Redstate

With McCain and Rudy in a virtual tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republ...

Rudy has lots of history fighting "the system!" and that includes the bureaucrats as well as the elected gnomes.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to early to look at "electability". I think that Rudy could beat any of the Dems like a drum, primarily because he knows how to run against a toxic machine. His dirty laundry is well known and if Hillary is the D candidate, she's got more than he does.

Bottom line, more than any candidate in my memory (hold the "old" jokes please) Rudy will treat the general election like a knife fight. He'll win.

With respect to the other R candidates, I have no clue how Romney would do, McCain will get beaten and Huckabee will make 1964 look like big win for the Republicans.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Well a few days AF (After Fred) I was thinking Governor Romney or the Mayor. Your knife fight analogy is highly persuasive....

What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi

will be even more persuasive. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

and then you talk about it. You confidently predict that McCain will lose. And yet you predicted McCain was finished six months, I suggest you retire from fourtune telling.

Why should a SoCon trust Rudy on judges and not McCain. Rudy is actually pro-choice and said a strict-constructionist could uphold Roe. McCain is actually pro-life. It seems to be a matter of personal like or dislike projected.

McCain can win independents. Can Rudy? I don't know. He can't even win the core components of the Republican Party. McCain has proven able to win Fiscal Republicans in New Hampshire and Socons in South Carolina.

To say McCain can't win is nonsense.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Senator McCain is about as a reliable a Pro-lifer as he is against amnesty and stands in arms with the Minute Men.
The fact is McCain has been known to side with Democrats and his Gang of 14 opposed Alito and Roberts. McCain really doesn't deserve the honor of being a Republican. He is the modern day Herbert Hoover.

McCain is no fiscal conservative and McCain won NH cause his lived there since 2000 and he had a long established base.Romney and Huckabee split the social conservative vote in South Carolina. McCain wins liberal independents that want to push the weakest candidate on the GOP side to help the Democrats in November.

The fact is that McCain won't win. He'll force well-rounded conservatives away in November,myself included. I can vote for Rudy and disagree only on social issues. I can't vote for a man that my only shared stance is on the war in Iraq. There is a big difference. I'm sorry but, McCain will never win if he's the nominee. Hopefully our delegates will realize he is a mistake and go for Mitt or Rudy(?).

....and therefore the base of the GOP. Granted, I am a socon, and I would whole-heartedly support Rudy if he were the nominee. I just think that there are too many pinheads like James Dobson who will vote third party or not vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. I haven't seen any evidence of the social conservative wing of the GOP warming to Rudy, or even giving the hint of supporting him.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I don't consier those who would not do so pinheads. Actually I'm a little offended that you do consider them such. For some people its just not moral to vote for somebody that will not stand against abortion. If they do this than they feel they are a part of the abortion that is going on. Even though, practically speaking a Rudy presidency might mean less abortions, they believe the end doesn't justifies the means. So thats one legitamate reason why SoCons will not vote for Rudy.
Another reason is that they figure moving the party in the right direction is worth losing one election. For example, Rudy seems to mean nearly 100% chance of there being a pro-choicer in office for eight years. With Hillary we would have about a 50% chance that we could replace her with a Pro-life candidate in four years. So even if Hillary is worse than Rudy there's a chance she could still be better because she means less years of a pro-choicer in office, and she means that the party remains a pro-life party for whatevr that's worth.
So the question is how much worse Hillary is than Rudy. There would be a point that she's worse enough that its worth giving up the chance to get a pro-lifer up sooner. Considering judges I lean personally lean toward the position that Rudy would be enough better than Hillary to get my vote. However, if other conservatives feel differently I don't think they're pinheads. Afterall Rudy did say he thought Roe was a good law, he's never denounced Roe, and he has a terrible personal life. Because of all that it might not be worth it to vote for him. However, like I said I do think that he would likely be much better on judges than Hillary so that would probably motivate me to vote for him. But I can understand where others would feel differently.
BTW why are the anti-McCain people who promise not to vote for McCain in Nov. never called pinheads.

"moving the party in the right direction is worth one election"
This statement may be true in this election cycle. The social conservative side of the party may not lay down and take it this time, not when there's the possibility of getting someone with Huckabee's values (overturn Roe) and excellent track record (left his state stronger and out of debt), and big change vision (FairTax) into office.

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

I won't attack Huckabee, his record speaks for itself if you actually look at it. But I would like to know when the Republican party has given short shrift to anything the SoCons wanted ?
______________________________
"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

Yes, it does, when you take a good look at it, and it reveals a conservative who has held the reigns of government well. A true public servant, which is what a president is, but many Republicans seem to have let the term be adopted by Democrats and we do this to our peril.
I would consider when GWB stood practically alone against the stem-cell research crowd gathered at the gate, an example of our party giving "short shrift" to our principles.

