I'm Sorry if You Got the Impression that this was Negotiable.
By Red Sox Republican Posted in 2008 — Comments (154) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Cross Posted at The Red Sox Republican.
So Rasmussen released a poll last week indicating that 27% of Republicans would vote third party if Rudy were nominated. My pro-Rudy friends have responded with a barrage of emails and posts directed at people like me who fit into that 27% about what fools we are all being, do we really want President Hillary, yadda yadda. The basic strawman these earnest Rudynistas are knocking down is that we are demanding "ideological purity" and making the perfect the enemy of the good. This, of course, is balderdash. Most of the rest of that 27%, including myself, would vote for any other candidate in the Republican field - including McCain, Romney, and even Ron Paul, and all three of the candidates just mentioned drive me positively nuts. If we were all saying, "If the GOP doesn't support a FlatTaxer, we're voting Democrat!!" they'd have a legitimate point. But as it happens, Rudy stands for almost nothing that conservatives believe in, with the exception of the fact that conservatives apparently believe that Hillary Clinton must be stopped at all costs, and Rudy stands for beating Hillary.
You know, I'd be fine supporting a guy who I thought lacked conservative principles in the name of defeating Hillary, and getting something rather than nothing (note my willingness to support Mitt Romney, mentioned above). I guess if I'm leaning towards somebody these days, it's Fred Thompson, and I'm not nearly such a naif as to think that Fred Thompson is actually convicted in some deep way about a lot of conservative issues. However, what my pro-Rudy friends don't seem to understand is that for guys like me, support for Rudy is a non-negotiable proposition. And it's not just (or even primarily) because he's a dirty, stinking Yankees fan. It is, of course, the abortion thing.
Now, a lot of people say that abortion is just an "issue" and that it's wrong to let a single issue dictate your whole politics. Generally, that's a sound proposition. I guess there are a wide variety of reasons that people might oppose abortion - but I oppose it because I think it's killing. And the way it's practiced in this country, it's a *lot* of killing. It's killing in numbers per annum that roughly equal the holocaust. And so I'm sorry to say that it's simply not an option for me in my conscience to pull the lever for a guy who supports the continuation of current abortion policy in the United States.
This is the point in the conversation where my pro-Rudy friends generally interject, "Yes, but, *HILLARY!!!*" And then I have to wonder whether I'm speaking clearly or something, or whether my pro-Rudy friends have somehow gotten the idea that the concept of supporting a candidate who would stand by and allow what I consider to be mass infanticide is a negotiable one. So let me just say it: it isn't. Sorry if you got the wrong impression, here, but I'm not really interested in being persuaded on this point.
I think that part of what makes this so insulting is that there's so little else about Rudy which might even make me think about at least standing aside for him, if not actively working for him. At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:
1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in Iraq
Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more, and as for #1, well, the country survived Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Bill Clinton; it will survive Hillary Clinton. And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion. Not even close. So, I mean, thanks for the effort, Rudy fans, but perhaps you'd better move on to someone else in that 27% group, because the issue is not up for negotiation here.
that America would be better with Hillary for four years than with any of those three for four years?
forgotten the War on Terror? We chastised the Dems not long ago for forgetting, yet it seems now that a significant percentage of Republicans have done likewise.
Molon Labe!
Not even religeous right...Haven't been to church in 3 years.
Pro Life but should be left up to states
Federalist on marraige to almost libertarian (Marraige not up to the government, up to Church) I'd still support a FMA.
War on Terror...
WTC was #1 target
Rudy put command center in WTC knowing full well that was the case.
I was responding to the Dobson comment not to the issue of Rudy and Romney alienating the SoCons.
McCain's issue is he's against Free Speech and therefor should never be allowed near the oval office.
I am not a "Dobson Republican", but you have seen my comments in this thread. Are you suggesting my disdain for Rudy is a sign that I have forgotten the war on terror?
I'll add that Rudy's personal life is probably more disgraceful than Bill Clinton's, which means that his nomination will crown the GOP's abandonment of fiscal conservatism, small government, competence, and public integrity, with a decisive abandonment of personal virtue.
This in return for what?
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
women who dare to speak out rate higher on the scale of moral values than a plain vanilla adultery, can you wonder why so many people don't take theological conservatives seriously?
We're into the B Class list of horribles. Problem is, most folks don't rate "plain vanilla" adultery as awful as they once did.
The incredible news is that this time, we're offered a chance to run a candidate who left "plain vanilla adultery" in the dust. Ain't life grand?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
tolerant of adultery.
The problem with certain moralists is that they think they can do a better job than He did.
There was a Messiah who also knocked over some tables somewhere once. Takeaway message: Almsgiving is bad, adultery is good.
The problem with certain politico-religious fanatics is that they're willing to burn everything else down for The One.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
"Go and sin no more." That's a interesting definition of tolerance.
Rudy answer is to sin some more, and then celebrate and advertise it.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Also: publicly humiliating your wife (and mother of your children) and then sending your lawyers out to badmouth her, while running around with your mistress as if there were no problem; alienating your own children by the unending disorder of your personal life; and failing to show the least bit of remorse of all these wounds inflicted.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
In 2006, the GOP lost the legislative branch. Maybe they'll get the House back in 2008, maybe not. Who knows about 2010.
If they lose to Hillary, they get the executive branch.
And it's likely she'll have three retirements (Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsberg). There goes the judicial branch. That will lock in abortion on demand (including partial birth abortion and public funding of abortion), affirmative action, legal rights for terrorists, health care as a constitutional right...you name it.
It could be half a century or more before there would be a chance of rolling back those precedents. Hillary will appoint, young, healthy liberals.
I think SCOTUS is a pretty fair exchange for voting for Rudy.
I think with Rudy, the odds of a Souter-like justice who turns out not to be as concerned about abortion as we thought go up quite a bit.
Choose the lesser of two evils. With Rudy, there's a considerable chance of a pro-life SCOTUS.
And I think Rudy will have to choose someone who's rigorously vetted, or he'll have problems with the GOP voting against his nominee. He'll chose someone with a solid conservative paper trail, who won't drift leftward under the influence of the Linda Greenhouses of the world.
Help me out here: Do you seriously think he loses his core voters if he appoints another Souter? Another O'Connor?
Because from what I've seen, his core supporters toss in "judicial nominations" at the very end of the list of reasons to support the fellow, and usually as a sop/chide to social conservatives who don't trust him.
It may or may not be that Giuliani will appoint better judges than Hillary; properly, as I mentioned below, I suspect it's true that it's marginally more likely that he'll appoint such judges, rather than certain that he'll appoint marginally better judges.
But why does he need anyone whose first priority is judges? Isn't being what he is and what he's running on -- where judges come way down his own list -- enough? If he wins on that, why would he care about judges come re-election time? The man is neither a Carter nor a George H. W. Bush.
Any appointments in his first term would be in the Roberts/Alito/Thomas tradition.
In other words, this is a mere hope on your part.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg are already already pro-Roe. Hillary replacing them will preserve the current status quo.
Rudy, who has advisors like Ted Olson ( a great SCOTUS pick, too), could appoint justices who would reverse Roe.
