Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rudy 1, Romney 0
Eye on 08 ^ | 3/6/07

Posted on 03/06/2007 8:25:19 AM PST by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-197 next last
To: Wombat101

Pro-Life DEM. While he is not with us anymore Bob Casey former Gov. of PA. The party shunned him at the convention.


121 posted on 03/06/2007 10:30:23 AM PST by Roland Hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

"Why was it "not a popular statement to make?"

Because the Upstate GOP wanted Rudy's head on a platter for it.

Naturally, they forgot all about it when it came to running Rudy against Hillary for Senate, but I guess their change of heart then was a principled stand rather than a matter of convenience (beat Hillary at all costs), huh?


122 posted on 03/06/2007 10:30:48 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
Difference is I stand on scripture, she doesn't! You seem hard pressed to see the difference in some things.

You stand on principle; yet, where are your fruits of those principles? It's not only the hearing of the Word, it's the application that makes the difference. You put some 'in a reputable box' of not standing on principle when you yourself aren't. Sin is sin - and yours is not less than anyone elses' no matter how self righteous you may feel.
123 posted on 03/06/2007 10:30:49 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Roland Hand

Thanks. I'm positive there are others of the same order, and a great deal more of less prominance and public standing, but pro-life dems do exist.


124 posted on 03/06/2007 10:31:45 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

I'll see you an Andrew Giuliani and raise you a Ron Reagan, jr.


125 posted on 03/06/2007 10:32:28 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Or is conservatism now only narrowly-defined as having the "right" opinions on gay rights and abortion, and we can safely chuck the rest when it's convenient?

All I ask is that you be fair. Why is this difficult?

Since you are all about fairness, why not flip your question around? Is conservatism now only defined by fiscal, defense/law n' order issues, and we can safely chuck moral concerns when convenient?

I humbly propose that anyone who rejects either half of the equation is not truly a conservative, at least in the "Reagan" mode. The Reagan conservative movement was a synthesis of the "fiscal", the "libertarian", and the "values" coalitions. It was created by each group compromising somewhat, but still gaining input at the table. What is being asked by the Rudy supporters is for a large part of the Reagan coalition to abandon their place at the table, yet wholeheartedly support someone who rejects what they consider vital.

The trouble with this "take it or leave it" attitude, is that the "values" conservatives have no real downside to "leaving it". Either way, they lose the Presidential support of their issues, but by supporting Rudy without hope or expectation of a quid pro quo, they also lose any future influence. If they can be relied upon to shut up and vote GOP, regardless of whoever the GOP throws up as a candidate, then they are neutered politically. They can be dealt with by lip service and no action, just as the Left deals with its captive voter blocs.

One has only to look at California to see how well that strategy has played out. We now have a Governor who feels absolutely no loyalty to the conservative party base, knowing that his support comes from the "independents" and the undifferentiated "moderates" from the GOP and Dems. The GOP crammed him down our throats as "electable", and now we are getting socialist programs that the previous administration didn't imagine possible in their wet dreams.

126 posted on 03/06/2007 10:32:46 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EndWelfareToday

"Tancredo's not taken seriously by liberals and moderates which is why he's not getting any press." Tancredo is not taken seriously by ANYONE.

Guess you see that Hunter's campaign is just about over so are now casting around for someone else without a prayer of election.


127 posted on 03/06/2007 10:34:10 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Ahem...the City of New York pays far more to Albany's coffers than it ever seems to get in return. It also pays far more to the Fed'ral Gubmint than it ever seems to get in return, and all of this with the greatest engine of unbridled Capitalism right in it's midst.

Tough sh!t. New York City also happens to continually elect representatives in government who are adamantly opposed to the one thing that would fix this problem -- i.e., eliminating any variation in tax rates among different income levels. NYC's problem isn't that it doesn't get enough from Albany or Washington -- it's that it sends too much.

As for "propping up" the city's finances: Guiliani took a city perpetually in deficit and left it with a surplus of $4billion dollars (which quickly turned to a $6 billion deficit under the Pataki/Bloomberg team, which resulted in an 18% property tax hike), and he did it with lower taxes and greater accountability and efficiency in city government.

