Redstate

Molon Labe!

Rudy would not only appoint federalist judges, but would have the best chance of getting them through. I'm not sure there's much more that can be done when it comes to over turning Roe v. Wade, even if that is not his intended consequence.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

but I would rather support a guy who needs NRA suport to win than some guy who just does not have it in him to beat the Clintons. I think many of us purity folks ignore the Clinton machine at are own peril.

Molon Labe!

The speech was about a 1/2 hour.

Fred spoke for about five minutes, assuring the crowd that he's always been with them. That's true, but Fred would preside over a government that doesn't like core GOP constituencies. How would he deal with it?

My emerging beef with Fred is that he takes a LOT for granted. In guiding the destinies of a nation, showing up is not enough.

I have done this because I really like the guy. I like that he is a fighter and I think many have been very unfair to him. However, I am concerned by his inability to understand gun control does not work. It actually scares me, we are not talking philosophy here, we are talking cold hard facts. He honestly believes in gun control, that is a sad thing. The NRA has been quiet, if Rudy does not learn quickly he will get attacked so hard it will be unbelievable.

Having said that, I still defend him from unfair attacks, and I still find him to be a good candidate considering the global war on terror. Also, I think many fail to recognize the power of a party that wins the Whitehouse. If Rudy wins, there will be many more Republicans in Congress and in DC than if he loses, period. A Republican congress will never allow any more federal gun laws. Furthermore, there is little chance Republicans would allow Rudy to put foward a pro choice judge.

Molon Labe!

Sure Fred is tough enough to hold true to his principles, but I don't see him tough enough to defeat those who reject his principles.

For agreeing with me on the issues that matter for a President, Thompson is better than Giuliani. Illegal immigration is the biggest difference in how much confidence I have in their positions, and there's no issue where I give Giuliani a significant advantage over Thompson on agreeing with me

The reason I would rather have Giuliani in the White House is that Thompson didn't demonstrate an ability to effectively fight Democrats during his terms in the Senate. This isn't about experience, it's about accomplishment (or in Thompson's case, the lack thereof while he was on the federal payroll).

A Republican President will likely face a Democratic Congress determined to sabotage his agenda. We need a President who knows how to apply the pressure to peel off enough Democrats to win battles in Congress. Agreeing with me doesn't count for much if a President Thompson gets stiffed by a Democratic Congress, and the way he let himself get slapped around by the Democratic minority on the committee he was supposedly Chairman of doesn't give me much confidence in his political combat skills.

I want more than a nice speech during a presidential campaign. To the best of my knowledge, nothing that he has done supports a change of heart - frankly, a heart that was pretty radically anti-gun. At the least, I want to hear him honestly campaign on a constitutionally-accurate RKBA platform. If he can't do it honestly, then his speeches like at the NRA are meaningless.

I know I want a lot, but RKBA is either my most important or at the least, tied for most important issue.

That's such a slap in the face to the backbone and MUSCLE of the Republican movement over the last 30 years. Dismissing principled, religious republicans as "Purity Machines" is about as low as it goes, as far as I'm concerned. You're talking about us like the Democrats do.

This party is losing it's focus. The writing is on the wall. You've already taken your steps to censor the libertarian wing that Reagan brought into the fold. Is the other shoe going to drop on us Christians who speak out against Rudy should he get the nomination?

You've already taken your steps to censor the libertarian wing that Reagan brought into the fold.

It's "censorship" for a privately owned web site to filter out the "Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" spammers? And Ronulan kooks are "the libertarian wing that Reagan brought into the fold"?? Only a Ronulan could spout such drivel.

A slip of the tongue that demonstrates the real agenda behind the mask. He is simply a Ronulan who is sowing discord. Some of the Ronulan sites told their followers to do this -- they are Sheeple! Blindly following like sheep!

Actually I think a fair number of the Ron Paul spammers all along were just garden variety Kossaks claiming to be Ron Paul supporters, as a way of creating chaos at Red State, i.e. they were already mobies. They and the "standard issue" mobies both had the same agenda, trying to prevent the nomination of Giuliani, the Republican they fear most.

Now that instant Ronulans are banned, they (the true Ronulans and the faux-Ronulan mobies) revert to the standard moby pretense of supposedly being social conservatives, in their attempts to sow discord and prevent the nomination of Giuliani.

I figured I'd be shouted down for that comment. But it's a genuine concern. There are a good number of Conservative Christians that are organizing now to make their best effort to stop Rudy from getting the nomination. And if he *does* get the nomination, this place is going to be torn in two.

Given recent events, the concern I voiced is legitimate. And for my part, I don't think it's any more paranoid than what's coming out of the Rudy backers who insist that anyone who doesn't toe the line on him is a "Ronulan."

Given recent events, the concern I voiced is legitimate. And for my part, I don't think it's any more paranoid than what's coming out of the Rudy backers who insist that anyone who doesn't toe the line on him is a "Ronulan."

There are lots of Giuliani opponents who aren't Ronulans. The term is reserved for kooks like the ones who claim that a privately owned website filtering out RonPaul! spammers is guilty of "censorship", or claim that Ronulans represent "the libertarian wing that Reagan brought into the fold." For example, the Ronulan who posted:

You've already taken your steps to censor the libertarian wing that Reagan brought into the fold.

Oh yeah, now I see it was you who posted that.

Call me whatever you want. I'm just protecting my interests here. I think it's a legitimate question. How is this site going to deal with those of us who speak out against Rudy should he become the nominated Republican? I don't personally think it will happen. I don't believe there are enough Rudy supporters who will get to the primaries for the guy, particularly in Iowa or New Hampshire. But I hardly think my concern about anti-Rudy conservatives being silenced should Rudy get the nomination is without merit. Otherwise, I'd have never brought it up.

my concern about anti-Rudy conservatives being silenced

Only a Ronulan could be delusional enough to believe criticism of Giuliani or any other candidate for the nomination is being silenced here. Any sane person who takes a look around here would see plenty of criticism of all the Republican candidates.

The only restriction is on Ronulan spam like your idiotic claim that Ronulans are "the libertarian wing that Reagan brought into the fold."

Nobody is silencing anti-Rudy conservatives - yet! Which is why I brought it up. I'm speaking up for my group, which I see as next on the censorship chopping block (should Rudy get the nomination and we start speaking out against him). And personally, I don't care what you think of my characterization of this as censorship. I've never bothered with being PC before, I don't know why I should start now -- on a conservative blog no less.

