Posted on 02/01/2007 5:41:39 AM PST by areafiftyone
Why don't you make your accusation to a moderator.
If they think she's using two screennames, they'll take care of it.
I think Reagan won NJ both times. Was he a moderate conservative?
Why don't you wait to hear what he has to say then. If none of these quotes (including the ones that you put up) are to your satisfaction and don't answer your question, why not wait until he is asked. Because you know that he will be asked!
Link?
California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minn, Michigan, Penn all would be in play. Just making the RATS campaign seriously in those states would cause them enormous problems.
Please don't take this as a personal slam, because I certainly don't mean it as such, but Americans have a drastically different attitude on the right to keep and bear arms than British folks do.
I don't believe we will win in 2008 with a nominee like GWB or someone further right. The only way that would work is if we had a very popular conservative available. We don't. That's why all of the favorites are not conservatives, and NONE are from the South. (Gingrich isn't in yet, so that may change).
STOP! Too much common sense!
You are right, of course. What happened to the idea that conservatives were supposed to think first, feel second?
I doubt many of Obama's current supporters know or care what his voting record is. If he gets the nomination and goes on to win the Presidency it won't be because the voters agree with his politics. We know for sure Massachusetts didn't get an attack of conservatism-love in November 1984 when they voted Republican.
Well, of course that will all shake out in the primaries. I just hope people will put aside their differences and support whoever comes out on top. I don't like McCain, but even he would be preferable to a democrat!
Conservatives are offering a curious explanation for the drubbing they took at the polls: they blame the Republicans. The 2006 elections were not a conservative defeat, you see; they were a Republican one, a rejection of a party that had strayed too far from the conservative path. John McCain put the point nicely: "Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us."
The corollary is that McCain--along with many other, more reliable conservative spokesmen--believes that most Americans remain quietly conservative. But this latent center-right majority, he argues, needs reassuring that in 2008 the GOP will once again hew to true-blue (pardon the term) conservative principles.
In their hearts, he knows they're Right. Such a faith, though gratifying, is bound to be disappointed. If conservatism means being decent and patriotic, then of course, nearly all Americans are fuzzily conservative. But that doesn't tell you much about how they vote, which in recent years has been in roughly equal numbers for Democrats and Republicans. The notion that a steady conservative majority exists, waiting only to be activated by the right Republican appeal, thus makes for bad GOP strategy. It lures Republicans into thinking their job is easier than it is, by disguising the hard truth that victory still depends on persuading, not merely reminding, a crucial segment of the electorate to think conservative and vote Republican.
But the idea that conservatives long ago won the battle for public opinion, and that the GOP has only to collect on their victory, runs afoul of a deeper problem, which is that the definition of conservatism is more clearly up for grabs than at any time since the end of the Cold War. McCain recognizes this, inasmuch as his presidential candidacy depends on offering his own twist on the term.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, conservatism lost the urgent motivation provided by anti-Communism. Many predicted a crack-up, but what actually ensued was a series of flirtations with new, or at least newly assertive, right-wing elements. Upward floated the balloons of civil society conservatism (an anticipation of the compassionate conservatism to come), "third wave" conservatism (technology to the rescue), and national greatness conservatism (McCain was an early enthusiast). Some traveled farther than others, but each descended under the weight of its own limitations and the pressure of events.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009600
Rudy is a politician. Roberts and Alito were very popular nominations amongst Republicans. OF COURSE Rudy is going to say he supports them. He'd be politically retarded to do otherwise.
He can say whatever he wants now that he's running for office and in campaign mode, but that won't cut it. His past views and statements have been posted repeatedly on nearly every thread that mentions Rudy Giuliani. You want to dismiss it as "spam" because you don't want anyone to see the truth about where Rudy actually stands on the issues.
I spent the time to compile his views on issues important to Republicans in a chart and you insist upon ignoring it or calling it "spam".
What you seem to be waiting for is some slick campaign propaganda packaged by political consultants on a multi-million dollar campaign contract to rehabilitate Giuliani by whitewashing his egregiously anti-Republican views, statements and policies as mayor. If you have to be spoonfed everything in that manner, why are you here on Free Republic. If everyone here did that, Dan Rather's fake memo about George W. Bush would still be accepted as gospel and John Kerry would have been elected. We look into the way people stand on issues, dissecting everything they've said and done, and we discuss it here. And when we're talking about a liberal, we use their past statements and votes to hammer them over the head - especially when they're displaying hypocracy. That is precisely what is going on with Giuliani here when some of us are exposing his liberal record and statements in these threads.
We know what he has to see. He's already said enough. He's a liberal.
Barely. I really worry about that guy as C-in-C with his hand on the nuclear football.
As you said up the thread, real Republicans and conservatives will.
Boy he's mister Happy, NOT!
I'm a libertarian and I and most of the other libertarians here on FR will not vote for Rudy. I wish y'all would realize that a guy who turns off so many facets of the party is a very bad choice for our nominee. We need someone we can all rally around.
I think that is something that EVERYONE here on FR can agree on. Absolutely, under no circumstances, do we want McCain to win the nomination or the White House. Can you even imagine...
So how do you explain him being the frontrunner in the polls?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.