Rudy: social conservatives should get over being socially conservative Update: context added

posted at 4:10 pm on April 16, 2007 by Bryan

Yup. Rudy Giuliani may have just cost himself the nomination.

“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.

Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.

“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.

Early reax to the comment: decidedly negative.

I’m a social con. I was giving Giuliani a close look in spite of quite a few things, because he projects strength on the war. But telling social conservatives to “get over it” is arrogant. It also betrays what he really thinks about the pro-life movement. We don’t define ourselves by “what we’re against,” but by what we’re for: the right to life. It’s the most basic right.

JPod questions whether the reporter got the quote accurate, and it’s always wise to approach any MSM report on any Republican saying anything, with skepticism. But still.

Coupled with Giuliani’s recent flap over federal funding of abortion, this builds a high wall between him and the socially conservative base of the party. I would chalk it up to being a rookie mistake, but Giuliani’s no rookie. He’s just a social liberal who happens to be strong on the war, running for the nomination of a socially conservative party. If there’s a political marriage in the offing, it will be one that features a shotgun.

Update: We have context.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question about the former platform in the Republican Party allowed abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. I believe in that and I believe that because of the abortion issue in the Republican Party it is dividing this party so badly that we may not be able to elect a Republican president and I hope-I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on that.”

MAYOR GIULIANI: “What my thoughts are on the big question? I can tell you my thoughts on both.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: “The big question.”

GIULIANI: “On the big question my thoughts are we shouldn’t allow it to do that. Electing a Republican in 2008 is so important to the war on terror, the ability to keep up an economy that’s an economy or growth, or from the point of view of what we believe as Republicans to really set us in the wrong direction. Democrats are entitled to think something different but I think that there will be a major difference in the direction of this country whether we have a Republican or Democrat in 2008 and 2009. On abortion I think we should respect each other. I think that’s what we should do and we should respect the fact that this is a very difficult moral question and a very difficult question and that very good people of equally good conscience could come to different opinions on it. My view of it is I hate abortion. I think abortion is wrong. To someone who I cared about or cared to talk to me about it and wanted my advice, the advice I would give them is not to do it and to have adoption as an option to it. When I was the Mayor adoptions went way up, abortions went down but ultimately I respect that that’s somebody else’s decision and that people of conscience can make that decision either way and you can’t put them in jail for it. (applause) And then I think our party, our party has to get beyond issues like that where we can have people who are very good people who have different views about this, they can all be Republican because our party is going to grow and we’re going to win in 2008 if we’re a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if we’re a party that’s known for what we are against. …” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Campaign Event, Des Moines IA, 4/14/07)

That is much better. Soundbites can distort remarks out of all proportion, and that seems to have been the case here. I do dislike the part about being a party that’s known for what it’s against rather than for, though. Pro-lifers are for the right to life, period. The media has long cast us as being “anti-abortion” because that’s a negative spin on our point of view. Fellow Republicans shouldn’t use the MSM’s shorthand when describing or addressing each other.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

when a lib is arguing for “univeral human rights” while bashing america for abu ghraib and waterboarding, remember an easy out is to ask their point of view on the most fundamental of Human Rights, The right to life….the thought will have never crossed their little minds followed by a “well its a fetus”

jp on April 16, 2007 at 6:47 PM

christians are not conservatives. they can just as easily be found smuggling weapons for latin american marxists as they can be found bending the constitution around their crusifix.

it was the most disgusting perversion i’ve ever seen.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Yes Jummy. Your comment IS the most disgusting perversion I’ve ever seen.

Gregor on April 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Uh. Dude.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM

bro.

No, really.. dude.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM

seriously, broham. neither of the links you gave nor the the word “dude” meaningfully dispute anything i wrote or put me in my place.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 6:53 PM

jummy, actually he was pointing out that THEE conservative was an outspoken Christian. Or was Reagan not a conservative in your reality?

