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.

[RJL]

I believe Giuliani supports all the liberal touchstones, abortion, gun control, gay rights, higher taxes, illegal immigration, et al.

He won't get my vote. If Republicans can't do better they deserve to continue losing.

[Sam Cree]

"The investment class is using money that they have already been taxed on."

The interloper is forgetting that the blue collar class (the masses, the proletariat, or however they are thought of by Democrats) are also part of the "investment class," - many of them do rely on pensions and retirement plans after all, which are...invested.

"Earning money is not amoral..."

I have noticed that Democrats have two beliefs: wealth creation is immoral...and...whatever the poblem is, throw lots of money at it...someone else's, of course.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

Thanks for the question.....lots of us here on FR feel that many here that use religious views to spout their agenda is just flat wrong. The reason the Dem's picked up so many seats is that the American people voted for a change....most don't have any idea what change...but the MSM, where lots of intelectual lazy folks get their ideas, spouts their position...and coming from the NE...where we all know is dances to a very different fiddle than the rest of the country.....and in mid-terms...folks buy into it. The real power of the Internet will be when we see mid-term elections results being a product of well thought out decisions rather than MSM hyperbole.

[beezdotcom]

I would like to leave it out of the mix. Because the fact is, you and I will never agree if you're pro-life and believe that abortion should be illegal.

But, you're kinda missing my point. For example - with abortion: It's not that I can't bring myself to vote for someone who won't strive to make abortion illegal. It's that I can't bring myself to vote for someone who I don't trust not to make it even easier.

That's the problem with most of the moderate candidates I see: it's not that they don't have a track record of agressively pushing my social issues to the right; it's that many of them have a track record of letting my social issues get pushed to the left, if not actively helping to push them.

[DCBandita]

Oooh... you sound like a bit of a sore loser. Frankly, I think Allen's excerpting from Webb's novels is what sealed the deal in his loss. The backlash here was pretty obvious - and Webb only won by 9,127 votes.

Best to leave such characterizations to people who actuall read, JCEccles.

[george76]

Sounds like DC wants to return to the Jimmah' days.

[CommerceComet]

Cross-over Democrats wouldn't be voting for Guiliani because of his social views, they would be voting for views on issues like the WOT.

Actually, the big voting block that Guiliani appeals to are the independents with Libertarian leanings. As a group, they tend to be moderately conservative on most issues except social issues. This is the block of voters who are scared by the Religious Right (people like myself and presumably, you).

[IrishCatholic]

"Speaking only for myself, I can say that I would welcome that - it would be nice to have a CHOICE that didn't involve the hand of the religious right."

An interesting statement. What would you define as the religious right and how do you perceive them being involved now?
(Disclaimer: Some people like to set up little attack questions and flame wars. Not my style. I really want to understand how you perceive this issue. Nothing personal intended, but it is a phrase just like "vast right wing conspiracy". I want to get your take on why you put the statement the way you did.)
Thanks,

[dpwiener]

Greetings, BCBandita. I scanned down the replies on this thread just now, and it looks like you're doing pretty well. About half of them (or perhaps a little over half) appear respectful and serious even when they disagree with you. About a quarter are neutral or don't fit a category. And about a quarter are vicious personal attacks on you for daring to post on Free Republic.

My advice is to just ignore the latter. At least they're a smaller percentage than you'll find in the corresponding role on major liberal/Democratic web sites. There are plenty of other conservatives and libertarians on FR who will be happy to discuss matters with a sane Democrat who doesn't suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and merely has different opinions.

In my case I'm a libertarian who isn't happy with any of the major names being floated for the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominations in 2008. However, I would probably classify Rudy as one of the least of the potential evils. I'm fairly confident that the country could survive his Presidency, whereas there are several others I'd have serious doubts about.

[Vicomte13]

You wrote: "There are others. For example, I believe in a message of economic populism. I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider."

I agree.


You wrote: "I believe that the investment class should NOT get a tax cut."

I agree.

You wrote: "I believe that the Republican party in the White House is by FAR too in bed with Corporations to the detriment of the average American."

I agree.

