Posted on 06/01/2007 4:54:16 PM PDT by dschapin
You are wrong to blame social conservatives for Bush’s lack of conservatism in other areas. I also opposed Bush’s big government approach to education, campaign finance reform, and prescription drug benefits. In fact, social conservatives were not very comfortable at all with Bush when he was first running for the nomination in 2000. Bush was pushed by the same party leaders that now are pushing candidates like Giuliani and Romney. We only started to support him later when we were pleasantly surprised to find that he was more socially conservative then anticipated. So, if you want to blame someone for Bush - blame the party elites not us.
Thats a good point. I just was surprised to see John Hinderaker imply that the posts supporting Giuliani came from a representative sampling of Conseratives and I wanted some real conservatives to go over and make sure they understood that true Conservatives will not support Giuliani.
“If the conservative candidate was less pro-life than I would like but still supported many meaningfull restrictions on abortion - I would vote for him. However, if he supported abortion on demand like Giuliani does I could not in good conscience support him.”
I liked your answer in that you didn’t dodge and gave a reasoned answer. I’ll forgive you not exactly answering it(smile). I’ll add Rudy also said that he would nominate strict constructionists to the bench. That is good enough for this con. It should not matter what he personally thinks. It was the courts who made this mess and it will be the courts who get us out of it with a little help from a conservative president. I don’t believe the constitution gives the federal government the power to have any say on abortion. I don’t believe, as many social cons do, that a president working with congress should/can push through any legislation on abortion. So I have another question for you. Do you think the executive and legislative branches of the federal gov’t should make abortion illegal?
I disagree. Many social cons want to increase the power and scope of the federal government in order to forward their agenda. Abortion is a classic example. The federal goverment should have no say on it. What do you think drives big government conservatism? It is definitely not the libertarian or small government conservatives. It is composed of fiscal conservatives who are happy as long as the budget is balanced and the social conservatives(along with pretty much all liberals) as long it forwards their social agenda. These days fiscal conservatives aren’t happy with Bush’s “type” of conservatism. Only the social cons are.
And Rudy’s mayoral record has fiscal cons tickled pink.
Uh, yes, I was still disputing your assertion.
I think Guilianni could capture the middle and even attract quite a few libertarian conservatives based on his excellent fiscal reform record. Libertarians and small govt conservatives would settle for a candidate who would just get spending under control.
Some might, but many including me and a lot of other small-l libertarians on this site would not. Many small government and libertarian types aren't going to settle for the hope of spending control when the candidate has such a deplorable record on the Constitution.
Whether or not I agree with that approach, it’s a fact? Gee, I guess because you say it’s a fact it must be true.
Are you disputing my assertion that many social conservatives and small-l libertarian conservatives state that they won't vote for Giuliani should he win the nomination? Have you read any other Giuliani threads on this site? Many, many people have said this -- that's what the heated arguments over the last three months have been about.
Actually I don’t think your definition is any better than mine, in fact I’ve never seen any definition of conservatism break down the way yours does, while I see definitions close to mine all the time.
You've never seen a breakdown of the overlapping conservative coalition described as social conservatives, fiscal/small government conservatives, and national security conservatives? That's the Reagan coalition, typically described as a three-legged stool: http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.455/pub_detail.asp
Or, if you prefer, this is from your own link: An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming the politics of 1980s United States, galvanizing the success of the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his economic policies, known as "Reaganomics," foreign policy conservatives who favored his staunch opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union over the détente of his predecessors, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.
But yeah without the social cons lending him significant support in the general election he will probably lose. Thanks alot.
And, as we've discussed, without many libertarian conservatives. If you concede that he will probably lose, why do you argue in his favor? If electability doesn't matter to you, and you simply support Giuliani because his beliefs are closest to yours, then Godspeed. But if electability is a priority for you, why not move past Giuliani to a candidate whom all segments of the GOP can vote for?
And it’s arguable how much of a fiscal conservative Giuliani is. He spent like mad his second term (even apart from 9/11 spending), he behaved in ways that left NYC on the hook for millions of dollars in government abuse lawsuits, he cut all sorts of sweetheart deals for private entities such as the NY Times and the Yankees (and in the process abused eminent domain to seize private property and shut down viable businesses), and he pushed for all manner of big spending on the state and federal level.