– The Cat

MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 6:58 PM

The right to life….the thought will have never crossed their little minds followed by a “well its a fetus”

jp on April 16, 2007 at 6:47 PM

no lots of things are alive. a vegetable is alive. a skin tag is alive. whether something is alive or not is a very shallow level of inquiry. the question is whether an embryo in early development is a person.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM

thee conservative, barry goldwater, vigorously opposed “social” conservatives’ theocratic agenda.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:05 PM

so an embryo, that has just as many chromosomes at conception as it does at 100 years old, does not have a constitutional right to life?

they just delivered a 21 week old baby/fetus and it lived in Florida for goodness sake. Also, when a pregnant woman is murdered why is the murderer charged with double homocide if the “fetus” or “embryo” isn’t a “person”?

jp on April 16, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Social Cons do not have a theocratic agenda, they are specifically against a State Religion and Church.

jp on April 16, 2007 at 7:07 PM

so an embryo, that has just as many chromosomes at conception as it does at 100 years old, does not have a constitutional right to life?

what the hell does that have to do with anything? mice have a roughly identical number of genes. the coding is 90% similar. does that qualify mice for personhood?

…when a pregnant woman is murdered why is the murderer charged with double homocide if the “fetus” or “embryo” isn’t a “person”?

if the court says so in that case, then it’s clearly indisputable. except when the court says that the fetus is a sub-phenomenon of an individual woman’s body which she can nurture or excise at her whim.

listen, i’m not even trying to argue abortion here. i’m just saying that lazy thinking is fine and appropriate for people who have the crutch of religion to hold them up. it doesn’t belong in politics.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:18 PM

That’s quite the context.

Slublog on April 16, 2007 at 7:20 PM

jummy, a human embro is just that, a human; or what is it? I mean you can’t say that a caterpillar is not the same species as a butterfly. It’s a butterfly in a larval stage. So the question then is which persons have rightsand at what stage of life; this also bridges into elderly rights and those with mental and physical deficiencies.

The fact is lib cons tend to have a lib outlook, which is to say elitist. “This one is deserving and worthwile, whereas this one is not.”

– The Cat

MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Social Cons do not have a theocratic agenda, they are specifically against a State Religion and Church.

jp

a lie.

Harris was a headline speaker at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (Dr. James Kennedy, pastor) “Reclaiming America for Christ” conference held in Ft. Lauderdale on March 17-18, 2006. The conference web site invited attendees to attend in order to “reclaim this nation for Christ.”[47] The stated mission of ReclaimAmerica.org is “To inform, equip, motivate, and support Christians; enabling them to defend and implement the Biblical principles on which our country was founded.”[48] As part of her speech, Harris urged conferees to “win back America for God.” Her appearance was noted in a Rolling Stone article criticizing the conference.[49]

In an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness on August 24, 2006, Harris called for Christians to vote on religious lines. She said, “we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended. … we need to take back this country. … And if we don’t get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back? …If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.”

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:21 PM

if the court says so in that case, then it’s clearly indisputable. except when the court says that the fetus is a sub-phenomenon of an individual woman’s body which she can nurture or excise at her whim.

Dred Scott

listen, i’m not even trying to argue abortion here.

Because you know you’re upgainst a wall

i’m just saying that lazy thinking is fine and appropriate for people who have the crutch of religion to hold them up. it doesn’t belong in politics.

Irony considering the above.

– The Cat

MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 7:24 PM

jummy, a human embro is just that, a human; or what is it? I mean you can’t say that a caterpillar is not the same species as a butterfly.

can you say a human lung is a human person?

The fact is lib cons tend to have a lib outlook, which is to say elitist. “This one is deserving and worthwile, whereas this one is not.”

those decision are made by each every day. you can let the murderer murder, or you can choose that he’s not worth as much as his potential victim.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:27 PM

The media is waging a war on Giuliani in an attempt to discredit him before conservatives. Giuliani is a Federalist. That means that his position on abortion, marriage and gun control is exactly where it should be: appoint conservative Justices to the Supreme Court and bring these issues back to the states.

JohnJ on April 16, 2007 at 7:30 PM

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:21 PM

and were did Dr. Kennedy call for a National Relgion and State Church? he didn’t

The 55 Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, 52 were Christian, of those 52, 45 were Reformed Calvinist like Dr. Kennedy. And this was when membership to a church was a major thing in society. The reformed christian views of government are what the architecture of the Constition are based on, like it or not. The fact that the SCOTUS found a way to ignore the Free Exercise clause is irrelevant to the fact.

jp on April 16, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Andy McCarthy at the Corner has a really eloquent interpretation of Giuliani’s remarks that sums up a lot of what Rudy defenders have been saying here: Rudy’s not asking pro-lifers to set aside their beliefs on this one issue, but to examine his candidacy based on his full set of positions, much as McCain has asked conservatives who might have a grievance or two with him to examine his positions in their totality. We owe it to ourselves to do that, in order to make the best possible choice in 2008.