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

Good on life/family issues, only if you consider supporting Constitutional Amendments that will NEVER pass and energize the opposition.

Totally ignorant on economics, foreign policy, immigration and a host of other issues. The guy is an embarrassment to the Party and the nation. More Arkansas trailer trash in the White House is not what we need now (and that includes Hillary).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh

and we got Alito replacing O'Connor as a 5th vote on religious free speech, local school issues, etc

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

stay home, they deserve to have their cushy chair at the table burned for firewood and replaced with a stump in the back yard.

Dobson, etal have gone from people who worked to move America in the right direction on their particular issue to a bunch of spoiled pinheads who don't understand compromise even when they get 98% of what they want. And Huckabee is a charter member of that little club.

Simply pathetic.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

bitter...bitter..

Drink more. Type less.

Worked in, started and have run crisis pregnancy centers. Counseled both pre and post abortion. Worked with groups to get pro-family and pro-life legislation passed in four states. And we've been at it for 30 years.

What I am is not so stupid that I can't see through the Dope from Hope. The guy has no clue about foreign policy, he has no clue about economics or tax policy - he picked up FairTax for the built in organization and support but couldn't explain it if his life depended on it, he's clueless about immigration - obviously hasn't spent any time thinking or working on it, he gets his "new" policy off the internet.

Oh yeah, and that doesn't even address the fact that the guy is crooked as a mountain stream.

I want somebody who will actually advance a SoCon agenda. The only agenda Huckadope is advancing is his personal agenda. I'm reasonable sure he noted that the Clintons got to keep the furniture they took from the White House, and he wants to follow suit.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Keep up the good erm, work then although if that is your life experience I honestly don't know how you get Rudy from that?

Was that the royal "we" you used?

Just kidding.

I get to Rudy because I'm at the point in life where I care about results more than I care about high sounding talk.

Rudy was mayor of NYC for eight years and the number of abortions went down significantly. That's a big time positive result in a liberal mecca like NYC. He's also committed to keep all administrative sanctions (Mexico City, etc) against abortion in place. And I'm very impressed with his advisory committee on the judiciary. I have a very high confidence level in the quality of his nominees (thanks to Olson & Estrada) and because of them, I have a high confidence level that he will fight tooth and nail for ALL of his nominees.

Is he the "perfect" candidate? Not even close. I would have preferred Fred's positions on issues and Rudy's fight. I don't usually get everything I want.

Given the field, Rudy is IMO, head and shoulders above the rest of the field.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

to not vote for Rudy. He's refused to retract his statement in favor of Roe, he's refused to denounce Roe. I would say with Rudy we get more like 50% of what we want, certainly not 98%. I lean towards supporting Rudy in the general because he made the best defense of orignalism that has been made by any of the other candidates ( really the only defense that I know of). However, it seems you should respect people whos conscience won't allow them to vote for Rudy ( the end doesn't always justify the means) or who feel like he's just too costly in terms of destruction the party to support. I respect those who dont support McCain in the general, you should respect those who don't support Rudy in the General.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

abortion while a legitimate reason not to vote for someone is not the only issue pressing our society today.

If we lose the war on terrorism and tank our economy under Hillary Clinton or Obama, we will not have the luxury of even thinking of abortion. With Rudy's higher chance of winning the war and unleashing the American economy, a true abolitionist will have an excellent chance to be President in 2016.

I guess its just up to your conscience. A sympathetic Pro-choicer or a Democrat that considers Pro-lifers scum.

Oh,a Pinhead is a bit much.

When push comes to shove I am going to pull the lever for which ever Republican has the nomination, but that is not the point.
The point is the loss of passion that the party will feel when I don't show up to work the phone banks, like I did for GWB. A good solid conservative republican kindles passion in many voters to go that extra step come election season, it is what we all were waiting on Fred to ignite in us, and I aint feelin it for naught but Mike Huckabee right now.
So can we win, without an impassioned electorate?
I chuckle at the thought of a grassroots phone bank for any of the other surviving Repubs right now. What do they say? Do they get into the weeds of McCains record? Do they have demographically chosen scripts to support multi-Mitt? funny, but I don't have as hard a time imagining a grassroots caller for Rudy, but it would not be me.

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

... which means he'll come to the knife fight with a loaded Glock in his pocket.

Giuliani knows that in a fight with the Clintons, they won't be constrained by any rules, and there won't be any ref who calls them on it. Giuliani's success governing in NYC with the entrenched Democratic machine fighting him every step of the way, and the NY media hating his guts, shows he's the guy who knows how to take them on. The kind of games Hillary and Bill are tying Obama in knots with will get slammed back into their faces.

