Posted on 12/19/2006 3:59:27 PM PST by Paul8148
Because the GOP, and America, need Rudy now.
More than ever.
by DaveG @ 5:40 pm. Filed
(Excerpt) Read more at race42008.com ...
"But on national defense, even the democrats were strong pro-military in the 40's and 50's."
That's because the democratic party of the 1940's and 50's had not yet been invaded by the dregs that later became known to us as the "Flower Children", who seemingly took Marxism as mother's milk in college, when they weren't getting high and dodging the draft.
This is the problem with the democratic party of today; it is absolutely stuffed to the rafters with the Woodstock Generation and the more militant remnants of the Civil Rights movement. In true Gramscian fashion, they learned this lesson; when given a straight-up choice between liberal democracy and socialism, the people will always opt for democacry. Therefore, socialism must install itself in the institutions if it is to survive: the universities, the courts, entertainment, the media, the arts, and eventually, into the mainstream parties. Many of the fringe elements of these institutions were already left-leaning, and were eventually co-opted. And since the people who did it (the Baby Boomers) are still relatively young, it will be this way for some time to come.
That's how we got the democratic party we have today. And it is certainly NOT liberal.
There is nothing "liberal" about anything they stand for, except that it most certainly is slightly more liberal than outright totalitarian communism BY COMPARISON ONLY.
If Rudy wants my support, then he must answer these questions.
"Who would replace Justice Ginsburg or Justice Stevens with? Please give names of ideal replacements?"
"27 states passed anti-gay marriage amendments. Some of them forbid civil unions. Would you use Presidential power to overturn these amendments?"
"Do you support tax payer funded abortions?"
"30+ states have tight restrictions on abortions (parental consent, 24 hr wating period, etc.) Do you support the existence of these laws?"
Condi has NEVER run for elected office. In that respect, Obama is her superior.
She has never been married. That is NOT helpful at all.
She will NOT attract blacks nor females to the ticket. And she has NO constituency ( state ) to bring to the table.
Unfortunately, she, rather than Obama, IF Hillary picks him as her V.P. or IF he is the presidential Dem candidate, will be see as a TOKEN.
Personally, I like Condi, she is very intelligent, talented, and has mostly done a GREAT job at all she has turned her hand to. But, she is NOT presidential nor V.P. material.
Newt has indeed been through it all; however, he came up wanting. He is a perfect back bencher, but has NO idea at all how to handle power, once he has it.
Thank you for your explanatgion.
Great stuff, thanks.
Nope, that just says "sense of humor."
For instance, you have a pic of Elvis Presley on your profile page and I don't think you are impersonating Elvis or pretending to be him, but just that you admire him. And I don't think you are into soft porno despite the pics of semi-naked and provocative women on your page, either.
Don't think that those who like Rudy are so stupid as to confuse a good humorous photo of Rudy (where he was doing a spoof of Marilyn Monroe at a charity dinner) as particularly insightful of his "presidential material".
Nobody had EVER been president of the USA, when Washington became president. Straw man argument there.
People scream about Rudy's divorces....Newt's were all far, far, FAR worse! Newt has been SO vilified, already, that that stain, like the drop of blood on Blue Beard's key, once it had been used to open the door, will never be expunged from the minds of most of America's populace. he is VERY damaged goods!
I wouldn't vote for Pope John Paul, alive or dead; I am not a Catholic.
And I don't expect any candidate to be perfect, 100% pure, nor able to walk on water; though sadly, some here do.
No need to respond, we all know the answer to that one. If you’re really bored (as you are boring us),,,,give us your rant on the virtues of the term ‘progressive’. I promise I won’t have time to respond.
Have a nice day.
P.S. Your 'battle of the wits' comment is very stale--it's been overused for years. I suggest you get some new material...lol. Here's a suggested new one (Your comments have the intellectual depth of a parking lot puddle....much better, don't you think?) And also, Washington may have lost more than he won,,,but he won the big ones (Trenton and Princeton).
