Posted on 01/25/2007 8:32:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Good post.
I think Guiliani will express more conservative views in his quest for the Presidency. It's one thing to govern New York City, a very liberal city, and quite another to be the President of America.
I'm not sold on him as my favorite candidate yet. I really don't have a favorite candidate. I'd like to learn more about Mitt Romney before I make up my mind.
It's really early. No delegates will be selected by this time next year. I don't give any of the candidates who are currently House members any chance whatsoever, and I'm certainly patient enough to adopt a wait-and-see approach.
As I read your post I was riveted. But at the end I detected a tendency toward wild hyperbole. You referred to Hillary as evil and McCain as insane. Was that just sparky poltical hyperbole or do you actually believe Hillary is classically evil and McCain is clinically insane?
In my lifetime I don't recall I have ever seeing an American politician who was clincially insane. H. Ross Perot came close perhaps ( the Viet Cong Agents in his pajamas happened AFTER his run) but none who were truly clinically insane. I don't think Hillary is evil in the classic definition of evil either. Can't recall an American politican who was patently evil either. Maybe David Duke perhaps or Huey Long. I just think she is profoundly wrong. There is a difference.
So what specifically makes Hillary evil and McCain insane (assuming you weren't being hyperbolic)
Keeping red states red always matters.
Now the really funny part is we know exactly what you will do on election day, JMC. You will vote for Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because you dislike Rudy less than you loathe Hillary. You are a pragmatist after all all the posturing.
Now isn't that right, JMC?
I find it interesting that you discard all notion of FISCAL conservatism.
You weren't on this thread last which was very revealing. You should read it. It's eye-opening.
Don't bet on it. Many of them are unrealistic.
OMFG.
Thank you for posting that. I didn't know he said that. Sounds too much like
We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. [- Hillary C.]
Ferget 'em both. No further discussion necessary.
That's pretty cynical. I'm one of those who advocates making party changes in the primary election and then probably holding your nose with some degree of tightness in the general election instead of staying home.
Let's say Duncan Hunter is my man (which he isn't because I disagree with him on trade policy) and it's time to vote in the Texas primary. I'd still have to consider how to most effectively use my vote.
If all the evidence indicated to me that he'd probably only garner 5% of the votes, I might vote for my #2 choice who I think still has a shot, and is a viable contender. I don't cast protest votes unless the ballot leaves me no choice.
But I have no problem voting against a Republican incumbent who has a more conservative primary challenger. That's the no-brainer.
It's when there is no incumbent Republican for the office and there are multiple candidates that one has to engage in some strategic vote casting.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988620-2,00.html
I actaully saw the clip of Hillary saying hers.
Beware of quote which do not give a link to a non-partisan site and provide context. We're seeing it all the time about Rusy.
It is not. I will indeed go third-party if, God forbid, Rudy is the nominee. There are good arguments for holding your nose and being pragmatic, but I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a man who says, "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." That goes 180 degrees against everything I personally stand for.
I'm also not afraid of Hillary. I've noticed a lot of the Rudy people lately saying that "if Hillary is elected, we're all going to die.", no exaggeration. That's retarded.
BTW, the stock market just closed. I'm on the freeway.
See ya later.
JMC...Must you twist my words so?...I am not "pro-abortion"or " anti-gun". I am against some abortion ( third trimester) and I am against some guns ( assault weapons, sawed off shotguns,and automatic weapons) I own guns myself ( five in fact). I believe in gun responsibility.
Above all I am pro-liberty. Your brand of conservatism appears coercive and anti-liberty to me. Hate coercion whatever banner it carries.
Pro abortion pro homo...No way!
Hey, I'm a libertarian. I'm all about fiscal conservatism.
You weren't on this thread last which was very revealing. You should read it. It's eye-opening.
It looks like your link didn't come through. Could you post it again? I'd be happy to look at it. If it is about Rudy's alleged fiscal conservatism, I will say that I've seen some good arguments both for and against him being fiscally conservative, but have not had the chance to research it enough myself to come to a conclusion.
However, even if Rudy is the most fiscally conservative guy in the world, I simply cannot vote for someone who says, "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." I hope you can at least appreciate how nausiatingly offensive that is to many people.
Well that's a respectable reason to oppose him, though I would make the argument that abortion and the 2nd Amendment are far and away more important than differences in trade policy. But I digress. You have a valid reason for opposing him, so you're not the type of freeper I'm referring to in this case.
If all the evidence indicated to me that he'd probably only garner 5% of the votes, I might vote for my #2 choice who I think still has a shot, and is a viable contender.
In other races, I would consider that valid. But in this case, the three liberals are very hard to distinguish from one another on the issues. My way of looking at it is that it doesn't really matter which of those three make it if they indeed do.
Roseanne was liked? Not the show, the person??
That link confirms that he said it, not debunks it. That quote is in the "fact" section of that paragraph, not the "rumor" section.
Rumor: Giuliani hates pedestrians, taxi drivers, hot-dog vendors, squeegee men, people on welfare, reporters, anyone opposing any of his proposals at any time, and doesn't even get along well with his own wife. Fact: The mayor does not hate these people. The mayor is a temperate man of philosophical disposition. He simply recognizes that those particular individuals tend toward rudeness and thus need to be treated firmly. They must be given rules, and when they break the rules they must be punished. What could be fairer than that? As His Honor has so profoundly said, "Freedom is about authority. 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."Seductive, yes.
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.