What are you basing this on. I've heard that Guiliani was tough on his radio addresses and made lots of enemies, or something like that but his campaign so far has been extremely tame. He's fighting for something he really wants and he hasn't really put out anything that tough. So far his campaigning has been pretty weak as far as going after peoples records, etc. I'm just not seeing it.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

... who he obviously prefers not to alienate (nor their supporters) for the general election if he wins the nomination.

When it comes to taking on Democrats, is there any way in a city like New York Giulian could have accomplished the transformation he did, without knowing how to fight and win against brass knuckle liberal opposition in government and the media?

McCain in contrast relies on the media's adoration, which is why he sucks up to them with Democratic talking points. He'd be a fish out of water if he won the nomination, when the media would discard him like an aging mistress in order to help Clinton or Obama win the election. (Such is the fate of a Republican media whore.) McCain has no clue how to get his message out over a hostile media. In contrast, Giuliani knew how to win in New York despite having a media committed to destroying him.

Romney is better than McCain on that count. I give him credit for doing some good things in liberal Massachusetts, but nothing on the scale of what Giuliani achieved in New York.

Just what is your position in the party ? Just what is theirs ?

I believe in making the guy across the table from me show his cards. The SoCons have managed to get the rest of the party to fold without even anteing up.
______________________________
"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

With McCain, we're running an old Senator against a Clinton.

I saw that movie a dozen years ago and I didn't like the ending then either.

At least Dole had the courage to resign from the Senate before starting his campaign.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Either now or if he became President.

So, McCain won't commit to being President, why should we commit to him?

At the end of the day, if he loses, we get socialism and he goes back to his cushy Senate job--but worse: With a redoubled incentive to sell out the GOP in order to get back that sweet, sweet MSM love he'd been missing for some 7 months. No, wait. He'll be driven to sell the GOP out whether he wins or loses--McCain needs him some MSM loving. Great, lose-lose.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I'm really looking for a guy with all the compassion of me and all the fight of a Marine Corps Expeditionary Unit.

I'm done with "nice" politicians, I want the roads around DC littered with the political bodies of the left.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

First of all that attitude will not win an election. Republicans only make up like thirty percent of the population so if a canididate was running like the candidate that destroy everybody else, you can expect he will turn off a good portion of the 70% of the rest of the rest of the electorate. Besides the Democrats will be in control of Congress anyway and it doesn't matter how hard we play against them, they will just play harder. Trying to be mister agressivve mean guy would be a good way to get impeached though. You need that the hard core Cons like you are a minority you need to reach out the moderates and independents if your going to do anything.

We're talking him not me running for office. Could I get elected? No chance. Rudy, while have the appropriate characteristics, is a politician. He'll sell his programs and priorities and ability to govern to the nation just like he did to the wacko left in NYC to get elected mayor twice.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

electibility problems.
Consider the results in South Carolina:
Huckabee won like 48% of voters who considered themselves to be very Conservative and tied with McCain at about 30% with those who considered themselves somewhat conservative. Huckabee won the Repbublican vote. This is after the Conservative establishment and blogosphere, and Fred Thompson has been atacking Huckabee really hard - therefore its not you can say they didn't know about his fiscal record. So this tell me that in the South, there is likely about 30% of voters who don't care about fiscal issues, Or just have social issues as their number one priority, or are Fiscal moderates themselves. All of which would indicate to me that they aren't voting for Rudy. We can't win if we lose 30% of the South.
The second reason Rudy has an electibility problem is that he has shown himself to be a terrible national campaigner ( that he really has no appeal in IO, NH, MI, SC, NV). Now, the way the campaign is spinning it, is that Rudy's strategy is just to compete big states and therefore its okay that he lost all these early states. But if Rudy really intended to lose or to tie with Ron Paul in all these states he wouldn't have run ads in the states and campaigned in the states. I think there's pretty good evidence that he was trying to do better than the embarrasing finishes he managed to pull off in those states. Therefore, he likely pulled out because he saw himself losing. That either shows that he has poor appeal or poor campaigning skills. So there's two reasons why I don't think Rudy is Mr. Electable.

Or perhaps they took the time to see for themselves that Huckabee does'nt have a bad fical record for a Governor? Perhaps they voted with their wallet ... and their heart?

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

fiscal record. See C4G and CATO for two. You can slap lipstick on that pig 'till hell freezes over, but you've still got a pig.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

It might not win elections but I'd love to see the movie!
That is what I dreamed Schwartzenneger would do. Mow them down. And then he RINO'd out and I woke up.

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

Oh, BTW, I think both Giuliani and McCain can win the general against either Democrat. The others, I doubt it.

isn't just for the sake of having a fight.

Bush wanted a new tone and reached out to Democrats and mostly got his hand bitten. Remember "Bush Lied - People Died", General Betray-Us, etc, etc, etc. If it was just partisanship it would be bad enough, but these people have attacked our nation's war effort with their BDS.