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Barry Goldwater never was the ultimate conservative. His campaign in ’64 was simply the catalyst that set off the modern conservative movement, which was made up of mostly younger, more religiously oriented conservatives.

Goldwater was much less active as a national leader of conservatives after 1964. His followers mostly rallied behind Ronald Reagan, who became governor of California in 1966.

Please try to make the argument that Reagan was not a religious conservative. Don’t forget to allegorize the “city on a hill” speech.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Above is from the ‘pedia, btw.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM

The most important issue is judges. They will affect everything from religious freedom issues to the war on terror. I do not trust Rudy on this issue. If I could I would have no problem supporting him, but I just don’t.

Rose on April 16, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Dred Scott

right an embryo is a human person becuase black people are human people. i suppose i could answer that previous question similarly: “is a human lung a human person?” “dread scott, dude. read ’em and weep.”

Because you know you’re upgainst a wall

Irony considering the above.

totally dude. you know what got me? it was that line about the “right to life” being the most preciousest human right of all.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:45 PM

can you say a human lung is a human person?

No, but 1. A human lung is not a life stage entity and 2. It is illegal for a doctor to terminate a healthy lung.

those decision are made by each every day. you can let the murderer murder, or you can choose that he’s not worth as much as his potential victim.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:27 PM

FYI I’m against the deathpenalty. I am, however, pro true like imprisonment. Not only that, as well you know, the death penalty has nothing to do with worthyness. It has to do with stopping a murderer from ending life again. Where as an embrio has a natural inclination to spawn even more life.

– The Cat

MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 7:46 PM

Andy McCarthy at the Corner has a really eloquent interpretation of Giuliani’s remarks that sums up a lot of what Rudy defenders have been saying here

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Fair enough, but the necessity of damage control every time he opens his mouth on this smacks of political incompetence on his part.

This is a primary, not a policy colloquium.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Abortion again!!! Yawn
This would put me to sleep if I was not scared sh*tless that you “social cons” are threatening to put Hillary into the White House because of some irrelevant wedge issue. Yes I said irrelevant. Even Rush thinks Hillary is going to win. You guys better stop this nonsense about Fred and get behind Rudy or we are all going down. Fred cannot beat Hillary. Rudy can beat Hillary. Hillary must be beaten. Lesson over.

tommylotto on April 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Fred!

EnochCain on April 16, 2007 at 7:50 PM

right an embryo is a human person becuase black people are human people. i suppose i could answer that previous question similarly: “is a human lung a human person?” “dread scott, dude. read ‘em and weep.”

Let I should ‘splain. Judges are not the end all be all, all knowing, all powerful. You’re jump was, or course the the left thinkning instead of the right thinking.

totally dude. you know what got me? it was that line about the “right to life” being the most preciousest human right of all.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 7:45 PM

Now this, you’ll have to ‘splain to me. Because you can’t be saying it’s not. I mean without life, what good are any of the others? “I may be dead, but at least I have the freedom to write whatever I want on my tombstone.”

– The Cat

MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 7:50 PM

tommylotto on April 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM

The time for that is in the general, not the primary. Just like voting against rinos in ’06 should have been in the primary, but it wasn’t

– The Cat

P.S. I’m go nap now

MirCat on April 16, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Apropos of Giuliani’s position on abortion, I have one question for him.

Why is abortion wrong, Mr. Giuliani?

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Please try to make the argument that Reagan was not a religious conservative. Don’t forget to allegorize the “city on a hill” speech.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:33 PM

I’m not sure I’d classify Reagan as a “religious conservative,” notwithstanding his use of religious allegory in speeches. (Libs have made equally effective use of religious allegory.) I’m not saying Reagan wasn’t religious (he made ample mention of God in public remarks), just that he can’t be placed in the same category as politicians we now place in the “social con” or “religious con” camp, whose identity is tied rather narrowly to specific professions of faith and/or promises to take action on cherished social con issues such as abortion or gay marriage. Reagan’s appeal was vastly broader because it was rooted in more general ideas of freedom, optimism, the potential of Americans, an unshakable confidence in the triumph of good over evil, etc. God’s honest truth: growing up in my very social con household in the Bible Belt, my family, though huge admirers of Reagan, sometimes wondered with furrowed brow if he was “a true Christian.”