No way I'm voting for a Mormon.
So I'm gonna give you a chance I normally wouldn't. Apologize for the slur.
You have one day. It's 10:22 A.M. ET on 10.10.07. Get to it.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Good luck wandering off into the political wilderness, then, should Rudy become the nominee. After all, it worked so well for Pat Buchanan.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I bet the slavery-moderate Whigs thought the same thing about the anti-slavery radicals right up until the party disintegrated into national irrelevance.
Go ahead and leave the Republican Party, then. None of us are stopping you.
The history of politics is littered with third parties that went nowhere. If you want to make your positions irrelevant, then go ahead and leave. I for one am tired of the kvetching.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
threatening to bolt the GOP and pretty much states that Hillary is the lesser of two evils.
Neil, in politics, you pick your poison. Cheers!
What would be the difference between Rudy Giuliani and the two major liberal Republican Presidents of modern times, Eisenhower and Nixon?
threatening to bolt the GOP
Please point out where I said this.
pretty much states that Hillary is the lesser of two evils
Please point out where I said this.
Thanks!
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
Both are.
This is the nature of coalition politics: Sometimes, you get someone that so sets off a faction that it looks as if that faction will bolt. The other factions then have the choice of mollifying the original faction or wishing it a fond farewell.
None of this is done in a vacuum.
Or, put differently:
A: If you don't stop playing like this, I'm taking my ball and going home.
B + C: Well, we're going to play like this, so good-bye.
This does not go to the relative merits of the dispute, but rather to the idea that one side or the other is uniquely at fault here. Nature of the game.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
What do these non Republicans hope to accomplish? Are they really threatening people that might vote for Rudy in the primary? If not, then what exactly are they doing?
You know, if we give up Rudy for them, they will come back and ask us to give up Fred, John and Mitt eventually.
Molon Labe!
First of all, I don't agree with the comparison. While I have my objections to Rudy Giuliani in an academic sense (why are so many Conservatives supporting him? On all the issues except for 9/11, I mean?) But even taking that into account Rudy Giuliani isn't as polarizing a figure as Pat Buchanan, and certainly not Ross Perot.
I would vote for Rudy Giuliani if it came down to a choice between him and any of the Democrats. I'm not crazy. Rudy being the nominee isn't going to frighten me off the reservation.
I would prefer the nominee be someone else, but a Rudy for President ticket isn't going to make me take my marbles and go home.
I'm comparing Dobson and anyone else that's categorically ruling out voting for Rudy in the general to Pat Buchanan.
Then Neil Stevens brought up the Whigs, despite the fact that trying to start a new political party to replace one of the main two hasn't worked in nearly 150 years now.
I'm just tired of people saying they're leaving the Republican Party if Rudy is the nominee. To which my reply is: $#!+ or get off the pot.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
If we don't ask folks who slavishly push Rudy at every turn, we're sure as heck not going to punish folks who register a problem with him. We cool?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And, as you may have noticed, I already am behind someone I like better than Rudy; namely, every other Republican in the field.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
you have to pick the one that you think is best, support him, build enthusiasm for him that is capable of winning a general election.
That's why the segment of the GOP that is opting for a disguised suicide pact - we can't abide Rudy, but we'll hold our noses and vote for
McCain- but we can't forgive him for CFR, the Gang of 12, the torture position!
Romney- he's a Mormon and flip-flopped to our position on abortion!
Fred- oh, we suppose he'll do, but he's old and tired and slow and didn't kiss Dobson's ring!
It's all very unconvincing.
I'm actually pulling for a good Fred showing today, because at least that offers the prospect that we have a credible alternative to Rudy.
You can't beat something with nothing.
Did you actually *read* my post? I'm talking specifically about the part where I said that I'd vote for McCain, or Romney, or even Ron Paul? Or the part where I said I'm leaning Fred?
I'm actually pulling for a good Fred showing today, because at least that offers the prospect that we have a credible alternative to Rudy.
That makes two of us.
And I have no idea what you are berating me for.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:
1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in Iraq
Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more, and as for #1, well, the country survived Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and Bill Clinton; it will survive Hillary Clinton.
Not exactly an invitation to man the barricades for 2008.
Look, if that's what you believe, you're entitled to it. If Paul Cella believes that Rudy's personal life is more objectionable than the Clintons' use of the state to promote perjury and destroy women in Bill's past, and if Thomas believes I'm a Rudybot despite my previously expressed willingness to support the eventual GOP winner enthusiastically - so be it. We need to move on.
Because you're a Red Sox fan. More than enough reason to question your judgment.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
That's almost as bad as being a Yankees fan.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
To expand the point to it's illogical conclusion, the worst case scenario demonstrating poor judgment would be to be a Cubbies fan or [drum roll] an AZ Cardinals football fan (which I'm not!).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Don't push it.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
win the Series.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
WIth getting past the Rockies. I'm betting the Rockies take them in 5 (or less).
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
The Dbacks have home field and better pitching. Webb combined with the long layoff will slow down their bats enough for the Dbacks to win in 6.
My confidence does diminish considerably with regard to the World Series. I would be happy if we won a game just to avoid a sweep.
1), He's not Hillary
2), He'll aggressively continue the war on terror,
Both true.
A third reason why I could still support Rudy is that he fixed a unfixable bureaucracy that was New York City.
I'm about convinced that our Federal government is broken. Outside of our military, there is no assumption of competence in any agency, or for any federal employee. The procurement process is completely corrupt. Federal employees are insulated by so many job protections that many feel insulted when actually asked to do work. I actually think Rudy could change a lot of that.
I'm not yet willing to say I'm voting for Rudy in the Primary. I'm holding out hope that Fred! can gain traction in purple states. But if Rudy's our nominee after the dust settles, I'm on board.
I'm not willing to give Hillary 4-8 years to continue to appoint liberal judges at all levels, not just SCOTUS. I'm not willing to give her that time to bloat the federal bureaucracy beyond the brink of return.
Rudy might not be all I want in a POTUS, but I'm not willing to abandon the Republican party to make a point, while turning the goverment over to those who will entrench another generation of judges who hate this country.
He threw in another point we want tonight during the debate. School Choice.
Think what will happen to our opposition if we have someone championing our causes who won't first be accused of religous bigotry when he brings the issue up. The left may actually have to agrue these issues on their merits.
I'm so sick of the Rudynistas saying that Rudy is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. Seems like electability is the main criteria some have for supporting him. In reality, however, he will be the least electable candidate because a significant number of conservative Christians will not vote for him and an even larger number will not contribute or campaign for him.
See also http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2007/10/kristol_i...
The other negative for Rudy is that on many issues the people that might be more inclined to vote for him because of liberal views on issues are already voting for the Democrat. The "independent appeal" of left of center Republicans is an illusion.
Never imagined ever being one. I'm just more a realist. Actually I work with the Pregnancy Resource Center which offers couseling, free ultrasounds, connections to services, etc. I'm very pro-life and consider abortion killing.
In addition, during the last few years our family has had a population explosion where we are (our 12th grandchild due Christmas) looking at ultrasounds and calling our new babies by name before they were born.