You wrote: "I believe in bettering the student loan system and fully funding NCLB if that's the direction in which we're headed."

I agree.

You wrote: "I believe that you can't fund a war on a tax cut."

I agree.

You wrote: "I believe the Republican party in the White Hosue has stretched the concept of executive power PAST the point of breaking and requires oversight for all of our sakes (because the executive is the executive, regardless of party and precedents set by this one will extend to the next one)."

I half agree. The President would have all the powers he sought, and more, using good strong precedent (FDR's precedents in World War II) had be asked Congress for a Declaration of War in September, 2001. The precedent of Presidential power in an actual, full-on, declared war is one of practically dictatorial power, including full censorship of the mails and the press...whatever it takes.
But Bush (and the Republican Adminstration) were like LBJ. They wanted to fight a massive war WITHOUT sacrificing their domestic agenda (see the tax cut issue above. You don't CUT taxes in a war. You raise them, and start massively expanding the armed forces, and kick ass and take names). Had he asked, Congress would have declared war. Had Congress declared war, there would be no NEED for the Patriot Act, and we'd have never heard of Abu Graib or probably GTMO. The World War II, World War I precedents are all any President needs. But to get those precedents, you need to throw domestic policy aside, reach for national unity on WAR, and go to war. Bush didn't. So now the war is just another domestic political issues, like Vietnam and orea were. This damns us to lose it. It's a tragedy, but there you have it.
I don't have any problem with the President restricting civil liberties to win a war. I have a problem with restricting civil liberties WITHOUT being willing to iorrecovable committing the country to full-dress, formally declared war. So, we half agree on this, and agree full on everything else. But...

You wrote: "I'm pretty hard-over in these beliefs."

And in order to reach agreement with me on everything else, every one of those tother things, you will REFUSE to compromise on letting me have the law that saves the babies. So, when you come right down to it, you'll throw away all the rest of your agenda in order to preserve abortion rights, won't you?
Won't you?

[beckysueb]

Well said!!

[RVN Airplane Driver]

The Dem's opposition to the Patriot Act should have made all people who really love this country question that ignorant position.

[dead]

But I don't believe it's "killing" anything let alone an "individual".

From a biological standpoint, there is no debate that you are killing something. That is not even a debatable point.

The question of whether or not is an "individual" at that stage of development is an area where you could have a debate. But all of the shortcomings that could be cited reasonably to deny the child in the womb that exalted status could also be reasonably applied to a baby a day or two out of the womb. Or a week. Or a month.

You need to ask yourself at which point society has an obligation to protect that person.

Many pro-abortion people follow those ethical conundrums and contradictions to their logical conclusion and also support killing unwanted or unhealthy children in the first year of life (Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer is one who has written in support of this.)

Your feelings about killing this person really matter little to me, as committed opponents of slavery and death camps really didn't "value" the feelings of those who supported such outrages.

BTW, I am not religious in the least, and have no stake in those debates. I just think killing innocent people is wrong, no matter what stage of development they are at in their lifespan.

[atomicpossum]

Don't forget Big Lawyers.

[LRS]

But I don't believe it's "killing" anything let alone an "individual". NO disrespect to you - because you and I will not ever interpret the situation the same way.

Let me ask you. What about partial birth abortion? Can you not see that procedure as outright murder?

[Dstorm]

Your party policies are driven by first and foremost by the organized murder of millions of unborn and partially born children for profit. Followed closely by the Gay lobby who are intent on forcing their sexual choice on all, and have gone after our children in schools under the guise of tolerance, so they can recruit fresh meat.
Webb who you voted for is a sick freak who dreams about having sex with children.
Yours is the party that is intent on making it a criminal offense for those of us who oppose abortion and homosexual lifestyle to voice any opposition to your gods

[petitfour]

My husband, who used to call himself a paleo-con until Buchanan called himself one, would support Giuliani.

[lesser_satan]

I consider a fully automatic weapon unreasonable.

Full-autos are already illegal unless you want to spend exorbitant amounts of money to become a licensed dealer and be subject to the scrutiny, and sometimes outright thuggery, of the BATF.

[george76]

[MadIvan]

Quite so.

Regards, Ivan