Ann Coulter On Rudy Giuliani : "I Think He's The Only Republican Who Can't Beat Hillary."

Fox News ^ | 1-31-06 | Bill O'Reilly

[TitansAFC]

Ann Coulter analyzes GOP Presidential hopefuls:

---Rudy Giuliani:

"I Think He's The Only Republican Who Can't Beat Hillary."

"I don't see him winning the Primary."

"If you can't get MY vote as a Republican against Hillary....."

---John McCain:

"Not a Conservative, but a patriot."

"A genuine war hero, unlike John Kerry."

"His weaknesses are half of his positions."

---Mitt Romney:

"Red stater in a blue state."

"Has a working knowledge of God."

---Newt Gingrich:

"Absolutely brilliant."

"His closet has certainly been thoroughly investigated already."

"I wish we could bring him in to pinch-hit for all presidential debates."

[Dominic Harr]

Then, with all due respect, you are no different ideologically than the social cons you deride - it is a litmus test with you, the same as it is with the pro-lifers.

I vote for pro-life candidates regularly. I voted for GW twice.

They *won't* vote for pro-choice candidates.

Don't you see a problem here?

[TitansAFC]

What I meant was,

Prayer in school was the first thing addressed under the "Contract With America" Congress. It was a supplemental issue during the campaign, but it was overtly tied-in with the deal. Just as "no gay marriage" was overtly tied into the War on Terror campaign. In both cases, where one was mentioned, the other was as well.

They knew enough to rally all elements of the party simultaneously.

[Dominic Harr]

Look at that list.

The 'Contract with America'.

That's what brought them to power.

Abandon those issues, and you abandon majority status.

That's all I'm saying.

[PerConPat]

I do think if someone runs on "character" which is part of Newt's schtick, then he better not be handing his wife divorce papers while she's on a hospital bed with cancer.

I hear you. I will admit that I am not knowledgeable as to Newt's specific circumstances. But generally speaking, proven adultery is a serious flaw in a candidate. A US military officer can be cashiered for it.

[Plutarch]

Duncan Hunter's Big Government Spending is just fine?

Never said that.

Well, you've been spamming the thread's on every other candidate, proclaiming how so very conservative Duncan Hunter is, and how the other candidates are mere RINO's.

In this instance, you ding Rudy for being a Pro-Big Government, but must sheepishly admit that Hunter's record is no better than Rudy's in that regard.

So: Duncan Hunter 2008! The Big Government Conservative.

I'll have to photoshop a Hunter button with that slogan, so I can spam a few threads. ;-)

[Paco]

Am I talking to a 12 year old here? I never said I wanted people to vote the way I did, you did. (Although we'd be better off if they did). I said I don't like it. Go home now, I hear your mommy calling your name, she probably has some milk and cookies for you.

[TitansAFC]

---"Look at that list.
The 'Contract with America'....That's what brought them to power."---

It was the combination that brought them to power.

---"Abandon those issues, and you abandon majority status."---

Of course. Abandoning issues that are of tantamount importance to a large deal of the base is a losing proposition. This cuts both ways.

[My2Cents]

She's the devil I know, but he's flat crazy.

LOL...I can't argue with that. But Hillary clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder and meglomania, so pick your poison.

As for the primaries, my stance on these Rudy discussions is that he should be part of the mix in '08, and if he gets the nomination, I will support him. And in terms of the rest, I've taken a pledge to observe Reagan's "11th Commandment."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I am pro-choice. If you're going to suggest a candidate that will actively move to outlaw abortion, I am not on board ... I want my politicians to stay out of abortion.

-snip-

I vote for pro-life candidates regularly. I voted for GW twice.

I'm having a real hard time following this logic.

Does this mean you vote for pro-lifers who, in your opinion, don't really mean it? What am I missing?

What will you think of your two votes for W if JP Stevens or Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg drop dead tomorrow and W nominates Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen to replace them, giving anti-Roe forces a 5-4 SC advantage?

I'm serious - I really don't get it. Help me understand. Is it more important to you to elect Republican candidates (for their, supposedly, fiscal conservative policies and governance), or is it more important to ensure that the killing of babies in the U.S. continues unabated by defeating the social cons?

[Paco]

Really good points Antoninus but let me ask you a question. If Rudy and Hillary are the nominee's, do you stay home or do you vote? And if you vote, do you vote for Rudy, Hillary or 3rd party (basically a no-vote). This is a very real scenario.

[My2Cents]

Well, I support the Senate's bill on immigration reform. That puts me out of step with probably 90% here, but at least is shows my independence from the herd mentality.