I think more babies will be killed with Hillary's activist pro-abortion judges that will set all my conservative causes back. Hillary is different from Democrats in other elections. Rush has been talking about her using Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as her campaign playbook. She just needs the power.
===============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
If we have a liberal Republican in the White House, we are much more likely to get bad policy than with a radically liberal Democrat. At least if Hillary were president and even if (worst case scenario) the democrats still controlled both houses of congress, the Republicans will be able to work against them to some effect.
When a Republican is president, Republicans in congress tend to go some distance off of their beliefs to support him.
Under a Republican president, with a Republican majority, we have seen some decidedly unconservative things become law. NCLB(as dictated by Ted Kennedy), Medicare part D, McCain-Feingold, etc. Even when Bill Clinton had a Democrat majority, he found many issues were out of his reach. It is an interesting dynamic to consider.
Most of all, I do not buy the idea that a liberal has a better chance of getting elected. Tell me the last time a modern leftist was elected while running as a leftist? Tell me how often a Republican has lost the presidency running to the right? (Not counting Bob Dole, because that was a horrible campaign, I mean beyond bad.) Even though this plays out time and time again, every election we have to stomach the "conventional wisdom" that a Republican has to waffle on core issues to be elected. Most amusing was Gerald Ford giving that advice to GWB. Think that one through.
I agree with your analysis. I'd love a pro-life conservative right candidate. But who is the one who can win IN THIS ELECTION? If Dobson had put in a candidate early, it wouldn't have done the same damage as can now, and could be considered more than *Dobson's Perot*.
Personally, it's not "conventional wisdom" that's influencing me. It's what I've seen of all the candidates and their realistic chances to knock off Hillary. I know I'm jumping ahead here. My #1 issue is fighting the GWOT. I think Guiliani will talk about it and fight it the best. #2 Now that Hillary is the presumptive candidate, it's going to take a fighter to beat her. Again, I think he's the best for the fight. At least that I've seen so far.
===============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
When a Republican is president, Republicans in congress tend to go some distance off of their beliefs to support him.
Sorry, but I can't agree. Just look at W's presidency: Dubai Ports and Harriet Miers come immediately to mind, and Republicans sure didn't line up behind his attempts to reform Social Security in 2005.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Harriet Miers wasn't about congress it was about the grassroots.
Dubai Ports was just hysteria.
Social Security? He was on the conservative end of that...the Republicans in congress just refused to touch it.
Regardless, you are trying to argue that because of a few instances where Congressional Republicans didn't follow a Republican President that my assertion is invalid. However, my examples are enough to prove it happens, and it happens even when said President is to the left of the party.
and it is totally unfair. First, he is socially liberal and that is the only place he is liberal. He is fiscally conservative, conservative when it comes to law and order, and conservative when it comes to the war on terror. I have some problems with a lot of people on this board.
For instance, Mitt Romney recently became a convert to a being a social conservative. Rudy was also a recent convert to being tough on border enforcement and illegal immigration. Mitt is known generally as a flip flopper however no one characterizes him as socially liberal. Rudy is characterized as liberal on border enforcement even though that is not his position. Rudy also has stated that he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Again, this is not deemed worthy, unlike Mitt's flip flops and people continue to say that he won't, even though his entire judicial staff is made up of staunch strict constructionists.
Rudy is portrayed as a liberal even though he governed New York for eight years in a manner that made every single liberal group curl up in a fit of rage. Tell the ACLU that Rudy is a liberal. Tell that to the NY Times. The policies that Rudy instituted successfully, when he governed successfully, were conservative not liberal policies.
I never hear the words leadership and effectiveness mentioned when there is someone dogging Rudy.
I guess that those of you social conservatives think that ideology is more important than leadership and effectiveness in President. Well, that is hog wash. I don't care what you believe if you have no idea what you are doing you are going to fail. Who exactly are you going to vote for if Rudy is the nominee. Some fringe third party candidate that wouldn't know the White House from the Green Room if by some chance of fate they actually got elected. What exactly are you saying here?
If you don't think Rudy is electable fine? How about voting for someone that is qualified? Is that important? Do you think some fringe third party candidate with token governing experience is the best person to be President? Do you think that the bulk of being President is what you believe or how effectively you carry out your agenda? What in the world is the difference what you believe if you have no idea how to put into practice? Isn't that Ron Paul's problem. Yes, I can count all of you out of voting for Rudy. Congrats, you will vote for some fringe person who was mayor of Greeley, Colorado as their major governing experience.
Do you want a good reason to vote for Rudy. When he was a prosecutor, he was among the finest most effective prosecutors, EVER. When he was a mayor, he was among the finest most effective mayors, EVER. Then, he ran a successful business. I heard somewhere that leadership is kind of an important trait when it comes to being President.
All you Rudy naysayers, when it comes to leadership, which candidate from either party, has the most of that trait?
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
2 Words
2nd Amendment
What really frustrates me here is the vitriol towards supporters of other candidates, and it is coming from all sides. If I don't like Rudy, deal with it. If somone likes McCain, fine. I am not even going to be difficult with Paul supporters. That is a lot different from how I debate the candidates. I think people who love Huckabee are just as much Republicans with a right to be heard as me, I think Huckabee is an unacceptable candidate. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.
I think this is the time to debate these issues, and some SoCons can't abide Rudy. Make your case, but I am a firm believer that "electibility" isn't a case, it is an opinion, generally derived from many varied analyses of why people vote. Remember that the Democrats put up Kerry in 04 because they thought he was more electible. Note how that worked out for them.
If Rudy is nominated, I will more than likely vote for him in the general election, but I will do so knowing that it is probably the death knell for both Republicans as a party and conservatives as an influential movement. There are many others who see things the way I do that will NOT vote for Rudy in the general. That is not a point of contention to argue with me about, it is a reality of the Republican base, a base that consists of people that will never read your words here. It has to be taken into consideration when determining our nominee.
I am a GWOTSoFiscon. In that order. I think Fred is the "consensus" candidate that gives me the most of all of those. Your choices and views will vary.
in a city of about 10 million compressed into an urban setting is a lot different than 2nd amendment as a concept to defend when you are President. Again, I thought that he stood up for the 2nd amendment when he was at the NRA convention. See, again, when Rudy flip flops it means nothing and he is neither rewarded for taking the proper position, nor forgiven for not holding firm to his principles. Unlike any other candidate he can't win with people that should embrace him.
All of this doom and gloom is downright stupid. Rudy is not going to destroy anything. His Presidency will have little if nothing to do with any social issues, the 2nd amendment, or any of the nonsense that puts everyone into a frenzy.
Rudy's greatness as mayor wasn't because because he championed abortions, or removed everyone's hand gun. His greatness was in cutting crime, cutting taxes, and shrinking government. I thought those were three things we all liked, and unlike anyone else running, he has a history of being successful at it, not just talking about it, like a certain former Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
"2nd Amendment in a city of about 10 million compressed into an urban setting is a lot different than 2nd amendment as a concept to defend when you are President."
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I couldn't disagree with you more. Try applying that sort of test to any of our other constituional rights.