Bush had it right after 9/11, "You're either with us or against us." and we need a president who'll go after our enemies who are against us whether they are in the backwoods of Terroristan, Damascus, Tehran, or right here in America in academia, the MSM, or even Congress.

But I agree in part, Bush tried - Democrats lied. The Dems do have a bad case of BDS and the voters are now begining to see that, but Bush isn't running again. Hopefully, the Dems will not be so crazy if they lose the moderates and independents they had in 2006 becuase of their insanity. But we don't win them over by being like the radical left, we win them over by offering realistic solutions - not just screaming at the other side.

The radical left needs to be slapped down, but that doesn't mean we have to be like them. The kos crowd has thrown out just about every Blue-dog democrat. This concedes the center to Republicans if we are willing to take that opportunity.

Rudy has impressed me as someone who picks the right fights with the right democrats. He made an excellent response to the general Betray-us ad. He rightfully tried to pull funding from an art museum that wanted to exhibit so-called art that depicted Jesus' family with sewage products.

What needs to be done, and I think Rudy does it well, isn't preaching to the choir. He points out some leftist atrocity so obviously that regular middle of the road Americans and moderate democrats get it and think, yeah Rudy's right about that.

I guess we're not really arguing with one another. I do think Rudy will fight for his positions - I think McCain will fight for his as well. They've largely supplemented one another in the GWOT. McCain did support the surge first, but I think any delay by Rudy was just him being too cautious because of his front-runner status at the time.

They are going to say " Oh boy that was mean we better give into the Republicans.", They just decide to play all the harder. Nothing will get done. And the Dems will be in power so I think there's a fair chance they will go for impeachment.

Rudy "the Middle East middle finger" Giuliani !
As a fellow New Yorker, that is my one and only reason to go Rudy. I won't vote for him, but I'd sure love that attitude!

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

Huckabee has been "at the wheel" for over 10 years and left his state in far better shape than how he found it.

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh

we'll have higher taxes, more illegal immigrants but we'll be putting them through college, nobody left in Federal Prison, and no furniture in the White House but that won't matter because he'll be living in a trailer park on the outskirts of DC.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Someone needs to take the keys from this drunken sailor, because he is in no shape to drive.

Combined State and Local Tax Budens

Source: Tax Foundation (which uses Dept of Commerce data)
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Romney supporters have noted (I have not independently verified) that virtually all (if not all) the growth in taxes in MA during Romney's governorship was at the local level.

I accept these are not entirely separate issues, which is why the Tax Foundation combines the two - if the state cuts grants to localities some of them are certain to respond by raising taxes.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

so that we can all be worried like you! A BS argument or are you implying the judges dealt with issues of national import that have affected the rest of the country?

But I have to give you credit for that great line about "homosexual marriage", since Rudy does not endorse "homosexual marriage" in any way shape or form, please further explain what's so troubling to you.

I think a lot of the people that keep tossing this little gem around are not doing a great job of hiding their "hatred". (There's a much more appropriate word)

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Not that I am a huge fan of the politico, but this wasn't hard to find:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html

Among the many bad examples of "bad law" by judges appointed by Giuliani is this gem: "Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular" Now that is a solid, impartial ruling.

Or how about this "bad law": "Sonberg ruled that the changing "cultural and sexual practices" of the previous two decades permitted him to alter the definition of prostitution." And that ruling was pro-conservative!

Sure you can try to paint this as an inaccurate "hit piece", but that still won't supply socons with reasons in his favor.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

"Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular"

The judge ruled correctly. The government was clearly making a preference for one religion to the exclusion of others - for example, Jews celebrate Sabbath on Saturdays. It's not the place for the government to uphold relgious doctrine, that's the job of the Church, Temple, etc.

A secular version of the law would take one of two forms: 1, ban the sale of alcohol on all holy days regardless of religion; 2, allow alcohol sales on all days regardless of religion.

I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com

So I guess you can't make any liquor sales restrictions. For that matter any law that references any day of year since each day will have some dignificance for some religion. There is nothing about that law that endorses a specific religion or denies another religion anything.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Sure you can make laws that restrict liquor sales, it just can't be done to promote the interests of one religion at the expense of others. For example, a state can legally restrict the alcohol content of beer to 3.0% or demand that some types of alcohol be sold in state stores.

I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com

no matter what the majority says.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

You can base it on sanitation in the bars and demand closing for certain hours. You can base it hours of work for licenced employees, since most liquor store clerks are subject to some sort of licencing. You can base it on the workload of your police department by showing the incidence of alcohol related crime. All it takes is a brain.

The one thing you can't base it on is the teachings of a specific religion. Unless, of course, you are a proponent of sharia law.