I'd be the first one to give credit where credit is due, but Giuliani's contribution to this is very much exaggerated. Because so much of the tax revenue generated in the city is tied to the finance/banking sector of the economy, New York City's fiscal performance always mirrors the performance of Wall Street -- which was on a historic tear during most of his term in office. The city's strong fiscal performance in the late 1990s was directly a function of higher tax revenues, not reduced government spending -- which means Rudy Giuliani was no more responsible for New York City's strong economy in the late 1990s than he was responsible for the city's $2 billion budget deficit when he left office at the end of 2001.

128 posted on 03/06/2007 10:34:52 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: stockstrader

Next to the definition of "smarmy" is Mitt's picture.


129 posted on 03/06/2007 10:36:06 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Didn't Mitts first fund raising party raise 6 million compared to the 1.3 of Clinton?

What was Rudy's fund raiser get?

I don't have a problem with mitt bringing in folks, rudy could have as well.


130 posted on 03/06/2007 10:36:10 AM PST by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

He acommplished his goal - above and beyond - IN SPITE OF IT ALL. How cool is that?!


131 posted on 03/06/2007 10:36:31 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Because the Upstate GOP wanted Rudy's head on a platter for it.

OK -- so it was popular among people who actually lived in his jurisdiction and unpopular among people who lived outside it (and therefore had no say in his prospects for re-election).

I don't think this has anything to do with "convenience" or "political stands" -- but has everything to do with basic political opportunism.

132 posted on 03/06/2007 10:38:11 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Interesting that you mention Savage in your tag when he is hysterically anti-Rudy. Yet you are aligning with that phoney?


133 posted on 03/06/2007 10:38:24 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

Very good post, LexBaird.


134 posted on 03/06/2007 10:39:30 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

Hastert? Did you mean Henry Hyde?


135 posted on 03/06/2007 10:40:06 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Getting their 'talking points' from Savage. Pawns of his.


136 posted on 03/06/2007 10:40:21 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

See #128 before you add "tough fiscal conservative" to your idol-worship list of attributes for Rudy Giuliani.


137 posted on 03/06/2007 10:40:45 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Rist of all - I don't idolize ANYONE!! Got that? When you say you got it - we can continue.


138 posted on 03/06/2007 10:43:07 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

"Since you are all about fairness, why not flip your question around? Is conservatism now only defined by fiscal, defense/law n' order issues, and we can safely chuck moral concerns when convenient?"

Certainly not. I'm speaking of pragmatism, and in this case, Conservatism is a political movement with several spearheads; social, economic, gov't mechanics, etc.

In terms of the current political climate, it is possible to advance conservatism quite easily on some fronts, and less easily on others. Conservatism can NEVER be implemented in one fell-swoop (despite what many think), in it's entirety, just as what the other side advocates cannot; if either party ever achieved their full agenda, this country would be in open revolt. Incrementalism is awlways the key to advancing any political agenda.

What I advocate is simply this: in those areas in which the movement can be advanced, then advance it. In areas in which the underlying social and political climate is less conducive, then you bide your time until the conditions are right for advance.

IMO, the current political soil will not accept the seed of a full-blown social conservative agenda. It may be trending that way, but the vital tipping point has not been reached, and so long as this is the case, social conservatives should adandon electoral politics in favor of a battleground where they can actually make headway: at the individual level in the communities at large, which is traditionally their natural element in any case. When they have done their job changing hearts and minds, only then will the political situation be more welcoming and accepting of the majority of their views, and only then are the changes they wish to see viable.

Until that time comes, resort to electoral politics to advance social change can only be minimally effective, and only then, only at the margins of American society. All of the great social movements (especially the ones social cons hate so much) ultimately had their roots in popular feeling which was then reflected in elected politics. In this regard, the social cons have it all backwards; they want an electoral victory in order to impose their will, regardless of whether or not there is any popular feeling in favor of it.

In the meantime, what is happening is that progress on some fronts is in danger of being stunted by obstinancy on others. The most notbale example of this is the extremely skewed nomination process, in which a minority within the GOP manages to punch above it's weight and unduly influence the available pool of candidates for general election


139 posted on 03/06/2007 10:50:01 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

" I don't think this has anything to do with "convenience" or "political stands" -- but has everything to do with basic political opportunism."

I called it pragmatism, you call it oportunism. Somewhere there's a happy middle ground, I'm certain. LOL


140 posted on 03/06/2007 10:51:45 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-197 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson