Shall I hire the best applicant for the job or quit if neither is perfect
By gamecock Posted in Archived — Comments (157) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was astounded, dismayed and a bit confused today when I learned from Neil - HTML wizard Laker fan and all around good guy - Stevens that at least two of Redstate's contributors (or was it editors?) other than Neil - praying Kobe ain't traded - Stevens, would not vote for certain of the top tier GOP candidates in the general election should they win the nomination.
Doesn't the mission statement of this website include advocacy for the Republican Party?
[At the outset, I guess I must confess that I would have to make one exception to the principle I am arguing for as applied to the whole field of candidates, should the serious GOP candidates be killed in the crash of a Texas debate bound chartered jet and leaving The One Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered as the nominee. I would vote for Joe Biden over TOWNSNB Uttered since he refuses to defend the country and I think Joe Biden would.]
I understand that this is the primary season and that much of this "take my ball home" rhetoric is posturing so as to try and make sure the candidate one despises doesn't get the nomination and that most conservative republicans will not stay home. I am more understanding of this especially with respect to people more committed to particular causes who are not Republican Party officials or activists. I speak now of the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land, who I have the deepest respect for, and Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson, also deserving of my great respect, for example, over the issue of abortion as per Rudy Giuliani. But I still think it would be irresponsible citizenship to not vote for the GOP nominee over any of the Democrats (with one exception).
I think my exception is more reasonable than Dr. Land's minimally reasonable exception (that a pro-choice GOP President hurts the pro-life cause more than a pro-choice Democrat since then their would be no pro-life party effectively). I have not found any other conservative's stay at home argument even minimally reasonable given my view of citizenship in the current red-blue America.
Before I proceed further with my call for party loyalty, first consider this comment by Neil on another blog:
When you've devoted a great portion of your life to fighting for a cause, you don't turn around and work for a guy who works against you on your cause.
That's why pro-life activists would stay home instead of helping Giuliani, and that's why small government activists would stay home instead of helping Huckabee.
And notwithstanding those people rewriting the small government out of Ronald Reagan, that matters.
First of all, let me just say that I am a pro-life, war hawk, desiring smaller government, Reagan conservative. One "cause" that animated my political life as a Democrat from 1975-1998 was achieving Martin Luther King Jr's dream of a color blind society. Since 2000, the cause of restoring America's judeo-christian values drove me from the Vampire sucking the blood out of my country that is the Democratic party.
But THE paramount political cause of Mike DeVine since he was first told the story of Valley Forge in elementary school has been America. I love America. The Shining City on a Hill. The Last Best Hope. The miracle.
America is an aberration in world history. Our values made possible a great and benevolent nation wealthy enough to make the poor obese and build a military stronger than evil nations that rape and pillage to fund megalomania.
America is, because it is stronger than those that would have destroyed us by now.
I said all that to say this: Unless America's President will defend us, America will not be defended. Congress can declare all the wars they want. But war is not a game of paper covers rock.
Only the Commander in Chief can order our military into action.
Now, back to the block quote from Neil. Neil refers to activists for "causes", none of which would be possible but that America remain free. Pro-lifers and capitalists were sent to the gulag by the empire that would have buried us if liberals had their way. And if we don't defend ourselves from the current totalitarian threat working to build its own evil empire, the only cause will be how many ways not to draw The Prophet's picture.
So, the CAUSE that makes all other causes viable, is the cause of America. All the GOP candidates but one understands good and evil, that the US has a target on its back and always will, and that we can't hide between the oceans and stay free. Only Biden of the democrats strikes me as someone that would defend us responsibly.
Forty-eight percent of American voters (living, dead, canine and Motor-Voter illegal aliens) voted for John Kerry. Let that sink in.
sinking in
sinking in
sunk
The liberal baby-boomers are at the peak of their power. We need for every conservative to vote republican.
We have a responsibility as citizens to hire the best applicant for the job.
I know you guys will do the right thing. But if any of you can't, and have a paid position at Redstate. Feel free to resign and hire me.
(My paralegal does most of the work now anyway. BTW, there were two applicants for the job. Neither was Jesus Christ. So I chose between the two non-Sons of God. I didn't quit lawyering and go home.)
Make America your cause. A job opening for the main defender of the Constitution and America itself will occur on January 20, 2009. It must be filled. Help me hire the best applicant remaining that can win on Election Day 2008.
That would be the Republican, unless its you know who...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08
By the time the general election rolls around, any discontented Republicans will be so terrified of a Hillary coronation that they will go vote for the GOP candidate, even if they have to hold their nose while doing so.
Whom ever wins the nomination, deserves the support of EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, no matter what the reason for disliking that particular candidate.
Am I advocating party line voting? At this level, unequivocally yes.
No one can give me a good reason to NOT vote for the Republican candidate, because there are none. Only personal constraints, which should not be considered in the election of a Republican candidate. Not voting is the same as voting for the other side.
But it seems like over the past 15-20 years the Democratic Party has become so corrupt and so based on lies and so far left that I no longer vote for any Democrats. There are a couple of local - Travis County (Austin area) - Dems that are okay, but I won't even vote for them. If there is no Republican running as is often the case for lower county offices around here, I'll vote for the Libertarian.
I grew up in Louisiana when there was such a thing as boll weevil Democrats. That species has become extinct - they migrated to the GOP under Reagan and there is pretty much no such thing as a "moderate" Democrat any more. Zell Miller was pretty much the last of the breed. It's very sad.
is not enough of a rallying point for this party, then we do not deserve to win. We are staring calamity in the face, yet many want to strut their personal importance in our faces. I think they would rather be marytrs than winners. If Rudy or Huck is the winner, we can add a good 20 House Seats and a good 5 Senate seats. If a Dem is the winner, the hard left can do likewise. That is just the way politics goes. Also, regardless of the nominee, thousands of their party go into government positions if they win.
Molon Labe!
The primaries are the time for us to vote as our consciences dictate. When the general rolls around, I've voting for the party because, especially at this time in history, so much hangs in the balance.
-- digitalhap
there hasn't been a single decent democrat in decades except for my current mayor, who turned out to be not so bad.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
He is a white man named White, he succeeded a brown man named Brown. Next we are looking for a Cherokee named Red.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
from a white city where Mayor Brown was black to a black city where Mayor Brown was white. Confusing, huh?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I agree about nomination contest vs. general election. And I think it's fine in the nomination contest for people to harshly criticize candidates they don't like.
