Replies

The argument here is between ideology and practicality. If you let Hillary get in because your ideology will not allow you to vote for Rudy, you may as well go start your own country somewhere, because you won't recognize this one when the Dems are done with it.

Vote for the liberal to take over the GOP and you have invited the wolf into the fold to despoil your house and eat your young.

A liberal Republican controlling our party is more dangerous than a mere Xlinton in the White House. Before you all complain about Osama's nukes, keep in mind that I don't care because it's you liberals that will get the nuke first anyway. So before you present us with a candidate we will never vote for because he is the Anti-Christ to all that conservatives have held dear for decades, you'd better realize that New York and Washington aren't that important to us and that conservatives can survive a few years of Xlintonism better than to allow a NYC liberal to take over the party and destroy conservative principles forever. I think that presenting Rudy to us as the nominee actually is the death wish of some cheapskate liberals from New York who call themselves Republicans.

F.O.H. (Fear Of Hillary) will not win the election. And Rudy is to the Left of Hillary on many issues. And he has a messier personal history of recent vintage. Many Republican women, including the elderly conservative women who would never vote for a Hillary except if Rudy was the alternative, will look at the two and conclude Hillary is the family-values and moral candidate between the two.

I can easily envision Hillary getting electoral votes from states as Red as Nebraska, Wyoming and Utah. These are the three Bush-took-every-county states. And I've lived in two of them.

"...conservatives can survive a few years of Xlintonism better than to allow a NYC liberal to take over the party and destroy conservative principles forever...."

How can one man, any man, destroy Conservative principles? His might differ from yours, but he cannot CHANGE your principles.

Look, it's all about priorities, isn't it? I'm not about moral relativism, but here it is staring you in the face. I see Rudy v. Hillary as good v. bad; you see Rudy v. Hillary as bad v. worse. OK. No big deal, we disagree.

But when our country is in as grave and potentially lethal a danger as it has ever been in its history, in my opinion the GWOT has to get TOP priority, while you seem to be content to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

"conservatives can survive a few years of Xlintonism"

It's nice that you think that conservatives can survive Clinton 2. The question is, can this country survive. We are at war with Islamists that will use WMD's as soon as they get their hands on them. Many Americans won't survive WMD attacks. The DemonRats will retreat from the fight that Bush has made and will leave us vulnerable to our enemies. All other issues are secondary to our national security. If Clinton wins in 2008 and the DemonRats control both houses this country is in big trouble.

A liberal Republican controlling our party is more dangerous than a mere Xlinton in the White House.

I'll take a tough, very strong on terror Repibilcan, Giuliani, in the White House any day, over a "lemme take a pass on getting hold of Bin Laden" Clinton, when the Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to Clinton THREE times.
Hitlery in the White House is the same as BJ Klinton in the EWhite House.
No difference there, except one is even more dangerous than the other.
And its not the male Clinton I am taking about either.