Giuliani and the Abortion Issue
December 1st, 2007 at 09:26am Mark Noonan
With Rudy Giuliani still maintaining a national lead for the GOP nomination, it has to be admited that there is at least an even money chance that he’ll wind up the GOP nominee for President. Giuliani brings various strengths to the ticket (national name recognition, 9/11 hero, clearly successful at being New York’s chief executive), but he also brings a major weakness - he’s to the left of the GOP base on social issues.
How this divergence works itself out in the political process will largely determine if Giuliani gets the GOP nomination - but what happens if Giuliani does win the nomination? What then? Hadley Arkes takes on that issue over at First Things, and concludes with the reason why pro-choice Rudy may yet capture the strong support of pro-life Republicans:
Before this article went to bed, I was writing that my own side, the pro-life side, should work hard to deliver the nomination either to Sam Brownback (who has been more fully on that side, in all its dimensions, than any of the other candidates) or to Mitt Romney (whose position on the pro-life side I take to be genuine). Now that Brownback has withdrawn from the race, the question is just which of the other candidates, apart from Romney, can actually explain the grounds of his pro-life position. So far, neither McCain nor Thompson has been able to do that. I would back Romney, then, as far as he can go, I would back any of the others as soon as they show that they are speaking more than by rote. If Giuliani became the nominee, and he genuinely wished to preserve the pro-life constituency within his party and his administration, he could select Brownback or Romney as his running mate. He could also offer the assurance that their perspective would have standing, would have a claim to bear on the policies of his new Republican administration.
Faced then with the possibility of a Democratic presidency determined to weave the ethic of abortion rights more firmly into our law and to have its judges install same-sex marriage, a Giuliani candidacy could offer some slender grounds of hope. Under those conditions, I might bite my lip, vote for him, and indulge those hopes. But they would be the hopes of the supplicants. And they will be affected at every point by the awareness of just who has the upper hand, and just who, in this party newly reshaped, does not matter all that much.
I’m a little more positive than that - Arkes’ position is essentially that the nomination of a pro-choice GOPer means the GOP has ceased to be the pro-life party; this is not something I agree with. If we GOPers decide to nominate Rudy, it will be because we want a man we can count on to win the War on Terrorism, secure our borders, keep taxes low and generally reassure us that the gains of the GOP over the past 25 years will be maintained and expanded - and that is where Giuliani’s assertion that he’ll select constructionist judges comes into play: Giuliani made that statement because, for all pratical purposes, we pro-lifers have won the argument and secured the GOP as the pro-life party. Were the GOP even slightly wishy-washy on the issue of life, Giuliani might well have just put out some sort of Clintonite “safe, legal, rare” pablum and left it at that. But, instead, Giuliani did what is required of any GOPer seeking the nomination - offer reassurance to the social conservative GOP base that whatever the personal views of the candidate, the GOP will continue to be the party in the fight on the right side as regards social issues.
Of course, Giuliani still has a long, hard road ahead of him to secure the nomination - and Christian conservatives are (a) much more politically savvy than they were even ten years ago and (b) will not sell out core principles for any reason whatsoever. Giuliani has done what he needs to become a real prospect, but in order to carry it to victory, he’s going to have to demonstrate that if he’s not on the exact side of the religious right, he’s at least not at all in the enemy camp on social issues. Picking Brownback as a VP nominee would be a good start, but wouldn’t in and of itself seal the deal.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans, Social Issues
73 Comments
1. Gozer the Carpathian | December 1st, 2007 at 10:00 am
I don’t know about Rudi. He just doesn’t attract me as a canidate. He feels a bit like “Been there Done that” more than a force for the future. Socially I disagree with many of his previous stances (Gun Control Springs to mind first of course. ;) ) and while I agree the WOT is the biggest concern there are plenty of social issues that are going to be big factors this year.
We shall see but I know this. I’m not voting for Rudi in the primary. (Though I live in California so it doesn’t matter too much who I vote for it’ll probably be decided before it gets to me. :p )
2. The Political News You Ne&hellip | December 1st, 2007 at 10:08 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
3. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
I wonder what other Amendments he thinks should be up to the state besides the 2nd? Votes for women? Slavery?
Nope - can’t vote for him.
4. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Mark,
Interesting analysis. I’m curious as to your views on the already-acknowledged facts of Mr. Giuliani’s dating (at minimum) his current wife while still having his second wife living in the mayoral mansion? He’s asked for forgiveness on those circumstances but now his campaign is downplaying, but not denying, the credit card receipts and auditor’s reports showing that expenses for his trips to the area of his current wife’s then-residence in Southhampton were being routed through the budgets of unrelated city departments like the Loft Board and the fund for attorneys for indigent criminal defense. I also wonder how it will play with GOP primary voters that he also does not deny having NYPD officers and vehicles being used to transport his then-girlfriend and members of her family around the city. For the average Joe, that kind of treatment would never be available and that may be the kind of issue that resonates with them. What do you think?
5. Casper | December 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I have to say Mark that this is one area I think you are being a little hypocritical in. I get the feeling you would vote for OBL if he would promise to protect you and appoint the right judges.
6. Brian Gregory | December 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Excerpt from my blog that hopefully hits this particular nail on the head:
“…Huckabee simply hasn’t had the name recognition that has made Giuliani into a front runner.
Let’s face it - without 9/11 and its aftermath, Rudy would not even be considering a candidacy. That’s not to say he’s using the attack to his advantage, but rather that Republican voters would otherwise perceive him as another liberal northerner passing himself off as the ‘moderate option.’
We don’t want to settle for the lesser of two evils in 2008. We want a candidate we can rally around as one united group. We want the ‘uniter, not a divider’ that Bush promised to be.”
It’s rather unfortunate that Giuliani has as much name recognition as he does. The people who don’t look into individual candidates (an unfortunately huge number) but who rather support the current poll leader would most likely not jump on the Rudy bandwagon if they knew what he really stood for.
7. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“I wonder what other Amendments he thinks should be up to the state besides the 2nd? Votes for women? Slavery?”