Part of the nominating process is seeing how well a candidate handles attacks, fair and unfair. When we move past the nomination contest to the general election, I think most Republicans are grown up enough to not nurse grudges over the nomination fight. Where it's get silly is threatening to go crying home to Mommy if that guy with cooties is the nominee.
It kind of reminds me of the world's oldest profession. P.J.O'Rourke said
Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.
So it has been established what we are, now we are just negotiating over the price.
Everybody needs to lighten up a little bit on this business of deciding sale or no sale. It could be wonderful if we can decide between a good and a great choice, but too often the decision is between a bad and a worse choice.
Sometimes the lady of the evening has a limit on how low she will go, and retires empty-handed. It's a great thing to participate in the election process, and yet I think that we sometimes are too full of ourselves. There are some promising clients out there, and we will not retire empty-handed.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
now that the paralegal is doing most of the work, does that mean you bill your clients twice?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
fees up front!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That's the question to ask when deciding whom to vote for in the general election.
If the candidate you believe is best for your country is also a candidate you despise, that's too bad, but you need to just suck it up and vote what's best for your country anyway.
We've heard all kinds of variations, e.g.,
- Voting for X would betray my principles.
- I'll have less power in the GOP if they nominate X and still get my vote.
- I won't be able to sleep at night if I vote for X.
But all of those excuses come back to the same narcissism test: which is more important to you in deciding your vote - what's best for your country and your soldiers, or what's best for your self-esteem and good night's sleep?
I'll only disagree with GC on a point of terminology: I don't think this is about "party loyalty" per se, although for most of us here voting what's best for America means voting for any likely Republican nominees over Clinton. We agree that in the near impossible scenario where the guy with a lot of support at Star Trek conventions is the nominee, there are some Democrats we would vote for over Paul.
The point here is that we would vote for what we believe is best for America. If you honestly believe America would be better off with Hillary as President rather than the Republican nominee, wasting your vote on a third-party joke candidate would still be narcissistic self-indulgence; if you care about your country you would vote for Clinton in that scenario.
For the record I restate my earlier exception, that for people in solid red or blue states where the outcome is not in doubt, indulging in 3rd-party vanity voting is ok since your vote doesn't matter in any case.
which is more important to you in deciding your vote - what's best for your country and your soldiers, or what's best for your self-esteem and good night's sleep?
Spot on...
I have a hard time accepting this. But the country will be better off if the Democrat presidential nominee, probably Hillary Clinton, wins the 2008 race.
It's hard to swallow. But here goes.
In 2006, the American people (a majority of them anyway) indicated that they want the Democrats to run Congress. In addition, it is very unlikely that the Republicans will win back Congress in 2008. The GOP has an outside shot of winning back the US House, but the US Senate is very unlikely to go back to the GOP in 2008, given that most of the seats up in 2008 are Republican seats.
So, the choice in 2008 is between a Republican president serving along side a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress. Both options are bad for the country.
Remember This Important Point
Not much good will happen under either scenario.
A Democrat presidential victory in 2008, however, would put the Democrats in charge of everything, which means the negative things that will happen to this country during the next four years will be entirely the Democrats' responsibility.
With a mushy-moderate Republican working with a Democrat Congress, bad things still would happen to the country for the next four years. But the people will still think that all of these bad things are happening under Republican administration, as if the Republicans would be running the country the way a CEO runs a corporation.
Political junkies like us know that the federal government doesn't work this way. We know that Congress has the power to cut taxes to stimulate the economy (or extend the Bush tax cuts past 2010, when they are currently scheduled to expire) or allow the economy to sink (the current Congress has chosen to let the economy sink).
But the average American doesn't know which party controls Congress and even if he or she does, he doesn't think that Congress has much power compared to the President. So, if anything bad happens (which it will, given that Pelosi and Reid will be in charge of Congress), the Republicans will be on the hook for it if we win in 2008.
A Democrat presidential victory in 2008 will be like chemotherapy for the country. It will be a very hard 4 years, just like the Carter years were. But we will come out of it well because responsibility for what happens will be clear, not muddled.
Responsibility will be muddled if a Republican wins and has to serve with Pelosi and Reid in the majority.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
...for people to get tired of it and vote the other guys in. While the republicans made some mistakes (overspending and missed opportunities) during that time, that's NOTHING compared to what 6 years of dems controlling everything could do. There's simply NO WAY that a democrat president would be better for this country, now or in the future.
==== 13 ====
You missed my point.
I agree that things will be bad for the country if a Democrat gets elected president in 2008.
But the November 2006 election have already happened and the Democrats won. So bad things are going to happen either way. It's not like the 2008 elections are likely to result in a Republican Congress and a Republican President.
The damage, however, will be shorter if a Democrat wins.
If a Republican wins, we will get 4 years of bad things happening (given that the Democrats will still control Congress and Congress has lots of power), and that 4 years will be followed by a Demcorat victory in 2012.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
If we run a good presidential candidate, and solid house candidates, I don't see any way we can not regain the House by a good margin. Most if not all "red" districts will come home if Hillary is on the ballot. A strong Republican at the top of the ticket will even push us into new bluish districts.
Of course, your hypothetical has us nominating a wishy-washy, in which case I agree that Congress is lost.
It's been a year since the dems controlled congress and nothing bad has happened. That's because NOTHING'S HAPPENED. Imagine now, all the bills the dems wanted to pass that WOULD'VE passed if they got control of the White House too. I simply cannot accept the argument that we'd be better off with democrats controlling everything. Not this time. There's simply too much at stake.
==== 13 ====
You say nothing has happened. But they are just getting warmed up. First, the can kill the economy by inaction, just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They don't even have to pass a tax increase because a tax increase will happen automatically.
That's a big deal. People already think, incorrectly, that the economy is in recesssion.
Think of how mad people will be when the economy gets hit with these stealth tax increases. And which party will get the blame? The party that holds the White House.
That's why even though things will be bad under a Democrat president, the recovery will be quicker. Because the people won't be confused as to who is responsible.
That's one of the advantages of a parliamentary system instead of one where you have "divided government" and no one knows who is really in charge.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
will let him off the hook after he's gone? Even with an all-dem government, anything bad will be Bush's fault. They'll get credit for anything good (doubful that'll happen). People will buy it too, because they're too lazy to find out the truth.
==== 13 ====
The media. They have been furiously defending Pelosi and Reid, trying to paint every Congressional Failure as Bush's Fault. Needless to say, they will do the same if Hillary! wins in 2008.