In Vino Veritas

normally I don't accuse people of hyperbole since I can see what they're getting at, but that was just plain rude.

As for what you can or cannot base it on, if you looked up the law you'd see it isn't based on anything to do with religion. It just is the day they chose. They don't have to supply a reason. Your version of "equal protection" means that cultures can't enforce cultural standards. That would wipe out most every law especially the ones you can trace back to the 10 commandments.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

They don't have to supply a reason.

So a predominantly white town could say police officers can't have hair that's naturally tightly curled, without having some law enforcement basis for that law? Just as long as they don't explicitly say keeping blacks off the police force is the intent of the law, a court wouldn't be legally justified in overturning that law?

... rather than banning them say Saturday or Friday?

Judges aren't supposed to decide that stuff. Petition the legislature if you don't like it.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Or are you going to claim it really isn't obvious to you why they picked Sunday to ban liquor sales?

Yes, it's religious, and as an Irish Catholic I'm ardently opposed to any restrictions on the sale of alcohol. That's my problem, though. Unless the government is planning on forcing me to read the Bible (we have priests for that), attend Protestant services, or get "born again", it's not establishing a religion. This is a matter for legislatures.

Even more importantly, this is a states' rights issue. Without even getting into whether this is the establishment of religion, the Constitution permits states to establish religions. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Last time I checked, state legislatures aren't Congress.

www.republicansenate.org

www.republicansenate.org

what does Christianity say about drinking on Sunday? Nothing I'm aware of.

We need alcohol on Sundays!

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

Your implication about the sexual practices was to the negative although "pro-conservative" is standard liberal smear crap, great editing though.

So many judges, so much time, so pathetic a post.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I didn't come up with the pro-conservative label. "Another Giuliani appointee reached a socially conservative verdict by a means that might not please strict constructionists" is what was written in the article. I merely summarized what the article wrote. Try reading it next time before you make an a** of yourself.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I wish we could discuss properly but since we don't have that opportunity, I have many suggestions for you but to keep it brief, why don't you look back over how many times that article has been brought up on this site over the last year.

Not only are you and the article unoriginal but both are simplistic and misleading.

Now I'm going to walk away from the pewter before I type some stuff that makes my account not work.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I hadn't seen it before (but then I've only really been here 10 weeks or so). I was just answering the request for "bad law" references. If that piece has been here so much, then why was strange__guy still asking for examples?

You still haven't provided any good reasons why socons should trust Giuliani's judicial appointment judgment. Name for me a few that would make me feel more at ease (keep in mind I'm not ruling Rudy out. I just can't stand the anti-socons who defend Giuliani by criticizing socons). I really am open to them, but I haven't yet heard any. All I hear is attacks on me being "simplistic" and how socons should just trust him. Make the case!

Oh, and sorry I didn't read "standard liberal smear crap" as "nice". I get that same crap when I criticize Hitchens. Are you with the same crowd that jumps on me then?

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

If you're going to accuse judge of "judicial activism", the burden is on you to make at least some semblance of a case that his interpretation of the statute is inconsistent with the text of the statute. You haven't made any such case, nor did the Politico hit piece. Since it was Giuliani that the Politico was attacking, you were happy to accept their characterization without citing any text of the law to back it up.

Yes I did cite the law in this post.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I replied to your claim of "judicial activism" when a Giuliani appointee ruled that lap-dancing in return for money (which included fondling unclothed breasts and buttocks) met the statuatory definition of prostitution under New York law.

You assert that was judicial activism, but you are totally unable to provide any evidence that the judge's ruling didn't follow the text of the law.

As is typical with Hucksters and GDS sufferers, reality is just a side show for you when you desperately want to believe something. Try doing your homework before you make such idiotic accusations. Relying on unsupported characterization from the Politico is a good recipe for making a fool of yourself.

which reduces me down to one still improperly defended ruling.

The law you want is here. Do you think that a lap dance falls within the words "engaged in sexual conduct with him"?

I really am open to a legit discussion, but the the ridiculous attacks over citing an article that no one is providing me anything contrary to is pretty pathetic. Do you guys (not aimed specifically at you gensec) expect to convert socons to Giuliani that way? And don't give me the "we aren't given the burden of proof" stuff. I didn't make up the argument against Giuliani and many of you better get ready for much worse to come out in the general if he get's the nomination. Start coming up with defenses for the guy as opposed to (or in addition to) attacking the messenger.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Do you think that a lap dance falls within the words "engaged in sexual conduct with him"?

Absolutely under the text of that statute. If he had ruled it did not constitute "sexual conduct", that would be more legitimately called judicial activism.

The judge Giuliani appointed ruled that lap dancing with fondling of nude breasts and buttocks in return for money fell under the the law's text "sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee", and you claimed that was judicial activism.

