Question of the day!
Could you vote for Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee for president?Pro-homosexual rights, thrice-divorced, pro-abortion, gun control advocate...
Could you?
posted by Matt Friedeman at
5:22 PM
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Could you vote for Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee for president?Pro-homosexual rights, thrice-divorced, pro-abortion, gun control advocate...
Could you?
Previous Posts
- Well, does He?
- Bush State of the Union Speech
- Pelosi said THAT?
- Education spending...yada, yada, yada
- Phil Bryant running for MS Lt. Gov.
- Gerald Ford
- Evangelical leaders checking out Romney
- A Crowbar - will it blend?
- Christmas greetings to my friends!
- The place for a man complete in all powers is...in...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
15 Comments:
After Islam flew our own airplanes into our own buildings Rudy Giuliani did a good job of preventing panic in New York City and started a healing process. That was a good thing. Before 911 he was most famous for his "broken window" idea and proved he could stop major crime by arresting squeegy men (pan handlers) for j walking. That too is a good thing. Rudy Giuliani has some good ecconomic ideas about lowering tax to stimulate business. That is the third good thing. The trouble is that I cannot think of any more good things about him. I can't think of a single good thing that will out weigh the bad.
I might get labled a "homofobe" what ever that is, but I lived in San Fransisco for six years. I know what damage the out of control homo rights movement does. Rudy's leadership on that issue could lead to huge problems nation wide. Ditto that for the on demand abortion industry.
I agree that some people should not have guns but those same people should not have freedom either. With that same statement I could also say that certain people should not have knives, sticks or rocks. It is not the gun but the human with the gun that we should watch. I think Rudy is so radical on the gun control issue that he would out law hunting and target sports.
There is no way I would ever give my support to Rudy Giulini in a primary race. In a general race against a conservative Democrat (if such a thing actually exists)I might vote Democrat. The only way I would ever vote for Rudy would be if his only opponant in the general election was farther left than him. (That includes all curent front running democrats)
I hear ya, Cliff!
But the fact that the man would "color" the presidency and the party with his radically socially left views suggests that he could do even more damage to this country than Hillary or others.
Might be just the right time to go third party.
No. Although he handled the aftermath of 9-11 admirably, I could not vote for him. I would go to the polls on election day and vote in other races, but if there was not a conservative alternative for president, I would not vote in that race.
NO. Although I personally can look past his history of 3 marriages, etc., when I try and narrow the focus, and look for guidance from the Holy Spirit, I have to look at his voting record. On that alone, prohomosexual legislation, and worse, proabortion, he can not be my candidate. I will vote for anyone, on either side of the aisle, if they demonstrate active prolife values. For myself, with all the confusion thrown at us, one thing for me, is clear. God values life. He creates. I will not/ can not vote for anyone, ever, who supports abortion. So, I'm looking!!!!!! Got any ideas?
I would have a difficult time voting for either. However, if you were to take the lesser of the two evils, Rudy would be the man.
He is very low on social issues, but he did experience the attack on the US in a very real way. We have a war going on. We know where Hillary stands on the war. I don't know where Rudy stands, but I would assume he would have a very different perspective from what the media tells us "everyone in the country" is thinking.
I am quite amazed that people have given the race to Hillary before it even gets started. How many listeners have said "She will win". Her slogan is "I'm in and I'm in to win." You know if people are told something long enough they will eventually believe it. Why are we rolling over and saying I give. She may be in but her win should be over our "dead" body. If she does win, I believe we are a "dead body" of christians. WE need to be speaking words of faith that God can do miracles, and, no, Hillary doesn't decide if she wins.
A few days ago, Matt Friedeman asked a Democratic-leaning listener on his talk-show to think of another definition for "liberal." The listener could not answer. I was tempted to call and suggest “socialist” as an alternative, because socialism is the ideology which believes that all legislation must necessarily proceed from the government. In socialism, there is no room for “outside” legislation, such as the Natural Law (“written on the heart”) and Revelation (the Bible).
Unfortunately, the Democratic front-runners in 2008 will be “socialistic” in their ideological approach to issues such as abortion and homosexuality: they will NOT allow “outside interference” (i.e., human and divine wisdom) in defining future legislation. Abortion and homosexuality will become issues of “human rights” and “social justice,” and any opposition will be “sexist,” “intolerant,” “homophobic,” etc. In fact, opposing “human rights” as enshrined in law by the Democratic majority would then become down-right illegal. Canada and the European Union stand as a warning: it is now almost punishable by law to speak against homosexuality in Canada and the E.U.
If I had a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani for president, I could only hope that – though personally liberal – Guiliani would nonetheless abide by the democratic ideal that the government is by the people and for the people. Rudy Guiliani as president of the U.S. would be no different than Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California: he is more likely to allow the democratic process than any Democratic candidate. The Democrats have already demonstrated that they WILL rule from the bench of liberal judges on the most important contemporary moral issues. The Republicans in Washington have yet to demonstrate that they WILL NOT. I would give the Republicans a chance. Is there an alternative anyway?
Canamerican asked, "Is there an alternative anyway?" That is yet to be seen. We do not know who will win the primary of either major party. We do not know who will rise up among the smaller parties.