I'm not going to make any friends with this opinion, so I'll go ahead and let you have the last word. My time is better spent finding opportunities to promote Fred.

Didn't know that all women voted en bloc. My wife shall be stunned to hear it.

Fortuna Favet Fortibus

vote consistently Democrat

Molon Labe!

I know lots of women who are willing to vote for Rudy if he's the nominee, including my 81 year old mother. She's a solid conservative. Rudy wouldn't be her first choice, any more than he would be mine, but I would take him over Hillary any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

There's a lot to like about Rudy, but there's a lot to like about Mike Huckabee [and Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney] too.
Compared to Mike Huckabee, Rudy has good points and bad points. Mike Huckabee is much stronger on social issues and he has a better personal life. As far as I know, Mike Huckabee's personal life is exemplary.

My biggest issue is GWOT so I prefer Rudy, but I like most of the others. I'd be very happy with a nominee Huckabee and a President Huckabee.

But even if social issues were my No 1 concern, I'd still vote for Rudy in the general against Hillary. Rudy is way better than Hillary on social issues. Hillary's personal life is also very questionable and kind of scary. Her marriage is vey strange - why does she stay in it?

The six Republican women in this family would vote for him over Hillary with a clear conscience.

I grant you he's certainly wouldn't qualify as husband material. I hate all those things he did, too. I've known women who suffered through cheating husbands.

But we are choosing Rudy's skills for this job. Hillary's agenda would be much worse. Rudy's the one best suited to beat Hillary and fight the GWOT.
=============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

You would consider refraining from voting, knowing that if Hillary wins, it is certain that every vacancy on our court system, from circuit courts to the Supreme Court would be filled with young versions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? That makes no sense. When all limitations on abortion are declared unconstitutional by a Hillary Supreme Court, you can console yourself with the fact that you did not lose your principles.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

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

nominate and fight for "pro-life judges" in the last 30 years.

As I recall, the mantra has been, with EVERY Republican Presidential candidate, that there would be NO litmus tests with regard to abortion or Roe. Rudy is singing from the same song book that every candidate has used, you are free to believe or not believe him, but he's on the same page with regard to judicial nominees.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Not every other Repuclican nominee in the last thirty years have said that they think Roe is good law, and that its just fine if stays. Sure none of them have said they think Roe should be a litmus test, but there are plenty that have made it clear that Roe goes against what they consider a good judicial philosophy. Rudy on the other hand has made it clear that his judicial philosophy allows Roe to stay. McCain says that his Judges would be the kind to overturn Roe.
Sure a president can't go and ask a judicial nominee what there going to decide on a case before they even hear the case. But a Candidate can have an idea of what decision they think the Judicial philosophy of a candidate that they would choose would lead to. To my knowledge most of the candidates have in some way said that the Judicial philosophy they hold
(and in turn probably what their choices for Supreme Court would hold) is that Roe is bad law. Rudy says Roe can be upheld on the basis of precedent. That's not a song any of the other candidates are singing out of to my knowledge.
You can say that you don't trust the other candidates on judges and that they don't walk a good walk( McCain), but they do talk a better talk than what Rudy does.

Those would be the type most likely to overturn Roe out of respect for the constitution, regardless of his or their personal beliefs.

I missed where Rudy stated he prefers socially liberal judges who support judicial activism. Do you have some quotes from him that say he does, despite his vocal support for federalist judges?

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

he supports roe v. wade and we're supposed to trust him to appoint judges who will overturn it?

FLHighLife, you have two options.
1. A successful prosecutor and mayor of one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the world who has 8 years of executive experience, who will keep taxes low, keep spending under control, aggressively fight terrorism, and pursue an intelligent foreign policy from a position of strength, whose judicial nominees may or may not be pro life and willing to overturn Roe.

2. Hillary, who will raise taxes massively, spend like crazy, further bloat government beauracracy, revert to defense against terrorism, and whose every judicial nominee will be committed to removing all restrictions on abortion.

It's a no brainer. Even if we can elect someone as passionately pro life as say, Rick Santorum(I'm dreaming, I know, but it's an example)after even 4 years of Hillary, the damage she will have done will have made overturning Roe impossible, not to mention the harm she would do to our economy.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

I don't believe Rudy when he says he will nominate good judges. Based on what? For that matter, I don't trust Romney either. I'm holding out for something better.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

in Karl Rove's old job.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

because in this instance, his opponent would be pro-choice, anti-gun, not support FMA, and support a single payer healthcare system as well. No matter whether it was Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. In that case, as now, Rudy would still be the superior choice.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

But I'd probably look elsewhere for someone to support in the primary.

I see them as a sort of unfair comparison because the problem with a single payer healthcare system is it's almost impossible to reconcile being bad on that with being good on taxes. It opens up all sorts of other issues.

You can be wrong on abortion and still be functionally passable on the issue to some extent by nominating the right kind of judges. And on the FMA, the President only plays a bully pulpit role on it. He doesn't vote on passage.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Supporting Rudy over Hillary/Obama/Edwards was the message of the diary. Not Rudy over Fred/Mitt/Huckabee/McCain.

He said he'd support Rudy in the general not the primary. Important distinction.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

All this talk about Rudy vs. Hillary, and whether you'd vote for Rudy takes us all off of the current mission: get a GOP candidate for Pres 2008. Until that is done, all this talk about Rudy vs. Hillary is, to me, being spread by Rudy-supporters to force us non-Rudy-supporters to throw in the towel and give Rudy more publicity.

At least that is what it looks like from this end of the country.

PS: Why has no one questioned Rudy on his clients at his current law firm, such as the SHAFTA superhighway contractor?

-- imwithfred; he's attacking Rudy, and all Rudy can find is federal tort reform. --

You will quote and cite Rudy's support for federally-funded abortions, specifically within the context of this presidential campaign. This is not optional. DO NOT post or comment again until you have done this.

We don't do empty rhetoric here.

-The Mgmt.

So, the fact that Rudy previously supported public funding for abortions isn't relevant? I respectfully disagree.

-------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/giuliani-stand...