Kahn — I respect your decision not to vote for Rudy in the primary, but your comment above is just unfair. It’s not that Guliani says the Second Amendment — or any other Constitutional provision — should be “up to the states.” He acknowledges (as he must) that the Second Amendment is a Federal right, and that it’s therefore subject to final interpretation by Federal judges, NOT individual states. But his position seems to be that Federal judges should be able to weigh the Second Amendment right to bear arms against other compelling state interests, in the same way that they currently weigh the First Amendment right to free speech (and other Constitutional rights) against other compelling state interests, to decide which interest prevails in a particular circumstance. Only if a particular state interest is “compeling,” and only if it “substantially” outweighs the Constitutional right in question, can the Federal court find that the state interest prevails over the Constitutional right in any particular instance.
You’ve probably heard the often-cited example that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater when there’s no emergency isn’t speech protected by the First Amendment, because the state’s compelling interest in public safety substantially outweighs the First Amendment interest in protecting this type of content-free speech in this particular instance. Individual states may therefore outlaw that behavior.
Similarly, Rudy’s position on the Second Amendment, as I understand it, is that Federal Courts should be able to weigh local circumstances — such as local population density, local murder rates, and the local frequency of gun thefts and assaults using stolen guns — against the interests protected by the right to bear arms. And because local conditions, say, in rural Pennsylvania differ radically from those in, say, Detroit, a Federal judge may be correct in upholding certain reasonable restrictions on, say, handgun possession in Detroit, when those same restrictions would be unconstitutional in rural Pennsylvania.
I believe this “weighing” process explains Guliani’s argument that the Second Amendment may mean something different in different parts of the country. He’s most definitely NOT saying that states can interpret the Second Amendment any way they want regardless of how Federal judges interpret it.
Which brings me to my ultimate point: Since our fundamental Constitutional rights are ultimately decided by Federal judges, it is ESSENTIAL that the next president appoint strict constructionist judges. Regardless of conservatives’ #1 issue in the next election — whether it’s protecting the right to bear arms, limiting abortion, stopping the left’s obsessive attack on public religious expression, preserving traditional marriage, etc., etc., etc. — the best (if not only) way to achieve those goals is to elect a President who will consistently appoint judges who decide cases on the “original intent” of the Constitution and statutes in general.
Guliani has pledged to appoint such judges, and I believe he will. Not only that, I also believe he’ll chose the smartest of the “original intent” jurists from the available pool — i.e., judges whose opinions will be well-reasoned, well-supported, and most likely to stand up on appeal and be accepted by the Supreme Court.
Based on the above, I think conservatives shouldn’t rule out Rudy simply because of his seemingly mushy views on certain social issues. This guy is a true conservative, i.e., “one of us,” in the sense that he believes in individual responsibility, strong defense, aggresseve war against Islamofascism, and “original intent” judges, and respects people of faith. (Recall the firestorm he caused in NYC over the use of public funds for an art exhibit featuring the Virgin Mary covered in dung. The liberal NY establishment went nuts, but Rudy was truly offended by the exhibit, stuck to his guns, and won.)
Final thought is a question for any conservative reading this: Even if you still don’t vote for Rudy in the primary, if he wins the nomination, will you vote for him in the general, regardless who the Dem is?
8. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
What about all the cries during the Clinton administration that ‘Character Counts”? Clinton lied about a BJ, Guiliani has had 3 wives, many mistresses, has used the NYPD as a personal taxi for his wife and mistresses, billed the taxpayers for his ’secret’ liasons, appointed Kerik to Chief of PD (and recommended for homeland security) despite mob-ties and HIS cavorting with mistresses in a taxpayer paid room for 9-11 workers, and MUCH MUCH more!
And the problem is his stance on abortion?
Doesn’t character count any more? He makes Clinton look like an ANGEL!
9. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
coulterfan,
I agree with your question but you know as well as I do that most readers here will just ignore any such comparisons because, for them, Clinton will always be evil and, most importantly, no Republican ever does anything wrong or in those rare instances where they do, they should simply be forgiven for, at worst, being a little “overzealous” in their doing all the good things they’re trying to do for us.
10. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Have you guys seen this old clip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0
11. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I know, Diana, but can they really trust this guy? I mean, if they want to remain ‘The Party of Family Values®”, they can’t SERIOUSLY run this guy!
He’s been married to his current wife for ONLY 4 years! He’s ALWAYS had affairs and mistresses, has been excommunicated from the Catholic church, and has many ‘questionable’ financial dealings.
Add to this that he’s Pro-Choice (and supports PUBLIC financing for abortion), pro-gay rights (lived with a gay couple for a while), has a habit of dressing in drag, has a vicious temper, etc, etc
And this is the GOP’s best candidate?
Are they SERIOUS? Do they WANT to destroy ANY ‘family values’ reputation they have left (after Foley, Larry Craig, “Bulldog” Gannon, etc)?
Are they SERIOUS?
12. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I know that you don’t care, but I think your best shot is McCain. He could very well win against Hillary, but you won’t nominate him (though he supports the War in Iraq, is Pro-Life, and basically is with you on ALL social issues)
I think the nominee will be Romney. And he’ll lose miserably.
That’s my prediction.
13. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“[Guliani] has been excommunicated from the Catholic [C]hurch….”
Huh? I must have missed that. Citation, please?
14. Repulicans Presidential E&hellip | December 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
[...] Mark Noonan placed an interesting blog post on Giuliani and the Abortion IssueHere’s a brief overview [...]
15. lilly06 | December 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Look lets face it:
Abortion is not a political issue but more an ethical one. Its about time that Americans start focusing on the politics for once so that we can vote for the best candidate to unite the country and help Americans.
Taxation, social security, healthcare, education and international affairs, these are political issues.
Its about time the American voter stops allowing themselves to be distracted from real issues.
Abortion, gay marriage….these are not federal issues. These are distractions from politics.
If people continue to have themselves distracted, we will continue to vote for presidents like George Walker Bush. Lets face it, look how terrible that turned out.
16. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
>>Huh? I must have missed that. Citation, please?
Catholics cannot be divorced and remarried without an annulment. He received an annulment after his first wife (his 2nd cousin, I might add), but not after cavorting around on his 2nd wife with his third wife. He is no longer a member of the Catholic church (they were married in a civil ceremony, not by the Church).
The definition of ‘excommunicated’ is not being able to partake in the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Since he is committing adultery (by not having grounds for annulment from his 2nd wife), he is no longer able to partake in communion, confession, marriage or other sacraments.
http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-giuliani-excommunicated.html
17. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
The new name for Giuliani’s problems trying to explain the (ahem) unconventional budgeting of all the expenses surrounding his relationship with his then-mistress, now-wife has a nice ring to it for the Average Joe - Sex On The City.
18. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
‘Sex on the City’ has a nice ring to it! I’m SURE that there’s MUCH MORE to come, but really I would prefer that it doesn’t come out until AFTER he gets the nomination. . .
Go Rudy GO!
19. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The best characterization of Rudy Giuliani has to be that of Jimmy Breslin’s - “a small man in search of a balcony” - and Rudy thinks he’s found it in the horror of the attacks of September 11, 2001. All other of his beliefs are malleable as long as he can just stay on the balcony for as long as possible. Frankly, how else can you explain the hubris of running for President of the United States after performing multiple times in drag. Only someone who neurotically craved attention would even consider it.
20. Tractatus | December 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
But, instead, Giuliani did what is required of any GOPer seeking the nomination - offer reassurance to the social conservative GOP base that whatever the personal views of the candidate, the GOP will continue to be the party in the fight on the right side as regards social issues.
I love that Giuliani mouthing a few platitudes is enough for Mark “you can either be on firm moral ground, or you can be pro-life” Noonan. I guess being pro-choice makes you an evil, amoral member of the Culture of Death…except for when you are a GOP front-runner, in which case it doesn’t. I’m loving the attempted mental gymnastics here, but you aren’t exactly sticking the landing.
Of course, that’s without even getting into the whole business of him using city funds to set up love nests, shuttle his mistress around, and so on. Party of moral values! Character counts!
21. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Well, really. What is the grassroots Republican “party of life” average Joe voter going to think about Rudy making the NYPD walk his girlfriend’s dog. Do they get the police to walk their mistress’ dog or chauffeur her and her family around in city vehicles or do they just have the responsibility of standing in the crowd beneath the balcony and applauding Rudy?
22. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Well Coulter and Diana, thanks for your concern about who WE choose to be our candidate. We’ll be sure to give it due attention. Coulter said “has a habit of dressing in drag”???? Give me a break. He dressed up for a party? Stop being such an ass.
JPL - you make a good argument. I woonder if Doana and coulters arguments above have to do with the way he lines up with Democrats on gays and abortion, and even to some extent on guns - but that he is so strong on anti-terror.
It’s not that we have a spectrum to choose from. We have multiple spectrums. It depends on which issues you think are most important. Tough call really.
23. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
>>He dressed up for a party?
Better check again, Kahn. There are at least 4 occasions with photos of him dressing in drag. Once he is nuzzled in the bosom by Donald Trump; maybe it’s funny, but NOT very presidential.
>>Tough call really.
Oh, yeah! You guys have some GEMS! Good luck with those. . . (I haven’t even gotten into Multiple Choice Mitt and his cult of Mormonism! Just WHAT is the ‘Mark of Cain’ according to the founder of the ‘religion’?)
Evidently character only counts if you’re a Democrat!
24. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
cult of Mormonism???
Wow - so the rest of you “liberals OK with religious bigotry?
Here’s your chance to stand up against a bigot.
And coulter, a couple of parties and no, I don’t care. Tell ya what though - don’t vote for him if you don’t want to.
I think its interesting to the see the degree of hatred in your posts of late. It’s not just Bush is it? It’s all conservatives, all Republicans?
Thats where you retreat when I press you. When the others press you. You public persona is thin. Your core value is hatred.
NAZI
25. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Kahn,
If I call Scientology a ‘cult’, would you respond with such outrage?
How much do you know about Mormonism, Joseph Smith, the ‘Holy’ (and recently discovered) Book of Mormon?
Do you REALLY think Jesus came to America and is going to return here (rather than Israel like the Christian Bible states)?
I suggest you research so that you know what you’re talking about before you call me a Nazi!
BTW, he and you have a RIGHT to think whatever you want - I, unlike you, don’t want to legislate morality. Nazis, I might remind you, were based on homogeny- exactly what I fight against.
I don’t hate anyone, but think that any ‘religion’ based on such questionable premises is a cult (Joseph Smith, for instance, believed that black people descended from Cain and were inferior, believed in polygamy, amongst many other assertions).
You and your cry of ‘religious bigotry’ makes you sound like Tom Cruise defending the ‘holy’ L. Ron Hubbard!
26. Mark Noonan | December 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Diana,
It is something that Giuliani will have to deal with - as for me, as a Catholic Christian, its not something which would cause me to cast Giuliani into outter darkness….we all sin, and actually lying to the public is a far worse sin (both in terms of civics and personal morality) than a carnal sin of adultery, or cutting corners on expense accounts (though these, too, are serious matters). So, to put it into Presidential context, what Giuliani may have done vis a vis expense accounts and adultery is less of a problem than Gore’s “no controlling legal authority” of yore.
The problem with lefty critics is that they work from two false assumptions - that we in the religious right demand moral perfection, and that we feel that even the slightest sin is enough to destroy a man with. Niether is true. There is a thing called an Act of Contrition - the one I’m most familiar with goes like this:
That was typed out from memory - because on a day when I’m really doing well in my walk with Christ, I might only have to say it a dozen times or so…and, truth be told, if I were really paying attention to what a rotter I am, I’d say it 100 times a day. Of course, as Kempis noted in the “Imitation of Christ”, if it takes a hundred times a day, then say it a hundred times a day. It is in acknowledging our sins and our need for God’s grace that we grow better.
I haven’t committed adultery since I got together with my wife, and I haven’t padded the expense account, either…but I’ve sinned a great deal just since yesterday, and I can’t expect Giuliani to do better than I have. On the other hand, as an office of public trust, he does have an obligation to use that trust properly…so, he’ll have to explain himself to the satisfaction of the electorate if he really wishes to obtain the GOP nomination, and the Presidency of the United States of America.
27. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Kahn,
Whoever your party picks is the business of anyone who votes in the Republican primaries. Most voters, even reliably Republican voters, won’t. The number of times or the circumstances of Rudy doing drag is immaterial to me. My only wonderment was what the average Joe Republican voters would think. I don’t know. That’s why there’s an election.
Obviously, you’re okay with the image that Rudy Giuliani projects. Fine with me. It’s also fine if you select Mitt Romney or any of the other candidates. Just because Mitt Romney’s a Mormon doesn’t mean that has any effect on my life because of it. Now, could you say the same thing if he was a Muslim?
