Posted on 03/06/2007 8:25:19 AM PST by areafiftyone
Thanks I did mean Hyde. My bad, and good catch.
Judging from the volume of shills for every candidate here on FR, they all do.
"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)."
Are you implying that if Rudy had run for Senate (which he was prepared to do before prostate cancer took him out), his stand on Cuomo would not have hurt him with Upstate repubs? Wouldn't he need those votes in order to win that Senate seat? Since that decision (to endorse Cuomo) is being dragged out now (10+ years after the fact), I'm pretty certain it would have been dragged out during any Rudy Senate race at the time.
In retrospect, I wonder if his 1994 endorsement of Cuomo and his bizarre brand of "conservative" politics in NYC was part of a plan to run for governor of New York down the road -- as a DEMOCRAT.
Please . . . I'm an engineer by trade. There's no room for any of that in my life. LOL.
I don't think it's a big deal at all that Romney directed 1.5% of his political donations to dems.
I also don't care what Rudy's relationship is with his kids.
Speculation runs rampant!
Quite frankly, he could have run for governor on the Nazi ticket in NY State and probably been elected in a landslide (/sarcasm).
The issue of Giuliani is not so much party affiliation and stands on issues, I think, as much as it is that's he's a man who tells you what he thinks, and what he's going to do, and then goes out and does it.
I don't disagree, sin is sin. I am no better than anyone else. Just don't preach to people here on how righteous you are when you throw hatred around.
"Please . . . I'm an engineer by trade. There's no room for any of that in my life. LOL."
I'm a system's prgrammer, by trade, and all we seem to do is make compromises!
Thanks!
Have you always been a few cards short of a full deck or do you always run around running your mouth about things you know nothing about? My history is here on FR and while short as it is I have NEVER supported Hunter over Tancredo. Or anyone else in this campaign over Tancredo for that matter. Go check it out for yourself ;~D.
You RINOs will probably win again so I don't know what your problem is with who I'm supporting. Are you afraid that if enough real "Americans" ban together your guy (or gal as is most likely the case) will lose?
There's biding time and holding ground, and then there is advocating the opposing position. Rudy is advocating the opposing opinion on several hot button issues.
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.
What a silly thing to advocate. Electoral politics sets the ground rules. To advocate abandoning using the franchise to influence the rules under which we live is to council subjugation to the players that remain in the game.
The ground is always under contention, and that which is not defended will be seized by the opposition. If the "values" conservatives are not fighting to define the rules our culture defines as moral, common and just, the ACLU's lawyers will be happy to do so for them, before judges appointed by electorally filled officials, using laws passed by them, administered by bureaucrats hired by them.
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
You're right. The moneyed "Rockefeller" pubbies do have far more influence than their numbers. But it balances out: the grassroots conservatives can't win without money and publicity; the anointed money candidates can't win without the masses in the base. Sounds like time for compromising in both directions, don't it?
I don't know about you but I'm tired of "compromise." It's time to kick ass and take names. Compromise got us both Bushs and to my knowledge the only presidents that were worse for this nation, in my opinion, Jimmy (the peanut head) Carter and Billary Clinton (Ironically, three of the four are members of the Trilateral commission. A group of 300 men that are actively pushing for a "New World Order" that does NOT include the Sovereign United States of American remaining sovereign.)
TANCREDO '08
I don't have a problem with Mitt's tactics either. He scored a good propaganda point by using them.
Rudy has raised lots of money probably more than anyone else by far. That is the least of his problems.
Sorry that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you have a grasp on political realities. My bad. Knowing you support someone as goofy as TT means we do not have to take a thing you say as having any significance.
"His wife started it by sayng "My husband has only one wife". I wanted to puke when she said that. "
Why? You have a problem with people still on their first marriage?
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.