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/giuliani_in_89.h...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/04/rudy_confirms_it_he_still_favors_p...

my point remains but i'll say no more here about this...

janet ney
www.californiaforthompson.com

In your posts above, you said "if you support federally funded abortions, support rudy" and "you want federally funded abortions, vote for rudy".

You're claims about Giuliani's position were about federal funding, not local funding, and they were in the present tense.

You were asked to back up your claims with actual quotes, and you failed to provide any quotes. You posted a few links, with the false implication that somewhere they had support for your false claim that Giuliani would support federally funded abortion as President.

The closest your links come is to reiterate Giuliani's stated support, as a New Yorker, for New York funding abortions in New York, as he said in a debate:

I believe that the Hyde amendment should remain the law. States should make their decision. Some states decide to do it. Most states decide not to do it. And I think that's the appropriate way to have this decided. ... I supported it in New York, but I think, in other places, people can come to a different decision.

Now if you disagree with Giuliani's support of a federalist policy, you're entitled to argue against that. But you're not entitled to misrepresent his position because you don't think your real disagreement with him wouldn't get enough traction.

Public funding may be state level in the tone of these quotes, but your splitting of hairs is unfair. In the CNN piece, Rudy says this:

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected,"

Last I checked, the Constitution to which Giuliani refers applies to all the 50 states and her territories. The continued implication is that, were there to be a fight at SCOTUS, he would have to step off your "federalist" definition of his comments to ensure that equal representation under the "law" were enforced...he'd have no choice.

No Goal post was moved but in the minds of those who continue to be ok with Giuliani's willingness to let the deaths of millions of unborns go by because..."Hey-HE has the best shot at beating Hillary"

Some of us care about those hairs you split.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

You're entitled to hold Giuliani's support for his state's funding of abortion against him, but that isn't what the false charge against him was.

The goalposts set by Janetney were about federal funding. If she had just denounced him for his support in New York for state funding, that could have been a topic of discussion, but it wouldn't have been false representation of what he said. She falsely said "federally funded abortion"

No Goal post was moved but in the minds of those who ...

The goal posts aren't about somebody's state of mind, they're about the facts of what Giuliani actually said versus what somebody falsely claims he says.

what part of public funding don't you get? The part that makes you sleep at night supporting a guy that sees a constitutional right to kill babies in the first place, and subsequently, that States (if they so choose) should fund this murder?

Where do the states get their money, gensec?

Oh wait, that doesn't count...right?

You...well, never mind-I won't make this personal. Giuliani supports abortion and government funding of same because he recognizes Roe as a testament to the constitutionality of a woman's right to kill her unborn children because her right to choose this path outweighs the (what-state's) interest in seeing children born...what is wrong with you equivocators?

Public funding is public funding. Beat janetney up for bad choices of words...fine...facts remain facts. Government [state, local, federal, or otherwise] funded abortions is an abomination of America, and anyone who can justify it should not be President of the United States.

my head is about to explode...

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

To claim as you did higher up in the thread Rudy would back off his "federalist" position if there were to be a SCOTUS fight as evident in his belief of equal protection for established constitutioinal law makes no sense.

If Rudy is a federalist as President he will appoint federalist judges to the SCOTUS and keep federal funding out of it. That's more than a split hair, that's policy and about the most you can ask for until Roe is overturned which is only going to happen through federalist judges at which point the entire issue returns to the states as Rudy described, not just the funding but the legality of the procedure as well. Respecting the rule of law and current standing SCOTUS decisions as requiring equal treatment is all any rule of law president can do.

I too am horrified by the millions of the unborn that have been murdered, but taking a step backwards on federalist judges getting to the bench is counterproductive when it comes to stopping the madness. This is about moving the ball forward on policy, results, federalist judges and federalist policy, not proving our conservative purity to ourselves.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Rudy is ok with using the Government where he believes it can impose what he deems "good" for the general population...gun control fights crime. Sanctuary cities help "poor illegals who are just trying to blend in and be part of society" etc etc.

Killing the unborn is, after all, accepted general legal precedent. If stepping back and suggesting the States should address their respective consciences gets him votes-all the better. If he were ever confronted with a State who had previously elected NOT to publicly fund abortions yet his DOJ found themselves faced with a SCOTUS suit demanding the same level of support as every other state...he would do what?

Rudy is not a Federalist...and believing he would become one when it mattered to "some of us" is just cheerleader foolishness.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Where do the states get their money, gensec?

They don't get it from the President. They get it from state taxes enacted by state legislators elected by that state's residents. That's emphatically true in the Hyde Amendment, which Giuliani supports. Shouldn't you know that already?

Public funding is public funding. Beat janetney up for bad choices of words...fine...facts remain facts.

It's a lot worse than just "bad choices of words" to repeatedly claim Giuliani supports a federal policy that he opposes.

Just because you oppose someone, even for good reason, that doesn't justify defending false accusations against him. Otherwise we'd be defending countless idiots, e.g. the kooks who accuse Clinton of having Vince Foster murdered.

Maybe you're like a lot of Democrats, who believe that the only role for elected state officials is to handle issues that are too trivial for the federal government to care about. That "logic" would say public funding for abortion is important, therefore states shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions.

Some of us like the federal system of our Constitution, and don't think it's the President's job to tell the states what to do on all kinds of important issue, such as laws against rape or murder. Among the bad things about Roe is it's usurpation of power that the Constitution left with the states.

I wonder if you want a President appointing "pro-life judges" who find flip-side penumbras and emanations in the Constitution, that tell states they're not allowed to legalize abortion.

my head is about to explode...

Yeah, that's the impression I got.

throwing up your hands and saying "it's the states it's the states" is ridiculous. That's not the way it works today...and you give Rudy far too much of a pass.

Yes-he could say, today...right now-the Fed will do everything in its power to stop abortion at every level in this country...and as President, I will use every resource at my disposal to discourage ANY state from doing anything counter to that.

will he? Or will he say...sheesh-I hate dead babies and all, but it's not my call"

Puh lease-

And as for appointing judges...he'll appoint the ones that keep him elected or that he can convince Congress will not hurt their re-election chances. I vote number 2.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Yes-he could say, today...right now-the Fed will do everything in its power to stop abortion at every level in this country...and as President, I will use every resource at my disposal to discourage ANY state from doing anything counter to that.