The real issue I have here though is that I find myself grasping to find a reason to vote for Rudy. I can only come up with this -
GWOT - He will do well here, but other than Paul, who on the R side won't
Rule of Law - I'd be comfortable with this one, but flouting Federal Immigration laws while the mayor of a city does not bode well
I'm not meaning to bash Rudy, he's a personable, charismatic , tough, effective leader. On the other hand, how great is a perfect leader who's compass is broken? Would we be better off spending 4 years going fast in the somewhat the wrong direction or spending 4 years crawling in totally the wrong direction? Which one gets us further from our goal? Things to ponder.
Nope, with all due respect, Mike, you are still wrong. We can discuss from now till the election whether the Second Amendment was ever truly incorporated, but the it still means what it says, whether in Montana or in New York City. It does not say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you live in a large metropolitan area."
All of this doom and gloom is downright stupid. Rudy is not going to destroy anything. His Presidency will have little if nothing to do with any social issues, the 2nd amendment, or any of the nonsense that puts everyone into a frenzy.
I would love to know how you can be so sure of this. Did he send a special email to all his supporters guaranteeing that he won't be liberal until at least his second term? Sorry, but when he sued a number of firearms companies (which suit is still ongoing, although he has removed himself from it now) for, among other things, manufacturing "too many guns", he lost me. Speaking nicely at the NRA banquet won't cut it. At the least, I want him to campaign on a pro-2nd Amendment platform.
how much a part of his mayoral tenure were social issues? Why is he remembered for being one of the best mayor's of any city in our nation's history, was it because he drilled his pro life views down the throats of New Yorkers? No. It was because he cleaned the place up, made it liveable, and got the ball rolling on a vibrant economy, not to mention his leadership on 9/11.
The reason I know this because I did get the memo did you. Rudy has laid his twelve points of emphasis and none of them have anything to do with drilling abortion rights down people's throats. He understands the GWOT is the single biggest issue of our time and that will be his focus in his Presidency.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849065/posts
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
How many Federal judges did Rudy appoint?
How much control over Federal Executive policy did he have, like whether unborn children are covered by HHS, or whether Federal funds will be used for abortion services abroad?
Given all this, how many more irrelevant points are you going to toss our way about rammed throats?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'm not sure that I had seen them before and they look good. It does just come down to priorities. Mine are gun control (also known as people control), abortion, small government, and SCOTUS. He is pretty miserable on the first two - that is undeniable. I believe he might do a decent job on small government. I certainly hope so. On the courts I just can't count on him. Like all others who wonder about Rudy, we all know that he has Olson on his team and that he is friends with Estrada. I still don't think that he knows what a constructionist is. If the war is your only priority and nothing else matters, then Giuliani should be a good pick.
As mayor, he pushed for gun control and said that women had a right to tax-payer funded abortions. That is pushing social issues. At the same time, you won't ever hear me say that he didn't do a pretty good job in some areas. He did and I applaud him for standing up against liberalism in some ways.
Two words: Times Square.
What was Times Square before Rudy took office?
It was NYC's red light district. It was where you went in NYC to find a hooker, peepshow, drug of choice, or any other moral indescretion you could dream of.
A lot of elite, socially moderate New Yorkers are still upset with Rudy for cleaning up Times Square. Today, instead of pimps and hos, you have Disney and the Today Show. And tourists. Lots and lots of tourists. But not the tourists in trenchcoats, but the tourists with their families.
But let's not give credit for doing that. After all, he didn't get Dr. Dobson's permission first, so it must not count.
I mean, I know everyone doesn't see it this way, but I specifically said that I viewed legalized abortion as it is practiced in this country as mass infanticide. I wasn't unclear on that, was I? I don't think I was, in the slightest.
So I guess I must just give off the aura of someone who could be convinced to support a candidate who's in favor of mass infanticide because I like their position on marginal tax rates, or whatever.
That really sucks.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
When you say that there'd be no difference between President Rudy and President Hillary, and we point out to you that one of these candidates has pledged to appoint good judges, whereas the other has pledged to appoint judges that would keep Roe v Wade on the books forever, you Just Don't Seem To Understand.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I trust that you'll be able to find, anywhere in either my post or any of the comments attendant to my post, where I said that there would be "no difference between President Rudy and President Hillary," on judges or any other matter. I trust that a person who understood English so well would understand that if I said, "I wouldn't vote for either Pinochet or Guevara" (to reference events germane to this particular day) would understand that, in the English language, I hadn't said "there is no difference between Pinochet and Guevara."
But then again, I suppose it's possible that we're speaking different brands of English, in which what I say means whatever you want it to mean. I rather suspect, however, that the truth of the matter is that you didn't feel that you were quite done making a horse's posterior out of yourself earlier in the thread and so you felt compelled to round out the job with this comment. In that case, well done.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
In praising Antony, I have mocked Caesar?
Many times, madam.
I am paid for it now!
from "Antony & Cleopatra"
I'll just say WOW. JUST WOW.
You are entitled to your viewpoint, to be as hard-line as you want to about any issue, and since you say it's not negotiable, then so be it. Some pretty well-thought-of people have recommended.
You recognize that if enough people like you go your way, that might very well give us President Hillary. And you'll still do it.
Fine. But don't kid yourself about one thing, about which you are GRAVELY MISTAKEN.
The United States will NOT survive a Hillary Presidency. The Constitutional slippage that started with FDR's socialism, accelerating with the social engineering of liberal courts, and ever increasing with every bloated nanny-state program we add -- all of that just needs one more powerful, dedicated socialist president who has police-state tendencies to plunge us to a level that is UNRECOVERABLE. We will become Rome.
So go ahead and throw out baby with bathwater. Justify it any way you want to. But it is an exceedingly foolish exercise.
And my viewpoint is not negotiable. I.e., back at ya.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
on the other hand -- anti-Yankees person, that speaks to me, very deeply. We in Ranger country no longer poke hot metal pins in our A-Rod voodoo dolls, since his playoff bat speaks for all of us (that whiffing sound we keep hearing).
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
for so much playoff whiff-ery.... Yet I have a hard time feeling sorry for that codger.
And if he really does jettison Joe Torre, as a Ranger guy (please, no mockery, I know we suck) I'd recommend that Tom Hicks fire RWash TODAY and try to get Torre...
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
next season evenn if they won the WS, after George made the public statement.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
except for the part about the Yankees winning the WS.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Leon's going to get a chuckle out of this, but I'm hoping to see A-Rod AND Torre in Dodger Blue next season.
Torre, former Brave, needs to come back home, and we'd take A-Rod as the player to be named later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Did you see this on FireJoeMorgan? - http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2007/10/come-on-ap.html
And while we're extending invitations to ARod...you're welcome in Philly. You can hit third in between Ryan and Chase. You will hit 60 homers a year with our shallow left field seats, passing Bonds in no time. You can be a part of an offense that will average more than six runs a game in the NL, which is absurd. Plus, the fans even came around on Burrell this year. We're softening up.
All we need is ownership to find that $200 million laying around for you. I'll get to work on that. I think you'll pay for yourself by the time we win our fifth straight World Series.
“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07
The United States will NOT survive a Hillary Presidency.
Honestly, there's not much I have to say to someone who honestly believes that.