[STARWISE]

I'm so very disheartened to learn this. He's been growing on me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925593/pg_2

Spence Abraham of the NRCC thinks the scandal will give the Republicans a net boost, if only because the Republicans have fewer incumbents facing check-bouncing charges. Of the 270 current members with overdrafts, 83 are Republicans and 187 are Democrats.

Meanwhile, a number of well-known congressmen are expected to ride out the wave of discontent. Those who owe their safety to weak challengers or districts that are one-party strongholds include incumbents such as far-left radical Ronald Dellums (D., Calif.; 851 overdrafts), Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.; 434 overdrafts), conservative stalwart Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.; 399 overdrafts), and Agriculture Committee Chairman E. "Kika" de la Garza (D., Tex.; 284 overdrafts).



Rubber Congressmen

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n7_v44/ai_12127933/pg_2

House Speaker Tom Foley must wish he had checked in with Mr. Limbaugh back when the issue was first brought to his attention, because his failure to act now threatens both his job and his party. As NR goes to press there are rumors that he was informed of problems with the House Bank as long ago as 1989, and we know for certain that there was a General Accounting Office report on the trouble back in 1990. The Speaker's failure to investigate is now sparking talk of a criminal investigation and is wreaking havoc in his own party.

For Republicans, even more important than nailing another Speaker's scalp to the wall is an unprecedented opportunity to break the 38-year Democratic stranglehold on the Capitol--if only the President seizes the opportunity. If he doesn't, he is likely to find that the brewing public rebellion against government will lump him in with Congress as a willing accomplice.

Even the bare outlines of the scandal suffice to show why the Democrats are running scared. The first GAO report was completely ignored. But when the GAO issued another report in September 1991, a group of freshmen Republican known as the Gang of Seven--Scott Klug (Wis.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Jim Nussle (Iowa), John Doolittle (Calif.), Frank Riggs (Calif.), Charles Taylor (N.C.), and John Boehner (Ohio)--pressed for an investigation and refused to back down. This took more guts than is generally acknowledged, because the Young Turks were taking on the club itself; one of them says he felt as though "a large bull's-eye" were painted on his back as he mingled with his colleagues.

Although Speaker Foley rejected the call for an investigation, the Gang of Seven kept the pressure on with special orders (short speeches to the camera at the end of business), eventually forcing Foley's hand. The result was the ethics-committee investigation.


The Scandal

http://www.answers.com/topic/house-banking-scandal

The House banking scandal ultimately involved more than 350 Representatives. Twenty-two congressmen and women were singled out by the House Ethics Committee for having been overdrafted for at least eight months out of a sample of 39 months.[citation needed]

The scandal contributed to a perception of corruption and malfeasance and was a contributing factor to major changes in the House, in which 77 Representatives resigned or were ousted in the 1994 election. Four ex-Congressmen, a Delegate, and the former House sergeant-at-arms were convicted of wrongdoing as a result of the investigation that followed.[1] Among these, Former Rep. Donald Lukens (R-OH) was convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges.

Former Rep. Carl C. Perkins (D-KY) pled guilty to various charges including a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions including the House Bank. Former Rep. Carroll Hubbard, Jr. (D-KY) pled guilty to three felonies. Former Rep. Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) was charged with seven felonies, but she ended up pleading guilty only to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank. The House Bank investigation also led to Delegate Walter E. Fauntroy (D-DC) pleading guilty to an unrelated charge of a making a false statement relating to a charitable contribution to his church. The former Sergeant At Arms, Jack Russ, pled guilty to three felonies.[2]



Congressional Post Office Scandal

http://www.answers.com/topic/congressional-post-office-scandal

The Congressional Post Office Scandal (or Check kiting Scandal) is a phrase used to refer to the discovery of corruption among various Congressional Post Office employees and members of the United States House of Representatives, which was investigated from 1991 to 1995, climaxing in the conviction of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL).

Initially an investigation by the United States Capitol Police into a single embezzlement charge against a single employee, evidence rapidly led to the inclusion of several other employees, before top Democrats in the House of Representative moved to shut down the whole line of inquiry, despite protests from Frank Karrigan, chief of the Capitol Police.

A new investigation was started by the United States Postal Service, which eventually submitted a report which was held in silence by Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA) until media reports of embezzlement and drug laundering leaked out in 1992.[citation needed]

Following public outcry, the Democratic leaders of the House were forced to refer the matter to the House Administration Committee, which started its own investigation.

That committee broke into two parts along party lines, the Democrats issuing a report saying the matter was closed, but the Republicans issuing a dissenting report including a number of unanswered questions and problems with the investigation.

