Posted on 02/01/2006 5:23:40 AM PST by areafiftyone
1. She can never win a national election.
2. I still believe that she will NOT get the nomination.
That's one main reason why I won't vote for him if he is the nominee. The other major issues that I won't budge on are abortion and sodomite marriage.
If Rudy is the GOP nominee I won't vote for either nominee, but I'll be hoping for a Democrat in the White House and a Republican House and Senate. Total gridlock on all domestic issues is the only hope for social conservatives if Rudy is elected.
My thoughts exactly. I am not responsible to the Republican party for how I vote, but I am responsible to God for every act that I take.
National politics isn't a game or a sport with fans rooting for the "home team". Party loyalty doesn't mean squat AFAIC. The reason I have consistently voted Republican for the last 45 years is because of the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-sodomy positions of the Democrat party. If the Republican party adopts those same positions why should I care which one wins? AFAIK there is no law saying I have to vote for either one.
Fine, it you live in NYC.
But most Republicans don't live in NYC and wouldn't live there if they were paid to. The Republican party can't win without social conservatives and pro-2nd amendment voters. Rudy would frighten those voters into staying home on election day.
I don't believe that Rudy would bring in enough moderates to offset the losses from the social conservative camp. Most of those so-called centrists or moderates are really Democrats at heart who aren't quite as far to the left as the Reid/Kennedy/Pelosi/Dean majority wing of the party. They pretend to be on the fence at every election because IMHO they think it makes them appear to be non-committed deep thinkers who carfully weigh all the pros and cons and then decide logically and unemotionally how they will vote. But after all that head scratching and beard stroking, at every election 75-85% of them vote for the Democrat just as they knew they would all along.
[2. I still believe that she will NOT get the nomination.]
You guys really should get over to DailyKOS.com more often. That is the enemy camp. Unlike DU where the kiddies go, DailyKOS.com is where the ACLU lawyers hang out and Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and a number of other leftist politicians actually post "diaries" there (we call them threads here). More than 200,000 jackasses per day visit that blog.
Anyway, the Kossacks are very influential in that they forced 99% Democrats to vote No for Alito. They forced Kerry to come out against the war 4 weeks before the election in 2004 (a flip/flop nobody noticed because none of his supporters really believed he was for the war no matter how many times he said he was).
The Kossacks say NO to Hillary and bigtime. She gets 5% approval.
The backing is for Warner and Ross Feingold.
That moron Wesley Clark will run again, by the way. He won't get anywhere again, but these fools think they can win with "war heroes."
I am the only one who remembers when the Dems were creaming themselves over the fact that polls showed Wesley Clark beating Bush?
Who is this Warner and Russ Feingold?
By the way...if any Republican planners are reading this thread...we can afford a few FReepers refusing to vote for Giuliani in a general election.
In fact, the "hatred" of the far right is exactly what a good Republican candidate needs to earn the love of the MSM and the huge independent vote to get a landslide.
Even if the candidate was perfect on abortion, etc, we would want one that gives the far right nightmares anyway because we WANT them to be upset and yelling and angry and saying they won't vote for him.
If one looks at the polls that say that supposedly 48% of Americans are upset that Cindy Sheehan wasn't allowed to sit in the gallery at the SOTU...it tells me that Americans are so dumb that being for "choice" means being so against President Bush that you are with the traitors on the war.
I can see how many prolifers here feel that the baby holocaust is more important than the WOT...but others here feel the WOT takes precedence. Someone who appears to have the hatred of the far right...that is the ticket. I want someone whom I know will work hard to stop abortion and stop gun-control...but who says he is OK with "choice" and earns the undying anger and disgust of the far right for that.
And everyone who says loudly "I won't vote for a baby killing gun grabber"...only helps his chances of getting elected, even in a primary in the case of Giuliani.
I'm not sure I'd want to be a paleoconservative either... it sounds like something you'd find in a museum. :-)
Hmm. Commie Pinko Demoncrat or RINO.
Nope. Wouldn't vote at all or would vote Third Party.
Better a Democrat President and gridlock, than a RINO passing Democrat-type legislation. Some of Bush's programs have proved that (Drugs for Geezers, No child gets ahead, Farm Subsidies, etc.).
I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000
Note he is not talking about testing for a Concealed Carry permit like some states have already, but a written test to be able to buy a gun which is extreme. Once a test is required, it can then be made as difficult as any future anti-gun adminstration wants, effectively banning guns without needing to pass a law.
That's a far cry from the claim that he wants to get guns out of peoples' hands. I passed my written test for my driver's test.
No, really, I did. :)
I just spent a couple minutes finding one quote. I am sure you could find more. His anti-gun credentials have been earned over a long period of time. The point about this quote is that his 'gun test' raises huge red flage in the pro-gun community. No administration is going to make the drivers liscense test so hard and/or expensive that even 1% of the people give up getting a drivers liscense, much less say 30%. Unlike cars, there is a minority out there who is so against guns they try to discourage people from owning them all together, and someone with their views is sometimes elected to power. If an anti-gun adminisation is given this tool gun ownership will plummet as many find the expense and/or difficulty of the test not worth it in order to buy a $200 tool.
And by the way, he is deceptive in his quote. A driver license is NOT necessary to buy a car or pickup truck delivered to your home and drive it around your property. There is not even a background check. Only if driven on public streets is passing a test necessary. For guns then, a parallel would be a test for concealed carry on public property, but no test for purchase or use (including concealed carry) on private property. So he pretends he just wants to make guns like cars but he really wants to make guns much more restricted than cars.
"A driver license is NOT necessary to buy a car or pickup truck delivered to your home and drive it around your property."
I'm guessing that doesn't happen a lot in New York City. :) Frankly, I've had to show one whenever I bought a car.
It would happen a lot more with guns (keep at home, shoot at private shooting ranges), if only NYC treated guns like cars.
Frankly, I've had to show one whenever I bought a car.
Maybe they wanted your license for the ID value because of a loan (did you pay cash?) or business contract related reason. (There are 50 states and each could have it own laws but typically you can own a car without having a license to drive it on public streets.) Heck, you could even race NASCAR without a driver license as far as the government is concerned.
The "lets treat guns like cars" lie comes out of hardcore anti-gun talking points which is maybe why it rubs people who follow the gun issue the wrong way but why you don't have the same reaction.
Well, I certainly have no problem with gun ownership. It's not the primary issue I follow, so I don't know all the ins and outs of it. Those who think guns will be taken away just seem rather paranoid at times, to me. Some seem to believe that gun owners will have to physically defend themselves from their own government, and the few instances I've seen of people trying it don't end well, in any case.
Thanks for your input.
Yes, but remember that the so-called "far right" has alot of influence in the primaries. The only primaries I could see Giussolini winning would be New Hampshire and Michigan, as they are "open primaries." Even then, he may split the independent and Dem votes with McCain.
If the Dems are smart, they would run Mark Warner (ie Clinton without the corruption). Feingold is a smart man, but he is essentially Howard Dean with a brain and a calm demeanor. I'm betting on a Warner/Feingold ticket, as that would both attract the border states (Warner being from Virginia) and keep the lefties at bay.
Again, once the primary voters hear about Rudy's questionable personal life and liberal stance on most issues, he will go nowhere.
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.