So go ahead and throw out baby with bathwater. Justify it any way you want to. But it is an exceedingly foolish exercise.
You know, I might well point out that two factions are involved in this particular tango. There's the faction who says, "My conscience will not allow me to vote for Rudy. Anyone else, fine, but not Rudy," and there's the faction which looks at that and says, "Screw it, I'm voting for Rudy in the primary."
Your perspective leads you to throw all the blame on the former and none on the latter. My perspective leads me to say to *you*, go ahead and throw out baby with bathwater. Justify it any way you want to. But it is an exceedingly foolish exercise.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
In the sense that the USA would be dissolved by 2012. If you thought so, shame on you for not having any sublety. But as I elaborated a bit,I'll elaborate more.
FDR -- The effects of the FDR presidency are not only still with us, these effects have moved us leftward PERMANENTLY to a great degree. Imagine what kind of effort would be involved in dismantling Social Security, dismantling all manner of intrusive, big-government programs. Basically, it's not possible.
Liberal courts -- thanks to liberal presidents and gullible Republican presidents, we have now had 50-60 years of court decisions that take us ever-farther from Constitutional law, and ever-nearer a leftist, anti-Christian state. Thanks to the Courts, we have (1)institutional anti-Christianity, (2) state-approved infanticide on a GRAND scale, the protection of which is off-limits to anything but a court overturn. (3) Terrorists having rights in court. (4) Efforts to secure our borders, enforce basic voting regularity (like, require a picture ID to vote), and get tough on crime -- all thwarted by a judicial oligarchy.
Probably 3 of the 4 liberal SCOTUS justices could be reasonably expected to retire, especially if there's a Dem president. Would you like Hillary's nominees, who would be Leninist commies, or Rudy's nominees? Oh, never mind, you're not negotiating.
So with Hillary, we'll get 3 new (and young) liberals who will rule for the far-left for the next 25 years. You can guarantee that abortion-on-demand will be the law of the land for another generation -- that's a good 25 million babies killed.
More big nanny-state government -- FDR started this, LBJ chipped in a bunch more, and the accelerating appetite of intrusive government has sadly continued with President George W Bush. Hillary wants universal health care -- socialized medicine. Does that groove your tune there?
So to sum, FDR, LBJ, 60 years of liberal courts have moved our nation far, far away from the ideals that made us great. It is unlikely we'll ever get that back. Add Hillary with a majority Congress, and what she institutes will lead us, irrecoverably, to socialism. And like Rome, we'll rot from the inside out. Might take 100 years to happen, but it will be our demise.
Now, next time, don't make some clod-headed retort that forces somebody to explain the obvious.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"....what she institutes will lead us, irrecoverably, to socialism." A very different country than we are today.
=============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
I believe a Hillary presidency would be catastrophic, but while electing a party splitter in the short term will leave us with nothing the next time.
The absolute best answer is to find a candidate that doesn't alienate a large part of the committed base of the Republican party. The Hillary Vs. Rudy argument right now is in a big sense a waste of time, since the primaries are still a ways off. It should be considered though, by those who are terrified of the real spectre of a Hillary presidency, is Rudy our best chance? I don't think so, but everyone needs to make their choice and go with it in the primary.
Something Republicans need to know though, they cannot thrive without the SoCons, and the SoCons have no platform without the Republican party. Anyone on either side of that question that has harsh words for the other side is exercising an incredible lack of wisdom. Anyone ignoring the truth of the need of all camps of conservatism does so at their own peril.
I agree, and I'm not a big Rudy guy. I'm all about Fred, Hunter, and Huckabee (in order), but I can tolerate any of them against Hillary.
Sometimes you have to choose between tolerable and intolerable, rather than good-better-best.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Personally, I urge everyone to support Giuliani, even though I am pro-life. I think he and Romney are two extremely qualified candidates who can win it all.
Nevertheless, while I recognize that part of party politics is getting behind the guy who gets the nomination, people have to realize that some issues are just deal-breakers for some people. Hopefully Giuliani acknowledges the problem and makes some clearer commitments to pro-life concerns in response. I don't think the 27% figure represents reality in the generals, though.
Just who do you think is going to appoint originalist Judges ? Rudy or Shrillary ?
Its time for the various wings of the party to stop strapping suicide belts on and to take their hands away from the detonators. There is too much to be done and not nearly the time to do it. We need to make certain we win the general election, and do as well as we can in both the house and senate.
______________________________
"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
see above for EPU and RSS kicking this around a bit.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
While I am certainly not going to support Rudy in the primaries, I'm not willing to stupidly throw away a chance at taking over the Supreme Court and letting Hillary name three supreme court justices instead of someone who will put judges on (based on what he say and the people he has gathered around him) who will strictly interpret the law.
If 27% of Republicans are this stupid, then we deserve to throw away the last 20 years of hard word and get stuck with whatever Hillary gives us.
And lest that you think I'm calling names here, I'm not .. I'm using the second part of the dictionary.com definition of stupid:
Tending to make poor decisions
As in, being a pro-life conservative and deciding to keep Roe vs Wade in tact for another 30 years instead of overturning it by supporting Rudy Guiliani.
conscience, Oz. And if yours leads you to vote for Rudy, so be it. You are also certainly entitled to believe that I'm being stupid, even in the insulting sense of the word. Just so long as you're aware that no amount of cajoling, threatening, or pleading will make me, or any of the rest of us, any smarter.
overturning it by supporting Rudy Guiliani
This, I'm afraid, is at best conjecture and at worst, fantasy-living.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
Based on the arrogance of your writing (you seem to think you're God's gift to the conservative movement), and the depth of your thoughts...
Rudy stands for almost nothing that conservatives believe in
I think that part of what makes this so insulting is that there's so little else about Rudy which might even make me think about at least standing aside for him, if not actively working for him. At this point, the only arguments I have ever heard for why Rudy would allegedly be good for this country are these:
OK...I have to ask. Were you standing in front of a mirror and flexing with one hand while typing with the other?
Wait...there's more. (Emphasis added)
1. He's not Hillary Clinton
2. He'd aggressively continue the war in IraqWell, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more
Well, isn't that special. I'm sure our troops in Iraq will be heartened by that. In case they thought that you had their back, you've dispelled that misperception!
And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion. Not even close.
OK---how about the deaths of two American million children? That's how many Suleiman Abu Gheith, an Al Qaeda leader, said it was OK for jihadhis to kill. R U willing to vote to prevent that?
How about preventing another 9/11? With President HRC comes the return of Jamie Gorelick, the reemergence of the wall between law enforcement and intelligence, the indifference to national security and another Democratic Administration whom terrorists will think to be an easy mark.
What a very 9/10 thing of you to say, Red Sox Republican. As for me, I can't agree---I'm all out of spare World Trade Center towers.
I'll not shed a tear when you turn your back on us, RSR. Your essay strikes me as self-absorbed and shallow. You're a legend in your own mind, fella.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Although I lack the coordination and dexterity to do half of what you assume I'm capable of in this comment. However, I should address a couple of your more salient points:
OK---how about the deaths of two American million children? That's how many Suleiman Abu Gheith, an Al Qaeda leader, said it was OK for jihadhis to kill. R U willing to vote to prevent that?