I cannot take the risk that the people will rise up, given the demographics of the entitlement society that will vote for a Dem no matter what.
And that is what angers me the most about the "Sit out to send a message" crowd. This isn't 1979 or 1993. The demographics and voters' minds have changed since then, and I fear that not enough people can be swayed, regardless of what happens. Yes, many of the SoCons want to lose just to give themselves some sort of inner justification, but their actions will damage the country far worse than a GOP President if they sit out.
I too will vote on principle:
No More Clintons!
They were a bad four years. But it would have been almost as bad with Gerald Ford, given that Congress was controlled by the Democrats.
Remember, the reason why South Vietnam fell was because of a decision by the Democrat controlled Congress, not the president. That's just an example of how much power Congress actually has.
The damage has been done. The Democrats won in 2006 and the Repblicans have almost no chance of winning both houses of Congress back in 2008. So, the choices in 2008 are both bad.
If we are going to have a bad four years (which I think is inevitable, given the bone-headed voters of 2006), we might as well have them when the Democrats will be tagged with clear responsibility.
That's what it was like in the Carter years.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
The dems could do the same thing now. Why don't they cut off funding? Because they know the disaster following would be blamed on them. They can look at the history of Vietnam and see what happens (though they publicly claim it wouldn't happen this time).
And believe it or not, people are still dying because of Jimmy Carter's policies. I'd rather not have that again. I'll take gridlock over that every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
==== 13 ====
If you really believe what you're saying here, then you should go all in and vote for Hillary. Only then would you be consistent.
==== 13 ====
able to fix the damage done to their prospects by the economic destruction of Carter's policies and we have suffered and do suffer now from his handing over of an oil rich nation to jihadists because he thought he could deal with a religious Ayatolla.
But you make a good point on accountability.
I just think we can make the point that dems advocate proven failed polices from the past.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
It is true that some policies have long term impacts. Certainly, given the havoc we have suffered for with the Islamic Republic of Iran, we have to take that into consideration.
I am only pointing out that if you thought the George W. Bush presidency was disappointing from a conservative, right of center, perspective, think of how bad the next Republican admin will be (assuming we win in 2008).
Taxes will go up without a vote, because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
The Democrats can "stretch out" funding on weapons systems.
Maybe some Republican could convince the public to convince Congress to change course. But I have serious doubts. Not because of our current candidates. It's just that most people are so used to finger pointing, they won't pay attention if a GOP president says, "The Democrats are allowing taxes to go up by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The coming recession in on their head."
It won't work. At least I don't think it will.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
according to the Sit This One Out clowns, letting Hillary run things will only hasten The Man On The White Horse in 2012 or 2016, if there is anything left too save. Never mind the media's attempts to paint it all as Bush's fault.
I say you read too many political strategy pieces and are less focused on the real damage that a Dem admin could do especially with the cooperation of Dem congress. Damage that could be irreversible for decades, including 2 supreme court justices.
I do not believe in masochism. Hitting myself in the head w/ a hammer does not knock sense into me. We don't need to go through punishment in order to rise again. We are much smarter than that. We have to have the will to do so.
The next admin under Dem rule would not be the drunken frat party like under Bill where his charisma covered up plenty of damage.
I really feel the direction of our country for a very long time hangs in the balance in this next admin.
Since when does a football team say, let's lose this game because it'll make us a better football team? They play to win on Sunday then regroup and improve the team during the week, practicing, making personnel changes.
Nobody is made better by losing. It is a copout. A fantasy.
If it is the case you should write me a check for $10,000 so you learn a lesson in doing everything you can to prevent Dems from winning as they will cost you much more. It'd be a cheap lesson.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
I was not among those who, during the 2006 election cycle, said that the "right of center coalition would be better off with a Democrat Congress.
No way.
A Republican president must have a Republican controlled US Congress if he is to be an effective president.
Think of the last 2 Republican presidents who got reelected?
George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
GWB had a Republican Congress for most of his first term and he got reelected.
Reagan had a Republican US Senate for his entire first term of his presidency, and he got reelected in 1984.
Ford had a Democrat Congress and was defeated. George H W Bush had a Democrat Congress and was defeated.
Notice also that the Ford years and the George Herbert Walker Bush years were not good years from a conservative policy perspective either. US Supreme Court Justices John Stevens and David Souter got confirmed during those "Democrat Congress/Republican White House" years.
All I'm saying is that maybe there is less at stake in the 2008 presidential election than we think because it's going to be a tough time for the US regardless of who wins the White House in 2008, given that the Democrats are very likely to hang on to Congress.
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
You make a reasonable argument, but the problem with this is the long term consequences. We could easily be stuck with government-run universal healthcare, a huge tax increase, and losing the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. These are problems that will persist for decades and decades.
I would rather Republicans and Democrats split the blame because winning the war on Terror and stopping the advance of socialism are more important than winning in 2012. Why is winning in 2012 any more important than winning in 2008 anyway? We heard the argument that if the Democrats take over Congress in 2006 then they'll actually have to govern and we'll win in 2008. I'm not willing to give in to 6+ years of a Democratic Congress because maybe it might lead to better electoral prospects years down the road, policy consequences be damned.
Yes. Long term consequences have to be considered. Because we all know about how the Leftist agenda comes back to haunt our society years, decades even, after the Left gets something enacted. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are good examples of this. Whether it's a Republican or a Democrat in power, those programs are chewing up a larger and larger percentage of the budget. It's to the point that Defense spending is becoming an asterisk in the budget.
My main point is that while we might think things will be bad if a Democrat wins the White House, things will be almost as bad if a Republican wins the White House.
This isn't really a criticism of the current group of Republican candidates for president either. Sure, they all have their flaws. But even the best of them can't be Congress and President at the same time. When you have a Democrat Congress, bad things happen to the country, regardless of who is in the White House.
So, if bad things are going to happen either way, my thinking is, "wouldn't it be better if the Democrats were left holding the bag?"
The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.
First, the site's purpose statement is refers to conservative and Republican values. Mass infanticide is not a conservative value. Whether it's a Republican value we'll have to see; I hope not.
Second, the idea that a bunch of terrorists is a serious threat to America's government is ridiculous. Are they going to destroy our freedoms by conquering us militarily? Or perhaps they'll just get a majority to vote for dhimmitude? The latter is no more likely than the former; we're not about to accept such a radical change to our way of life.