Where do I begin. Its seems the only social conservatives or bust flip out over Rudy. Let's start with pro-homo. He's AGAINST gay marriage. Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense. As far as abortion goes, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice. Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned I hope you're not naive enough to think that would stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and do you really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions too but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop. Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare and cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor), supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect your life at all!!! With Rudy you are not getting a liberal, you are getting a man who is conservative on most issues, the issues where the president actually has major influence over and yes he is fairly liberal on a couple of social issues, issues that the president has very little influence over. Nowadays judges have the most influence on these issues and Rudy supports strict constructionist so that pretty well takes care of the social issues and will help us get these issues back to the states where they belong. So on the average he is fairly conservative and not a liberal and more importantly conservative on the issues where the President can make a difference. And most importantly he will continue Bush's work on the WOT and give us a great foreign policy. Finally, Rudy and McCain are, IMO, the only two Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary, McCain, or Rudy. Sure, you can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, If he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. You know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So you go ahead and worry about gays, people that don't affect your life at all. I'm going to worry about Islamic fascism, you know the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them. Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself.
Actually in my opinion, Rudy and McCain are the only two Republicans that can win in 2008. Or its either Rudy, McCain, or Hillary so take you choice.
Did you get a bad batch of 'shine? Have another drink and sleep it off. Then go to an AA meeting.
So, I guess that we just wait until we get an absolutely pristine human being, who is perfect in every way, before we put our support behind him/her?
And from whence, do you believe, that this "perfect" candidate will come from? Will it be Spontaneous generation? Perhaps Immaculate conception?
Unfortunately, we live in a world of imperfect human beings (funny how that happened -- that Perfect God somehow managed to f*ck up long enough to create imperfect man -- isn't it?). So long as this is the case, compromise is the price we must pay.
Just when compromise became a dirty word, or when pragmatism became bad juju in republican circles is (almost) a complete mystery to me.
As for McCain, he is most certainly a viable candidate because he has the party machinery behind him at the moment. Whether or not he could actually win the Presidency is a different matter. As for the Gang of 14 and the Keating 7, most people in this country can't remember what they had for lunch the day before yesterday, do you actually believe they CARE? WE do, but we're exceptional in the sense that we're capable of breathing without mechanical assistance and tieing our shoes without a government program; the vast majority of the voting public doesn't even have half that kind of talent or intelligence.
People don't care about the past, especially the distant (i.e. anything over 10 years) past, unless you were a mass murderer profiled on Oprah (in which case, you would be famous). The recent past has to compete with the last episode of "Americal Idol", and the latest reports of drug use by Miss USA. Ask anyone (not anyone on this site) that seems capable of mouth breathing what Alec Baldwin said about GW Bush getting elected in 2000, and then point out it's the same guy from 30 Rock. Count the number of "no ways!" and "you sure about that?" replies you get.
As for the rest, be serious. Condi's marital status? Considering we've had bachelor Presidents in the past, I don't see how this matters.
---"He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice"---
Wrong. When he was first asked about it, he said that Roberts would not have been his choice. I saw it with my own eyes. He only changed his position recently, as he must do to stand any chance of winning the nod.
When asked to praise a SCOTUS justice, the man named Ginsberg.
Ginsberg, for hell's sake!
"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."
---Rudy Giuliani
Stocks, you are the perfect dipstick for measuring the depth of the surface.
Was that new enoguh for you?
Well you not a conservative. You sound more like a far right wing extremist nut job.
And I heard him with my own two years say that Roberts was his ideal justice.
The lefties, in Hollywood, became PRO-WAR, once Hitler broke his pact with the USSSR; until then, they were flagrantly against America getting involved in WW II.
Not bad. Much better actually--since it matches the depth of your earlier comments. Good job! With that word (whatever it is) it looks like you could use some of that edugmaktion you mentioned earlier.
Rudy's got 45% plus or minus a bit against the field. I think he would score more against any individual named GOP candidate that is running against him. But maybe 45% is his absolute ceiling, and there are few undecideds, and he is edged out. Or maybe Rudy's support around here has eroded, due to all those pics of him dressed in drag at a NYC charity party, or because Freepers have only recently, very recently, learned that he is not a social conservative overall. We won't know until a FR poll is put up.
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.