Mark,
Thanks for your analysis. I agree with you. I, as have all others, have “fallen short of the glory of God” and that includes Giuliani and we can seek forgiveness if we are genuinely contrite. I was just wondering what your fellow Republicans will make of the same issues.
Despite your assumption, I don’t believe that Republicans who are also Christians “demand moral perfection”. That flies directly in the face of Christian Evangelical theology, specifically. However, that doesn’t keep individual Republicans, Christians and non-Christians, from looking at any candidate’s behavior and judging it unacceptable for the office they seek. I’m just suspecting that Average Joe Republican Voter isn’t going to like Rudy’s high-handedness in making the City of New York, the NYPD and the taxpayers that fund them a costly part his seamy personal life. However, I may be wildly wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.
28. Jeremiah | December 1st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I don’t believe that Republicans who are also Christians “demand moral perfection”.
Common false assumption!! As I said in another thread, there must be Moral Laws set into place. or the country will sink into the gutter of Liberalism.
Jeremiah
29. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
“The definition of ‘excommunicated’ is not being able to partake in the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Since he is committing adultery (by not having grounds for annulment from his 2nd wife), he is no longer able to partake in communion, confession, marriage or other sacraments.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, coulterfan, but “not being able to partake in the sacraments of the Catholic Church” hasn’t been the definition of “excommunication” since at least 1884. Before 1869, the Church recognized 2 types of excommunications, called “minor” and “major.” “Minor excommunication” was indeed defined as “prohibition from receiving the sacraments…,” whereas “major excommunication” involved not only loss of the sacraments, but also loss of “public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse” with the faithful. In 1869, however, the pope issued the “Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi” which suggested that “minor” excommunication no longer existed, and “[t]his conclusion was formally ratified by the Holy Office [on] 6 Jan., 1884.” Since that time, “[m]ajor excommunication…remains now the ONLY kind [of excommunication] in force…” (emphasis added).
In other words, Guliani’s inability to receive communion does NOT mean he has been “excommunicated.” It simply means he is unable to receive communion.
SOURCES:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01645a.htm
And if you’re suggesting that Guliani’s third marriage without annulling his second marriage resulted in his ‘major’ excommunication, then you’re wrong again. Major excommunication can be accomplished in 2 ways: either (a) automatically, through a person’s commission of certain grave sins specified by Canon Law; or (b) through a formal judicial proceeding in which “the [ecclesiastical] judge has summoned [the person] before his tribunal, declared [the person] guilty, and punished [the person] according to the terms of the [Canon] law.”
Now, unless you know something I don’t, coulterfan, there’s NEVER been a judicial proceeding in which the Catholic Church punished Guliani with excommunication. So unless Guliani has suffered “automatic” excommunication, he isn’t “excommunicated.”
So the question is, has Guliani suffered “automatic” excommunication? According to Canon Law, there appear to be only 8 sins considered so grave by the Catholic Church that they result in automatic excommunication. They are:
–Apostacy, heresy, or schism (“apostacy” being the total rejection of the Christian faith; “heresy” being the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth that Catholics are required to believe through faith; and “schism” being the rejection of the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church) (Canon Law 1364).
–Desecration of the consecrated bread or wine of Holy Communion (Canon Law 1367).
–Physical attack on the pope (Canon Law 1370).
–A priest giving absolution to someone with whom he has committed adultery (Canon Law 1378).
–Pretended celebration of Holy Eucharist, or conferral of absolution in the sacrament of Confession by someone not a priest (Canon Law 1378).
–Unauthorized consecration of a bishop (Canon Law 1382).
–Direct violation of confessional secrecy by the priest who heard the confession (Canon Law 1388).
–Procuring of an abortion (Canon Law 1398).
Interestingly, nowhere does the Canon Law list “adultery” as grounds for automatic excommunication. Therefore, Guliani’s entering his third marriage without annulling his second did NOT subject him to excommunication.
Bottom line: your claim that Guliani is “excommunicated from the Catholic Church” is a falsehood. You’ll have to get a better talking point.
SOURCES:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01645a.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
30. Diana Powe | December 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Mark,
It is bizarre, though, that you all are so completely obsessed with Bill Clinton and Al Gore. What the heck does something that Al Gore said years ago have to do with Rudy Giuliani today? Have I dragged in the name of any Republicans other than current candidates for office? It’s 2007. It’s not 1997.
If Hillary Clinton says something stupid, and she will, have at her. She’s a candidate and nobody made her seek the Presidency. However, Al Gore isn’t a candidate for any public office and pulling him into the discussion just comes across as Republicans living in the past and that’s similar to the slam that Republicans all want America to look today like what they imagine America was like in 1957.
31. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Kahn,
Apparently I’m not the only one who consider Mormonism a ‘cult’- the Catholic Church does! In fact, MOST denominations consider it a ‘Christian Cult’ and require re-baptism.
Do you call them bigots and Nazis, as well?
What about you, Jeremiah? Is Mormonism a ‘cult’?
32. Casper | December 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
coulterfan,
You have made some very good points on this blog. Many I agree with, and some I don’t. But your comment about the “cult of Mormonism” was out of line. For that matter so was your later comment about Scientology.
I was raised to respect other peoples belief systems, even if I don’t agree with them. I’ve studied all of the major religions of the world and many “minor” religions. I have found many commonalities and things to admire in all of them. I might question some else’s beliefs and I don’t have a problem with challenging someones belief system, but attacking someone’s religion is out of bounds.
33. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Casper,
I’m sorry to offend and I see your point. I apologize, though religions which exclude groups of people trouble me. People are, of course, free to worship as they see fit. Certain sects of Islam, though, trouble me because they consider women to be inferior to men. Traditional Mormonism, likewise, considers non-whites as inferior to whites.
I don’t really have a problem with modern Islam or Mormonism.
34. Casper | December 1st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
coulterfan,
There are a lot of beliefs held by various religions that I disagree with and always will. However, in the long run I believe that those religions that can’t adapt to the modern world will eventually fade away. For instance, a religion that considers women inferior to men will eventually lose out because it is losing the ideas and contributions of half it’s population.
35. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Apparently I’m not the only one who consider Mormonism a ‘cult’- the Catholic Church does!
