JoinRudy.com Website Lauches today

Race42008.com ^

[HitmanLV]

Do you think there are times when divorce is a good decision?

[My GOP]

What you fail to realize is that this one "unacceptable" candidate in an infinite field is one of only two that can and beat the upcoming Hillary/Obama ticket. I'm sure Rudy supporters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is. And I really don't understand why the anti-Rudy crowd overlooks Rudy's conservative economic and domestic views, his support for strict constructionist, downplays how great he would be as Commander in Chief and on foreign policy, how competent of a leader he would be, goes into a fit over his social views when these are mostly state issues that the president has minimal influence over and are less important than all the other issues, and why you don't make electability a major priority when selecting our next nominee.

[stockstrader]

Oh geeeez. Wow, I guess my sarcastic comments mocking the 'BLATANTLY OBVIOUS' about divorce still aren't getting through....lol

Victoria, since your discussion about the appropriateness of divorce in many instances was very thorough, very encompassing and profoundly enlightening, would you mind if I asked you to do me a favor and once again explain to him when, in fact, divorce can a good thing??? Sorry if I am imposing ;)

[fieldmarshaldj]

Regarding divorces, it is at least worth trying to understand the reasonings behind them. The American public can handle a divorced candidate with reason. In the case of Reagan, it was Jane Wyman, and not RR that asked for it. Same with Bob Dole's first wife, who made the demand it was either her or his career. McCain's first marriage didn't survive much past his return from Vietnam (not an isolated event, as quite a few marriages were similarly ruined at the time).

Gingrich is technically in the same boat with Giuliani. He, too, is on his 3rd marriage, his 1st was a rather unseemly situation (the oft-repeated, cancer-ridden wife, though I'm not sure we fully understand the situation, and I doubt it was as brutally cold as, "Oh, you've got cancer, I'm divorcing you.") and his second fell apart with a clear-cut case of adultery (same with Giuliani). As much as I appreciate Gingrich's hard work in getting us a GOP Congress, those character flaws are why I don't believe he is an appropriate candidate, either.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It all sounds well and fine, but the problem too often is that the talk doesn't match the walk. He's asking us to trust he will do a near 180 from his positions and personal beliefs if elected. If he had a bonafide change of heart, it would be to his credit, but too much of this reeks of the Romneyesque, "I'll vote for or do whatever it takes to win, nevermind what I believe." I don't like that, not one bit. This goes to the heart of the person's character.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Anyway, I don't like divorces one bit, either, but wouldn't it be totally hypocritical to cheat while “keeping one's vows?” Wouldn't it be better that if the situation has caused irreconcilable differences between the couple, and instead of cheating they would divorce? Wouldn't that be more honest?"

This was precisely the stance I wished Bob Dole had played up in '96 when he was attacked over his divorce vs. the Clinton's phony marital "arrangement."

[TitansAFC]

Pretty much everything you just described befits John McCain as well.

So why not support him? Folks like me could even hold our noses and vote for him because - all maverickness aside - he has been there for many key votes on issues we care about and holds good ratings with groups we support.

Is McCain a compromise enough for you? I doubt it. Methinks your purity test will find some reason to rule him out. Of course, your biggest test seems to be who leads in the Liberal media's current polls - two years out of the election.

That being said. I think many of us Rudy dissenters have made our point - we don't want Rudy shoved down our throats and we will work tirelessly to see that the man never gets sworn in. If you simply cannot be swayed to support any other human being for President, you are going to be on the outs with much of the Conservative base.

And your repeated attempts to suggest that the President never has ANYTHING to EVER do about social policy is absurd, and none of us who care about those issues is ever going to swallow that tripe.

Mexico City policy
Partial Birth Abortion ban
Gun restrictions
Campaign Finance Reform

These are just four in a long line of issues the President can and probably will have a direct influence over in the next term. Rudy is dead Liberal wrong on all of them.

And you still miss the point. Pumping Rudy in spite of his Liberalism based on what you perceive to be his economic Republicanism and his (likely) strong WOT stance doesn't sell to us. We know that there are other candidates who are strong on both issues that would be less ultra-Liberal on the other issues we care about.

