Rudy looks much better in heels than Hillary, although those calves of his could use some lipo.
Posted on 11/15/2006 7:30:55 AM PST by 300magnum
"What is the point of political involvement if the RINOs get their way and we are given the choice of less socialistic candidates (Romney, McCain, Giuliani) or more socialistic ones (Hillary Clinton, Gore, Kerry)?"
Conversely, what would be the point for me to engage in political debate if the Conservatives got their way on everything? I happen to agree with a lot of what social conservatives have to offer, but not to the extent where I'm not willing to compromise where the opportunity presents iteself. Why there should be an argument over compromise or pragmatism is beyond me. I would vote for a Bible-Thumper in a heartbeat if I was assured that doing so would not mean that other important issues, like national security and fiscal restraint, were not forgotten in the rush to frog march the abortionists to the ovens, and trample all over marital rights in the melee to be seen as "doing something" for the cause of Life.
The problem I have with a certain flavor of conservatism is that many have a great deal of difficlty sperating their politics from their religion, sometimes even to the point where the religion becomes the politics. There are issues we can all agree on, and why shouldn't it be possible to advance together in areas where that common cause exists, while agreeing to disagree on everything else?
The problem, I guess, is that there are personal issues which folks are just not willing to compromise on. I understand this and I think I can live with that, if you can. Perhaps if more took this attitude, both sides woiuldn' feel as if the other was cramming something down their throats against their wills.
"If the RINOs shut conservatives out of the Republican Party, we will face a bleak future"
The exact opposite is also true. Soewhere in between is a happy medium, but we certainly will never reach i if we automatically discount what people have to say based on the fact that they once wore a dress as a gag. This is exaclty what is happening vis-a-vis Guliani in many cases.
I know he's socially "liberal" (and this improper usage of the term is annoying me mightily because it is not correct), but atripping that aside, what do you see? Having lived under his regime, I saw lower taxes, smaller government, cleaner streets, less crime, and on Spet 11th, not just a Mayor "doing his job", but a city in which the fire and police departments and average citizens willingly sacrificed their lives to save their fellow citizens.I can promise you that had a 9/11-type event occurred during the Beame-Carey-Koch-Dinkins years, no such responsibility for our fellow man, or reasonably efficient and dedicated public servants, would have been on display.
"Our political system makes a viable, competitive third party a near impossibility."
John McCain made it arguably worse. And somehow, some here consider him the next best thing to Franklin and Jefferson.
"Real Americans might as well abandon politics and look out for themselves and their loved ones as best as they can."
Do this and then you surrender the right to join the debate and perhaps shape or direct it. You certainly surrender your right to complain about the aftermath. I'm not happy about the system either, but when we censor ourselves and then proceed to eat our own, we're not making any headway towards fixing it.
Who has said he has nothing to add to the debate, and what debate is that? What conservatives ARE saying is that we won't support him for a presidential run. And many have stated facts supporting that conclusion, quoting Guiliani's own words.
Teh attack is on Gulianin the MAN and not Guliani the philosophy because he hasn't had the chance to make the philosophy known!
Guliani the philosophy? What the heck is that? He's made plenty of public statements that reveal his philosophy and his position on issues. Those statements are being quoted to support the conclusion that conservative won't support him for President.
And it was YOU that accused me of accusing those who demand moral and ideological obedience of being Nazis.
Nope. I replied to your 'lock step' comment that the phrase 'lock step' usually is an accusation of collaborating with Nazism & I asked if that was your meaning. IOW, I gave you an opportunity to clarify, deny, or explain. You've chosen none of those options.
Rudy looks much better in heels than Hillary, although those calves of his could use some lipo.
John Ashcroft 2008
Looks like Rummy in that pic.
Yes, at least Rudy doesn't have those cottage cheese thighs like Hillary!
"Those statements are being quoted to support the conclusion that conservative won't support him for President."
And those statements were carefully cherry-picked and deliberately limited in order to push a particular point of view,and thus, stifle debate. This article is intended to shoot the man to pieces in the eyes of many.