Terrorists are a threat to our citizenry and to our convenience. (The latter since serious domestic security precautions are no fun.) Yes, this problem requires attention. But it's not clear that a Democratic president is going to be a outright disaster here.
By all means vote as you think best for the nation. But expect others to do the same - and that may mean voting for someone other than the Republican nominee, depending on people's priorities and beliefs.
And as a note to my co-religionists: If it is God who ultimately makes nations stand or fall, then neglecting justice in favor of public security may be counter-productive.
God wants you to vote for Hillary?
You are entitled to your view, but please don't think you are the only one capable of understanding or interpreting "God's will".
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
What the heck is that Kyle8? He says that for those that believe God is in charge, vote your conscience and God will take care of the rest. That is a very solid position, biblically and historically.
I am afraid either I am misunderstanding you, or I see some bias against people of faith who make decisions based on convictions bleeding through. Please tell me I am overreacting.
...I can vote my conscience believing that many more people will suffer and die under Hillary than Rudy?
==== 13 ====
If you want to take what I said to that place, feel free, but it isn't what I meant by a long shot.
As a Christian, I know that God holds the world in his hands. He is the ruler of nations. It is my belief that God would not put me in a position where I would have to betray my conscience to do good.
There's just an underlying current that I sense that as a christian I must never vote for a pro-choice candidate. The pro-life issue is a very important one for me. I've been on the board of two crisis pregnancy centers, so I put my actions where my mouth is. It's not just at this site where I'm hearing this, so it wasn't just your comment. As a christian I have to consider all the issues, and at the end of the day vote the way I believe God would want me to.
==== 13 ====
guide. The President doesn't perform abortions. He picks judges. I want a pro-life president, but if neither party nominates one, then we have to apply our values and a Christ and reason informed conscious to the other issues. One great thing about abortion is that we can persuade people to stop having abortions. But on defending the nation, we can't. We have to rely solely on the President.
We are hiring a man to do a job. Not picking a God to worship. God chose flawwed men to do his work. We have to choose among them to do work for us.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I don't see why we shouldn't stand up for our principles and vote them. Frankly, that's most of the reason for voting in the first place. The chances of any individual vote flipping the presidency are effectively zero.
If one likely candidate were far worse than the other, I can see supporting the lesser evil out of love. But the idea that Hillary is going to be catastrophic has not been supported.
And without that, well, why support a lesser evil at all? It's common practice to apply that to every election, but that's been hyperbole. I haven't been thrilled about voting Bush-Bush-Dole-Bush-Bush, but they were each worthy of support on the big stuff. I can't say that about Rudy; not even close.
I still strongly believe Fred's going to win the nomination. We've still got a long way to go. Until then, all this is hypothetical.
==== 13 ====
If you don't think Hillary would be a catastrophe, esp with a dem congress, then I seriously question your judgment.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
condemning the world to the policies of Hillary! is OK just because of a policy disagreement? That, to me, is as big of a sin as holding your nose.
If you really believe that Hillary would cause many more deaths than Rudy, then of course vote against her.
It's just that the premise is questionable. Say Hillary really blows it, and we have several more 9/11s. Call it 30,000 dead. That's roughly 3% of the annual deaths due to abortion, or less than 1% over a four year term. If Rudy ends up being more damaging to the pro-life movement in the long term....
...about the damage Hillary can do. The dems are screaming 1,000,000 Iraqis dead since we went in, which is a gross exaggeration. It won't be if we pull out before finishing the job. This doesn't even mention all the other places where people would be dying because of her policies. How many have died because of Jimmy Carter's idiocy?
And if Rudy stands by his word and elects constitutional judges, he'll be just as effective as any other current GOP candidate in reducing abortions.
==== 13 ====
Hillary's not calling for an immediate withdrawal. But say she does it anyway. That doesn't necessarily lead to large-scale civil war in Iraq. But say the Iraqis choose it anyway.
Why exactly would this be our fault?
We've given Iraq a decent government, by global standards. We've helped stabilize the country for years. If the Iraqis decide they'd rather have civil war than gradual improvements, that's THEIR choice. Liberating a country means giving it liberty to do foolish things too.
Are we responsible because of our alliance? We don't have one. Bush hasn't even tried to send a treaty to the Senate, even when it was Republican-controlled. He thought the short-term promises he could make as commander-and-chief sufficient. I think he had a point.
Are we responsible because our war against Iraq destabilized the country? People get hurt in wars; that's kind of the idea. If you don't think that's acceptable, you might want to rethink whether you can tolerate an interventionist foreign policy in the first place.
I grant you have a real point here. If you believe Hillary is going to be a complete screwball on foreign policy, that could lead to a future catastrophe. I'm just not seeing much evidence that she's Nancy Pelosi.
As for Rudy's promises, we've done them to death elsewhere.
for iraqi funding of terrorism and firing on our planes
for the stability of iraq as a safe haven for jihadists
nice
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Hillary will get enough troops out right away to destablize the country. After she does that, she'll get the rest out to get them out of the danger (you are familiar with the aftermath of Vietnam, right?).
It would be our fault because we haven't finished what we started.
Iraq still has a long way to go before they're ready to go it alone. Recent events show me that they can get there if given enough time. Top down didn't work. Bottom up is. We were in Europe for 30 years, we've been in Iraq for 4.
We're responsible because we went in there with the idea of regime change. We need to see that through to completion. Otherwise, we'll be as insecure as we were before we went in there (maybe less secure).
It's not an interventionist policy, it's a policy of securing our nation from aggressors.
Hillary's worse than Pelosi. She has the same agenda and could actually implement some of it.
I'm willing to take a chance that Rudy will do what he says he'll do. I know what Hillary will do.
==== 13 ====
extremism, and speaking in absolutes. I was a big time religious right person during the eighty's and looking back on it I heard a lot of stupid stuff.
How God was going to sweep the evil doers out of office and propel a man of god like Pat Robertson into the white house, and how there was going to be this big revival etc.
Since then, my religious views have not changed, but my political ones have been refined. Often in politics you must look down the road, you must look at the big picture.
You can NEVER solve a situation like abortion with legislation, I repeat Never! You must change people hearts and minds. Often the people or policies that we see as a panacea end up being worse in the long run. I like the idea of a candidate who knows he does not have all the answers so is willing to try and delegate power back to the states, and to the people where it belongs.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Interestingly enough, it looks like most people duking it out tonight are for Fred anyways (I'm not sure where you stand kyle8, but your comments here sound like you like Fred)
I believe step one to stop abortion is killing Roe. That in and of itself shifts the debate.
