A Question from a Webb Supporter

The Washington Post ^ | November 14, 2006 | John Whitesides

[DCBandita]

The announcement by McCain, who has put together campaign organizations in many of the states with early nominating contests, was widely expected. The intentions of Giuliani, who has been less active in early organizing, had been less clear.

Giuliani's campaign team said the committee was simply an opening move designed to keep his options open, with a final decision still to come.

"This filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision," Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti said.

[DCBandita]

Gal. ;-)

[dashing doofus]

"That's when it becomes an equal protection issue for me."

Perhaps any differences between statutes among states becomes an equal protection issue for YOU. Fortunately, the US Constitution does not see it that way, at all.


Example:
Here in NH I can buy a gun, and there is no registration. Other states should adopt this because of equal protection provisions of the Constitution, no?

[DCBandita]

Sorry - but what a ridiculous analogy. It truly makes no sense.

[DCBandita]

Yes. It was ridiculous. So ... your point?

[Def Conservative]

Reagan Democrats were leftover conservatives in the Democrat party. If Giulliani runs what would Democrats vote for him for while they can just vote for a person who holds his social positions in their own party?

You have to have some social appeal, but not too much ;)

[MadIvan]

I simply don't accept that - you and I couldn't be father apart. As a person who WATCHED the plane go into the Pentagon, if I believed that the Democratic party was the "soft on terror" party, I wouldn't have voted for them.

I'm not interested in what you believe. I'm telling you what is. Read the headlines from abroad and foreign newspapers. Read the reaction of America's enemies from Hugo Chavez to President Ahmadinejad in Iran. It looks like you caved by voting Democrat. What you believe is entirely irrelevant.

You know, you can be tough on terror AND oppose the Iraq War.

No. If you cede Iraq now, allow it to become a failed state, it will be the same sort of haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorists that Afghanistan was. Furthermore, by cutting and running, it becomes politically impossible to re-invade Iraq to get rid of the nuisance.

You can be tough on terror by doing MORE than military activities - and believe me - in working with DHS and its various directorates, MANY of the recommendations to keep us safer are not being funded nor mandated.

Wishful thinking at best. Naive nonsense at worst. Which party will not allow the United States to deal with the terrorist prisoners harshly, while the terrorists behead their Western prisoners like Daniel Pearl with impunity? Which one called for a more "sensitive" war on terror? Which one is less willing to project force to stop Al Qaeda? It's not the Republicans.

So why not give the Dems a chance to fight a comprehensive (rather than tunnel-visioned) war on terror?

Because we have heard no comprehensive plan from them apart from the fact that they will not do what Bush is doing and that they want to withdraw from Iraq. Both are signs of weakness to the likes of Al Qaeda, and they rejoice in that fact.

Ivan

[CommerceComet]

>>However, if he seeks the GOP nomination, I think he'll become pro-life as that is the only way he'll get it.

Rather pull a Kerry-like flip-flop, Rudy should just admit to his views on social issues. Then he should go on to say that he believes that these are issues to be addressed by the states and not the federal government. He should pledge to appoint federal judges and justices that feel the same way (in other words, those that tend to be strict constructionists). I think Rudy could defuse the whole issue. We have had two committed pro-life Presidents for 16 years who accomplished very little on the abortion front. Based on that, I don't think that a pro-choice President (unless totally committed to the cause) could easily institutionalize abortion changes. A strong candidate at the top of the Republican ticket (like Guiliani) would likely bring along lots of pro-life Senators and Congressmen who would thwart any attempts at liberalizing abortion laws.

For every social conservative that Rudy loses because of his social views, I suspect he would pick up a couple of independents. Independents tend to agree with Republicans on most issues except social issues. That is why "conservative" Democrats can get elected even though they are generally lying through their teeth.

[Gaffer]

That's a nice thought and admir+able given the circumstances, but -this person is 'just slumming.'

[darkangel82]

ping(possible ibtz)

[PzLdr]

You may not have noticed, but the issue of abortion was never part of the political process, and wasn't legislated. It was enacted by judicial fiat, depriving [by your estimate] some 37% of the voters of any input on the issue, particularly in states that don't support your position [and the 63% doesn't hold for partial birth abortions, late term abortions, or abortions for the sake of Mom's self esteem].

That's actually worse than legislating beliefs. It is also why your party will do absolutely ANYTHING to keep strict constructionists off the USSC. That's "Chucky Cheese" Schumer legislating on a national level for something you hold personal, without any voting.

As to your initial question, I've lived in NY all my life [I'm 60]. I wouldn't vote for Rudy unless the choice was him or Hillary, and only if we couldn't stop him in the run up to the convention.