Again, coulterfan, citation, please, to an official writing of the Catholic Church that uses the precise word “cult” to describe Mormonism? I’ve searched through the online Catholic Encyclopedia, and all I can find is an article defending Mormonism against claims that it is a “cult.” So either I’m missing something, or you’re making things up.
Oh, and, please coulterfan, don’t just repeat what you said above — i.e., that the Church “requires re-baptism” of anyone baptised in the Mormon Church, because the Catholic Church also requires re-baptism of anyone baptised Unitarian, Presbyterian, or in any Christian religion that doesn’t require baptism by water. Does this mean the Catholic Church considers Unitarianism and Presbyterianism to be “cults”? No, I didn’t think so. So please provide us with a citation to an actual writing of the Church describing Mormonism as a “cult.”
36. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 9:59 pm
>Again, coulterfan, citation, please, to an official writing of the Catholic Church that uses the precise word “cult” to describe Mormonism?
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m04.html
37. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I wonder if Diana and coulter’s arguments above have to do with the way [Guliani] lines up with Democrats on gays and abortion, and even to some extent on guns - but that he is so strong on anti-terror.
It’s not just the anti-terror angle, Kahn; liberals absolutely HATE Guiliani because he’s tough on law and order, public decency, individual responsibility, national defense, low taxes, and respect for people of faith, and has pledged to appoint “original intent” judges. The more rabidly liberals hate him (which they do), the more conservatives should take note.
38. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 10:05 pm
See also:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE4D81F38F937A3575BC0A9649C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/M/Mormons%20(Church%20of%20Jesus%20Christ%20of%20Latter-day%20Saints)
39. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
coulterfan — What were you thinking? That I wouldn’t click on your links?
Well, I did, and your first link has absolutely no affiliation with the Catholic Church. In fact, it’s run by a married couple in Amsterdam who describe themselves as “evangelical Christians” running their own “ministry”, who apparently think EVERYTHING is a cult, including the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
Your second link is to a NY Times article about an individual parish priest, speaking on his own behalf, against Mormon missionaries who were trying to convert Catholics in his parish to Mormonism. Again, this is not an official position of the Catholic Church, but an unofficial statement of a pissed-off priest.
So, again, please just answer my question, coulterfan: Do you have any OFFICIAL writing of the Catholic Church that uses the word “cult” to describe Mormonism? Yes or no?
40. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
>> liberals absolutely HATE Guiliani because he’s tough on law and order, public decency, individual responsibility, national defense, low taxes, and respect for people of faith, and has pledged to appoint “original intent” judges
Okay, yeah. . . Uh huh. . .
Here’s the thing: if it weren’t for his crooked aspects (hiring & promoting questionable characters, shady financial dealings, taxpayer-funded liasons with his mistresses, etc), I would kind of like him. After all, he’s VERY similar to Clinton on ALL the things you mentioned. In fact, he and President Clinton were nearly identical (social liberals, fiscal conservatives), but Guiliani was even WORSE behaved than Clinton on a personal level.
It’s funny that Clinton publicly apologized, attended Church regularly, had counsel with Billy Graham to help repair his marriage, remained committed to his wife, etc but Republicans just couldn’t forgive him for lying once about a BJ! In contrast, Guiliani has NEVER apologized for his cavorting, divorced his wife (he let the press know BEFORE his wife at a news conference), doesn’t attend church, and shows no remorse for his actions. His children won’t even talk with them nor has he attended their graduations. He’s been married 3 times and, in all likelihood, would continue to cavort and maybe even divorce again (he’s only been married 4 years).
He and Hillary are VERY close on ALL the issues, but she clearly has the upper hand in her personal life and her family values. You can go on believing that he’s liberals’ worst nightmare, but in fact nominating him would be selling out EVERYTHING the GOP has said that they stand for- all in the name of terrorism (which in actuality his record is pretty shoddy in this area, as well)
I’ve said it before, but McCain is your best chance in the general election IMHO. I’m being honest, but if you think I really fear a Guiliani nomination, go ahead and nominate him!
41. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Oh, and, coulterfan, while you’re looking for an official Catholic Church document describing Mormonism as a “cult,” PLEASE also don’t forget to cite a Canon Law under which adultery is grounds for automatic “excommunication” from the Catholic Church, OK? Thanks.
42. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
>>Do you have any OFFICIAL writing of the Catholic Church that uses the word “cult” to describe Mormonism? Yes or no?
Guess not, just individual priest and bishop’s opinions on the matter. Then again, they also don’t seem to consider ‘Scientology’ a cult, but do warn members that it is a false religion.
I said I was sorry for the loaded word ‘cult’, but (like Islam) it DOES have some unsavory aspects and some questionable documents. Sorry, though, if I offended.
BTW, Guiliani is no longer a practicing Catholic. It’s VERY rare that the church publicly excommunicates any longer, but they refuse Sacraments (marriage, communion, confession, last rites, etc) to those who receive no annulment. I know this first hand (my father was divorced and, according to a priest at the time, “excommunicated himself”). John Kerry, as you recall, WAS a practicing Catholic but was being threatened with not being allowed to take communion for his pro-choice stance. Guiliani is MORE pro-choice than Kerry (no ban on 3rd trimester abortions per Guiliani, public financing of abortion, etc).
So, to clarify, no “Major Excommunication” but yes he “excommunicated himself” and is not a practicing Catholic.
43. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I’ve said it before, but McCain is your best chance in the general election IMHO. I’m being honest, but if you think I really fear a Guiliani nomination, go ahead and nominate him!
OK, coulterfan, I’ll consider your advice. But, honestly, are you a Dem or a Repub?
44. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
coulter, lets see:
homophobic (read your own posts),
religiously bigoted,
unconcerned about twisting the facts and controlling the media to meet your ends,
willing to stifle opposition speech,
unconcerned about violence against your political opponents (really should have condemned it at least once all those times I brought it up in the past),
looking for excuses to confiscate guns,
seemingly OK with the tanks ordered into kill American children at Waco,
philosophy based firmly on hatred.
No - I think I called it right. N-A-Z-I
I see you also hate Scientologists.
Let’s see, that means you hate Republicans and any conservative, Mormons, and Scientologists, and transgendered, and remembering your posts during the bathroom scandal - homosexuals. Anyone else?
45. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
>>But, honestly, are you a Dem or a Repub?
Always had been independent (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Have voted for MANY Republicans, Democrats, and Independents (voted for MN Republicans like Arne Carlson and, most recently, Tim Pawlenty)
The past 7 years under Bush have been the WORST managed I’ve ever seen- the WORST of all worlds. BIG spending, ENDLESS beauracacy, TERRIBLE appointees, BIG government (erosion of civil rights, the Sciavo debacle, etc)
I’m going to vote Democratic this next election, unless Kucinich gets the nomination (very unlikely). Still, I hope there’s a place for fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans (like Bloomberg, Pataki, Christine Todd Whitman, etc)- Goldwater Republicans.
That said, right now I’m a strong supporter of Universal Health Care. I expect that, once we have it, even conservatives will see it’s value. Look at conservatives in every other country (Australia, Britain, France, Canada, etc)- NONE of them want to do away with UHC any more than Republicans want to do away Federal Highways, bridges, Federal Parks, etc.
Just my opinion, FWIW.
46. Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? | December 1st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
If we GOPers decide to nominate Rudy, it will be because we want a man we can count on to win the War on Terrorism, secure our borders, keep taxes low and generally reassure us that the gains of the GOP over the past 25 years will be maintained and expanded…
Close. It will mean that we no long place any importance on the abortion issue, and on such related life issues as Recreational Embryo-destructive Stem Cell Research, the defense of traditional marriage, etc. It will mean that those who find us pro-lifers to be an embarrassing annoyance will have proof that they don’t have to nominate an annoying, embarrassing pro-lifer any more, because we’ll vote for whomever the GOP nominates. It will mean that we have become to the GOP what African-Americans are to the Democrats.
Not me. The bumper sticker on my car says, “Vote Pro-Life.” That’s what I’ll do, without exception.
47. JPL | December 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
John Kerry, as you recall, WAS a practicing Catholic, but was being threatened with not being allowed to take communion for his pro-choice stance.
No, actually, I think Kerry still is a practicing Catholic, and that you’re still confusing not being allowed to take communion with being excommunicated. They’re not the same. Neither Kerry nor Guliani has been excommunicated; both, however, should probably be denied communion because of their marital status.
I’m actually sorry to hear about your father. No priest ever should have spoken to him that way. Fortunately, the Church has reformed significantly since Vatican II, and even the Code of Canon Law was substantially revised in 1983. As a result, no divorced Catholic should ever again have to hear that he or she has “excommunicated himself.” But it’s a shame that that was said to divorced Catholics in the past.
Sorry, enough blogging for tonight.
48. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Kahn, you are insane and putting words in my mouth. If you can’t debate without accusing people and threatening, I wish you would stop responding to me. Everything you accuse me of is what you have demonstrated (even threatening that your boys would beat me up in a bar!)
This last post from you is INSANE! I have friends of all races, religions, and sexual orientations.
I’m a member of the NRA (and the ACLU- just like Bob Barr, one of the Republicans I still respect).
Waco was very poorly handled, but the militia group WAS pretty ‘fringy’.
I decry the terrible state of our media at every turn (though, unlike you, I DON’T believe there’s a ‘liberal bias’)
I love free speech (member of the ACLU, like I said) and detest attempts to take away our freedom and monitor our activites. ‘Free speech zones’ like those at the conventions SHOULD NOT exist! This WHOLE COUNTRY is a ‘free speech zone’!
If I think Scientology and Mormonism are ‘questionable’ religions based upon ‘questionable’ texts. . . isn’t that my right? As it happens, I also think Islam has some crazy ideas. . . sorry.
You got the wrong guy, pal. I don’t know where YOUR hatred comes from, but I certainly never threatened you or anyone here.
49. coulterfan | December 1st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
What I like about McCain is that he has ALWAYS been consistent.
Though I was against the war from the beginning, McCain has always insisted that Bush did not have enough troops and that our troops were paying the price. The surge was HIS idea and, if the Iraqis get their s**t together, McCain will end up saving Bush’s butt! (That said, I have little to no confidence in the Iraqis. I think they’ll only get a kick in the ass when they realize that we’re LEAVING!)
He’s ALWAYS been ANTI-torture, anti-domestic spying (I agree with him) His immigration policy has been unpopular with the base, but reasonable and bipartisan. He’s pro-life and has ALWAYS been (a position I respect-IMO abortion should be banned third trimester on) One gets the idea he will do what he believes is right and not take whatever position just to get him elected.
The guy was anti-Bush when Bush was popular. And Pro-Bush when the President started to listen to his surge strategy which was ENORMOUSLY unpopular. That tells you that he’s not selling out, unlike the other GOP frontrunners. He’s got guts and looked embarrassed that he had to be on the same stage with Romney and Guiliani!
I trust him more than Hillary, but would probably vote for Obama over him.
50. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Welllll, I am just reading your posts.
The derisive terms you used when Republicans were accused of being gay.
The way you attack Rudy for being in drag at a few parties. When obviously it was in fun.
I remember you refused to condemn violence against Republicans when challenged.
I see you attack the LDS and Scientology right here. You put religion in quotes when talking about the LDS. What difference does it make if it makes them happy and helps build a stable loving family? What do you have against that? (N- )
I remember you arguing for the “fairness doctrine” when it was clearly being brought up stifle talk radio.
You don’t believe the press has a liberal bias? Well, you could just be stupid. So when PBS was caught all those times sharing donor lists with the Democrats, that was OK/ CBS using forged documents, OK? CNN and the NYT conspiring to undermine the Republican debate, OK? Whatever. Guess we’ll just have to disagree on this.
And get my boys to beat you up in a bar? You mean my 18 year old Eagle Scout and his 14 year old (almost Eagle) brother? Maybe my 8 year old? What a whack job you are.
Maybe you don’t realize how much of yourself you’ve revealed. Maybe you should seek mental health help. You’d be right in line with many many Democrats according to recent polls.
But guess what, I’m not voting for Rudy based upon abortion and the 2nd Amendment. And I don’t much like Romney either. Nor do I like McCain or Thompson much.
But be honest - who was the last Republican presidential candidate YOU voted for? Have you ever?
51. Kahn | December 1st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
What does Obama even stand for? I’ve yet to see him sit in front of a serious interviewer. Though I agree Tyra is hot.