If the conduct cited is not "sexual conduct", little short of intercourse could be considered "sexual conduct". If the legislature wanted the prohibited commercial behavior to be limited to "sexual intercourse" or "sexual penetration", that's how they would have written the law. Their choice instead of "sexual conduct" clearly indicates more than that is prohibited. While there could be some ambiguity with less blatant activity, nude fondling and grinding someone's erection would be the least that could be covered by the text of that law.

And don't give me the "we aren't given the burden of proof" stuff. I didn't make up the argument against Giuliani and many of you better get ready for much worse to come out in the general if he get's the nomination.

When baseless accusations are made by Democrats or anybody else, they need to be clearly called out for what they are. When Hillary tries to slime the Republican candidate (whoever he is) with a baseless accusation, he needs to slam her for her contempt for the truth, rather than treat the slander as a subject of reasonable disagreement. And Giuliani will indeed slam her hard on her lies.

As for the baseless accusations part, I need to hear the proof against it when I see an article siting numerous cases and judges. It is just too easy to label something baseless unless it is just a soundbyte. If a guy is going to write so much baseless stuff, it shouldn't be that hard to poke holes in it. If all we do is sit around saying "baseless!" it doesn't seem very convincing to me that it is in fact baseless.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

A judge of a court at that level is a lawyer with friends and who doesn't want to hustle billable hours any more. The judge has almost no discretion in statutory questions. The ability to analyze and apply the law and the rulings of the higher courts are what are at issue here.

99% of the judges in America would have ruled as this judge did on the Sunday closing case. In case you haven't noticed, Blue Laws are pretty much a thing of the past nation wide. The fact that the Christian religion observes Sunday as a day of rest does not represent a compelling state interest in closing stores, liquor or others, on Sunday.

Prostitution laws are ancient in this Country. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the legislature that authored NY State or the City's prostitution ordinance were contemplating lap dances when they passed that statute or ordinance. Assuming NYC is as civilized as most other states, there's probably a "lewd and lacivious conduct" statute on the books that they might have tried. The prosecutor overcharged, not an uncommon thing with political prosecutors, and the judge said no way.

That is very much an equivocal peice, almost speaking out of both sides of the writer's mouth. If it was intended to be a hit piece, it certainly wasn't a good one if the audience had an IQ over room temperature.

In Vino Veritas

must be living breathing documents. You win. Socons have nothing to fear from judges who change laws to save billable hours.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

there's a whole bunch of things "the majority" support that I suspect you don't like much. The majority would probably get their fifteen year old daughter an abortion. Like that? In much of the Country, there's a Helluva lot more bars than churches. Wanna subject yourself to the will of that majority?

Come back when you grow up.

In Vino Veritas

have at it.... I'm ready to toss my keyboard so I'm walking away

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I happen to love bars and I go to them more often than I go to church, and your stats on abortion are off. No I won't cite them, you go look them up since I've been the only one in this discussion linking to anything or offering references.

I am all in favor of the majority not being subjected to the minority through judicial activism that you lead me to believe you are in favor of.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I thought about it, writing an intelligent response, then reflected on the hours I've spent over the last six months doing exactly the same thing over and over.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Against Rudy ?

More troubling to some of the social conservatives Giuliani is courting, however, would have been Sonberg's other affiliation: When he was appointed in 1995, he was already an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges, a professional group. After his appointment, he became the group's president.

You don't find this a little discrediting to the author ??

Or do you feel that he is right ?
______________________________
"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

I wasn't claiming it was Gospel truth. I just found the first example of "bad law" strange_guy needed. I was able to confirm the 2 examples I illustrated and it confirmed what I've already posted here. strange_guy asked a dumb question so I found the first dumb answer I could for him. I ain't vouching for the integrity of the rest of the piece. I'm not even saying I agreed with the conclusion of the piece for that matter.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Are ignorant bigots, who don't have all our dentition, have the odd habit of making sucking noises when we speak and think a fun Friday night is going out to find some gay people to beat up, trying to frame who we should vote for.I'd be willing to be the author has a rubberized keyboard to keep the spew from getting to it.

Unless you are a lawyer and intimately familiar with the way the courts work, take the rulings presented with a grain of salt. You probably don't know the whole story. This guy isn't going to tell it to you, or even point you in the right direction.
______________________________
"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

he did point out 2 rulings that were not very Scalia-esque (I didn't take the time to verify any others. Does anybody really want me too? I might find more) and the alleged 8-1 ratio of democrat to republican judges (something I haven't yet found another source on... but then again this aint my life work to discredit Giuliani so I'm not going to hunt it down) bugs me. I'm actually way more interested in anybody pointing me in the direction of a refutation of what I linked to. Giuliani is not on my "will not vote for" list.