I too have worked Crisis Pregnancy centers. I have stood with signs outside of abortion clinics. I have also shared the truth with young women who were desperate for answers with a life altering consequence ahead of them.
Legislation is not the answer, but we very much need to have the right politicians running things, because politicians have the ability to take the right choices away from us.
but what made you think a man "like Pat Robertson" would be deemed good enough? The second coming comes to mind.
and Capitol Building would be no more. Jihadists with nukes would be an exitensial threat.
And short of taking over the US, they can wreak havoc on our interests via oil blackmail, and killing 3000 every now and then and sending us into recessions.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
have hijacked a fifth plane to get the WH and that the Plane was capitol bldg bound.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That kind of logic doesn't rest well with those who think that if the Almighty Himself were to come down and run for office, he wouldn't be "Christian" enough.
to show there's not much "logic" here at all.
We got blindsided on 9/11, and took some real damage. But it was not catastrophic for America as a whole. Why exactly are the terrorists going to do so much better now that we're watchful, even if Hillary is president?
She knows darn well that if she lifted enforcment wholesale, and we got hit again, she'd be bounced out on her ear in the next election. I think she likes power more than she likes the ACLU.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
If I were them I'd just sit back & wait. Recruit, plan, fundraise. Then the next time someone tried to stop our agenda, WHAM. They'd never see it coming (though we warned about it would). Did you also sleep through the last 8 Clinton years when our intelligence services were decimated and we convinced the terrorists we'd never retaliate?
==== 13 ====
everyday. They pay for footbaths here with tax dollars they won't spend on a nativity scene.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I really don't see American liberals going for dhimmitude any more than conservatives. Sharia law and liberal ideology don't get along. The primary reason they aren't with us is that they fear Republican-led government far more than the terrorists. I believe that'd change if the terrorists became a major threat to our way of life.
As for funding footbaths vs. nativity scenes, let's be frank: We're talking small stuff. Muslims aren't a large enough or popular enough minority to win a lot of government support. Nor are religious people of any flavor the kind of "victims" liberals really enjoy supporting.
Europe has problems because of its large number of unassimilated Muslims. This is not an imminent threat to us. It could become one, but I don't see either Rudy or Huck doing what it takes to prevent it. And even if they did, it's appropriate to count the cost of their other policies.
Europe is that we have fewer muslims. would you be in agreement with limiting muslim immigration?
I am, I'll tell you right now. I would like to see nearly zero immigration from muslim nations on the basis of all the problems we have had with terror cells and people funding possible terror organizations.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Liberals aren't afraid of the terrorists at all. They suffer from two fatal mental illnesses:
1. The believe that if we just talk nicely with the terrorists they'll stop bothering us. No matter how many times they attack us and/or our allies, they're convinced that the terrorists just haven't heard the right things yet, and once they do they'll stop.
2. Related to #1, they completely ignore all the failures of communism and fascism because they honestly believe that the only problem with those past failures is the right people haven't done it yet (them, of course).
Liberals are all about power & money. They have no morals, and have absolutely no regard for those they use to get their way.
==== 13 ====
3. As long as they can make Bush look bad and regain more power, any side effects don't matter.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I've been fighting tooth and nail against Rudy Giuliani because I WANT us unified. Fortunately all that fighting paid off when we then got Huckabee, and now some of the life activists are admitting that Huckabee has the same problem Giuliani has, only in reverse.
I WANT to vote Republican for President. I really do. But in 2004 I had to give myself a pep talk, and did some serious analysis before I could convince myself of it. In 2000 I couldn't even do it.
In 1996 I did it, but with absolutely no enthusiasm. That's not something I can do again though. I can't vote for a guy when I really don't look forward to him winning. That's not voting; that's just going through the motions.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I know I'm not. I have had too much fun laughing at democrats with BDS. I can't deal with 8 years of twitching whenever someone mentions the presidents name. I am getting the shakes just thinking about it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Do you want another 4-8 years of Larry Nichols Part Three?
That's what we'll end up with if we let the Dems select our candidate for us. You don't win the WH by running against. We should not base our decision on who we want to beat, but on who we want to win.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
When I said "two contributors," I was one of them.
Do we really want to duplicate the history of the Democrat party in 1860? That year, Abraham Lincoln won less than 40 percent of the popular vote, yet won the election. This because the Dems split between North and South, tossing the election to Lincoln.
From The Life of Abraham Lincoln by Henry Ketcham, http://www.authorama.com/life-of-abraham-lincoln-21.html
The democrats, at least the opponents of Lincoln, were divided into three camps, The first was the regular party, headed by Douglas. The second was the bolting party of fire-eaters, who nominated Breckinridge. The third was the party that nominated Bell and Everett.
This was wittily called the Kangaroo ticket, because the tail was the most important part. Lincoln’s popular vote at the November election was about forty per cent, of the total. It was plain that if his supporters held together and his opponents were divided, he could readily get a plurality.
The election occurred on the sixth day of November. The vote was as follows: Lincoln received 1,866,452 popular votes, and one hundred and eighty electoral votes. Douglas received 1,375,157 popular votes, and twelve electoral votes. Breckinridge received 847,953 popular votes, and seventy-two electoral votes. Bell received 590,631 popular votes, and thirty-nine electoral votes.
in line? Perot, Rob Paul and Yosemite Sam
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I could get behind Daffy, afterall, he's the new Donald Duck!
But why hasn't anyone mentioned Wile E. Coyote.
he's good on defense, and good on border control?
or how about marvin the martian? (however, marvin's view on the gold standard and the Fed may discount him around here)
The Constitution doesn't allow non-native-born persons to hold the office of President. But even if that were not the case, electing Marvin would be a disaster not only for America, but the world itself.
Can you say, "Earth-shattering ka-boom"?
Would his platform be "I'm more against the war than Hillary and I've seen more UFOs than Kucinich"?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Here's a hint: There's always a third (and fourth, fifth, and so on) party.
For me, it somewhat depends on the Democrat nominee as to whether or not I would break from the Republican candidate. If Edwards or Obama won the Democrat nod, I'd be more inclined to stick with the Republican nominee, mainly because either one of them would be an unmitigated disaster. In the case of Richardson or Hillary, it would be on a case-by-case basis... I know a Clinton vs. Huckabee match-up would probably have me looking to the Libertarian candidate (or even, and I know I'm going to catch all sorts of flak for it, Ron Paul, were he to decide to run as a third party). Giuliani would make me look at a third party, but not too strongly (as would McCain or Hunter), and I don't see any real reason to bolt with any of the others.
