner Circle dinner.

Remember, what is a yawn in NYC is a scandal in most other places.


47 posted on 04/26/2007 4:27:44 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

as long as they do not do it in the street and frighten the horses”.

That would be Jenny Jerome (Winston Churchill’s mother) and she was from NYC.


48 posted on 04/26/2007 4:29:23 AM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: durasell

Well, I hold a different opinion. I see him as the strongest of anti-hillary candidates, and given hillary totalitarian leanings, I see him as worthy of my support. The lesser evil is the greater good, as one Niccolo Machiavelli used to teach.


49 posted on 04/26/2007 4:31:44 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; All

DUNCAN HUNTER’S POSITION ON ABORTION/RIGHT TO LIFE -

1. Right to Life Amendment:

I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.

2. Federal laws relating to abortion and human life protections (e.g, embryonic research and end of life, etc.):

There are several areas of federal law that require human life protections. I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor’s native state’s parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.

The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.
The Parent’s Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.

I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:

I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.
I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.

I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.

I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.

I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.


50 posted on 04/26/2007 4:32:34 AM PDT by airborne (Duncan Hunter is the only real choice for honest to goodness conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson