Will Republicans vote with their wallets?

[Goofball]

Or with their Bibles?

Good article about Giuliani's prospective candidacy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16814054/

But first he has to capture the GOP nomination - and the big question is whether he can win over enough Republicans in states like Iowa and South Carolina, among the first nominating contests where voters are solid conservatives and could be turned off by his stance on social issues.
"Giuliani is going to have to convince people that he's more conservative than his record otherwise would suggest," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.
The former mayor's support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control conflict with the hard-line positions of the GOP's right. His supporters say he's not as liberal on those issues as he's made out to be. Still, he's from New York - and that alone rankles the party's conservative wing.
Despite that, Giuliani's backers contend - and some Republican strategists agree - that he could get support from fiscal conservatives because of his record of cutting taxes, curbing spending and promoting small government, particularly now when the base is smarting over the soaring federal deficit under Republicans.

Seems to me that Rudy embodies traditional (and worthwhile) Republican values such as small government and low taxes, but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

Now, I know that many on the right would say that abortion is hardly a superficial issue, but I ask you: Do you really think that the next Republican President will somehow be able to abolish abortion?

The answer can only be a resounding "No."

So why not nominate a guy that's good on everything else, when the abortion issue is something he won't be able to change no matter what his views are?

So, which way will it go when it comes nomination time?

[Crazed Rabbit]

but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

The right to be armed to resist tyranny is not a superficial issue.

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Unborn children are children too.

[Goofball]

The right to be armed to resist tyranny is not a superficial issue.

Crazed Rabbit

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy, I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

[Strike For The South]

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy, I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

If any president made owning a gun illegal I wouldnt vote for him. As of right now I want three issuses taken care of the Iconomy the Illegals and the Iraq show me a man who has good soulutions and I will vote for siad induvudial. I agree that no one gets elected by taking far left or right stances on most social issuses. I think we are losing sight of what the president is supposed to do IMO the pres is supposed to give the people what they want we aernt supposed to give him what he wants.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy,

Really? It does not seem that way to me.

I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Bush said he would vote to renew the abysmally ineffective, stupid, assault weapons ban, which banned weapons because they looked scary and caused certain people to wet their panties. Had the dems controlled Congress, this bill could have been made permanent. The dems control congress now, and Guiliani would probably sign something like that.

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

Several states have banned semi-automatic rifles, who's main difference from some deer rifles is looks. The dems want to ban semi-automatic weapons, they want to prevent people from defending themselves. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

On abortion: the stupid precedent we have now, Roe v Wade, was set by a bunch of idiot justices. The president appoints SCOTUS justices.

Crazed Rabbit

[KukriKhan]

I think we are losing sight of what the president is supposed to do IMO the pres is supposed to give the people what they want we aernt supposed to give him what he wants.

Right there, Ladies and Gentlemen, lies the heart, mind, and soul, of America. Just hurry up and turn 35, son... (and don't do anything you don't want to see displayed on the front page of the New York Times, between now and then) you'll be in.

[BigTex]

Right there, Ladies and Gentlemen, lies the heart, mind, and soul, of America. Just hurry up and turn 35, son... (and don't do anything you don't want to see displayed on the front page of the New York Times, between now and then) you'll be in.

No that is what ruins the presidential canidates. The shaming tactics used by opposing sides destroy's any good presidential canidates that may arrise. Live your life, let those embarrasing things happen. When it's all said and done they've helped shape you. Just be secure enough in the end result to not care what others twist those incidents into.

Bush said he would vote to renew the abysmally ineffective, stupid, assault weapons ban, which banned weapons because they looked scary and caused certain people to wet their panties. Had the dems controlled Congress, this bill could have been made permanent. The dems control congress now, and Guiliani would probably sign something like that.

Some of the most idiotic laws on the books. Banning guns based on looks is ubsurdity. Last I checked even with that law you could still own fully operating M-82's and M-92's.

Several states have banned semi-automatic rifles, who's main difference from some deer rifles is looks. The dems want to ban semi-automatic weapons, they want to prevent people from defending themselves. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

The dem's want to ban hunting in general. Last I checked they managed to ban Atl-Atl hunting. Something that doesnt even involved rifles. Dem members are also trying to prevent any type of bow hunting, calling it cruelty to animals becuase it doesnt kill near instantly.....

[Ice]

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy, I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

Good logic there Goofball. Although I agree completely, most Americans won't unforunately.

I'm going to vote for him in the primaries.

[ajaxfetish]

Gay rights I'm in favor of. Gun control I'm not. The jury's out on abortion. Overall, I'd probably be willing to support Giuliani. I'll have to see what the other options are, though.

Ajax

[Ice]

I'm against abortion and favor some gun control. I'm in the middle for gay marriage, apthetic really.

Tax Cuts> Gun Control/Abortion/Gay Marriage

[Xiahou]

I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue.

Your comments were wrong on both issues- as has been pointed out.

Guliani seems to have a good track record on the fiscal side, but he'd have to do some persuasive talking before I could get on board with his social ideas.

[Goofball]

Your comments were wrong on both issues- as has been pointed out.

Actually, they weren't.

On abortion, the situation you face now is that it's the law of the land. Giuliani can certainly (from the pro-life perspective) not make the situation any worse. And even if you elected Pat Robertson President, and he made banning abortion his key political platform, he would still not be able to have any impact in the current political environment. So as I said, it really is a non-issue.

Yes, I understand that the President appoints SC Justices, but I would submit that this also is non-issue. If you look at past Supreme Courts held a majority of Republican appointees, they still ruled on the other side of issues that are near and dear to Republican hearts when the chips were down, so electing a social conservative is no guarantee you'll get what you want. Besides which, in a Democrat controlled Congress your chances of having social conservatives appointed to SCOTUS are nil to start with.