I am more than a two issue voter.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Even though you included me in your post directed to Hitman, nothing you posted there applies to my comments regarding divorce.

The only thing I can think of that I addressed to you on my post # 297, which you didn't reply shows up as a PS on your post # 311:

P.S. Reference your objection to my Rudy-apologist appellation for you and others here--as the old saying goes, "You only take 'flak'--when you're over the target".

Wow, such wisdom, LOL! Let me put it simply for you, Trade... you just don't get it.

Listen, I'm enjoying my vacation, and I like to come to FR whenever I take a break. As you must understand, I don't like repeating myself about something I made abundantly clear. It's not a matter of taking flak, but rather your shallow approach to the subject - that despite calling me and others “Rudy apologists,” it doesn't dismiss the factual content of my comments.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Again, sorry I forgot to include Victoria on my earlier post--as she also contributed to all the brand new 'revelations' and ORIGINAL INSIGHTS and analysis on the appropriateness of divorce in many cases. (rolling eyes) I sure that no one on here has EVER heard those before. /s

What that heck are you talking about, Trade? I don't think you are being sarcastic, but drunk.

You keep dancing around the subject without substantively engaging the issue at hand.

If it is your purpose to have the last word no matter how dumb it makes you look... be my guest.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Victoria, since your discussion about the appropriateness of divorce in many instances was very thorough, very encompassing and profoundly enlightening, would you mind if I asked you to do me a favor and once again explain to him when, in fact, divorce can a good thing??? Sorry if I am imposing ;)

My post #297 doesn't say anything about the appropriateness of divorce, nor did I say it was a good thing. On the contrary, I asked you a question which you haven't replied.

My question was: Why is it bad he [Guiliani] divorced?

I then pointed out just a few of the GOP bigwigs who are divorced to emphasize the fact that Rudy isn't the exception. There was nothing else in my post regarding divorce.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Regarding divorces, it is at least worth trying to understand the reasonings behind them

Oh, I totally agree with that. That was the point I made on post #306.

[My GOP]

I didn't say the President didn't have ANYTHING to do with social policy, I just said its MINIMAL. There is a difference and social issues are the least important, at least to me.

I would support McCain. He wouldn't be a terrible President. Like I said earlier, we pro-Rudy people will support whoever the Republican nominee is, something that you anti-Rudy won't do. I'm not anti-any other Republican. I'll support anyone of them that wins the GOP nomination. McCain is my second choice because like Rudy, he's electable. However, I like Rudy better. He's a proven competent leader and I question McCain's mental stability.

As far as immigration, Rudy has said he supports securing the border first. Hardly a liberal stance. Now as for McCain, he's the one that worked with Ted Kennedy on this amnesty bill which our current Republican President supports. As far as partial birth abortions, they are already banned so this is now a moot point. As far as gun restrictions, I don't believe Rudy will push for gun control. Are the Democrats pushing gun control now? No. Has anybody seriously in the last 6 years? No. Everyone knows its a losing issue, just ask Al Gore, the last candidate to push for it. I don't think any gun control will get through Congress either. As far as campaign finance reform, that's a McCain creation there. I'm against it but I hardly think its a signficant issue.

Rudy is right on more than two issues. He right on taxes, fiscal responsiblity, less government regulation in our free market, social security reform, school choice, welfare reform, tort reform, law and order, strict constructionist judges, WOT, America first foreign policy, hard line stance against WMDs and state sponsors of terror, and is pro-Israel. You anti-Rudy people forget about the MANY things Rudy is right on, the issues that are the most important and relevant, and the ones the President has the most influence over and instead harp on the few issues(the issues that are least important IMO and the issues the President has the least influence), you differ with Rudy on and use that as an excuse to hate him and brand him as a liberal when on the WHOLE he is fairly conservative. And you totally forget the electability issue.

Do you like Sean Hannity? Do you think he is liberal? I know one thing, I've heard Sean Hannity on many occasions praise Rudy, urge him to run, and openly support him. Could it be because he, like me, is a rational pragmatic conservative and not some far right wing all or nothing nut?

