For those of you who are...

I saw that he's pro-choice, but saw nothing on any of the links that provide a basis for saying he's "pro gay rights".

 

WASHINGTON -- National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Davis, Va., keynoted a Washington, D.C., breakfast the day before President Bush's inauguration that was designed to honor what its sponsors say were the more than 1 million homosexuals who voted for Bush. The breakfast, which drew a crowd of 400 to 500, was emceed by former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

It was sponsored by the just-formed Republican Unity Coalition, which, according to its spokesman, was founded to "promote the inclusion of gay and lesbian Republicans in Republican politics," and to bring together "Republicans -- both straight and gay -- to educate, advise and assist Republican leaders and lawmakers."

Among the Republicans lending their names to the Host Committee for the Unity Coalition breakfast were: New York Gov. George Pataki, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sens. John Warner, Va., and Gordon Smith, Ore., presidential counselor Mary Matalin and nationally syndicated columnist James Glassman. The Host Committee also included such well-known conservatives as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, California State GOP Chairman John McGraw and former Reagan speechwriter and California political strategist Ken Khachigian.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21505

It appears he is aligned with Bush on this issue.

 

Jim, the more you talk, the more you sound like Jimmy Carter; not content, but logic!

 

It might be noted that Arnold Schwartzenegger (sic) cannot be elected President, as he does not meet the qualifications: he isn't a natural-born American.

My dream candidate is Condy Rice.

 

Remember when Buchanan and Perot, and Ventura were all in the Reform Party?

Someone's comment:

"It's not a political party, it's a Halloween Party."

They only need Ahnahld to complete the show.

 

I saw that he's pro-choice, but saw nothing on any of the links that provide a basis for saying he's "pro gay rights". </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry JohnV. I forgot to add a link.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/171366p-149537c.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5858461

 

Poncho,since you gave reference to this web site, are you familiar with their new video "American Dictators: Documenting The Staged Election of 2004" -- by Alex Jones? Just curious if there could be any truth in that.

 

Gershom, I asked you a question:

 

I could see Rudy selecting Rice as his running mate in 2008. There is already a group that was trying to get Bush to select Rice as his running mate for this election, www.bushrice04.org.

But, again, Rice is also pro-choice and pro-gay rights. The future of the GOP is not very pretty, and not very conservative.

 

JGrubbs,

Do you think that being pro-choice and pro-gay rights is any longer a hindrance with Christian voters for a Republican?

 

If you have to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay Republican vs. a pro-choice, pro-gay Democrat, then I guess you have no choice but to vote for the Republican. Afterall, the Republican candidate is the only "viable" choice, sometimes you have to choose a "lesser of two evils". If voting for a "lesser of two evils" means not "wasting your vote", then you do what you have to do, right?

 

Yeah. I wonder how far that logic will carry. Euthaniaia will be next, I can just see it:

"Bash only thinks we should kill sick people if they are over 90. Korry thinks we should kill them at any age past 70. I'm voting for Bash".

 

Elnora, I read the link, and the story printed does not reflect what the Mayor actually said. He did not say he supports gay marriage, he said that this is not a good time for a constitutional amendment. Many here on this board are not in favor of gay marriage, but also are not in favor of amending the constitution. The only "gay rights" flag might be that he is in favor of civil unions, but again, since civil unions are private contracts, many here on this board are not opposed to private civil unions, while stil being staunchly against gay marriage.

I suppose it comes down to what one considers being "pro-gay rights". It can be a rather ambiguous statement (aka, poltically divisive).

 

Dwayne,

I haven't watched that one. So I can't say if there is any truth to it. But I have watched a few of his other documentaries, if this one is anything like the rest of them it's well documented.

You can watch some of them here... http://www.lastingnetworks.com/alex/

 

I saw that he's pro-choice, but saw nothing on any of the links that provide a basis for saying he's "pro gay rights". </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry JohnV,
I overlooked your post to me.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/171456p-149537c.html

http://www.queerday.com/archives/003635.html

http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html?
2001/10/19/3

(click link that says Rudy Guiliani opposes gay marriage ban near the bottom of the page)

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/03/08/mayor_bloomberg_and_the_gay_marriage_question.php