So you think if something's really really important, that's enough to make it the President's job to stick his nose into it. If someone wants to to decide what a state does on those issues, I suggest he go run for Governor in his state.

There are lots of very important issues that under the Constitution are none of the President's business. The Constitution gives a President Giuliani one vote as a New York resident to help decide state appropriations in New York.

I would hold it against a Presidential candidate, if he was going to make it a priority to tell elected state officials how to do their jobs, instead of devoting his time and energy doing what we need a President for, e.g. winning the war, wrangling with Congress over taxes and spending, etc.

The overstepping of bounds by a branch of government is what created the whole abortion mess to begin with.
______________________________
"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

our founders "put forth a new nation" with the idea that tyranny was not conducive to a collective productivity and good will of a people. These same men believed, at its base, that a government owed some modicum of homage to a creator.

Even if you are not Christian, no one can argue that killing unborn children is not consistent with the notion of furthering a people and their best long term interests.

We're not talking about freaking posted speed limits or whether you can make 11 year olds take school provided birth control pills...good God men, have you lost your minds?

The better good of a nation...for which the federal Government is designed to secure, includes making sure there are enough of us to carry on. Did I miss something in all this? Is it NOT in the State AND Federal best interest that we procreate? That we set a minimum expectation that the sanctity of life be respected and preserved?

I remember reading something somewhere...where was it? Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

your tone is a bit harsh sir, we are supposed to be on the same side here.

you said: "Even if you are not Christian, no one can argue that killing unborn children is not consistent with the notion of furthering a people and their best long term interests"

you just said killing unborn children is consistend with the people's best interest, be careful with the "nots".

look, Rudy said he would appoint Alitos and Scalias. He said he would work to reduce abortion and increase adoption. He has worked to remove unwholesome characters and places from the public square. What do you want from this guy? He did not uphold Roe, the Supreme Court did, and that was a long time ago.

I know you will not change your beliefs, I doubt any "Rudy Hater" will ever change, it is quite similar to Bush Derangement Syndrome. I say this not because you have problems with Rudy, but because you and others seem to give no quarter, you don't even care about the precarious political situation we are in and which issues are so vital they are ahead in the list of priorities. I know you will say, "what is more important than life", but I will say, do you even know Rudy will have a chance to appoint an SC judge and that he will appoint a lefty?

In the end, attacking other Redstater's will not change the polls a wit. Rudy is leading comfortably, his much predicted dramatic collapse after Fred got in did not happen. What we need to do is persuade Rudy, inform him, and try to get him to our side. Attacking the guy who is most likely to win seems to me to be shortsighted and self reverential.

I am not saying Rudy is in so get on board, but I am saying wake up to the facts that are out there, he is more likely in than anyone else. Most Republicans, pro lifers and not, want to defeat Hillary and her socialistic plans.

Molon Labe!

my tone is more than justified, but because you and I have a little history, I'll skip the part about why my "tone" is such that it is...

Whether you think so or not, you ARE in fact suggesting "it's Rudy, so get over it" and I say-no...and hell no.

I had a longer reply, but I'll stop now. A post in full is forthcoming...Rudy in the general will make me vote 3rd party-that is all-and too bad for the lot of you that find beating hillary more important than anything else...and that can't see an un-flipped Congress FORCING Rudy to be no different than her when push comes to shove.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I am not saying, "it is Rudy so get over it." I am saying it is reasonable for people to support Rudy who are both Christian and pro life. I am also saying Rudy is not likely the enemy of pro lifers that some suggest. Also, we Republicans need to stem the tide that is against us, we have a bad habit lately of attacking/disowning anyone that gets ahead. I have said several times that I prefer Fred on the issues, but I want a winner. This may sound like I am not strong in my beliefs, but that is not the case, I just realize we can only elect one of the guys running, and we better elect someone that can win.

Anyway, I will gladly discuss this issue with you in detail whenever you want. No hard feelings here, I just thought you were a bit harsh on Rudy supporters. I have said harsh things before as well, it is no huge deal to me. I hold no grudges though, it is just politics :)

You can vote for whomever you wish and your reasons can not be questioned, I am just saying people can support Rudy without having something "wrong with them".

Molon Labe!

B) Did you read what I wrote? At all? Did you read the diary?

Try again.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

...you have read and responded to this.

Please do vote for them. But IF Rudy gets the nomination, this makes the case of Rudy over Hillary quite nicely. The original poster explicitly added his own hope that Rudy NOT be nominated.

absentee

It's one of the reason why I lean Fred! and am not committed to him. Rudy is a fighter, and unlike McCain, (though he's growing on me again) Rudy saves most of his fight for the liberals.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

law and SC cases. What are the sources?

I am not a lawyer (my best defense at the Last Judgment, BTW). But we do have a contingent here.

I do recall hearing John Roberts say that Roe was "settled law", whatever that means.

While I don't wish to bash the profession too badly, the only things that are settled in law are the bills. You pay, and then they send more.

"Stare decisis is fo' suckas!"

In all seriousness, stare decisis does play a role in constitutional interpretation, but its application is, shall we say, less than consistent.

Personally, I am a Thomas man. If a case was wrongly decided, then I could care less how much time has passed. Scalia, on the other hand, is more of a Burkean originalist. At a certain point, Scalia is not willing to disturb long-settled precedent (e.g., non-delegation doctrine).

I hope this helps.
--------------------------------------------------------
"I die the King's good servant, and God's first." Saint Thomas More.

is whatever five or more Justices say it is.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

probably one of the biggest issues in whether a judge turns out to be a good judge. Yet a lot of people don't seem to care that Rudy thinks that a strict contructionist judge could uphold Roe on the grounds of precedent. Rudy is not allowed to tell us what specific decisions his judges would make, but can tell us what philosophy they would hold and he seems to be telling us that it is a philosophy that puts stare decisis above the constitution. Rudy supporters don't seem to realize that it is this philosophy that got us Casey, and that it is this philosophy that Kennedy seems to go by.

was 58 years. I wonder how Scalia would have handled THAT one.

also said that Plessy was "settled law" before it was overturned and agreed with Brown.

With the right case we have 4 votes to overturn Casey and Roe.

Stare decisis is very important in those cases that apply to particular fact situations, but not with regard to wrongly decided cases on the constitution.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

n/t

n/t

The fact that the mobies and Ronulans (and even mobies posing as Ronulans) fear Giuliani more than any other Republican is one more plus for Giuliani.