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Fair enough, but the necessity of damage control every time he opens his mouth on this smacks of political incompetence on his part.
spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM

But lately he’s had to do damage control on things taken out of context. This particular case wouldn’t have been an issue if it weren’t 1)quoted out of context and 2)quoted incorrectly.
You want to talk damage control, look at the Romney campaign. Or look at the Dems for more severe examples. Rudy’s doing fine as far as I can tell, and he’s done more straight talking than any candidate I’ve seen.

SouthernDem on April 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Fair enough, but the necessity of damage control every time he opens his mouth on this smacks of political incompetence on his part.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM

True, but remember what started all this: a single quote taken out of context by your friendly drive-by media. I thought Giuliani’s complete quote was fairly articulate, but all it took was a misrepresentation (by omission) by a reporter and we’re all in a tizzy.

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 8:02 PM

SouthernDem on April 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Yeah. What he said.

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 8:03 PM

God’s honest truth: growing up in my very social con household in the Bible Belt, my family, though huge admirers of Reagan, sometimes wondered with furrowed brow if he was “a true Christian.”

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Not convincing. By any reliable metric, Reagan was a religious conservative. Abortion, the culture war, the necessity of our heritage as a Christian nation, reliance on God, etc.

Regardless, Reagan was and still is the standard by which all religious conservatives hold potential candidates. If he’s the standard, how is it that religious conservatives are wack-jobs?

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 8:05 PM

But lately he’s had to do damage control on things taken out of context.

He’s taken out of context because he constantly says things requiring lots and lots of context. He’s not a wonk at a conference. He’s a candidate. He needs to learn how to do that on a national level in a party whose base rejects significant portions of his policy positions.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 8:08 PM

if Rudy gets nomination, I give odds that the Libs/Dems/MSM do an election eve hit piece with everything out of context on Rudy and target Social Cons on abortion and maybe Gun Rights to suppress the vote, before they have anytime to repsond to it. The more likely Rudy is to carry California the more desperate they’ll be

jp on April 16, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Please try to make the argument that Reagan was not a religious conservative. Don’t forget to allegorize the “city on a hill” speech.

spmat

why bother? i could just pronounce reagan as a nonfactor in one arrogant declaration as you did with goldwater.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 8:16 PM

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 8:08 PM

I see what you’re saying. I for one am happy that Rudy realizes the complexity of issues such as abortion. I don’t think it’s an issue that can be simplified in a pithy comment. I’m tired of campaign slogans and talking points. I want real debate and Rudy is engaging it.
By taking this approach he’s already got some center lefters (like me) rooting for him in the early stages.

SouthernDem on April 16, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Regardless, Reagan was and still is the standard by which all religious conservatives hold potential candidates. If he’s the standard, how is it that religious conservatives are wack-jobs?

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 8:05 PM

I have searched my post in vain for a reference to religious conservatives as “wack-jobs,” and I’m fairly sure I never used this pejorative. (If I were to do so, I’d be maligning most of my family!)

My point was mainly that many “religious conservatives” as we think of them these days aren’t highly thought of by the more liberatarian or agnostic conservative types–but Reagan is. He didn’t infuriate those less religiously inclined, as some “religious conservatives” do today (witness the vitriol on this board for social cons!). So, of Reagan: religious? Yes, in his own fashion. Conservative? Of course. But a “religious conservative”? Not so sure. Perhaps it’s a semantic issue.

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 8:20 PM

i could just pronounce reagan as a nonfactor in one arrogant declaration as you did with goldwater.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Except that Reagan actually won his election (both!), actually defeated the Soviets, and is the Republican party’s most beloved President since Lincoln.