If you look up "ego" in the dictionary, you'll find Rudy's picture. You'll also find it next to "anal compulsive". Rudy micromanages to the max. Rudy's been made by two things: The first was 9/11. He handled it very well. The second [somewhat related] is that he's been fortunate to be pitted against, or allied with, mediocrities and nonentities [read David Dinkins on the one hand, and George Pataki on the other]. Rudy ran all his good subordinates out of town [Bratton], and by 9/11 those that were left were the likes of Bernie Kerik and Nick Van Essen - spear carriers in Rudy's version of AIDA.

As a Federal prosecutor, Rudy cleaned up the fish market. He arrested a lot of Wall Street guys, but not much resulted, except in a couple of cases.

Rudy was a McGovern Democrat who turned [in name] Republican. He's pro-abortion, pro-gay, and anti 2nd Amendment. His governing style was centralizing power. Vote for him? No.

[misterrob]

Because of their rank opposition to the Patriot Act, their complaints about the NSA listing to international calls, their demands that we treat AQ members like US citizens with respect to constitutional rights, their constant undercutting of our soldiers on the front lines, etc. The Dems had their chances in the 90s and look at what it brought us. We got Jamie Gorelick's Wall, a president who wouldn't kill Bin Laden, a reduction in national intelligence assets and weakened military.

You don't have to like the Iraq War but the fact that we are fighting AQ and other groups that are enemies of the US should matter.

Homeland Security is important but sometimes you have to play offense as well.

[DCBandita]

Ah... and here's the thing. If it were between Giuliani and Hillary, I'd vote for Giuliani. And I wouldn't hold my nose on that one. But if it's a Huckabee or a Frist vs. Hillary, well - I don't know. I'll just explode.

[Maelstorm]

I always love when someone says "without legislating social issues". What do they think hate crimes legislation is or civil union legislation? Some people in this country have been left without any underpinning in logic or comprehension to point that they are mentally handicapped when it comes to making decisions. All laws by definition legislate "morality" of some sort. I personally don't agree that society needs to change "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays", I don't believe marriage or benefits should be expanded to those who choose not to be married to a member of the opposite sex, I do not believe that racial preferences should be given to anyone, I do not believe that taxes should be collected for special interest purposes and believe Welfare should be renamed Charity which it is.

We have a whole generation that has been brainwashed into fearing religion (Christianity) while having the role almost entirely censored out of Science books and history. Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo are talked about as if they were mere secularists which they most certainly were not. When religion is brought up it is in the vein of Puritan pilgrims in starched collars and black clothing something that also is not accurate. It is even worse when the emphasis is placed on Witch trials something that was a minor occurrence in the colonies but rampant in Europe claiming not the heathen as one uneducated would suppose but devote Christians who would not admit allegiance to the devil under the most horrible tortures but we don't even teach anything that goes beyond superficial forays into such subjects which leaves children little to be inspired of.

Where are the stories of bravery and faith to inspire young people to greatness? If they are lucky they read about Martin Luther King but civil rights is only one part of a very long story and even when civil rights is discussed the central role of religion is almost no where to be found in school text books. The left has stolen our substance from us and have built us a prison of a society where everyone is getting fed bread and water while thinking they are getting the most awesome feast. The soul of America is starving and the best thing we can do is remove our children from the grasp of the wardens and show them to the light the best way we can.

[Sam Cree]

"...you can be tough on terror AND oppose the Iraq War..."

That was true only before it started. You may have noticed that the terrorists themselves have adopted the Iraq war as a cause and are fighting and dying for that cause. Opposing our effort there is siding with the terrorists by default, regardless of other issues or intentions.

[DCBandita]

Nice big tent there, Gaffer. At least we know where you stand.

[spunkets]

That chart gives the resulting economic facts from the Bush tax cuts and sound tax policy. DC doesn't understand economics. He's only moved by buzzwords preceded by the word big, like: big business, big oil, big corporations... He's blind when it comes to Ds playing the game, like: big unions, big education, big training programs, big health care, big jobs programs and other big entitlements and big bureaucracies... There's also a failure to note when the Ds get big paybacks from big donations.

[beckysueb]

What you call the rich pay most of the taxes. Why give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes. The Corporations create the jobs which results in more revenue pouring into the government coffers. People keeping more of their money results in a booming economy everytime its done. Taking the peoples money and sending it to Washington where they are fiscally irresponsible is the reason we have recessions.

[george76]

[lesser_satan]

I figured that from the feminine form of the name.

I'm a pretty hardcore conservative, but I've gotta hand it to you for coming in here and debating, and being civil about it. It takes some guts when you're as badly outnumbered as you are.

[DCBandita]

I consider a Glock reasonable. ;-) I consider a fully automatic weapon unreasonable. I consider walking into a store and walking out with a gun without a background check and a waiting period unreasonable. I consider concealed carry permits (provided the other safeguards are performed) totally reasonable.