52. donovan16 | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
I just think it is sad that Mark is unwilling to draw a line in the name of life.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing that suggests Rudy would appoint a Justice to overturn Roe, not his past judicial appointments, not his own legal view on Roe V Wade and especially not his view on the importance of abortion rights. Stop living in denial. Rudy himself has already stated that his version of strict constructionist may uphold Roe.
If you think that we can make avidly Pro-Abortion Republicans the standard bearers and still continue to be a “pro life” party then you’re delusional. What about the Bully Pulpit, personnel is policy.
Mark How could you even consider voting for a man whose believes that it is okay to skwer the skull of a fully formed un born on the day it would be born?
Party over Principles, Huh?
Not me, This Pro-lifer would rather be in the political wilderness than the political graveyard which is what will occur if we only have two Pro Abortion parties to choose from.
53. coulterfan | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 am
I’m not going to respond to you anymore, Kahn.
But I have to say that I’ve always condemned violence against anybody (Republican or Democrat or religious or gay or atheist or whatever) and I don’t know what I could have possibly said that you construe my words otherwise.
Now please don’t respond to me as I will ignore your future posts.
54. Kahn | December 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 am
Coulter - Now, in the blogs about CNN, weren’t you libs calling us crybabies?
Maybe you should stop slandering religions and Republicans with various sexual preferences. Maybe, like us you should admit when one of your erstwhile allies does wrong. You never have, to my knowledge.
You’ve attacked Republicans for supporting abortion and for being against it. You’ve attacked Republicans for supporting gay rights and for being against them. You’ve attacked Republicans with gay slurs, and in this very blog used innuendo to suggest that Rudy is a closeted drag queen. And, you’ve attacked two religions in this very blog as cults. You have also attacked people for applying Christian values to o0litical problems - yet here you attack Romney for not being Christian enough.
Don’t respond to me? Why don’t you just go away until you have looked deep enough inside yourself to come to grips with your own dishonesty and hatred. It shines through so brightly to us, that we’re surprised you don’t see it yourself.
Spare us your pout. Why not stand up and show some integrity, for a change.
You douche.
55. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 am
Diana,
Heck, I picked Gore in order to lay off any critique of Clinton (Mr or Mrs). Guess I can’t win for losing on the issue…
56. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 am
donovan,
There is, though, the City of God and the City of Man - we’re living here in the world, and we have to deal with it as it is, not as we wish it to be. It would do my cause no good to prevent Giuliani from being elected and then getting to watch President Hillary Clinton put abortion and euthanasia into her taxpayer funded health plan. Giuliani has many things wrong with him - but he’s not a member of the Culture of Death; and all the Democratic contenders for President have signed on to the Culture of Death and must be kept as far away from power as possible. The best thing would be to get someone who is as committed to life as President Bush - but I won’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
57. Mark Noonan | December 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 am
Paul,
I won’t concede that anyone is more pro-life than I am - but there are practical considerations, which I noted above in my response to Donovan.
We do have a lot more power, we pro-lifers, than most people imagine. We can enforce our views, even with a President Giuliani. Sure, we won’t get Rudy out there fighting for the pro-life cause, but we also won’t see him out there going to bat for the pro-abortion extremists. You think a President Giuliani would expend political capital to defend NARAL trying to prevent parental notification laws from being enforced?
Deliberate carefully, before you consign anyone to outter darkness. And, also, pray for Giuliani - he needs it, very much…and we Christians must believe that the Holy Spirit is working on him, trying to get him to move off of his pro-choice position. You gonna help, or not?
58. donovan16 | December 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 am
“The perfect the enemy of the good”
Right, Can you please explain to me what Giulaini has promised to pro-lifers that will advance their cause of outlawing legalized abortion?
This man is so disgustingly arrogant that’s he’s unwilling to horse trade and at least offer Socons something…anything. All he would have to do is say Roe should be overturned and I would vote for him, but this SOB won’t budge an inch.
“Giuliani isn’t a member of the culture of death”
You can not be serious Mark. Right up until this Primary season Giuliani was on the exact same page as Sen. Clinton on the Abortion issue. In fact to this day he still believes in forcing taxpayers to fund abortions. The RINO agenda is indistinguishable from that of the Dems on this issue.
This battle against the culture of death is unending and will not be decided by a single election.
There is an entire movement at stake here.
59. donovan16 | December 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 am
Now that I think about it even if Giulaini were pro-life with his radically liberal positons and character issues I would struggle and struggle hard to vote for him but since he’s not, I won’t worry about it.
Bottom line
If you never want to see a Pro-life President in our lifetime, vote Giulaini.
But hey at least we’ll “win”and remain true to this Blogs purpose, I guess.
60. Tom Murphy | December 2nd, 2007 at 7:41 am
Here is a question that should have been asked but wasn’t: YouTube Question for Giuliani see
http://representativepress.googlepages.com/
61. JPL | December 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 am
So, to clarify, no “Major Excommunication” but yes [Guliani] “excommunicated himself” and is not a practicing Catholic.
More nonsense, coulterfan. As I explained at length above, ceasing to practice the Catholic faith is not “excommunication” in any sense of the word. Moreover, it’s impossible for any Catholic to “excommunicate himself” except by committing one of the 8 grave sins that lead to “automatic” excommunication under Canon Law, all of which I listed above, and none of which Guliani has committed.
Therefore, please stop spreading the falsehood that Guliani is in some way “excommunicated.” He’s not, and now you know it.
62. JPL | December 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
And here’s a question for Tom Murphy:
Do you favor the nuclear annihilation of major Israeli cities by Iranian missiles, yes or no?
63. Dittohead4Life | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Its about time the American voter stops allowing themselves to be distracted from real issues.
Tell this to your party, lillypad–they have no “real” issues, other than abortion, gay marriage, and the Confederate flag.
Abortion, gay marriage….these are not federal issues. These are distractions from politics.
Once again, lillypad, you’re talking to the wrong people here. Mosey on over to americablog.com, or any other kook-lefty blog, and tell them. We in the GOP are concerned about real issues–the war on Islamofascists, national security, immigration–while you kooks have environmentalism, gay rights, and social welfare as your party platform.
If people continue to have themselves distracted, we will continue to vote for presidents like George Walker Bush. Lets face it, look how terrible that turned out.