Um, yeah.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 8:24 PM

>Social “Conservativism” is, in my opinion, antithetical to Small-Government Conservativism. Social cons screech about gay marriage and their solution is for the legislature to step in and tell people what to do… sound liberal to anyone else? Yet the marriage issue according to social cons (sacred intitution under God) could be solved by removing government from the equation completely, disgarding marriage-based taxes, and returning it to a purely religious institution social-cons like to pretend it is.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

The people already decided that marriage is somethihng a man and woman do. It’s THE COURTS that are overruling the people. The people have no choice but to force the issue away from the courts.

If the courts would let the people have their soverignity via the legislature, then there would be no problem.

So you are wong.

VinceP1974 on April 16, 2007 at 8:28 PM

tommylotto on April 16, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Rudy isn’t going to beat Hillary if he keeps reminding over half the party that he’s so much like her. Just exactly who needs to “get over it” is the question along with exactly who wants to win in 2008. If November 2006 wasn’t reminder enough maybe Rudy needs to look very hard at his stance on illegal immigration, gun control, government spending and government financed abortion because 2/3rds of the GOP feels strongly about one, several, or all of those issues and Giuliani is missing the mark badly on all of those issues. The assumption that the voters need to conform to a candidates views so he can win is 180 degrees out of phase and I seriously doubt that it’s going to be a winning plan for Giuliani or the GOP. Don’t blame me for staying home in 2008 if this is the best the GOP can offer.

Buzzy on April 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM

If there’s a political marriage in the offing, it will be one that features a shotgun

.

Who needs a shotgun wedding when you can have an abortion?

tikvah on April 16, 2007 at 8:30 PM

christians are FOR being against gays establishing households with the conventional social priveleges.

jummy on April 16, 2007 at 9:00 PM

But a “religious conservative”? Not so sure. Perhaps it’s a semantic issue.

ThanksMo on April 16, 2007 at 8:20 PM

It’s not semantic. Your argument about Reagan not being a religious conservative is faulty in a number of ways. For starters, Reagan regularly hacked off both libertarians and agnostics. Ayn Rand disliked him because of his religious rhetoric and his stance on abortion, as did a number of other libertarians. Second, just because Reagan avoided hacking off swaths of agnostics and libertarians, that doesn’t mean he was their model candidate.

Reagan was and is, however, the religious right’s model candidate. Why? Not because Reagan was a passionate preacher of the gospel, but because he was a good man who loved his country, loved God, believed in the sanctity of life (and didn’t play word-games with it), understood and appreciated the Heritage of our nation and wanted to defend it with all his might. He was a conservative, he was religious, and he was a religious conservative.

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Fellow Republicans shouldn’t use the MSM’s shorthand when describing or addressing each other. — Bryan

Right, nor should they be sucked in to adopting PC values and PC terminology when framing the debate.

petefrt on April 16, 2007 at 10:07 PM

spmat on April 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM,

preach on, spmat, preach on ;)!

INC on April 16, 2007 at 10:42 PM

A couple of quotes from Andy McCarthy at The Corner that I thought sum it up:

I agree — I wish Rudy and the campaign would not do the “throw women in jail” bit.* Pro-lifers are not pushing for that, and it is just — understandably — making pro-lifers irate when they read/hear that stuff.

But I don’t think it’s enough for Rudy to let other candidates divide up the social conservatives, as if he were saying, “Not mine, but not worried about it.” He’s got to make socials understand that he hears and respects what they’re saying, and he wants their vote because he’s largely with them — and it can’t be BS. If it is, he’s toast.

*No link at NRO to that statement, but it’s at this Ann Althouse post.

INC on April 16, 2007 at 10:51 PM

You know, I have to put up with 4 out of 5 tv media outlets bashing Giuliani all day, I really don’t need my favorite political group, HotAir, doing it to him as well without even checking the facts on the story.

Some jerkoff reported took a monster shot at Giuliani, just like they do on Chris Matthews every night, and our fair leaders he bit. I can’t say I’m too happy about it.

Look, I don’t want to whitewash our candidates, but we need to defend them better than we are right now. I will not take defeat in 2008, regardles of what every MSM outlet will do to ensure it.

Vincenzo on April 16, 2007 at 11:39 PM

I Guiliani thinks that his position on abortion is keeping him out of the race, he should be advocated for overturning Roe v. Wade so that it is out of federal politics. I think all Republicans could get behind that.

pedestrian on April 17, 2007 at 1:21 AM

*If* Guiliani.