But I think CR's comments sum up a key problem with American politics: you guys seem to confuse voting for a President with voting for a Supreme Court.

As to guns, after social security they tend to be the fourth rail of American politics. I don't think it would be an issue that Giuliani would really want to stick his nose too far into. Yes, he was anti gun in NYC, but let's face it: this situation was a little different there than it was in the U.S. in general. Guns were a virtual pandemic.

Guliani seems to have a good track record on the fiscal side, but he'd have to do some persuasive talking before I could get on board with his social ideas.

Well, you and CR have pretty much answered my opening question:

Guns, gays, and abortion apparently are more important than good government and sound fiscal policy to some voters.

[Vuk]

Or with their Bibles?

Good article about Giuliani's prospective candidacy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16814054/



Seems to me that Rudy embodies traditional (and worthwhile) Republican values such as small government and low taxes, but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

Now, I know that many on the right would say that abortion is hardly a superficial issue, but I ask you: Do you really think that the next Republican President will somehow be able to abolish abortion?

The answer can only be a resounding "No."

So why not nominate a guy that's good on everything else, when the abortion issue is something he won't be able to change no matter what his views are?

So, which way will it go when it comes nomination time?

Hopefully they'll vote with their morals and a good sense of what's best for the country. Did you ever consider that?

[doc_bean]

Hopefully they'll vote with their morals and a good sense of what's best for the country. Did you ever consider that?

Like Dubya ? Sending kids to war and cutting veterans payments. Paying absolutely no attention to the national debt. Wiping his arse with the constitution, and God knows what else.

But hey, at least he's got morals, and the gays can't get married

[Goofball]

Or with their Bibles?

Good article about Giuliani's prospective candidacy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16814054/



Seems to me that Rudy embodies traditional (and worthwhile) Republican values such as small government and low taxes, but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

Now, I know that many on the right would say that abortion is hardly a superficial issue, but I ask you: Do you really think that the next Republican President will somehow be able to abolish abortion?

The answer can only be a resounding "No."

So why not nominate a guy that's good on everything else, when the abortion issue is something he won't be able to change no matter what his views are?

So, which way will it go when it comes nomination time?

Hopefully they'll vote with their morals and a good sense of what's best for the country. Did you ever consider that?

Okay, so, one more for "Bible" then?

[Scurvy]

Okay, so, one more for "Bible" then?

[drone]

As someone who used to consider himself Republican, I'm just hoping someone competent gets the nomination.

[Fisherking]

I'm just hoping someone competent gets the nomination.

I am not inclined to believe that either party has a high priority on this one……..

[Xiahou]

Okay, so, one more for "Bible" then?

It's interesting that you try to paint morality as a "bad" choice and voting for purely financial reasons as the "good" choice. People should ignore the importance of what they consider to be thousands of dead babies every year and vote for someone because they'll balance the budget. And then you even lump guns into the "bible" category.

I place significant importance on fiscal responsibility in government, but yes, it will take a back seat if someone wants to strip away our constitutional freedoms and supports the discarding, on demand of unwanted babies. I suppose that makes me a wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth, bible thumper though.

[Watchman]

So why do you hate the freedom of women to decide on their own bodies ?

[Goofball]

It's interesting that you try to paint morality as a "bad" choice and voting for purely financial reasons as the "good" choice. People should ignore the importance of what they consider to be thousands of dead babies every year and vote for someone because they'll balance the budget. And then you even lump guns into the "bible" category.

I place significant importance on fiscal responsibility in government, but yes, it will take a back seat if someone wants to strip away our constitutional freedoms and supports the discarding, on demand of unwanted babies. I suppose that makes me a wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth, bible thumper though.

Not at all.

I'm pointing out that it's probably better to elect a president who is likely to be a strong administrator, leader, and governor, as that is the role of a president: to govern.

For all of your morality needs, I would recommend a priest, pastor, Imam or Rabbi (forgive me, I'm sure I missed a couple of choices), as that is their role: to provide moral and spiritual guidance.

My high level point here is that America has seen for itself the result of voting for a President who stood for "important" social issues, but couldn't balance a chequebook. You now have the opportunity to try a different path. What will it be?

What I find funny is that conservatives put Bush in the White House and for 6 years have watched him demonstrate possibly the worst human rights record of any president this century, but now are worried about how Giuliani is a devil who wants to strip away your constitutional freedoms.

That's pure magic, that...

[Xiahou]

Not at all.

I'm pointing out that it's probably better to elect a president who is likely to be a strong administrator, leader, and governor, as that is the role of a president: to govern.

For all of your morality needs, I would recommend a priest, pastor, Imam or Rabbi (forgive me, I'm sure I missed a couple of choices), as that is their role: to provide moral and spiritual guidance.

The nazis were pretty good administrators... of course I would've disagreed with them morally- but I could have just talked to my priest about that, right?

My high level point here is that America has seen for itself the result of voting for a President who stood for "important" social issues, but couldn't balance a chequebook. You now have the opportunity to try a different path. What will it be?

What I find funny is that conservatives put Bush in the White House and for 6 years have watched him demonstrate possibly the worst human rights record of any president this century, but now are worried about how Giuliani is a devil who wants to strip away your constitutional freedoms.

That's pure magic, that...

Bush did few things right- one of those things has been judicial appointments. He hasn't been a great friend of many conservative issues like gun control or illegal immigration, but we had a congress which was much more amiable on these issues, so he wouldn't get the opportunity to sign any bills into law that ran contrary to our views. Now, however, there's a Democrat led congress that does agree with him on some of these issues.

watched him demonstrate possibly the worst human rights record of any president this century

He was pretty much the only president of this century. Clinton presided over just a few days of it.