So, in other words about as many children are killed by abortion in a year and a half? And unlike the make-believe victims of Abu Geith, who exist only in the dreams of Abu Geith's feverish head, these victims are real and their deaths are relentless and inexorable under the current system.
What a very 9/10 thing of you to say, Red Sox Republican. As for me, I can't agree---I'm all out of spare World Trade Center towers.
Again I feel compelled to point out that the total deaths in the WTC attacks equal roughly the number of abortions in a day - maybe a day and a half. And we've had one terrorist attack that bad in our entire history.
But please don't assume that I'm such a sod that I don't think that the attacks on the WTC weren't bad, horrible things - au contraire, it is precisely because I view the loss of over 3,000 American lives to be such a bad thing that I will never vote for a candidate (Rudy) who has publicly expressed his willingness to stand by and let it happen for each day of his Presidency. Except, I suppose that the humans Rudy is disinterested in protecting are smaller. Does that perhaps make them worth less to you? It doesn't to me.
Your essay strikes me as self-absorbed and shallow. You're a legend in your own mind, fella.
I beg your forgiveness. It is difficult to be humble when one is associated with such a magnificent baseball team, and I shall try harder in the future.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
Does that perhaps make them worth less to you?
Forgive me for being direct, but in your diary, you said this:
And the parade of horrors that would supposedly attend a Hillary Presidency are simply not enough for me to vote for a guy who is pro-legal-abortion.
Let's see---a President HRC who replaces Stevens and Ginzburg and Breyer with young Ginzburg clones, hardline abortion supporters with lifetime tenure. (Not to mention all the mini-Ginzburgs she'd put on Federal district and circuit courts nationwide). All of whom would be approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Seems to me that would imperil many more unborn than a Giuliani who knew he was beholden to a party of conservatives for his Presidency.
Yet, you seem willing to risk that. And I am the one who seems indifferent to the unborn?
Explain to me again why we should put value in your opinion?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
That anyone should put value in anyone's opinion because of who they are, the opinions themselves stand or fall on their own merit. So, to your point:
Let's see---a President HRC who replaces Stevens and Ginzburg and Breyer with young Ginzburg clones, hardline abortion supporters with lifetime tenure. (Not to mention all the mini-Ginzburgs she'd put on Federal district and circuit courts nationwide). All of whom would be approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Seems to me that would imperil many more unborn than a Giuliani who knew he was beholden to a party of conservatives for his Presidency.
The bolded sentence above is demonstrably false. Rudy has had every opportunity to assuage the fears of social conservatives, and his basic response has been to piss all over them. Rudy clearly feels that he can win without them - and, what's more, he appears to be right, if current polls are correct. If he wins both the primary and general without so much as throwing a bone to pro-lifers, what makes you think he'll be beholden to them whatsoever *after* he gets elected? I have the answer: he won't.
So again we're back to the point that I'm being chastised for apparently not recognizing that there's a difference between Rudy and Hillary. I've never said nor intimated such a thing. What I've said, metaphorically speaking, is that in an election in which the two candidates are Pinochet and Guevara, I'm voting for "stay home and eat a chicken salad sandwich" even though there are probably lots of good reasons to prefer Pinochet. And you can disrespect that opinion, or think it's stupid, or think I'm stupid, and I'll sleep perfectly happy at night.
The whole point of this post is that there are a lot of Rudynistas who seem to be of the opinion that there's some magic principle or argument that will make convicted pro-lifers okay with pulling the lever for a guy who thinks mass infanticide should be legal. That's frankly crazier than most of the stuff I heard Ron Paul say this afternoon (and that is really saying something).
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
I'm leaning Fred, but I'd be fine with any of the other candidates. Since there are basically two other candidates with actual shots at winning, that means I'm fine with Fred or Mitt.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
I've said I'd support any GOP candidate over any Dem pro-abortion party candidate, particularly Hillary. But you? Knowingly facing Hillary's determination to appoint activist pro-abortion judges for years, you won't work longer for the greater good like the rest of us social conservatives will.
That I don't understand.
=======================
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but it seems from my POV that you aren't thinking that clearly on the matter. If the Republican Party selects as its nominee a pro-choice candidate that has broad ramifications. It isn't just "Beat Hillary", but it also fundamentally sets a paradigm shift in the party that people like the diarist are not comfortable with. You can't select a pro-choice candidate to lead your party and think that is a good thing if you are pro-life. Selecting a lesser of two evils choice may be practical in the short term and still be damaging to the diarist's agenda long term. The party just can't come back in four years after nominating a pro-choice candidate for president and claim to be pro-life.
For the diarist perhaps principle and what is right counts more than electing a less evil person for one election.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
....fundamentally sets a paradigm shift in the party that people like the diarist are not comfortable with."
I truly do understand that point. I'm a very staunch pro-life Catholic, conservative, Republican, blah, blah, much more. I've established those on posts here and other places.
I've re-evaluated my thinking about THIS ELECTION from where I was a year ago because I see the greater threat of a *paradigm shift in our country* which I don't think we'd recover from for decades.
My #1 issue is the GWOT. Rudy will fight it best, IMO. As a values voter, I don't like his messy family life. As a Catholic, I don't like his messy family life and he should be refused communion for his public position on abortion. I'm looking for the best person to lead the war, not lead me in my personal life, beliefs and decisions.
#2 issue: beating Hillary. When there was possibility of a Dem candidate other than Hillary, I was of a slightly different mindset. This is not just a superficial *hatred* of Hillary, but it's realizing that she is doesn't just represent a socialist/radical/feminist agenda -- it's who she is -- dyed in the wool. She's just waiting to get POWER and will advocate (with a bully pullbit and fawning media) to appoint ACTIVIST pro-abortion judges. But they will be activist on many other laws and value issues that are directly opposed to mine.
THIS ELECTION is quite different from other times in my life. We have a dedicated enemy who wants to kill us here. I don't trust Hillary fighting them. We had a friend killed in the WTC on 9/11 and Rudy lived with the devastation first hand and truly gets the threat.
REALITY will be who is on the ballot. I haven't had a perfect candidate since Reagan, was enthusiastically for Bush, but he turned out to be far from perfect, too. Obviously, no perfect candidate this time. I'm frustrated, too.
I know that I absolutely could never stay home and hand this country over to Hillary.
===========
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
We had 8 years of Clinton because Idiots thought Perot or not voting was a better choice than a politician that lied to them.
Read My Lips, When you speak out against Hillary, blog against her policies and then find your personal life leaked by the FBI and the IRS auditing your tax returns from them 70's, ENJOY YOURSELF THAT MUCH MORE.
I don't know who your guy is, but I will vote for him before Hillary. Its too bad you are willing to sell out your brethren for your own ego.
______________________________
"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 hung Bush/Quayle posters all over my windows so that everyone could see. People voted for Perot mainly because they didn't have a clue what he stood for.
This has got nothing to do with my ego. I become no bigger or smaller if Rudy wins or loses. This has to do with my conscience. I'm sorry this isn't clear enough to you.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
Brilliant! Keep working for Hillary by insulting solid Republicans and trying to drive away one of, if not the, largest constituencies of the party. Or, we could all come together to beat the Dems in November by supporting only candidates that are acceptable to all major wings of the party.