I just won't tolerate the Hitchen's like response to anything within a six-degree seperation from any religion like some other posters here.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Subscription is a bit much for a point.
______________________________
"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

tadams1138 makes an unsupported accusation that the Giuliani appointee was engaged in judicial activism, when he ruled that lap dancing with nude fondling met the statutory definition of prostitution under New York law.

When called on the fact that he has no legal text to support that characterization by the Politico, tadams1138 says the burden is on you to disprove the baseless accusation he made:

but then again this aint my life work to discredit Giuliani so I'm not going to hunt it down) bugs me. I'm actually way more interested in anybody pointing me in the direction of a refutation of what I linked to

(where what he linked to was the Politico article with just the characterization and no factual documentation) Isn't this exactly the kind of reckless contempt for facts that we come to expect from Hucksters?

I've come to expect from anti-socons. I rate Giuliani above Huckabee, but the blind anger at socons makes it impossible for some of you to know how to court them.

and as for "unsupported accusation". It is supported. Possibly not supported well, but the theory has some evidense that no body seems willing to disprove here. I'm waiting (I really am! I really will accept it if someone would just give me an example of a few Scalia-like judges to prove me wrong. I can't find them. Help me out)

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Right to life ?? Does protesting abortion centers count ?
Support traditional definition of marriage ??
Support teaching of morality in schools ??
Support display of religion in public spaces where appropriate ?

I never knew that swallowing the garbage that any crooked preacher spewed out was in the requirements.

I happen to remember some of the people that were taken to the movements bosom because they could recite bible verse.

Jim Bakker ring a bell ?
Peter Popoff
John Paulk
Ted Haggard

I am sorry the devil can quote scripture and it seems theres many people that really want to be taken in.
______________________________
"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

"Right to life ?? Does protesting abortion centers count ?
Support traditional definition of marriage ??
Support teaching of morality in schools ??
Support display of religion in public spaces where appropriate ?"

Can you cite me this stuff? I've done most of the research on this thread, could you link me a few to even out the load.

Can you show me how that stuff translates into Presidential socon results? Did he appoint any judges that helped do any of that?

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I have people telling me I am not a SoCon because I can support Rudy. I can't stand Huckabee.

All my life I have had friends think I was positively square because I was conservative. Now I find out I wasn't. Gee would have been good to know when my hormone levels were higher. I missed out on a lot of parties.
______________________________
"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

That's funny. I got told I'm not "pro-life enough" because I backed Hunter who sponsored a bill that would eliminate federal funding for abortion but didn't eliminate funding for contraceptives. I was told "he's pro-contraceptive*" and for that reason not pro-life and anyone who backed him... Yes, I've seen both extremes, and neither of them are that pretty.

*pro-contraceptive: Is anti-contraceptive just ceptive?

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Don't assume all socons believe a characterization by the Politico made with no supporting facts changes an "unsupported accusation" to one that "is supported. Possibly not supported well, but the theory has some evidense"

There are some socons who support Giuliani. (I'm a federalist myself) More socons believe Romney or McCain would make a better candidate and/or President.

That's a reasonable debate to have between Republicans, and the rhetoric even gets overheated at times. None of that is in the same class as accepting an unsupported hit piece from the Politico as "evidence".

Some Republicans under estimate the influence of social conservatives within the Republican party. Some Republicans say, "We need to get off of this abortion issue," or "we need to stay away from those social issues."

Some adopt this attitude because they are social liberals. Others adopt this attitude because they think social conservatism is a liability in the general election.

But every time it looks like an out-in-the-open pro-choice Republican might have a shot at winning the GOP nomination, that candidate underperforms compared to the nominally pro-life candidates in the primaries.

That's because the influence of social conservatives is "below radar." So, in some sense, the Huckaboom should not have been a surprise.

to "single issue voters" and "pro-lifers will destroy the party". That's why I assumed the angry at socons bit.

I'm a socon and I'd vote Giuliani over McCain which is an argument for a totally different thread. The Politico might not characterize the situation right from your perspective (and I'm not locking myself into it either), but it does cite examples that can either be proven or disproved. If it really is so baseless, I could use some help knocking it down.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Romney, Rudy, Or the old man with a bad temper.

Because Huck is out of money. I don't even want to go into electability McCain is running on matching funds so he has about zero chance in the general no matter how well he is polling.
______________________________
"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

I wouldn't be surprised if it was exactly that same "shut up and vote Giuliani, socons" attitude that drove so many to Huckabee. Thanks a lot. Why don't you help Giuliani out by giving me reasons to trust his judicial choices, because I haven't heard them yet (and I've looked).

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

But I do know that he campaigned vigorously for SC Justices Thomas and Scalia to be confirmed, and even testified before Congress regarding her ability to interpret the Constitution correctly, and he was right on the money.