I agree, lillypad–how dare a president actually peform his primary duty, protecting his nation’s people, when he should be golfing, fishing, and getting Lewinskys in the Oval Office…
64. coulterfan | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
JPL,
I think we’re nitpicking here. I admit that you’re technically correct- my father was told that he ‘excommunicated himself’ under Canon law by divorce and remarriage. It appears that 1983 Canon law revised this. However, this is not my point.
My point is that the GOP cannot call itself the party the “family values party”, lambast Clinton for ‘moral failings’ and then nominate Guiliani. Guiliani has FAR more ‘moral failings’ than Clinton, shares most of the same positions, AND has questionable financial dealings. I think we can judge a man (or woman) by his/her behavior and how he treats those closest to him. By this standard, Guiliani is quite untrustworthy- he doesn’t talk to his kids or attend important events in their lives, is a SERIAL adulterer, told the press about his impending divorce BEFORE his wife, etc. Clinton, in contrast, remained committed to his wife and family and asked for public forgiveness.
It doesn’t matter to me whether he’s ‘officially excommunicated’ or whether he is no longer able to partake in the Sacraments because of his adultery. He is not a practicing Catholic and has not atoned for his behavior.
Now, I have a question for all of you willing to answer: of the Democratic candidates, who would you prefer? I told you that I could vote for McCain (especially if Hillary is the Dem nominee). Is there any Dem YOU could vote for? Who’s the least objectionable to you?
65. Dittohead4Life | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 am
Interesting analysis. I’m curious as to your views on the already-acknowledged facts of Mr. Giuliani’s dating (at minimum) his current wife while still having his second wife living in the mayoral mansion?
Diana, I’m curious as to your views on starting your own blog. Then, and only then, can you dictate the content of the threads. If you want to discuss smear, go on over to americablog.com or any other kook blog, and discuss such nonsense. Otherwise, try and stay on topic, you silly cow!!!
66. coulterfan | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
>>Tell this to your party, lillypad–they have no “real” issues, other than abortion, gay marriage, and the Confederate flag.
You’ve been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh! These are YOUR issues! These cultural issues have been used by the GOP to gain votes AGAINST the Democrats.
Here’s a short list of issues the Democratic party stands for: health insurance for all (especially children, which the president vetoed), labor and environmental standards in free trade policies, product safety (so that imported goods have the same standards as American made goods), Geneva conventions, getting us out of Iraq, energy independence (and taking away tax cuts for oil companies, since they seem to be financially sound), reducing the national debt, civil rights (warrantless searches and wiretaps are illegal), anti-torture, congressional oversight for government contracts (Halliburton, Blackwater, etc)
I could go on and on. . .
Now, what are REPUBLICANS for? They seem to be against all of these things, but what are they FOR?
67. Kahn | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
its crybaby coulterfan! here to slander some more religions crybaby?
68. coulterfan | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Forgot a few:
Rebuilding AMERICAN infrastructure (so that our roads and bridges are at least as good as the Iraqis), clean air and water (Bush raised acceptable limits for mercury and arsenic in drinking water, something the Dems would repeal), building international cooperation by working with other nations (KYOTO, working within the UN to accomplish goals, etc), alternative energy research and development, reforming ‘No Child Left Behind’ so that there’s funding for the mandate, etc
What are the GOP’s issues this election?
69. Kahn | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hey! Crybaby is back!
Maybe you should stop slandering religions and Republicans with various sexual preferences. Maybe, like us you should admit when one of your erstwhile allies does wrong. You never have, to my knowledge.
You’ve attacked Republicans for supporting abortion and for being against it. You’ve attacked Republicans for supporting gay rights and for being against them. You’ve attacked Republicans with gay slurs, and in this very blog used innuendo to suggest that Rudy is a closeted drag queen. And, you’ve attacked two religions in this very blog as cults. You have also attacked people for applying Christian values to o0litical problems - yet here you attack Romney for not being Christian enough.
70. Kahn | December 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
We are already below Kyoto required levels
We are the most efficient and productive country - shifting production to the third world INCREASES pollution.
Democrats killed ALL the windmill projects because of Cape Cod
Infrastructure? Like the Big Dig? A massively corrupt Democratic money sucking black hole?
But hey, slander another religion…..
71. Diana Powe | December 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Dittohead4Life,
Aside from the fact that candidate Giuliani is the topic of this thread, albeit, his position vis-a-vis abortion, it isn’t a “smear” to discuss the possible reaction of GOP voters nationwide to what Giuliani himself has publicly acknowledged on more than one occasion. Was he “smearing” himself? I wasn’t attacking him for his choices, but looking for a discussion about how voters, especially GOP “values voters” may react to his choices. The last time I looked, this was a political blog dedicated to advancing the electoral prospects of Republican candidates. If you’re undisturbed by Mr. Giuliani’s self-acknowledged behavioral choices, then that simply tells readers like me more about the question of how voters may react.
By the way, you may remember personal choice and individual responsibility, it’s a favorite theme of Republican candidates. Personal choice like your personal choice to feebly insult me by referring to me on two different occasions as either a “blonde cow” or “silly cow” and my personal choice not to dishonor myself by lowering myself to your “dittohead” standard.
Mark,
Aww, heck. Now I feel kind of guilty. Nice comeback!
Now, where did I put that saltlick?
72. coulterfan | December 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
It’s heartening, I must say, at how religiously tolerant the folks are on this blog! I myself voted for Keith Ellison (Congress’ first Muslim) after finding out that he did not subscribe to the more radical fundamentalist beliefs. Likewise, I would not have a problem voting for a person of ANY religion as long as I was sure that s/he would not base legislation on his/her religious beliefs.
Though I find certain aspects of some religions hard to swallow (Scientology’s belief that the Alien God Xenu sent humans to earth in a spacecraft, body thetans, and the Galactic Confederacy; Mormon’s rejection of the Virgin Birth and the Gospels), I would not categorically never vote for someone who held these beliefs. It would depend, again, on whether s/he could separate their religion from their ability to govern. I would also have no problem voting for an atheist, as long as s/he didn’t prevent people from practicing whatever religion they believe.
Again, I apologize for using a loaded and unfair word to describe some of these more unconventional religions. I respect all religions and cultures, even if I don’t always agree with them. I hope this clears the issue up- I am VERY happy that folks on this blog would have no problem voting for Buddhists, Muslims, Scientologists, Atheists, etc without reservation.
73. Kahn | December 2nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
or…… Mormons Coulter?