Posted on 02/14/2007 7:28:54 PM PST by rodomila
I used to think Free Republic was a site with mostly rational people. I can't understand why so many of you waste your time with Duncan Hunter fantasies. Really folks hallucinogenic drugs are illegal and bad for you too. Stop taking them !!! No one outside of the Hunter family and this website thinks he has the remotest chance of being elected President. The Ronald Reagan comparisons are idiotic. Reagan had been a two term Governor of the largest state in the nation. He had been a national household name for over 40 years when he ran in 1980. God only made one Ronald Reagan. Duncan Hunter, although he is a solid Congressman, is no Ronald Reagan. I'm a conservative and I would love to have a viable conservative to work for this election cycle. But we don't have one. McCain is a no go for me. I loathe the treacherous man and believe he is non-compos mentis (loony). That leaves Mitt and Rudy. Newt's entry would hopefully pull the other two to the right (which would be great), and he might even win the nomination (which would probably be bad as I don't think he would win the general election).
That would leave us with Hildebeast or even worse B. Hussein Obama. Therefore, although I'm pro-life, pro-gun, and anti the mainstreaming of homosexuality, I am trying to decide between Rudy and Mitt.
For me the war on islamo nazi psychos is the top issue and Rudy gets my vote on that one.
Issue two is finding a candidate who won't give in to global warming hysteria because that is the lefties preferred path currently to world government and destruction of our economic system. I have to look into Mitt's position on this because Rudy made some rather discouraging comments on this recently (although they were not as bad as originally reported here.)
Next is immigration. We need someone to enforce our laws and get control of the borders. Mitt seems to the right of Rudy on this but both have a way to go. Maybe Tancredo in the race can generate some movement.
Taxes - we need to keep the Bush tax cuts at the very minimum and hopefully get a bolder overhaul of the system.
Judges - we want young Scalias.
Spending restraint - I'm hoping that both, as successful businessmen, will hold the line on spending better than GWB who was a total disappointment in this area.
Let's try to move the viable candidates closer to us on the issues rather than engage in self defeating fantasies of "ideal" candidates who no one has ever heard of and who have never run any larger organization than a Congressman's staff.
LOL
I guess there are a few ways to interpret the screen name "motormouth".
MM
LOL Watch it.. I throw frying pans and my aim can be dead on.
MM
Well, you can argue Rudy is not a liberal, as many have done. But I did not put any falsehoods into post 161.
And I did not include his socially liberal stances either.
So how one would expect that Freepers, a group of mostly staunch conservatives, would treat the idea of a Rudy nomination as anything other than disastrous, I don't get.
Nevertheless, the name calling directed at other freepers needs to come to a screeching halt.
Yeah, you can always distinguish "that time of month" around here with our freeperettes.
Will do!!!
BTW: Thanks for pointing out that I live in Rhode Island.. now I can get flamed for my screen name AND where I live. LOL
No.. Im like this ALL the time, but nice try.
MM
And the name-calling against Rudy, I would think. Tho maybe that's just me.
To me, the key issues are defense, govt spending, tough on crime, and being a strong leader.
Rudy would seem to fare well in those catagories.
He's certainly not perfect, any more than GW is. I don't believe he'd be any worse than GW, personally. He ran an extremely liberal city, and had policies tailored to the constiutency there. I don't believe he's a 'liberal', I just don't see it. He's soft on some non-key issues (non-key in my opinion, of course). But this 'end of the world' rhetoric does not seem justified.
do a google on these guys. Time to get familiar with more than just what the press keeps putting out there to vote for.
Well said.
Those, in theory are Rudy's strengths. And if he is indeed a strong leader, then he can lead the country in some very nasty directions regarding global warming, 2nd amendment, gay "rights", border enforcement, judges, etc etc.
Our goal as conservatives is to make sure he does not have that opportunity.
Again, tho -- I don't believe he's a gun-grabber. He ran a city where gun restrictions made sense, to me.
Gays, I couldn't give a hoot about. Judges, I believe he'd put in constructionists. The border -- would he be any worse than GW?
I respect ya'll working to oppose him. I think what you're doing, your approach, laying out his policies/positions, is very apt. It's the 'end of the world' tone that just confuses me.
I think the rhetoric of many of the 'extreme' folks here has the potential to really work against your cause. Part of what I do like about GW is that the extremists on the left are so hysterically opposed to him. I get the same feeling about Rudy, here.
He's not just "soft" on some key issues, he's downright limp.
I think what it boils down to is what you are willing to accept. I'm NOT willing to accept his stand on MANY issues. I need to support someone that has the closest beliefs to mine and it aint him. In time, we will see if Hunter can make a dent in the numbers...enough to make him viable... I'm hoping he will do just that, but even if he doesnt, I wont vote Rudy.
MM
There is a huge difference. Most here do not hate Rudy or even dislike him. We can admit that he did some good things. Cleaned the streets of NY, showed leadership post 9-11, etc. What we cannot abide by is a shift left in the party that is supposed to be the conservative party.
If you look at Rudy's record on judges as opposed to what he now says, he supported anything BUT originalists. He has nothing but kind words for the abilities of that commie dingbat Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
I am not understating the necessity to bring the party back to Reagan conservatism. It is our only long term hope. Caving to the dem positions on God, gays, affirmative action, global warming, 2nd amendment, etc is a recipe not only for the GOP decline, but for this nations decline.
Just ask the Tories in England after they rejected much of Thatcherism.
Is there a lie in there somewhere? If so, what is it?
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.