As for the philosophy, why is it that conservatism, to many, has only one side (social regimentation and conformity under Christian principles)? Is it impossible for anyone to fathom that it is a philosphy that concerns itself with a variety of subjects?
Where many see strictly Guliani the social "libertine" they consequently fail to see Guliani the small-government, anti-tax-pro-growth, law-and-order conservative because their field of view is artificially narrowed by personal prejudices and preferences. That is indeed their right, but poerhaps the rest of us would like to have the chance to form our own opinions, and not have them dictated to us.
You hit it on the head! The Religion Right need to open up their mind a little bit. Unless they like to see President Hilary! I like Newt.
Tell ya what: You make contact with Guiliani's people and find out if those 'cherry-picked' statements reflect his current positions on those issues or not. Then get back to us. Till then, you're whistling in the wind.
"Tell ya what: You make contact with Guiliani's people and find out if those 'cherry-picked' statements reflect his current positions on those issues or not. Then get back to us. Till then, you're whistling in the wind."
I won't have to. If we let the process work the way it's supposed to, then he will have the chance to explain them publicly and with clarity. Is this somehow a dangerous heresy on my part to believe this is the way we're supposed to conduct our business?
As for "whistling int he wind", I'm not the one demanding the man's political oblivion before he's had the chance to make his case. I mean, if GHW Bush can "evolve" and come around to the pro-life point of view and be forgiven the hypocrisy, why shouldn't Rudy have the same opportunity? After all, the last time he held public office was six years ago, and it's not like the man could possibly have learned something or altered his views in all that time, is it?
There are other problems with the GOP separate from the three most prominent contenders. I am not happy with the selection of Trent Lott, whose voting record is basically conservative but who has shown little stomach for fighting the Democrats. Nor am I pleased with the choice of Mel Martinez as chairman of the RNC, whose first public statement since his appointment called for the back door amnesty program supported by the Administration. The effect of this program will place 12 (or perhaps more) million illegals on the path to citizenship. Like it or not, immigrants to this country, back to the days of the Scots-Irish two centuries ago, have mostly been Democrats, a party that, even before it became socialist, was the party of the "little guy." I don't think we have the luxury of waiting two to three generations in the hope that they will eventually assimilate into American society and become conservative.
The Christian Right has too readily embraced "compassionate conservatism", which is essentially big government programs used for "family friendly" purposes. They have also paid too little attention to other issues not under the purview of their social agenda. I have read a post on FR by an Oklahoma supporter of Giuliani who was disgusted when she and others went to the state legislature to obtain more funds to fight rampant wildfires in the Sooner State. They were treated instead to a prolonged debate about banning pro-homosexual books in the children's section of the Oklahoma City library. These social conservatives clearly had their priorities wrong!
Despite my misgivings about many on the Christian Right, your comparison of these people to the Nazis (the rush to frog march the abortionists to the ovens) is ridiculous. Prior to Roe v. Wade, the act of abortion was not a capital crime, but generally was treated as a misdemeanor or a low level felony. There are pro-life advocates that support making abortion a capital crime, but they are largely people like Gary DeMar and Randall Terry, who are associated with the Reconstructionist movement, a Calvinist splinter group rejected by most evangelicals and even most conservative Reformed believers. There are also a few advocates of this position that are associated with the radical traditionalist faction of Catholicism, a group rejected by most traditionalist and conservative Catholics. On the evangelical side, most of the prominent Christian Right figures (LaHaye, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson) are not even Calvinists, much less Reconstructionists. The same could be said for Catholic pro-life advocates, who regard the "rad trads" as heretics or schismatics.
What opponents to social conservatives have done is a type of reverse McCarthyism, not unlike Clinton's tactics in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, blaming conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh for the militia movement with which Timothy McVeigh was associated.
Like it or not, the rise of the Christian Right in the late 1970s was instrumental in tipping the political scales in this country toward the GOP. Since the stock market crash of 1929, the Republicans had been the minority party. The move of millions of white evangelical voters in the South and the Lower Midwest away from the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and FDR brought Reagan to power in 1980 and 1984, caused the 1994 Congressional elections to become a rout of Democrats, and facilitated the younger Bush in both his runs for President. If they go away because they are scorned or just lose interest, the GOP will return to the permanent minority status it held between 1930 and 1980.
Since the New Deal, there has been a sort of bipartisan dance where the Democrats push new legislation, invariably pro-big government and, since 1970, increasingly pro-immorality and anti-defense. When they gain power, Republicans do not repeal the Democrats' legislation, except in the area of defense. Eisenhower did not close down the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; even Reagan failed to abolish the Department of Education. Some GOP Presidents, notably Nixon and the younger Bush, actually push their own big government agenda, such as wage and price controls and the expansion of Medicare.
If this cycle is not broken in the next few years, the nation will become increasingly socialist. Under a Hillary Clinton administration or one headed by any of the three RINOs (particularly Romney, who pushed a state level socialization of medical care plan), and a Democrat/RINO majority in Congress, America will be saddled with British/Canadian style socialist medicine, effectively placing one-sixth of the U.S. economy directly under Washington's thumb. Add to this agenda the implementation of the Kyoto Treaty, "hate crime" laws, the Fairness Doctrine, imposition of free speech restrictions on the Internet, etc., none of which I see Giuliani, McCain, and Romney resisting, and America will be well on the way with the other Western democracies to national suicide. Our death will be at our own hands, not at that of Muslim radicals or Communist powers, although they may accelerate the death process.
This is no time to compromise, and, humanly speaking, the time is short. The modern conservative movement is about 55 years old, and it has not accomplished William Buckley's stated goal: the thwarting of the liberal agenda. To be sure, the conservative factions need to be unified, and Christian conservatives in particular need to divorce themselves from so-called big government conservatism and inattention to economic matters. Without a short-term reversal of the longstanding movement toward socialism, moral degeneracy, and loss of national sovereignty, this nation is headed toward disaster. The only rational response is then every man for himself.
Hillary is an Internationalist IOW a Communist. How does Prtesidrent Hillary sound to you now?. With Co-President Slick Wille.
Reagan had a long untroubled 2nd marriage and his divorce occurred long before he ran for president. Giuliani had a publicly announced and messy breakup after he was well in the public eye. He came off as a jerk into the bargain. So did Newt, for that matter. Giuliani's breakups and the manner of it will be front and center in the MSM just as soon as he appears to be a threat to Democrats. His AHism in the way he did it will be a large factor in his rejection by Christians. It ain't fair and all but shucks, that's the way it is.
I have no problem with divorce per se insofar as a politician's qualifications even though I am RC. I voted for Reagan just fine.But he had a long and apparently untroubled 2nd marriage that settled questions about loyalty and such. Giuliani had a rancorous 2nd divorce and went about it in a way that makes him look vicious and petty. He announced his intention publicly before his wife had been apprised so she learned from the press. Character questions therefore loom large. Add that to the fact that he is a thoroughgoing leftist outside of his approach to crime and the man is unelectable as a Republican.
That said, I would not vote for Giuliani at all. I would vote for Newt but would not expect him to win.I expect Rudy would have the same approach to the War as does Bush and that is self-defeating. I don't see any Republican I think capable of doing what must be done here other than Bush himself who may just do it to Iran before he leaves office. A Democrat will ultimately get exasperated and panicky as he realizes the enemy does not recognize his love for them and takes out Boston. I think the Democrat will hit back in that panic and it will be very messy but we will win it as Teheran disappears and probably a lot of other places. Actually I think the only thing that will get us back on track to do what we have to do is another successful 9-11 before Bush leaves office. I think it would take that to shake Bush out of his delusions of Democracy.
Done. Infidelity is not his worst problem. He has shown disloyalty politically in undermining Bush and the Conservatives in the Senate very publicly.
Pretty hard to converse in the classical sense, it is a dead language here.
Well stated! Should be added to my Why John McCain is Unfit to Be President Thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1737390/posts
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.