The 27% of Republicans who feel similar to the way RSR does and said that they would vote third party if Rudy were nominated and those who sympathize with the 27% but might hold their nose and vote for Giuliani anyway. Roughly, the Social Conservative wing of the party.
I think anyone but Giuliani is acceptable to the Social Conservative wing of the party. At least as for myself, I'd enthusiastically support Brownback or Huckabee. I'd vote for Thompson with no hesitation. I'd hold my nose and vote for Romney or McCain. I really don't have strong opinions about the others, but I'm sure I'd vote for any of them over Clinton, and that includes Ron Paul.
But, if Huckabee is anathema to the Club for Growth wing of the party, then I would not support him in the primary because I want to keep them in the tent.
If Ron Paul is anathema to the GWOT wing of the party, then I would not support him in the primary because I want to keep them in the tent.
I'm willing to respect the needs of the other major constituencies of the party, but in return I expect the needs of the Social Conservative wing of the party to receive equal consideration.
by supporting only candidates that are acceptable to all major wings of the party.
It's your side that's threatening to bolt. Your idea of "coming together" seems to mean picking only candidates of which you approve.
No thanks
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
On Columbus Day, a popular theme was to trash Columbus Day. On the day of the Republican Debate, the top diary is about splitting up the party. I bet the Dems are quaking in their boots right now.
Molon Labe!
but ya know, I'm just curious to know the candidate who Red and Texas support. They've only theatened. They've not presented any viable person we can get support to beat Hillary.
===============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Not enough of you to elect a dog catcher.
The question is whether a Republican President can be elected without us. I don't discount the possibility that one can - in fact, I'm attempting to help you all on that quest by telling you that you're wasting your time with ignorable people like me.
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and sundries.
Its good to know that republicans and conservatives can produce a GRADE A GRIEFER every bit as good as the ones liberals produce. It makes my heart swell and a little tear come to my eye to see we can upset our own and generate just as much agita for ourselves as the libs can.
______________________________
"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
to point out the truth that many pro-lifers aren't interested in voting for Giuliani. The party either needs to pick someone else, or to find an electoral plurality that doesn't depend on these voters. That may not be something the party wants to hear - but it's something it ought to know.
I'll agree such posts can be overdone. But so can the desperate appeals for party loyalty. As the OP notes, the latter are pretty much a waste of time. Giuliani is indefensible on this issue. He's even gone so far as to PROMISE not to be effectively pro-life.
These people are saying so you think you can get Rudy ? Well we are willing not only to take out Rudy we are willing to take out the rest of the party as well if you don't do things our way.
I say, I don't bargain with terrorists. If you have your finger on that button better be willing to push it and live with consequences punk.
Nov 4th 2008 I will be voting republican. If these people aren't there doing the same, then the dems were right about them. They are nothing but narrow minded theocratic hypocrites.
We will be better off without them. Maybe they can be replaced good/small government social libs. Maybe not. They sure as heck aren't getting a place at the Dems table/
______________________________
"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
We come to this site to support Republicans, not threaten them. These people making political threats to fellow Republicans ARE burning bridges with their own coalition, regardless of the eventual candidate. I am MORE likely to vote for Rudy BECAUSE of this attack, even though I am leaning towards Fred right now.
Molon Labe!
because one faction announces that they can't vote for Rudy, you want to give them Rudy, and yet they're the one's being divisive its not you being divisive for giving them Rudy. What the SoCons are doing now could actually considered a favor, we are warning ( I use "we" loosely, as I'm not 100% decided what to do in the case of Rudy) you that our votes won't won't be there. You can be upset that were cancelling that date, or you can be that we don't just stand you up.
... if the alternative is Rudy Giuliani as President, is entitled to respect for their sincerity and freedom of opinion. I believe that most Kossaks who would vote for Clinton over Giuliani sincerely believe America would be better off with Clinton as President, and I respect that, however grievously mistaken I believe their judgment is. But where they really go into the hallucinatory zone is:
one faction announces that they can't vote for Rudy, you want to give them Rudy, and yet they're the one's being divisive its not you being divisive for giving them Rudy.
I love this. The self-styled "Republicans" who say they would rather have Clinton as President claim that the ones who would vote against Clinton are the ones dividing the Republican party.
Yeah I know, when you say you would rather shaft your soldiers with Clinton as their Commander in Chief, your doing it "for the children", not for your ego. When you say you would rather see Clinton appoint a few more Ginsburgs to the court to enshrine Roe for the next few decades, you're doing it "for the children", not to feed your snit over your failure to convince enough of your fellow Americans to nominate Brownback/Thompson/McCain/whoever. You say it almost as convincingly as Democrats justifying their antics "for the children."
"I love this. The self-styled "Republicans" who say they would rather have Clinton as President claim that the ones who would vote against Clinton are the ones dividing the Republican party."
Interesting distortion of what I said, I didn't say that those who vote against Hillary or in other words vote for Rudy in the general are splitting the party, clearly they aren't. I was repsonding to Doc Holliday who said that he felt like voting for Rudy in the primary because SoCons said that they can't vote for him. Now, if you don't see that as divisive I don't what you do.
The party split goes two ways, you can't just blame one side.
It's still the same distinction: on one side Republicans who DO NOT threaten to elect Hillary Clinton, and on the other side Republicans who DO threaten to put Clinton in the White House if they don't get their way. Obviously threatening to give the Presidency to Hillary Clinton is about as divisive as one can be in a conversation among Republicans.
I was repsonding to Doc Holliday who said that he felt like voting for Rudy in the primary because SoCons said that they can't vote for him. Now, if you don't see that as divisive I don't what you do.
There's no moral equivalency between extortion and refusing to capitulate to the extortionist. Not even when the target of the extortion wants to establish the principle that extortion not only fails, but can even have a backlash that leaves the extortionist worse off than if he hadn't tried it in the first place.
GDS'ers are beginning to rival the Ronulans in their mastery of how not to win friends and influence people to join their cause. Threatening Americans is likely to be a counterproductive tactic for getting them to do what you want.
The party split goes two ways, you can't just blame one side.
Again your ridiculous moral equivalence between extortionist threats and telling the extortionist where he can put his threats.
I am as pro life as anyone. If Roe V Wade came earlier I would never have lived. Thats the statistics pure and simple. I was born at Manhattan and immediately adopted. If it was today I wouldn't have made it to the hospital. 90+% in of pregnancies in NYC these days end in murder.
So yes I say this, if you claim to be a social conservative and you claim to be pro life, if you don't vote republican you are hypocrite. If you don't vote against Hillary you are a hypocrite. If you are doing it because Dobson is angling for political power then you are a theocratic hypocrite.
So yes I get upset. I find it hard to swallow when someone says to me that the deaths of children due to hillary will help spark a greater awakening.
As I have said, I will vote Ron Paul before I vote Hillary. I don't like Romney, I think he is a big government republican but I will vote for him and he is none to clear on the RTL issue. I have no trouble voting for Fred even though I know little about him.