I must admit that even though I am proud to call my self Republican, I voted for the Constitution Party candidate for president last time. If I had lived in a close state like Florida I would have voted for Bush because he was more likely to beat Kerry. In Mississippi I felt safe giving a third parrty a little boost. I suspect the same rule will apply in Mississippi this time.
I am convenced that not only in presidential races but in all races the real place for improvement is in the primary races. Look at our own legislature. There are districts gerrymandered to be Dem seats and some are GOP seats. Very few will change parties, but we Christians have the power to control who wins the primary races in the party that controls each seat. We will not need to worry about holding our noses and choosing between Rudy or Obama if we properly promote a good candidate in the primaries.
I mentioned to Matt years ago that the nation was not moving right, but Republicans were moving left. True conservatives do not have a candidate that can win the next election cycle. Minds being locked into a political party has really taken a toll. People in both parties would rather vote for someone in their party that stands against everything they believe than vote for someone of the other party that holds more of their positions. Seems to me, the more people you elect in both parties that represent ideals closer to right(Christian values), the better off we will all be. Its clear the system is about winning and not about making things better. Even if all of their positions were equal and I am sure they are not, could a Christian family man like Obama be worse than a cross dressing, 3 times divorced candidate?
Are you really sure that Obama is a Christian family man? It is true that he has some associations with a christian church but so has Jessie Jackson. Obama also has some strong ties with Islam. Be he Christian or not he still has a socialist voting record which is not a good canvas for religous freedom. If Obama made some strong statements about homo rights, abortion and freedom of speech then backed up his words with action I might consider him over Rudy. If it is Clinton vs. Rudy I would have to say Rudy.
I think Cliff Brown has the right idea. We need to get involved in the primary process. I personally like Newt Gengrech because he will not go against religous freedom. I do not believe in the Book of Mormon but I might consider a mormon candidate who is right on abortion. There might still be a good choice who has not yet imerged from the primary process. We should be involved there.
Annonymous, obviously you do not know much about Newt's moral problems either. As far as Obama goes, how do we know if anyone is a Christian other than what they say and what we see? Christians can stop blaming whats wrong with marriage on homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong, but its not why Christian marriages are falling apart. If someone personally represents a strong family, thats a good start. Alot of people are going to find it hard to swallow that Rudy married his cousin and the allegations about Newt as well. I realize what type of forum this is, I don't expect anyone to see things my way, but I am just putting the issues out there.
First of all, I am so stoked to hear Matt Friedman and "Dr James Thronberry" back on AFR in Mississippi during drive-time on weekdays. As to the question at hand, I'd just as soon vote for a thrid party candidate over Gulianni or Hillary. Maybe 2008 will be a year where a 3rd party candidate will gather enough votes to at least make it close in the Electoral College. Maybe someone like Zell Miller or Roy Moore will run as an independent to attract evangelical conservatives like myself to the voting booth.
For the record, Mr. Giuliani has been divorced twice, not thrice. If you're going to question another man's character, the least you can do is get the facts straight.
C. Hammond, I was just referring to Matt's lead-in to the story. That is where it says he was thrice-divorced. I am sure of two. Being divorced is not the issue. What speaks more to his character is that he was having affairs(multiple), one with a subordinate. Now if conservative positions hold true, and the stance taken on Clinton, Guiliani would not even be a consideration. And I must correct myself, Regina, Guiliani's first wife was his second cousin, not first. I think its just going to be hard for so many conservatives to support Newt, McCain or Rudy when they jumped on Clinton for his misdeeds.
adedney, I wasn't referring to your comment. I was just simply point out that Matt's lead-in to the story was factually wrong.
To answer the question, I would definitely vote for Guliani. I think he may be just what the Republican Party and America needs.
He cut taxes in New York City more than two dozen times, all while turning a budget deficit into a billion dollar surplus and decreasing the size of the city government.
When he took over as mayor, New York's crime problem was out of control. He turned that around too.
I think he would a good leader in the World and in the War on Terror, have good ideas for solving some of our growing domestic fiscal problems (budget deficits, social security, etc), and be good for Wall Street and the economy as a whole. What else could you want in Presidential candidate?
Rudy Giulani would be good on ecconomic issues, crime issues and maybe even on national defence isues. The quesion is about social issues like abortion, homosexuals and gun control. He believes in smaller government which might meen he would pick judges less likely to make up laws. Clinton would pick radical judges. He did clean up the strip shows and hookers on Times Square.
He is certainly not on the side of Christians but I cannot see him going against us either. He might get out of the way and let a son shine policy work.
Whether he was divorced twice or thrice or whether his wife was a first or second cousin is just accademic. We have all sinned. His written opinons on the issues are more important and his views on gays disturbs me. Still I think he would not push those views as bad as Clinton.
I would certainly not support Rudy in a primary race but he might get my vote if I had the choice between bad or worse. I think Cliff Brown has the right idea. General elections are all about red and blue areas. It is the primaries where rubber hits the road. I also think that presidents are over rated. I is the collection of local and state officials we have to look at.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home