Preview feature PLEASE!!

pedestrian on April 17, 2007 at 1:22 AM

I guess I’m whistling in the wind here, but if the Right wants to make abortion illegal, I’m assuming that’s because the Right views abortion as the taking of another human life. Murder. I agree with that.

But – what, then, is to be the punishment? We’re not talking about “counceling and compassion” for a mistake. What, please tell me, is to be the punishment in America for women and their doctors who commit murder by abortion? Why is this question being avoided like the plague? It is being used by the Left as a powerful fulcrum with which to displace the credibility of the Right, so I think it should be resolved, and soon.

Halley on April 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM

This is going to be one heck of an election. In all probality a republican will not win. We have a major problem in the party and judging by the comments here many are in denial. Staunch social conservatives WILL NOT vote for Rudy. And in case you didn’t notice from Nov of last year will not vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.

Altura Ct. on April 17, 2007 at 1:43 AM

Can we just get a gag order slapped on this man? I’m tired of listening to him.
What a moron. Gregor on April 16, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Gregor never disappoints: you expect boorish ignorance, you get…boorish ignorance, and the mature patience of a third grader. Some of you Comrades of Gregor, although Less Dense, will nonetheless get the Pantsuit elected

I suggest a truce: Many of you like Thompson and other Real Conservatives: so do I. So, work on getting your guys ahead during the primary season. But if by next Feb. Rudy is the best or only chance to defeat Hillary, give up your Ideological Purity and work to defeat a woman who will create real evil as POTUS

Janos Hunyadi on April 17, 2007 at 2:03 AM

I think it’s strange that the media is playing its pipe and almost all of you are willing to dance for them.

Does anyone else find it strange that we’re even having this discussion? No one, not even the supposedly pro-life George W Bush or the GOP controlled 109th Congress, did anything with regards to abortion. For that matter, no Democrats have even tried to do anything about abortion. The issue is important to Americans, but politically it is radioactive; no one in power has even made noise any about abortion in the last 6 years. No candidates want to even touch the issue, much less discuss making new and unpopular laws about it.

Yet here we are, discussing abortion, the most irrelevant issue to current American politics. And yet almost no one finds it curious that the Right has stepped through the looking glass and allowed the Left in the media to shape OUR internal dialogue!

I wish we on the right had a similar organ to manipulate the meme and force Democrats to start talking about… oh, Slavery Reparations or some ridiculous nonsense.

Lehosh on April 17, 2007 at 8:12 AM

Why I don’t like Rudy:
1. He still thinks in terms of “Global war on terror”. This is Bush thinking, and it is wrong. He has not in any way mentioned the jihadist idealogy, or the fact that idealogy has permeated our government, our schools and our communities, and the central struggle against jihadism is right here at home.
2. He is opposed to securing our borders, enforcing current laws against illegal immigration and carefully scrutinizing legal immigrants to insure we maintain a cohesive cutural identity that promotes American values first.
3. He is a waffler on support of every Americans right to defend themselves and own firearms.

The only candidate in the field who has shown an inkling of understanding jihad in total is Mitt Romney. Will he have the courage to stand by this understanding and support laws that help us create a society free of it’s threat remains to be seen.

paulsur on April 17, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Principle: n. (5.) Ground; foundation; that which supports an assertion, an action, or a series of actions or of reasoning. ‘On what principle can this be affirmed or denied?’ ‘He justifies his proceedings on the principle of expedience or necessity.’ ‘He reasons on sound principles.’ (7.) Tenet; that which is believed, which serves as a foundational rule of action or the basis of a system; as the principles of the Stoics, or of the Epicureans.

Sticking to one’s principles ought to be the norm, not an exception, because principles are foundational to one’s entire system of beliefs, and therefore, giving them up should be unconscionable.

My principles include belief in God as the Creator of all life; in the sanctity of human life such that depriving one of life without just cause is unlawful; that every life is worthy of the protections of the law from conception, since every life is created by God. Abortion is anathema to those principles.

On the legal perspective, the Declaration of Independence is the source. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

If I don’t “stick to” those principles, I am denying my foundational beliefs. That, I will not do. You are welcome to believe differently, but I will not vote for, nor promote someone seeking election to office who denies those principles, and tells me to “get beyond” them.

paulsur eloquently covers the other points against Rudy.

Freelancer on April 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM