Posted on 02/21/2007 10:15:17 PM PST by FairOpinion
As to its application, it is hardly conspiracy-theory to recognize that many seek, quite obviously and trackably, to subordinate the best interests of United States citizenry to particular global mandates and practices.
That can come in the form of the poisonous CEDAW, the U.N.'s imposition of ultraleftist social policy on the U.S. (unagreed to at this writing).
It can also come in the form of policies that result in huge trade deficits, which also are against the best interests of Americans.
If you "read" YOU-TUBE, I am sure the audible speeches by Clinton and George H. Bush are stupidly, vague and paranoid for you.
"Actually, I think I'll just be MORE determined NOT to vote for ANY and ALL RINOs."
It's ALL ABOUT CONTEXT, my good RINO-lovin' "friend" - my2centsaintworthsh*t.
"Newt is a realist. Other conservatives could learn from him."
Including many on FR.
"Keyes would be far superior to most all in this field."
And Keyes would lose worse in the general than Goldwater did.
Perhaps. The Republican Party Left could very well vote for Hillary. But, who knows? Maybe he would lay the way for the next Reagan.
"Rudy has GREAT numbers! :-)"
And they just keep getting better, quickly I might add. Dick Morris might be right, Rudy just might have this thing wrapped up before the end of THIS year.
"May you go to sleep tonight with lovely dreams of Alan Keyes as the Republican nominee."
That's certainly Hillary's dream.
Yes, if his last name just wasn't Bush I would love to see Jeb as VP. He was a great Governor of FL, very popular there. I think he might have a future in national politics but not in 2008, not even as VP
"If I hear "RINO-rudy's out in front again", I'm tempted to apply a GUN directly to my forehead."
Rudy is out front.
The road to the next Reagan doesn't need and doesn't have to include a President Hillary Clinton. Especially not during the WOT.
Then make sure you don't empower a nominee that represents the Democrat platform instead of the Republican one.
"Actually, I think I'll just be MORE determined NOT to vote for ANY and ALL RINOs."
It's ALL ABOUT CONTEXT, my RINO-lovin' "friend".
We don't have to have or need a litmus test either. Differring on a couple of issues doesn't mean one is against the majority of the GOP platform.
Litmus tests are quite useful in detecting disease.
And, the right to life is at the very heart of the Republican platform. Excise it and the oxygen stops flowing to the limbs.
Rudy is not the abortion on demand liberal people make him out to be. He is against partial birth abortions, contrary to the misinformation some on here are posting. On Hannity Rudy said “Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld(by the USSC). I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be.” And as soon as Rudy got finished saying this, Hannity acknowledged, “There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion”. So there we have, Rudy is against partial birth abortions. Rudy is also for parental notification. He also acknowledged this on Hannity. So Rudy certainly isn’t for abortion on demand.
In general on abortion, 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. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.” 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 we know that this won’t stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone 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 like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
Rudy is, IMO, the only Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary or Rudy. Sure, we 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. Everyone 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 I think we need to stop worrying about gays, people that don't affect our lives life at all. We need to worry about Islamic fascism, the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.
Many in the conservative community are open to Rudy. Sean Hannity is certainly open to Rudy and likes Rudy. George Will wrote this about Rudy, ““His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes." Heck, even Rush is open to Rudy. Rush said, “"He's a smart cookie ... Here's the thing about Giuliani," he said on his radio show the other day. "Everybody's got problems with him ... But when you start polling him on judges, he's a strict constructionist ... That will count for quite a bit. He can fix the abortion thing ... So I think he's got potential--particularly, folks, since we're still going to be at war somewhere in 2008." If Rush is at least open to Rudy then he realizes Rudy isn’t that bad.
And apparently even Reagan liked Rudy. Rudy was Reagan's Associate Attorney General and was awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, putting him along side Margaret Thachter, Billy Graham, and Bob Hope as receiptants of the award. Speaking of Ronald Reagan, Reagan said this about compromise in his autobiography An American Life: "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Yes, Rudy may be alittle bit of a compromise but in reality, everytime you vote it’s a compromise. Nobody is ever going to find a candidate or a President they agree with 100% of the time, even Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in 1986 and I’m sure the vast majority of Freepers disagree with that. Reagan even appointed O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Nobody is perfect. The only thing we can do is find the Presidential candidate we agree with the most on the most important issues and issues the President has the most influence over, the one that is the most electable, and the one that would make the best and strongest leader. That’s Rudy.
Back to Ronald Reagan for a second. In the above excerpt he used the term “radical conservatives”. So apparently Reagan thought that conservatives that were all or nothing, unappeasable, unpragmatic, and unrealistic are “radical”. I do too. 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. I must now end the overly long post by quoting Dennis Miller, who also supports Rudy, “Rudy would have the best bumpersticker, ‘I’m the man the men in caves don’t want to win’”. Enough said
Everyone has litmus tests: what are yours? And why do you say a candidate has to stand for what matters most to you, but doesn't have to *according to you* stand for what matters most to social conservatives?
Post 216 will will explain everything to you, including political realities.
The most unpopular thing originating from the Republican party is the Iraq War. That is simple political reality.
Thus, the most pragmatic way for Republicans to win the election of 2008 is to nominate someone who will withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as they take office.
There you go, the most pragmatic course, as dictated by political reality.
Actually, in a poll that just come out yesterday, over 60% of the American people still want to succeed in Iraq and they know Rudy is a strong and competent leader and would trust him more than anybody else as CiC during the WOT. So once again, everything points to Rudy.
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.