I'm voting for Thompson at this point. If this party has lost touch with conservatives so much that it nominates Rudy, I have no fear of being called a Ronulan. Count me in with the rest of the protest voters.

If this party is interested in marginalizing conservative values by laughing at our concerns, it's not much of a party.

I'm not too worried about it at this point. I don't believe Rudy is going to maintain his position. We've already started to see hin numbers deflate. I personally fully expect that I'll be punching a chad for Fred Thompson come November 08.

Don't say Protest voter, say Hillary supporter.

absentee

That's the way I see it. Nominate Rudy, and I can guarantee a Hillary victory.

I'm not going to compromise my principles voting for someone who is going to marginalize them by dragging the party further left.

Forget about it.

... they were asking for it.

I'm not going to argue about the ignorance of protest votes. If it is not immediately evident to you without explanation then it probably won't sink in through arguing.
absentee

The problem is that the Republican Party has slowly slipped away from one which stood fast by certain principles, within reason. Over time, the secular/neo-con (as described in a thread earlier today, i think by mbecker) influence has eroded those principle for far too many. The people that represent the same mind set as Guiliani on social issues has become more prevalent every election cycle, in my view.

If Hillary wins, frankly it is the fault of the Republican Party that gave us GW and let him and a handful of his cronies ram his un-conservative agenda down our throat. Guiliani would be too much of the same, albeit better fiscally. However, I'm afraid he isn't strong enough even on those issues to swim against the current....I'm willing to accept some lee-way on this one though.

My conscience won't allow me to vote for someone who will continue the trend of giving in to the pro-homocide agenda of planned parenthood...I'm specifically talking about the fact they actually received less in private donations last year than the previous, but their overall revenue increased...why? Federal Government Grants! How did this happen during 6 years of Republican control? I'm convinced this is a symptom of a cancer much larger and more serious than Republicans realize or admit.

That's not to say that it is the only issue either, only one of the more obvious to me.

As Martin Luther said concerning someone's conscience, "for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us". Whiles the context was directly related to God's Word, I believe the principle applies very well here.

When we told the site that the practice of using "neocons" to mean "Republicans that you don't like" was no longer acceptable? We meant it.

And I wasn't nice this time, either.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

[Retread. Disregard. - Moe Lane]

thanks for the reminder, although it was unnecessary since I specifically referred to a definition, not the one you quoted, but one provided by a regular poster who defined what is is, and what it isn't...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

If was all about your conscience then you would do what little you could to prevent the worst from happening. If you can't build a dam to save the house, grab some photos and the cat and get out of there. Don't drown to protest the lack of a dam.

The fact that you would allow your lack of participation or your protest vote to elect Hillary, intentionally, is no morally different from voting for her. And since more babies would die under Hillary than Rudy, you do your conscience no service whatsoever.

It's not conscience. It's petulance.

I'll support Thompson or McCain in the primaries. If we lose that battle, I'll be man enough to fight the next battle: Not Hillary. Too bad some others give up and take their ball home.

absentee

[Retread. Disregard. - Moe Lane]

"The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." Someone can be educated, aware and informed and still follow their conscience in this election, by refusing to vote for Guiliani.....voting the lesser of two evils (if someone, like myself and a number of other people on here, believe voting for either is wrong)is still evil and someone can still be informed and not vote for Guiliani.

Creedo, I assume that you would consider Rudy, however low your opinion of him, preferable to Hillary even if you are not willing to vote for him. If you don't, their is probably no use trying to reason with you.

That being said, not voting or voting third party is the only way that a Hillary victory would be certain.

And as for your assertion that Rudy would drag the party to the left, I disagree. Socially, yes, he is to the left of most of the party. However, I believe that most social issues are better addressed at the societal level than at the governmental level.

Fiscally, he would move the party back to the right, where it once was. Same on the size of government. Rudy is also the only Republican I have heard stressing individual liberty as the solution to problems like healthcare. He will lay out a vision similar to Bush's "ownership society," only Rudy will have the guts to stick with it and defend it, rather than give up and run away with his tail between his legs like GWB.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

I realize I'm not going to make any friends on this issue. But as a Christian man, I am not going to cast a ballot for Rudy Giuliani on the rationalization that he's going to be a better fiscal conservative than Hillary. I'm a Christian first, an American second. I put God above country. I love my country, there's no doubt. My love for my country is a chief reason why I couldn't cast a vote for Rudy.

This party has lost its way if it thinks that it can ignore the social conservatives who have played ball for decades and watched our issues being used as nothing more than political footballs to rally the base.

We've rallied, and rallied, and rallied and rallied again.

Well this Christian isn't playing ball this time. And I'm not alone. If Rudy is the nominee, the next day you'll find me at Bed, Bath and Beyond buying tin foil and sheets to hang over the overpasses.

I urge you to drop your support of Rudy and pick up for Fred for the good of the party. Or even Huckabee. I like him, but I see Fred as a more viable candidate given his poll numbers. I'd happily jump on the Huckabee train if it were to cross the Thompson tracks.

What I don't get is with SoCon's like Creedo, is that they wouldn't vote for Rudy under any condition because they fall on their prinicple's and will have an express ticket to the pearly gates. Did they ever stop to think of their kids and grandkids that by protesting a Rudy vote they opened the door to the woman that would turn this country to the socialist states of America? As long as you get out clean you have no problem leaving your future generations to people who would guarantee to turn this country into abortion central, loss of religious freeedoms under the guise of "tolerance" and the out of control spread of radical Islam and also where future citizens live in a constant state of fear of the nanny state dictating how they must live. Shure Rudy isn't a perfect match but don't kid yourself thinking he's on equal footing with Hillary. What your doing is a form of child abuse. Try explaining that to St. Peter.

which is not about his getting to heaven...as a Christian he has been assured of his destination upon death by both Scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit. You may not buy this, and that's your obviously your decision. What he is saying that for a Christian everything is a matter of conscience, hence the statement that he is a Christian (follower of Jesus Christ) first and an American/Patriot second.
If a person running for election has principles that so blatantly violate a person's conscience that they cannot vote for them, what seems pragmatic to the non-Christian, is a violation of something more important.
I'm not saying non-Christian have no conscience, in fact Scripture says everyone does (Romans 2), but voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil, and at some point it needs to come to an end. Whether we like it or not, the recent history of doing this has validated statist Republican viewpoints and has been a boon for every drunkard, sexually immoral, wife beating, NRA member who will vote for a Republican as long as the NRA says they are ok and they keep us in Iraq.
Like the writer of this blog I couldn't vote for GW in 2004 for the same reason. I sure hope I'm not faced with the same decision in'08.