These guys are saying either you pick our guy or we are gone. Try to win without us. I am saying thats a line I don't want to cross.
______________________________
"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
We're just saying don't pick Rudy. And how you find any significant difference between him and Hillary on this issue escapes me.
It is not hypocrisy to vote against someone who approves of the murder of millions. I'd be more worried about the charge if I voted for such a person for political gain or coalition building. I can understand your disagreement - but on the basis of pragmatism rather than hypocrisy.
That said, I don't see how electing Giuliani helps the pro-life movement tactically. At least with Hillary, we have a good chance of getting a pro-lifer in 4 years. That might not be too late to get a 5th anti-Roe vote. That's especially so given the oft-followed custom of SC judges waiting to voluntarily retire until getting a President of the same party that nominated them.
This thread has clearly gotten out of hand, so time for an attitude adjustment. There will be no more calling people terrorists. There will be no more calling people theocrats, or any variant thereof. This is not negotiable, we are not having an argument, and I do not care why you are doing this.
Have I made myself perfectly clear?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There are lots of Independents and other swing voters who want abortion to be legal, and we are now one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade.
If Stevens is ill or dead by next fall (or just really, really old, or hinting at retirement), and there's no terrorist attack, abortion will be THE issue, and a very strong pro-life candidate is going to lose a lot of those Independents.
The Republican Party has been giving the Religious Right tiny teaspoons of their agenda for years to get their support for the rest of the Republican policies, but it's gotten to the point where one more teaspoon will make the difference, and everyone knows it.
Which begs the question: How do you tell the moderates that you won't ban abortion, while telling the Religious Right that you will? I think Giuliani is probably the best bet to keep threading that needle (and probably nominate the judge who ends up either overturning Roe v. Wade, or recasting Roe v. Wade to the point where it is effectively overturned).
And he was allowed to evolve.
The death wish of some on our side is inexplicable, and while I do appreciate the length you went to discuss this, I find it no less opaque and obtuse in its rationale.
The dhimmies are not fooling around this time. They want to shut down by law and public mob pressure the voices they do not like.
If you think the old pro-abortion rules of not being alowed to protest or even walk around in front of abortion clinics won't be reimposed by Hillary, you are kidding yourself. If you think the IRS will not go after every religious group that dares to publicly discuss pro-life issues and seek to strip away tax standing under Hillary, wake up. If you think the modest abortion regulation finally in place will not get rescinded under dhimmie control, you are dreaming. It is the Clinton WH that suppressed anti-Clinton books, used the IRS to intimidate conservative organizations, and it was the Clinton WH that illegally used FBI files on Conservatives. If you think Hillary was not in the midst of al of that and more, then I have some just found billing records to share with you.
Give me Rudy over Hilary anytime. He may be flawed - even deeply flawed- but he is our guy. Hillary will never be even in the same ball park. And if you think Hillary has the moral character to stand up and actually defend this country effectively, then perhaps you slept through the 1990's, when the Clinton's mistook popular press reviews with naitonal security.
While I disagree with you wholeheartedly for the most part (I find Rudy to be very problematic, but still he is my choice in the top tier), I will say that I do support the idea you are presenting that we aren't bound to the nominee of this party. The party is not our boss we are supposed to be the boss of the party. Therefore, if this party nominates someone that you don't like I don't think you are betraying them by refusing to vote for the candidate. The party in fact betrayed you. I feel personally a little betrayed myself at times after what I've seen go on in the party. Party loyalty is not a virtue, IMO. One must be loyal to his or her own principles first and foremost.
-My policy positions-
Non-Interventionist.
Unrestricted Free Trade.
Abolish the Fed.
Abolish IRS and use Sales Tax.
Privatize Social Security.
Government out of marriage.
Pro-Choice.
No Amnesty.
Especially to this:
Now, a lot of people say that abortion is just an "issue" and that it's wrong to let a single issue dictate your whole politics. Generally, that's a sound proposition. I guess there are a wide variety of reasons that people might oppose abortion - but I oppose it because I think it's killing. And the way it's practiced in this country, it's a *lot* of killing. It's killing in numbers per annum that roughly equal the holocaust. And so I'm sorry to say that it's simply not an option for me in my conscience to pull the lever for a guy who supports the continuation of current abortion policy in the United States.
I couldn't agree more. That is what keeps me a Republican, no matter how far left I am on things like unions and education. Take that away, and I'm not sure where I belong.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
"Well, put me on the growing list for whom #2 isn't such a high priority any more"
I suppose the greater WOT is now over and you can allow Hillary to be your candidate because it would appear it is not a high priority for her any longer either.
I want to applaud both you and she for the forsight of recognizing the unimportance of #2 to aggressively continue the war in Iraq. I hope that Hillary will now give you that 5th star General Sir. (snark off).
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
"Rudy stands for almost nothing that conservatives believe in"
He stands for almost everything that conservatives believe in outside of being pro-choice and against the constitutional amendment on marriage.
He is a small government, low tax, strict constructionist, tough on crime and terrorism, end illegal immigration, strong on Jihadism conservative. And he's got a hell of a record of success! The argument that he's actually liberal because of the two aforementioned issues, that no other candidates have a single policy proposal on, is way overblown. Huckabee is liberal on the size of government. McCain is liberal on about 6 different things and feels more at home with the liberal press than real conservatives. Romney merely flip flopped on the same issues you have a problem with Giuliani on.
(1) You forgot "guns."
(2) You assert without evidence the 1803-flashback "strict constructionist" label.
(3) The "small government" thing is also without evidence.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Rudy is pro-abortion, that's a big big step from being pro-choice. He's also pro-gay marriage, not just against the constitutional amendment on marriage. While he was mayor of NYC he was pro-illegal immigration, though he seems to be backing away from that stance. Basically, he's liberal on most issues outside of defense and crime. I haven't written any GOP candidate off, it's too early - hopefully Rudy will start a dialog with conservatives.
The GOP is intentionally moving to the left - they shouldn't be suprised at the ramifications and are foolish if they think that 'hillaryfear' will force the majority of conservatives to support a liberal Republican candidate.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I'm assuming you guys would still stay home if Dennis Kuccinich was elected. What about if Satan himself was on the ballot?
I can understand risking voting for a somewhat less electable candidate in the primaries, but I cannot understand not voting for the better of the two candidates in the general election. Every conservative that stays home puts Hillary Clinton one vote closer to victory.
And even if there WERE only two candidates, you can't honestly expect people who equate the Supreme Court's abortion on demand establishment with mass infanticide, to go out and campaign for a man who thinks it's A-OK.
So look: If you want VICTORY, oppose anyone who would split the party in the event that he wins. Do YOUR part to ensure we're UNIFIED.
______________________________
"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
Nobody's demanding you support Sam Brownback. But a compromise candidate like FDT would be outstanding.
But I have similar thoughts on Slick Willard. His name isn't Mitt. Mitt is a kid playing baseball with his dad. Willard is a nerd with a mean streak.
Yes, I actually did get that directly from a Kos Kook but even a stopped clock is right twice daily.
No Romney
No Rudy
No McCain
I will vote third party for any of the three above. Brownback pushes it too.