The Republican charges were largely ignored until July of 1993,[citation needed] when the Congressional Postmaster Robert Rota pleaded guilty to three criminal charges, implicating Representatives Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and Joe Kolter (D-PA). They were accused of heading a conspiracy to launder Post Office money through stamps and postal vouchers.

Ultimately, Rostenkowski was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison, in 1995.

President Clinton later pardoned Rostenkowski as he left office in 2001.

[My2Cents]

Do you purport there is?

A path to citizenship and ultimate assimilation into the nation for people who are probably impossible to round-up and throw back across the border. That's conservative enough for me.

[Dominic Harr]

Does this mean you vote for pro-lifers who, in your opinion, don't really mean it?

I will vote for a pro-lifer when I don't think they have any chance to ban abortion.

I *want* Roe v. Wade overturned, so it becomes a state issue again.

It's not that complicated, really. I'll back any 'politically conservative' candidate, as long as I don't think he'll do damage in other areas.

Socials will *not* vote for a politically conservative candidate unless he passes their litmus tests.

Those socials actively insult me regularly. Fortunately, I have a thick skin. But they do *not* want me in their party.

Eventually, they may get their wish.

[La Enchiladita]

I would love to see Ann debate Hilliary

Forget that. I would like to see a good conservative Republican candidate win the White House in 2008. My first choice is Dick Cheney; my second is Duncan Hunter, who is leading in the FR poll.

Rudy is not a choice, IMO.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I will vote for a pro-lifer when I don't think they have any chance to ban abortion. I *want* Roe v. Wade overturned, so it becomes a state issue again.

We have common ground then - this is all the social cons want.

The problem is, they know they won't get it from Giuliani or McCain, and doubt they will from Romney. Once RvW is in the ashcan of history next to its ideological twin, slavery, then we'll battle it out at the state level and let the people decide - as we should, from a constitutional perspective.

Those socials actively insult me regularly. Fortunately, I have a thick skin. But they do *not* want me in their party.

If you've been here for awhile, you know full well the insults and invective cut both ways. I personally don't have any problems with people who disagree with me being in the GOP - that being said, the majority of our party is pro-life, which is why it is in our platform. When that is no longer the case, I will no longer have a home in the GOP.

When I say I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, it is not to pick a fight - rather, it's simply an expression of my deeply held beliefs. I'm sure your position comes from a similar process.

So, again, what is the answer? Find a candidate agreeable to the major wings of the party.

*Fiscal conservative

*Social conservative

*Defense hawk

As I told you before, I'll support every aspect of the Contract With America if you'll support (as you said you will) a President who will nominate judges that will overturn RvW. All we have to do now is find that candidate and elect him/her.

Eventually, they may get their wish.

That would be unfortunate - as the maxim goes, you don't have to be disagreeable to disagree. It's a lesson many posters on FR - on both sides, myself included - need to be constantly reminded of.

Again, best wishes to you.

[PerConPat]

I'm so very disheartened to learn this. He's been growing on me.

There's nothing, IMHO, to do but study the matter and decide for yourself where this, or any other candidate's actions, fits into the overall scheme of things. If your interested, check out my post numbers 109, 125, and 177 to see where I'm coming from on this topic.

[Antoninus]

Really good points Antoninus but let me ask you a question. If Rudy and Hillary are the nominee's, do you stay home or do you vote? And if you vote, do you vote for Rudy, Hillary or 3rd party (basically a no-vote). This is a very real scenario.

Me personally? I vote. I always vote. I don't vote for liberals.

You do the math.

Furthermore, considering Rudy's a liberal, I won't work for him. I won't send him a dime. I won't convince others to vote for him. I won't write letters to the editor in support of him. I won't make phone calls for him. I won't help drive people to the polls for him.

Multiply me by a million or so and see what that means for Rudy and the GOP.

My feeling has always been if liberals want to get elected, they should do it with liberal money, liberal support, and liberal workers. If I wanted to elect liberals, I'd be a Democrat.

[TomGuy]

Am I talking to a 12 year old here? I never said I wanted people to vote the way I did, you did. (Although we'd be better off if they did). I said I don't like it. Go home now, I hear your mommy calling your name, she probably has some milk and cookies for you.

Is that the extent to your ability to respond?

You are the one whining about the non-voters. You are the one whining about the voters not voting the way you wanted.

Then you devolve into the mommy is calling. You only seem capable of making assumptions and hurling insults.

[Oct1967]

While social conservatism wasnt the reason for the 2006 loss, the GOP started heading south after the Terry Schaivo disaster...That incident really hurt the GOP in the westtern USA and with suburban voters...

Afterwards fact that Randall Terry lost, Charlie Crist won and the judge from Sarasota won should tell us just how thin the Terry Schaivo pro-lifers popularity was