I wouldn't pick up my ball and go home if my candidate didn't win, but I am highly independent (I've split a ballot among four different parties before), and I will, once I see who is on the final ballot, vote accordingly.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
Wouldn't Hillary be the most dangerous because most of Congress on both sides of the aisle would be afraid of her? Obama and Edwards could be ignored or fought much more easily. Edwards is toast after Iowa anyway, and Richardson is just running for VP (and doing a horrible job of it), so Obama is the only one with any chance of derailing the Hillary Express.
...not likely. My biggest complaints with an HRC presidency would be the fact that she'd be putting people on the federal bench who are way to the political left and that, if the vaunted Clinton predilection for pragmatism holds, we could be in for a very active Congress (say what you will, but I kinda like the concept of a do-nothing legislature).
While Obama being the Democrat nominee would make me more inclined to vote for the Republican, it would also make me significantly more fearful if he were to win.
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
In your business you have a third option, not available in hiring a president. You could decide not to appoint someone according to your original schedule and readvertise the job.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Business situations vary. Maybe you screwed up and advertised in the wrong place, or with the wrong salary. Most businesses don't find themselves in the situation where you have to hire this week or the business goes under.
But, of course, this is turning into a threadjack. You cannot, in November 2008, decide that you don't like the candidates on the ballot and decide to hold another election the following month. Perhaps it is not a bad idea, but the law does not allow it.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I was thinking the same thing. I know many times I hired the best applicant I had available, even though I wasn't comfortable with him/her. It was always a horrible mess. I would have been better to hire noone. Not sure if this might apply to the questions at hand, but I hired the best of two one time, and he stole an entire days worth of cash receipts on his way out the door 2 weeks later.
Is there a political lesson to be learned there? Danged if I know.
That is a different situation. You assume that you can go on fine w/out picking anyone.
The situation is if you have 2 candidates and you don't give your input as the boss, then your manager will hire the WORSE candidate.
People assume that doing nothing results in nothing. Doing nothing can COST you.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
It's not taking my ball home. I won't vote for anyone who furthers the cause of mass infanticide. If the GOP's attitude is "my way or the highway" they've lost my support. I vote GOP (more than anything) to stop infanticide. A lot of people do. If this no longer matters to the party then the party means zero to me.
It's also not "loving America" to lead our country further down the road to mass infanticide. It's also not loving the republican party by giving over the reins to someone with a pro-abortion record. This is all you need to know about Rudy and his supposed conservative turn on abortion:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VlZTJmNmQzMzI5YTAwZWQ1ZTY4MzdhYjc...
If you can read this and seriously vote for this man I don't know how you can call yourself pro-life. We have become so geared towards beating Hillary that we are willing to give up on conservatism and, more importantly, allow for murder of children to a holocaustic degree.
The more I'm hearing about the party looking the other way on abortion, the more I think this isn't the party for me anymore. I've given a significatn portion of my life to fighting for the GOP, both in paid and volunteer positions. When the party decides to court the pro-choice independents in this country and leave the core faithful behind, it is THEY who have picked up their ball and gone home.
Next they'll give up on lower taxes, and next on national defense. And when you turn around and wonder where everyone went you'll only have yourselves to blame. If you want a conservative party that's fine. But a lot of people are focused on the party for the sake of the party - conservatism be damned. I support the GOP because it supports my beliefs. When it stops advocating those beliefs, I find something else more important to do.
I can focus more on my family and my job and let others write and fight and donate time and money for a party that is giving up its soul. I can't believe our party would turn it's back on so many people that have fought the good fight for so long. But if the party doesn't want me anymore, that's its decision.
I've been a RedState member for two weeks shy of 3 years, and I can't believe the excuses I'm reading here for why I should be compelled to vote for a pro-choice candidate. I don't know what would hurt the party more, a Rudy loss or a Rudy win. But when the GOP spits in the face of the pro-life voting block it has itself to blame, and nominating Rudy would end my support of this party once and for all.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Gamecock did not write who you should or should not support. The point of the diary is about how you should look at the process, and not who you should support. The point is that instead of being a religious rite that is the Way and the Truth this process is a business decision. I don't know your age, but there have other election years ('76 and '88 and '96) when the Republican Party was not strongly pro life. Either you voted or you didn't, but in either case the Republican Party did not spit in your face.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
for the Republican party presidential campaign in my memory.
'88 was only marginally better, and that was because we had the Gipper as a sitting President.
At the Republican Party Convention in '92 Pat Buchanan and his pro life supporters are thought by some to have caused as much damage to George H W Bush as Ross Perot.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I won't stick up for Pat. I voted for him in the primary (to my unending embarassment in later years), but was still able to vote for Bush in the general.
As bad as Pat was (primarily his pro-union views) he was at least ahead of the curve on immigration. His anti-Israeli views lead me to leave him as they worsened.
But Bush did a lot to hurt this party and country too. His SCOTUS record was unforgivable, and his "no new taxes" lie gave us 8 years of Clinton. He kicked socons and fiscons both right wher it hurts.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
You were still able to vote for Bush in the general in '92. I suspect the thought processes of a business decision that gamecock wrote in this diary had a lot to do with your vote. By the way, I am not a Rudy supporter. I prefer that Fred or Mitt win the primary.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Rudy's record on supporting democrats for office and his unapologetic views on abortion and gay issues are nothing compared to Bush Sr. Bush (like any other candidate) was not perfect. But he was tolerable.
Rudy isn't a business decision for me. He is (and has) a clear record of being a pro-choicer.
I could vote for Fred, and (despite his flip-flops) I could hold my nose and vote for Mitt, who at least is trying to convince people he is pro-life. Rudy's record and satements (outlined in the article I referenced) make it clear to me that he's not even trying very hard to get my vote on life.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Many people are sacrificing their lives for America.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I plan on seeing us nominate an effective, conservative that we can all be satisfied with. I am going to fight for a Fred nomination with everything I have. If we don't get Fred, then I will examine the rest of it.
Some of these diaries that keep popping up on this subject seem counter-productive to me when there is no real front runner in the race right now. To argue about the ability and/or duty to vote for someone who currently has 30% or less support for the primaries (Note - that includes ALL of the GOP candidates right now)seems like a recipe for strife to no avail. I admit I have been a part of this too, and my apologies for my part in continuing this stuff.