I'll go look that stuff up. I might get a chance to use that later.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

You hung right in there until you got something! It wasn't exactly what you were looking for, but your hanging in there was well done!

I support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.

I figured I was pretty lucky in finding anything when I found this link to senate judiciary hearings, but I can't find Giuliani listed as testifying for Scalia or Thomas. Could someone help me out?

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

without really caring if it's true. Thanks for clearing that up.

I found this post by EzOnTheEyez. Paragraph 3 especially cuts down the article that the Politico published. That makes Giuliani's promise for construnctionalist judges much more believable.

(as an aside, not that I think anybody is going to read this, I would have appreciated this kind of response over the attack the messenger style responses)

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

will dissappear the instant that HC gets the Democratic nomination.

Rudy agrees with Judge Siverman, that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Speeches.aspx?ID=45

Rudy also disagrees with the decision the Supreme Court made in Kelo
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/16/more-from-the-federalist-soc-dinner-...

n/t

One DOES NOT ignore Erick's order to stop spamming.

Then again, the dude was trusting a College Republican's word over Fred's word himself regarding an FDT endorsement, so he clearly has less than zero common sense.

on TV ads

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

Well, mbecker and yourself as notable exceptions.

Actually, McCain and Rudy aren't after the "anti-Romney" vote, they're both after the "moderate", "somewhat conservative" vote and the foreign policy crowd. So they are splitting their votes. If one or the other starts to fade, I think it will turn into an avalanche.

The attack ads aren't working and backlashed on those running them. Even McCain got hit when he went too negative on Romney. I think they've all just discovered that most voters are in no mood for this kind of infighting.

McCain's record must be exposed. In SC he ran ads portraying himself as the border enforcer. No one challenged him.

The mood of Luntz's Iowa and NH undecideds be damned. If we are to be governed by what they are in the mood for, then God help us.

Must we fool Americans into voting for conservatism? I think not.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

I think McCain's record is actually pretty well known. Distorting it (most attack ads just do that) isn't going to help out - people are just tired of it. The candidates need to focus on their own positives not their opponent's negatives.

At least that's how I'm seeing it.

We could go on forever as to what "conservatism" means. And what good would it do us if we can't attract independents and undecided voters?

Anyway, I've got to go, have a good night.

In 2000, George W Bush was both the evangelical candidate and the conservative establisment candidate.

This year, Huckabee was the evangelical candidate and the conservative establishment has really been split, with a plurality of the conservative establishment supporting Romney (Robert Bork, National Review).

That's why McCain won South Carolina. At least that's my analysis for now.

can only be stopped if Mitt or Rudy go after HIM.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

While I will get some argument, you can take this to the bank. I am here in Florida, and McCain is going to come in 2nd. Immigration is huge here, and he is losing that debate 50-14. Talk radio here is hammering him here.

Never the less, he will beat out Rudy because of Rudy's problem with social conservatives.

Romney is going to take the state,no question about it, its just a matter of by how much.

to run some comparative ads highlighting McCain's record, incl his cursing resignation to building the fence, so as to combat McCain's ads vowing to be border sheriff?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

be about who you PREFER? If you prefer Giuliani shouldn't you write your endorsment column for him? Perhaps I don't understand. I'm not a Giulina supporter, just curious.

"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson

My endorsement should be about the result that I want to see in the election. That has to take account of realities. That includes the fact that the perfect candidate doesn't exist, that some people I respect aren't running, that others tried running and failed, and that there is a real chance Giuliani is joining that group the day before my column is published (next Wednesday). There is even a real chance Giuliani will withdraw from the race that day.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The decision about who to endorse in this field is a weighted -- and a weighty -- decision and requires people to make a difficult choice when presented with a very wide range of sometimes contradictory options and impulses. The perfect candidate doesn't exist and the perfect endorsement doesn't exist as a consequence. In light of that, we will all be making our choices based on a combination of our discernmnet and how we weigh the options, hopefully with as much reflection as possible.

Romney is in a much better position to carry Florida than Rudy, and his win would be huge. It would also knock Rudy out of the race, which for many of us is more important than knocking McCain out.

www.republicansenate.org

and reason.

On issue after issue, Rudy has addressed his intraparty opposition and made specific committments on issues like judicial nominations, abortion, gun control, fiscal policy. You can choose to not believe him, but he's the ONLY candidate who's actually made the effort to address his intraparty problems.

In terms of governance, Rudy governed NYC as a dyed in the wool conservative, just ask the NYT. Compared to McCain and Huckafool, he's Reagan (and I'm not saying he's Reagan, there will be no more Reagans).

Actually my "perfect candidate" this time around would have been Fred Thompson with Rudy's fight.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

And Rudy's executive skill. That would have been a walkover.