A third party "protest" vote is actually worth two votes for Hillary. One vote against the GOP candidate, and one vote for HRC.

To my mind there really is no such thing as a "protest" vote. You are either for or against the two main candidates. Voting for anything else is simply a waste of your vote. It might make the "protest" voter feel better...kinda like how getting drunk after an argument with your girlfriend makes you "feel better", but it doesn't solve anything, and there's the hangover to deal with.

I'm a huge fan of Rudy Giuliani. That makes me biased. But I would make this argument about ANY of the GOP candidates. ANY of them are millions of miles better than ANY of the Dems.

No. He's not perfect. He has a closet full of skeletons. I think his gun control stands were nonsensical. But as the mayor of NYC, I don't see how he had much choice.
I stated before I didn't care about his personal life, or his viewpoint on abortion. I don't see either effecting his management style. Granted, I'm fairly libertarian on social issues. You stay out of my business...I'll stay out of yours.

Rudy would make a great president. So would Fred, and Mitt, and John McCain. I have a great deal of respect for all of them. I will unhesitatingly vote for any of them in the general. I hope you folks currently considering a "protest" vote will come to your senses and do the same.
Respectfully,
Sy

I just posted above that I see Hillary guaranteed eight years. But even if it is just four, she will already have appointed ACTIVIST pro-abortion judges that will be on the bench for about 20 years or more.

See David123 and mine above for more.
===============

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

...that Rudy will not do the same? He has after all continually mentioned his support for abortion and I cannot see why anyone should trust him not to appoint pro-abortion judges. Why would a pro-abortionist claim to appoint pro-life judges? That's schizophrenic.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Amen brother.

This party has gone crazy if they think they can run out someone with John Kerry's values, call him a conservative, and tell me that I need to vote for him because he's anybody but Hillary.

It's called political clout, and if you don't use it you lose it. Conservative Christians are still the largest voting base in the nation, and despite some of our mealy-mouthed leaders, there's enough of us out here with principles who recognize the stake of the game. We lose whether it's Rudy or Hillary running the country. I'd argue that we lose more if it's Rudy, because we'd lose our standing in the party.

I'm not going to take the marginalization of the Christian vote sitting down.

Another Conservative

I don't see Rudy being as rabid as Hillary. He's got Ted Olsen heading his search for judges. He'll want to get re-elected, too. I don't see Rudy as being as agenda driven.

Hillary definitely is a dyed in the wool feminist, IMO. She wants gov't involvement cradle to grave. She will have the bully pulpit. The MSM will fawn all over her as brilliant. She WANTS pro-abortion ACTIVIST judges. No pro-lifers or SoCons will ever be in the room.

Hillary is doing her Extreme Makeover to seem more reasonable and moderate. I don't buy any of it.
=====================

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

With the claim that Giuliani is, albeit very slightly, more conservative than Hillary. What concerns me is what this means for the GOP - will this be setting a prescedent for future pro-abortion Republican presidents?

I'm a Republican because I have found that Republicans in general oppose Roe v. Wade and illegal immigration. That a pro-abortion president would be nominated as the candidate of choice for the party of family values, the Christian party, is a slap in the face to me.

Giuliani has consistently showed that he thinks more like a liberal than a conservative - on abortion, on illegal immigration, on gay marriage, on school prayer, and on gun control. This man is not a conservative and I don't think he deserves to lead what is supposedly a conservative party.

You can tell me about how great of a leader is until you're blue in the face. You can tell me about how he cleaned up crime in NYC. None of it matters to me if he supports infanticide.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

It was over on another thread: "The Next President Will End Legalized Baby Killing"

Sorry about that. I'm not the best at this.
======================

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

Let's think now. We can be nearly certain that at least one seat on the Supreme Court will open up during the first term of the next President. Hillary would certainly nominate another Ginsburg. Rudy, however, would not dare nominate anybody but a strict constructionist like Scalia, because he knows that many social conservatives are taking him at his word on this issue, and if he turns his back on them, he might actually be beaten by a primary challenger. The same with illegal immigration, Rudy will not support amnesty, because he knows that we will desert him if he does.

Rudy is an astute politician remember. He knows that he needs the support of the base to accomplish anything. He is aware of our disillusionment with President Bush when it comes to issues like immigration and spending.

And just think of the damage Hillary would do in four years.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

Once he's in, he's free to do what he wants. Just because he throws a bone to social conservatives like myself and promises to appoint pro-life judges doesn't mean he can't instantly go back on his word once he's president.

"The same with illegal immigration, Rudy will not support amnesty, because he knows that we will desert him if he does."

I highly doubt he wouldn't. He has a record of supporting illegal immigration.

"Once again taking sharp exception with the dominant conservative wing of his own party, Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that the proposed crackdown on illegal immigrants was deliberately intended to play to the public’s worst fears of foreigners and did not take into consideration the positive effects of immigrants on cities like New York."

New York Times, August 23, 1995

"Rudy would continue to make city services available to all immigrants, regardless of immigration status.

• Prohibit city workers from reporting undocumented immigrants to the INS, unless criminal activity is involved….
• Make sure that city workers understand what benefits immigrants are entitled to….
• Encourage outreach to immigrant communities to encourage their utilization of city services….
• Support the use of interpreters and translators in city government
• Support bilingual and bicultural education with goals of learning fluent English and maintaining native language skills….
• Oppose making English the “official language” of the U.S.
• Support adding alienage to protected class under City’s Human rights Law."

The New York Immigrant Coalition
Press Release, August, 1989

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

and that's not the issue anyway. The issue is whether he will appoint originalists. A lot of people seem to take his promise about to strict contructionists to be a promise to appoint originalists. But he's been very clear that by strict contructionist he means someone who holds the precedence at a high enough value that they can uphold Roe on those grounds alone. That's not originalism and if it is its not an originalism that I care much about. Its not a matter of not trusting his promises its a matter of believeing that when he says he doesn't care about Roe, he doesn't care about Roe. Its the Pro Rudy people who seem to not think Rudy means what he says. They hear that he is fine with judges putting Roe above the constitution and they say we should vote for him because he promises strict constructionists.