[Victoria Delsoul]

This was precisely the stance I wished Bob Dole had played up in '96 when he was attacked over his divorce vs. the Clinton's phony marital "arrangement."

Right. I'm glad we agree on something, DJ.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I know what you meant, Hitman. I understood your post completely.

[Kuksool]

{As far as partial birth abortions, they are already banned so this is now a moot point}

We'll know what the Supreme Court says next year. I hope they rule the right way making partial birth abortions a non-issue for me in my decision making process.

As for border security, everyone says they support securing the border first. Back in the 1990's, Rudy blasted Prop 187 in CA, an initiative intended deny social services to illegals. Despite winning by a solid margin, a federal judge struck Prop 187. A classic case of states rights being violated.

I think several initiatives should be put in place in battleground states to make the candidates give some sort of statement about the issues. Some initiatives might include anti-gay marriage amendment in FL, school vouchers in Washington state and CA, anti-affirmative action measures in MT, AZ, and CO, and Pro 187 type initiatives in OR, ID, and UT. This strategy would allow th public to see there is a difference between Republicans and RATS. also it would reveal if the Presidential candidates really support states rights.

[TitansAFC]

"As far as gun restrictions, I don't believe Rudy will push for gun control. Are the Democrats pushing gun control now? No. Has anybody seriously in the last 6 years? No."

Actually, as a matter of fact, somebody has seriously pushed gun control in the last six years: Rudy Giuliani.

Of course, he's gone silent on that issue in recent days. He's even trying to do another image remake with that one.

You don't BELIEVE he'll push for gun control, as he did as mayor of NY? Wow. Issue settled.

Among your other issues:
-He's right on taxes (mostly, yup.)
-fiscal responsibility (sometimes; funds a lot of Liberal social programs, though)
-less government regulation in our free market (probably)
-social security reform (prove this! I distinctly remember otherwise)
-school choice (never heard such a thing from Rudy)
-welfare reform (yup, definitely)
-tort reform (huh? Rudy?)
-law and order (yup)
-strict constructionist judges (Simply not true. until his recent conversion, he was reliably supporting Liberal judges like Ginsberg)
-WOT (yup.)
-America first foreign policy (yup)
-hard line stance against WMDs and state sponsors of terror (yup)
-and is pro-Israel. (yup)

Guns: cannot be more wrong
Gay rights: cannot be more wrong
Abortion: cannot be more wrong
Corporate Welfare: wrong
Immigration: wrong
Campaign FR: very wrong
Interstate Commerce: wrong
Judges: wrong. trying to pretend he's converted, though.

I could go on and on with the "wrong" list. Again, all of those issues you use to pump Rudy are true of pretty much every Republican. By picking ANY other Republican, one gets only improvements on the other issues.

---"Like I said earlier, we pro-Rudy people will support whoever the Republican nominee is, something that you anti-Rudy won't do."---

I will support any candidate who is not Rudy Giuliani, yes. That's correct. Any other candidate will have my support, vote, and efforts. I will work tirelessly to see that Rudy does not win either the nomination or the Presidency.

If the GOP cannot put forth at least a marginally non-ultra-Liberal candidate, then to hell with them. If the best they can offer is an ultra-ultra-Liberal social policy with temporary tax decreases when Democrats aren't in power, then there is no use for them.

You can pretend the Democrats will make us a Muslim Theocracy in four years under Hitlery, but I don't buy it. I think we can survive for four years until we put forth a candidate that is an actual alternative to Liberalism; whereas I know what the fate is of many, many issues I care about for a long, long time if Rudy gets crowned.

Given the choice between fighting Hillary for four years and losing forever several of the issues I hold dear, I choose the former.

No Rudy, period. ANYBODY else!

[nopardons]

:-)

[Kuksool]

Don't forget the Hyde Amendement (a federal law that forbids tax-funded abortions).

[TitansAFC]

Really, my friend.

This list is nearly ENDLESS for reasons to vehemently oppose a Rudy Presidency.

[HitmanLV]

A puzzlement! ;-)