Addressing the other part of your point GC, I was much more pragmatic about the lesser of two evils approach BEFORE I went to Iraq, for what it's worth.
returns
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
There are "lesser" evils that I can tolerate. Fiscal policy, school vouchers, environmental silliness, etc.
Abortion is a true "evil" in every sense of the word. Some of us may choose the lesser evil, and that's ok. Just don't ask those of us who don't go along to quite the party.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
The way you frame the issue you are doing the right thing. But I ask you to look at your approach.
Let God be God. You do the best you can. God knows the choice before us.
The key to turning abortion issue around is the Supreme Court. The best way to changing that situation is playing at least good defense to protect the current ratio on the court today if not get a couple more on the court that may challenge Roe.
Doing nothing or avoiding the issue only helps make the problem worse. (Dems getting a couple liberals back on the court).
When you meet your maker and you are asked if you did all you could, you do what you need to do to feel comfortable answering that question.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
It's all but guaranteed that Hillary would get to replace at least three old liberals on the SC with young liberals. If she is elected, the liberal wing of the SC becomes entrenched for another generation. Or in the worst case, if Scalia's health went south during a HRC term we could have a liberal majority locked in for decades.
If Rudy is President, maybe he replaces a couple of old liberals with moderates. I can't imagine he'd have the same horrendous list of candidates she would.
It seems to me that if you have a choice of Rudy vs Hillary and abortion is your litmus test, you'd have to do anything you could to keep Hillary out, even if that meant voting for someone who turns your stomach.
But for some folks (like me) it's not a practical "lesser of two evils" issue as much as an "I can't vote for evil at any degree" level. I can't bring myself to vote pro-choice, lesser or greater.
The article I brought up demonstrates that Rudy's danger goes well beyond appointing judges. He also has a poor history in other areas that a president has sway in.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
If you reject that responsibility, others, mostly liberals that share less of your values will do so.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
If you can read this and seriously vote for this man I don't know how you can call yourself pro-life.
I could go into all the reasons why I could vote for Rudy and still call myself pro-life. But what's the point? There are simply too many people out there that think if we don't completely agree with them we can't possibly be pro-life. Those that are being practical aren't necessarily compromising their beliefs.
==== 13 ====
I'm not asking you to leave the party. Quite a few folks are asking people with my view to leave. I probably disagree with your views on what defines pro-life, but I'm still glad your here.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
to hire our President. The job will be filled. Its not about one's conscious. We need to pick the best applicant. If both are not with us Roe, then we can still work to change hearts and minds on abortion. But there are born people that one of them will defend, as well as other issues, unlike abortion, that only a President can decide. We can't make Hillary defend us. And Rudy will not make people have abortions.
savvy?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I realize the title of the article is "leave the party", but I was referring specifically to your comment:
I don't know how you can call yourself pro-life [if]...
That mentality in my mind is a big part of the problem. I say I'm going to vote for Rudy if he's the nominee, and immediately what comes to your mind is that I'm not pro-life enough (if I am at all). To me, that's a problem.
==== 13 ====
A democrat furthers both causes. They won't even defend the BORN from jihadists either.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I've always said people have a fundamental misunderstanding about what a political party is supposed to be. Voters aren't supposed to swallow their convictions at the whim of the party. Parties are supposed to cater to voters and their needs and when a party stops supporting your principles the voter should stop supporting that party. Otherwise they enable that party to continue to go in the opposite direction with their support.
It isn't our job to vote for the Republican no matter what, but rather to vote principle and hope the Republican candidates share those principles. I think a person is made of principles not party first. We have principles then find the party that matches them. We don't find a party and vote whatever principles they espouse.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
I am strogly pro-life. I dont support Giuliani for the nomination, but I would have no problem whatsoever voting for him against Hillary in the general election. I agree with the above posters that a democratic president would be a disaster for any pro-life goals through the Supreme Court.
We have to remember though, that we are not electing someone merely to be in charge of abortion policy. We are electing an individual to be in charge of the nation.
1) Eliminate the crazy people -- That would be Ron Paul, Dennis "special" K, Gravel, and maybe Tancredo.
2) If the Republican nominee is still available after #1, vote for that person. Proceed to #3.
3) Move on to the next office.
I've said it many times, the judgeships ALONE that we get from Guiliani or Huckabee versus Hillary is worth it alone.
Here's hoping for a Thompson / Romney ticket.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
And if someone's principle is against Rudy then they shouldn't vote for him because he is better than Candidate X.
If someone really believes that voting for pro-choice candidates is tantamount to voting for murder then obviously they can't in good conscience vote for Rudy nor should they.
I am a pro-choice conservative and I have been told I'm responsible for the death of babies. Those people now can't turn around and vote for pro-choice now without some impressive mental gymnastics.
Some don't seem to realize that if the Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate, the pro-life movement is in deep trouble. There will be no pro-life party anymore. It will be a party that nominated a pro-choice candidate. No more can pro-life Republicans say the Democrats are the part of genocide of infants because the Demos can retort that the Republicans nominated a pro-choice leader.
I certainly know that my first question to people that attack my pro-choice view from now on will be "Will you vote for Rudy in the general?" because if they say "Yes" then I can simply say they vote pro-choice just like me. It is a powerful thing to vote and we shouldn't do it so lightly as to vote against another candidate or for political expediency. Vote your principle I say or don't vote at all.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
I am a pro-choice conservative and I have been told I'm responsible for the death of babies. Those people now can't turn around and vote for pro-choice now without some impressive mental gymnastics.
If I make the best choice available that will protect the most innocent life possible, I certainly can vote for a candidate who's personal position is pro-choice.
Principles are important. They are the basis of good decisions. A good decision for me here is to choose the candidate that actually has a chance to win that will best further my cause.
Besides, I don't like mental gymnastics. It hurts too much when I fall.
==== 13 ====
You however lose the moral high ground of being able to tell me that my vote for pro-choice candidates is evil and supporting murder because now you are in the same playground. Do you see the slip there? You can't badger people as murderers for voting pro-choice candidates when you do it as well.
That is a valid concern. Also for pro-lifers, this is a major shift that doesn't happen just once. If Rudy is the nominee the vice-grip of pro-life is broken. What stops more pro-choice candidates from winning? For pro-lifers it is bigger than one election. This is a movement for many of them and I support their right to protest Rudy's nomination. It is a very big deal and much more important than one election.