In answer to your question - I think abortion should be prohibited by the 14th Amendments provision which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” I would support legislation by Congress and the President to clarify that the unborn are persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. Alternatively, I would support a human life Amendment to the Constitution. I support other federal restrictions but admit that Congress may not have the power to pass them if they do not come in the form of Constitutional Amendments or fall under the grant of power given to congress to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
“I think abortion should be prohibited by the 14th Amendments provision which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
In other words you are for expanding the power of the federal govt to decide what life is. Careful what you wish wish for.
“I would support legislation by Congress and the President to clarify that the unborn are persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.”
Ok, so you found your loophole to grant the federal gov’t the power to decide what is alive or not alive. Again, be careful what you wish for. Once you give them that, what is deserving of life and what is not? What is human? What is life? Are there classifications of humanity? Anyway what I am saying is that its important not to give that power to the federal government.
Alternatively, I would support a human life Amendment to the Constitution.
I am ok with constitutional amendments. It wont ever happen in my lifetime but if it did come up for a vote I’d vote againts it. The founders of this federalist goverment left out such issues as abortion with the 10th amendment in the bill of rights. That all laws not specifically granted by the constitution are left to the people and the states. They did this becauce they knew that beyond the general running of government the myriad issues such as abortion that enflame a democratic society should be solved at a state level. Let the states be the petri dishes for governmental policy. This, in my opinion, is the only way to run a 300 million population country. Or would you just impose your beliefs on people that you have never met, never will meet and live in places you will never go to?
Nice DU talking points.
The words of the 14th Amendment are going to be defined at a federal level by one branch or another of the federal government. Currently, the word person as used in the 14th Amendment has been defined by the Supreme Court which determined in Roe v. Wade that unborn children were not people for the purposes of the 14th Amendment. This interpretation was based largely on the fact that citizenship began at birth - a somewhat dubious basis for interpretation since “person’s” clearly includes some who are not “citizens.” So, since the 14th Amendment will continue to be interpreted on a federal level, the only question is whether the elected branches of the federal government can provide some imput to that process.
These are certainly NOT talking points from the DU that we commonly refer to on these threads.
“The words of the 14th Amendment are going to be defined at a federal level by one branch or another of the federal government.”
Not really. The job of defining the laws of the land ultimately rests with the Supreme Court. It is the job of congress to make the laws and it is the job executive branch to enforce the laws. Now I’ll admit that congress may look at the constitution and say that a certain law they wish to enact fits within the framework of the constitution based on their own definitions of it and the executive branch can look at a certain law based on how it defines that law and enforce it accordingly. But the first thing that happens after that is that some citizen or group says “hey I don’t think your definition is correct”. They take a case to the Supreme Court that then rules on whether or not congress or the executive acted lawfully based on its own definition of the constitution. They have the final say and any challenge to the current definition of the 14th amendment will land so fast in their laps it will make your head spin.
We must not forget the homosexual agenda! If anyone thinks Rudy is not going to go all out for homosexuals rights their just plain crazy.If Christians were out in front like the homosexuals things could change. Maybe the republican party doesn’t want the social conservatives anymore.For myself,family and friends,no one is voting for Rudy.Remember when Rudy marched in the gay pride parade? Well nambla was there too.
I know he's been pro-abortion in NYC. But that's when he had a rabidly pro-abortion constituency.
Pro-lifers have made quite a lot of progress without defeating Roe. Roe is rather a symbol.
That said, I've got a pile of worries about Rudy. I don't want the next GOP nominee to be a neocon.
The Federal Courts are the third branch of the Federal Government. So, I think my point stands the 14th Amendment will be interpreted by one branch or another of the federal government. So, its not a federalism question. Its simply a debate between legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.
In other words he doesn’t appeal to the far right and the far left of the Republican party
I would not consider my libertarian brethren to be "liberal" at all. True Libertarians tend to be far right on patriotic and fiscal matters, with an exception regarding social matters.
Further, their reasoning on social issues, that they are "none of the governments business" is an acceptable line of reasoning for many, even a far right guy like me, and should not be confused with the liberalism which has infected the Republican Party.
It is more like two branches from the same root.
I doubt that a liberal Republican such as Guliani would appeal to either group.
JMO
-Bruce
Abortion is a classic example.
The reason abortion is an issue at the federal level is because the liberal faction of the Supreme Court deemed it to be so (and wrongly as I am certain you'll agree).
I am sure that you will find massive support among social cons for the idea that one should take the abortion issue away from the Federal Government and give it to the states as is proper.
Likewise, I doubt you would disagree with Social Cons fighting to make abortion illegal at the state level as is our right.
-Bruce
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.