He will not appoint a liberal justice or do anything nutty regarding immigration in his first term, because he knows that doing so will greatly tick off the base and put the prospects of a second term for him at risk.

Besides, we have a pro amnesty president now, and minorities in congress, yet somehow manage to stave off all attempts at amnesty.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

"Besides, we have a pro amnesty president now, and minorities in congress, yet somehow manage to stave off all attempts at amnesty."

Excellent point.

absentee

"He will not appoint a liberal justice or do anything nutty regarding immigration in his first term, because he knows that doing so will greatly tick off the base and put the prospects of a second term for him at risk."

So what if the base gets ticked off? They can't do anything about him being in office. And if it hurts his prospects for re-election, no big deal - he can run as a Democrat. That's the party he belongs in, with the rest of the anti-christian abortionists and open borders apologists.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

If you're a Ron Paul supporter and you haven't had an account here for at least six months, DON'T MAKE IT A POINT OF TELLING US THAT YOU ARE. This guy came within a heartbeat of having his account closed and his account deleted; and, in fact, I'm being nice by letting it stay up.

And I'm not always nice.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

This guy does NOT need your compassion -- he needs to be banned! Look where being a compassionate conservative got GWB and this country!

From this clowns (I hesitate to call them thoughts)

I'm so far to the right on some issues that I'm just to the left of Attila the Hun, but on other issues I'm not. [The right are murdering huns?]

One of the issues that I'm really far to the right on is the issue of child abuse and pedophilia...Rudy's continued support of an accused pedophile priest, who has been indicted by a Grand Jury, and the coverup of those allegations by the priest just don't strike me as a good moral move on the part of a man who would like to demonstrate that he should be the supreme head of the Armed Forces, and the nominator of judges and the enforcement of criminal justice.
[Rudy supports pedophiles? PLA-eeese!]

The truth will out, and then we "People living in America" shall not be very happy with yet another scandle ridden president. [The man deserves to be banned for misspelling scandal alone! It is the most important word in the Democrat lexicon!]

=========
About the Author

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.

...that anyone who opposes Giuliani is automatically a liberal? That's absurd - and it's rather presumptuous of you to claim that. I don't see why "moby" isn't included as a slur or personal attack, since that's exactly what it is. It marginalizes someones opinion by classifying them as a liberal despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the person is, in fact, a liberal.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

those who post in the name of HWSNBN. Only they could simultaneously call us Nazis and communists in defense of their supposedly libertarian candidate.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

What zany word associations? I was under the impression a "moby" was a liberal posing as a conservative. Am I mistaken?

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

that your disfavor of Rudy somehow makes you liberal in and of itself, by the logic of some.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I recognize that I might have made the comment confusing.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

He happens to be marginally better than the D's. Color me underwhelmed.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

The ones running for president are so far off the chart its not funny.

John "I'll let my dieing wife do my fighting" Edwards.

Barack "I don't want any of that fascist flag" Obama

Shrillary "I have a fetal bucket" Clinton

There is no marginal here. That applies to all the republican candidates. These people make Ron Paul look good.

______________________________
"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

Rudy fought for Mario Cuomo for NY Gov. vs. Republican Pataki.
Rudy fought gun maker's in the court to reduce the sales of guns.
Rudy as mayor fought to protect illegal aliens in NYC from arrest and deportation.
Rudy complained bitterly about NAFTA as NYC mayor.
Rudy has fought for women to have abortions.

These are not the fights of R's. These are the fights of D's.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

They got even by voting Perot.

Do I need to say more ?
______________________________
"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

You are FOR Rudy because you think he can beat Hillary. You aren't going to let conservative values cloud your decision.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

I saw what he did for the city with my own two eyes.

I don't know if you are familiar with NYC but I used to be able to walk out my door, and see bums on the steps of the Morgan Library, then take a turn and see hookers on Madison avenue plying their trade during the day. Its not just Time sq. that the Mayor cleaned up.

There was a time when it was insane to venture in central park after hours. Time square was a deadzone populated by lowlives and really really downscale peepshows. Now Hells Kitchen is gentrified.

I am not a conservative who believes all government is evil. It has a purpose and a role, its only evil when it grows beyond the proper role. Rudy made great strides in returning government to its proper role in NYC. The city responded well.

______________________________
"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 doesn't make him a great president - especially when the lives of unborn children are at stake. Of course, I don't think you really care about such things, as long as you don't have those pesky homeless people hanging around your house.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

That doesn't make him a great president - especially when the lives of unborn children are at stake. Of course, I don't think you really care about such things, as long as you don't have those pesky homeless people hanging around your house.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Because quite simply put if you actually cared about saving the unborn you would as I am be willing to put Ron Paul in the oval office before allowing her anywhere near nominating justices.

But seeing as you are wrapping yourself around the right to life cause. And, discounting my own membership in the same club, try chewing on this.

Abortions were down in NYC during his tenure as Mayor.

Perhaps it helps to have an environment where you want to bring a child into the world.

I could go on and on and as a matter of fact I already have.
______________________________
"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

There was no connection between Rudy as Mayor and abortions going down under him. Don't get me wrong. The guy did a tremendous amount of good as mayor. As a resident of the city, I saw the change. That said, if Penn State beats Ohio State and France declares war on Iran during the game, it doesn't follow that Paterno started WW III. It's all well and good that abortions dropped during his administration, but unless you can establish that there was a connection between what he did as mayor and women deciding against abortions, you can't claim that he had anything to do with the drop.

www.republicansenate.org

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDgwNjliNzJkNzI3MGFjOGVjZmJjNDBjZjJ...