Granted: I am pro-choice and think Rudy could actually win the election.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Fundamentally you believe it's ok to kill unborn children, I don't. I can certainly tell others if their foundation is to murder innoncent children that it's wrong, even if I vote for a "pro-choice" candidate that has no chance of furthering that agenda.
I agree it's about more than one election. It's about every election. If we let this one go to the dems, it'll set the entire process back decades. I'm not willing to concede that so I can stick out my chest and tell everying "I can't vote for that pro-choice guy.
==== 13 ====
You tell me that it is okay to condemn me when you vote for the pro-choice candidate that I vote for? Sorry. Not going to cut it. You want to condemn me because you believe differently, yet you ACT the same way I do? That is hypocrisy where I come from. If you are willing to sell that principle down the river for a victory today that is of course your perogative. You however, cannot expect me to take you seriously on that issue anymore. You counted victory as more important. Which is fine. I'm not condemning you, but your call for pro-life is diminished by the action of voting pro-choice. That can't be avoided no matter how you try to slip out of it.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
If you are willing to sell that principle down the river for a victory today that is of course your perogative. You however, cannot expect me to take you seriously on that issue anymore.
Don't flatter yourself that people value being taken seriously by you. It's the well being of his country that Nighttwister takes seriously in deciding how to vote, something you consider "unprincipled." Given your twisted logic, and inability to comprehend his statement when it doesn't fit your plastic caricature of pro-lifers' thinking, being taken seriously by you might be reason to doubt one's own position.
I don't know if you're a Ronulan, but everything I've seen you post fits the pattern (e.g. pro-surrender), including Ronulans' rants against the idea of voting for Giuliani. That's the last kind of person I need taking me seriously.
And the greater concern is of the population as a whole. The one you are supposed to be selling on the pro-life agenda, remember them? How does it follow that they should vote for pro-life candidates? You are giving them a perfect rationale for voting pro-choice and still being pro-life. You offer them a window where abortion (aka the murder of babies) shouldn't be numero uno on their list. I'm all for it, but I didn't expect pro-lifers on the bandwagon.
What you don't understand is that the nomination of Rudy is already making the case of knocking abortion out of the top tier of issues that people should decide on...and guess what? The pro-life support for Rudy is very helpful in making their own cause politically irrelevant.
Because you can mark this one down. No matter the democrat running in whatever year it might be, the Republican will be the better choice overall so it won't matter anymore if they are pro-life or not.
As a pro-choice conservative, I have to thank you guys for taking one for the team and making pro-life irrelevant as a litmus test for our candidates.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
I never cared much for litmus tests about what someone believes. My only question is, will the help me acheive my goals. I'm just sorta pragmatic that way. And it's not a compromising of principles. You just have it stuck in your mind that I have to find out what's in someone's head and make sure it's "pure" before I give them my support.
There are a lot of pro-lifers that seem to feel that way too. Sorry, I just think that's wrongheaded. So you can keep going down this path all you want, but you won't see my say that I'm compromising my principles or taking one for the team.
As for every republican being better than every democrat on this issue, that's true right now. It hasn't always been that way and there's no guarantee it always will be that way.
BTW, the pro-life issue is still #1 on my list.
==== 13 ====
Here's why. A vote for Rudy furthers my cause more than a vote for Hillary or staying home.
Now, let's reverse that. Let's just say for the sake of argument that staying home or voting for Hillary would further my cause more than voting for Rudy. If I STILL voted for Rudy in that case, then you could call me a hypocrite.
This isn't a far-fetched future scenario either. There are still pro-life democrat politicians out there. It just isn't a scenario I have to deal with right now.
==== 13 ====
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Rudy is a moderate at best socially. He thinks it is a woman's choice not the government's and you won't see him placing abortion high on the list of priorities. It will be left alone. If Roe is overturned you will see abortion in some form legal in most every state and Rudy won't be the guy to push for any federal ban on it whatsoever. Which is fine with me. That is assuming that Roberts and Alito would even vote to overturn it...which is a stretch.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
You see, for SOME pro-life people this issue is paramount. They've had a "pro-life" president for 8 years that talked a good game, but never put abortion high on his agenda. They are angry about the seeming nonchalance of the politicians on an issue they see as crucial to the country. A few of them even said 9/11 happened in part because of God judging the US for abortion. This is a serious matter.
You are telling them to vote for a guy that actually has no problem with abortion and would do nothing to ban it on a federal level.
For me that would be a tough pill to swallow.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
life issue, plus on embyonic stem cell research. Pro-lifers have no gripe except that Bush could have been more outspoken about it like Reagan was.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Rudy says he will not expand abortion rights and indicates his judges could reverse Roe. So your claim that pro-lifers lose any credibility by voting for Rudy won't fly.
Rudy will not be crusading for abortion. He would be a pro-choice vote in NY if Roe is overturned, that's all.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Since the 80s a pro-choice dog catcher would get ran out of the party even if his views on the issue was of little importance. With Rudy, the pro-life wing is making arguments I've always made about pro-choice conservatives. The argument being that we can have little effect on the actual issue. So more and more pro-choice Republicans can actually make the same case the pro-life movement (at least part of the movement) makes for Rudy.
If nothing else you can surely see how this is a dramatic shift from the 80s and 90s where pro-choice was given little to no quarter in the party. Some in the pro-life movement fear that abortion is becoming just another issue rather than THE issue. I think they have a right to be afraid. After this election I don't think abortion can recover as one of the crucial litmus tests for the party.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I gotta slow down & proofread. Sheesh.
==== 13 ====
opened up NEW YORK CITY for economic renewal unthinkable before Giuliani was mayor many suburbanites in the NEW YORK METRO rediscovered the charm of the city and moved back to reclaim areas that were once wastelands. This is what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City and he has promised to appoint justices like Scalia and Alito.
He is no threat to the 2nd amendment because Gun control is a dead issue even Democrats won't touch it anymore.
He isn't in favor of Gay Marriage although his detractors readily use this fabrication to smear him.
The comments show how divided the Republican Party is. The bashing of the GOP by the conservative media has taken it's toll. It's hard to undo what has been done. The base is now shattered and disillusioned.
The one hope is that if Giuliani is the nominee, that he will get enough Democrat and independent votes to overcome the so called values voters who vote only on social issues.
___________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
the base will not split and we can beat the libs dems with any of the top 5 candidates
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
href="http://www.Fred08.com">
==== 13 ====