In an article titled, “Giuliani’s Conservative Support Tenuous,” the Associated Press reports that “Rudy Giuliani shares the lead for the conservative vote in the Republican presidential race, despite the New Yorker’s three marriages and moderate views on abortion, guns and gays.” This sort of headline bugs the heck out of me for two reasons:
1.) It asserts that the definition of “conservative” is “social conservative,” as though you can’t be a champion of limited-government unless you disqualify a candidate who has been married more than once, questions the role of government in abortion decisions, and doesn’t treat gays as lepers. Sorry, but I don’t accept the AP’s definition of “conservative.”
2.) Gun rights are not a “social” issue to be linked with abortion and gay marriage. There is nothing explicitly discussed in the Constitution regarding abortion or gay marriage. But there IS an entire amendment, the Second, dealing with individual gun rights. The gun issue is not a “moral” issue, and I wish folks would stop lumping it together with “social” issues it has nothing in common with. It’s not just devout Christians who support to the right to keep and bear arms.
There are a lot of conservatives, including social conservatives, who are supporting Rudy. And there are a lot of conservatives, including many who are NOT social conservatives, who are not supporting Rudy for reasons that have nothing to do with marriage, abortion and gays. Unlike most liberals, conservatives are not sheep who mindlessly flock together in the same direction, dancing to the same tune. I wish the press would at least acknowledge that reality.
Posted on October 23rd, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
But Chuck, how would they explain this to the “sheep who mindlessly flock together in the same direction, dancing to the same tune”?
I’ve come to the conclusion that the MSM doesn’t want their sheeple to even consider the posibility of thinking for themselves.
Your answer to ANY question will be found in the United States Constitution, or the Bible
It is the assumed duty of what Rush Limbaugh likes to call the “drive-by media” to tear down any potential Republican nominee and elevate the annointed Democrat noiminee (that would be Hillary). Of course, they attack all of the Republicans in the hopes of barring any of them from getting traction. So if I were you, I wouldn’t get too worked up about what some AP whiz kid has to say about this subject or any other subject. Just know that the “drive-bys” want Hillary and they will have her. Then they will concentrate all their ire and fire on destroying whomever we hapless Republicans happen to think would make a good President. sd
How many remember after the Brady Bill was killed in the senate, Giuliani went around the country with the wicked bitch of the left campaiging for it? Also Giuliani while mayor of the peoples republic of NYC kept the city a sanctuary city for illegal aliens? When you vote for the lesser of two evils you get what you vote for EVIL. If Giuliani’s picture was in the dictionary the caption would say “RINO”.
Walter is a bit simplistic, we asChristians know the answer to any question is either in the Bible or the Costitution, but at this point in time this answer doesn’t fly. The liberals don’t have a clue what’s in the Bible and twist the Constitution to fit whatever they are saying at any given moment.
The bias of the author of the AP article is on full display when he/she describes Mr. Giuliani’s views on abortion, guns and gays as ”moderate.”
Del, the liberals don’t twist the Constituion, they just ignore it. You can’t twist the Constitution , except if you believe in a living Constitution as the communists (oops liberals) do. Want to drive a lawyer or better yet a law professor crazy, ask him why the Constitution makes sense? James Madison never graduated law school, a minor war got in the way.
Del,
Go tell your pastor that you said Democrats don’t recognize Jesus Christ as their Lord.
Howard and Del,
If you don’t think that the Republican Congress along with Cheney and Bush haven’t turned the Constitution on its head, well, you best be quite when Hillary gets her hands onthe exact same ultra vires power of a Unitary Executive!
Howard,
Your ‘dead”constitution would prohibit you from voting even if you are a white male with a house and less than 20 acres of land. I trust you will follow your conscience and your ‘dead’ constitution and no longer vote?
Southy: I just took a quick look at the Constitution. The 15th Amendment prohibited states from denying the vote on the basis of race. The 24th Amendment prohibited states from assessing poll taxes to vote. The 26th Amendment extended voting rights to 18-21 year old citizens.
Other than those amendments, the only reference I could find to voting was Article I, Section 4, which states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.”
What did I miss in my reading? Where does the Constitution disqualify “a white male with a house and less than 20 acres of land” from voting?
John,
Howard was speaking to original intent, so pre 15th, et.el. amendments (communist provisions I believe he referred to them).
History my boy, read history! Back in the day, senators were not elected by the body politic. Everyone knows that ony white male substantive property owners were allowed to vote back in the day.
Southy, I understand that the voting eligibility standards were different 200 years ago. However, the Constitution itself never spelled out the requirements for voting eligibility. Pre-1865, the only reference to voting was in Article I, Section 4, which pretty much left it up to each state to decide for itself. Maybe I’m quibbling here, but the original Constitution plus Bill of Rights never established any specific voting eligibility requirements. Voting eligibility restrictions were established by each individual state, as was allowed by Article I, Section 4.
Yeah, back in the days before 1913 there wasn’t an income tax either. Wow, those were the days. Since you’re an historian, what’s your opinion of the claim that the 16th Amendment wasn’t properly ratified and therefore is null and void?
Thomas jefferson said that if an income tax was ever imposed upon the people that was greater than 2%, there would be a revolution.