I am tired so I won't go further than pointing out he did avidly promote adoptions in the city.
______________________________
"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 will readily grant that he did not promote abortion, but in a city in which it was and remains readily available, he really didn't have to do so. The fact that the current mayor is a pro-abortion - yes, pro-abortion, not pro-choice - radical does not make Rudy's tenure good by any reasonable measure. There are ways to reduce the number of abortions on which many people can agree. I'd be willing to bet that if people effectively raised the issue of red tape for adoption during a Clinton presidency, she would probably go along with reducing it. There are even reasonable restrictions on which 80% of people agreed, yet on PBA, Giuliani, though he had no role to play in the issue, stuck his neck out to agree with NARAL and there small and shrinking band of extremists. The case for Rudy would be a case for everybody, including the first President Clinton. Anybody who ever did anything good improved the quality of life for his community and therefore made people less likely to have abortions. If Rudy were a Democrat, as he was until he decided he wanted an easy path to a nomination for Mayor, I don't think that many of those currently looking for ways to say that he's really not that bad on the issue would be making the same case.

www.republicansenate.org

She is a big fan of Mario Cuomo and a big supporter of NARAL. I know that Rudy did a good job in NYC. He would not have had the opportunity had he been any less liberal. I agree with Martin that I hope that it is someone other than Rudy that wins the nomination. I disagree with Martin on proudly voting for Rudy in the general if that's the case. It will be just about as wonderful as picking between Ford & Carter for me.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

The only thing good about Cuomo is he made it possible for a republican to win.
______________________________
"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

In politics my sister and I are complete opposites.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Here's my take on that:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/streetwise/2007/oct/15/rudy_cuomo_pataki

And here's testimony of the profound affection felt by the Democratic establishment for Rudy:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/streetwise/2007/oct/17/prominent_new_yorke...

"He has what the party has been lacking. He is someone who will personalize, anthropomorphize if you will the political philosophies we believe in."

Such as abortion on demand and gay rights? Those are the political philosophies "we" believe in?

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Accountability
Reduced taxes
Law and Order (Does FDT have a trademark on that ?)
Last but not least. Winning the war on terror
______________________________
"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'm not interested in a pro-war version of Hillary Clinton. I'll vote for a social conservative, or not at all.

And the notion that Rudy is somehow for "small government" is absurd. He's pro-gun control - and gun control expands the government.

Come to think of it, I don't see how granting amnesty to illegal aliens constitutes law and order, either.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

How could you do anything else.
______________________________
"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

continued the policy of not reporting aliens to the feds who cooperated with NY's Finest investigating crime in their communities.

A practice illustrated every day in reruns of "Law & Order" starring, among others, Fred Dalton Thompson.

I was not aware that the other candidates in the field were all running on a "Lose the War" platform. Rudy stands for nothing that we can't get in at least two or three other candidates. So if I can get lower taxes, accountability, law & order, and vigorous prosecution of the war from a guy who will also push for the 2nd amendment, pro-life policies, tough immigration stands, and other things Rudy is unwilling to offer, why exactly should I vote for Rudy?

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

I like them - I'm glad they're around to spread the message to the Jewish Community. But if you look at their Board they are almost all from NYC and environs, LA, or Washington, DC. Exactly who do you think NY Jews are going to support in this fight? And like many urbanites, the folks on the RJC board are much less likely to be looking to promote a socially conservative outlook. They are much more likely to have a more "laissez-faire" attitude on social issues. Having lived most of my life in liberal urban centers, I can say that my experience shows that even "conservative" Republicans in large cities are less likely to get worked up about the issues that SoCons consider important.

Huck can reach out to the other side because he agrees with them on so many things - the most important being the fundamental premise he holds - that government can solve problems. That is the absolute opposite of what Republicans believe. And if Bush's presidency isn't the proof that trying to create "conservative entitlements" and "compassionate government programs" is a massive failure, I would refer you to the 30-something approval rating he has.

And if you think that the Democrats will be any more interested in Huckabee's overtures than they were in Bush's overtures at the start of his administration, you live in fantasy-land. Please send me some of what you've been taking to get there - I could use the buzz.

.

...that "[Rudy's] leftist social positions will alienate the socons and negate the advantage we otherwise would have in turning out our base", and that "[Hillary] will help us get our base fired up". The contradiction is somewhat apparent. Look, Rudy won't have too many Repubs turning him away when they hear the Hildabeast's Cackle in the distance, and his superior stance with independents will (hopefully) be enough to defeat Hillary (who has a massive amount of support coming from of single women, who turn out in a larger percentage than men of the same demographic every year, and from the traditional Democratic bastions (such as minorities and college students). Hillary would positively giggle with glee at the thought of facing off against someone like Fred, whose appeal is limited, or the Huckster, who is even more repugnant to the base than Guiliani.

Today though I'm beginning to question where it is I belong, when I see our party gutting a good man and great leader while the world burns I cringe. Maybe it's Rudy that needs to head up a third party and start a for real big tent party so we can leave the small minded, our way or the highway, section of the party behind.

BIG TENT!
SMALL TENT!
RED TENT!
ALL TENT!

Enough with the stupid tents! Every single candidate's followers. SO-CONS, FI-CONS, NEO-CONS, NEO-HI-FI-SO-CONS! Everybody keeps talking about pucking up their marbles and going home! I am sick of it!

AT LEAST WE HAVE A TENT! The Dems are a coalition of special interest groups, many of which hate each other; are working at cross-purposes and in opposition to each other; but are united by one thing -- THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER TO ELECT DEMOCRATS!

(wow, that felt good! ok, rant over)

=========
About the Author

Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he pr

If tents are not your style, you could give yurts a try. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all have at least two things in common.

1. They are all better than Hillary on every issue [sometimes a little better, sometimes a lot better].

2. None of their spouses have ever been impeached.

Reagan left office in 1989, 20 years from the next inauguration.

Calvin Coolidge left office in 1929, but Reagan didn't take office until 1981, leaving a gap of 52 years between conservatives.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Robert Taft led the opposition to FDR for decades, and in the 60's we had Goldwater and in the 70's Reagan himself. The problem with electing a weak conservative like Bush is that he becomes the face of the movement. Sites like NRO and even this one will bend over backwards making excuses for Bush's many transgressions against the movement, and the apolitical masses don't even get to hear true conservatism articulated. We have an entire generation now that has never even heard an intellectual case for Conservatism made from the WH. I'm a child of Reagan. Today's kids are children of [Expletive deleted] Willy and George "when people hurt, government has to act" Bush. To have a liberal like Rudy representing the party would be disaster. I'd have to leave the party.

Are we clear?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Type these words: "I am sorry for using foul language on this website, and I will not do this again."

Next post.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

ever come up that is.