A betrayal of trust?

Vanity

[Peach]

Great post, as usual Ivan.

[WesternPacific]

Yep, things will stay as is until we elect enough individuals who were not involved in the Clinton/democratic party FBI file transfer.

[pookie18]

I'm glad I wasn't a FReeper prior to the 2000 election...must've been more of the same. Seems like some here won't be happy until they have Hillary as president presiding over a Democrat house & a Democrat/RINO filibuster-proof senate...sad...

[wolfcreek]

"You people couldn't be more ridiculous if you tried -- throwing around words like treason in relation to those who support Rudy. Anyone talking like that sounds insane."


If I remember correctly, you were the one who brought the *treasonous* part up. IMO, Rudy supporters are *sorely misguided*. If We (I'm speaking as a Conservative) expect our principles to survive, We must unite behind a candidate who espouses our philosophy not, someone who mocks them.

[Josh Randal]

Good morning MI, the voice of reason from across the pond! :)

[Josh Randal]

Man the barricades!

[Graymatter]

The Republican party seems hell bent on nominating a man who will not defend our most basic rights to life and liberty.

I think it's mostly media hype. They're doing it because the man is leaning so far left, and because of his name recognition. It'd be strange if the media did not dwell on his candidacy and his chances.

But his chances are very slim.

Remember Howard Dean before Iowa? A media darling with inevitability written all over him. And then the voters had their say.

[Froufrou]

"Then what else besides our dignity do we have to lose? If this is not a betrayal of trust then I don't know what is."

Yes, there is much to be 'indignant' about!

[zook]

The candidate who's going to win, the nomination and the whole shebang, is going to be the one who can paint the clearest and most persuasive vision, applying most of the best ideas toward most of the top issues.

Simply being a "conservative" with the "right" ideas won't be enough. Right now there are 2 and a half GOP candidates who seem to be persuasive in the minds of most Republicans. Rudy, McCain, and (the half) Romney.

The others can't seem to get off the ground, in spite of their "right" ideas.

And by the way, how's Soupy, Whitefang, and Blacktooth doing these days?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, the funny thing here is I'm not asking for anything new or special. Just to hold the line that we've been attempting to hold (not very successfully I'm afraid) since Ronald Reagan left office. Don't give in to those who are trying to take away more of our rights or to give up ground to the Democrats. Hold the line on spending and government encroachment. Preserve our tax cuts. Defend the nation and our borders. Continue appointing originalist judges. Nothing unusual or radical here. Just common everyday Republican principles.

Why are you always in such a hurry to defend/advance liberalism? Never mind. I really do not want to know.

Goodnight all.

[MadIvan]

Well, the funny thing here is I'm not asking for anything new or special. Just to hold the line that we've been attempting to hold (not very successfully I'm afraid) since Ronald Reagan left office. Don't give in to those who are trying to take away more of our rights or to give up ground to the Democrats. Hold the line on spending and government encroachment. Preserve our tax cuts. Defend the nation and our borders. Continue appointing originalist judges. Nothing unusual or radical here. Just common everyday Republican principles.

Re-read my post. It's not the goals we disagree on, it's how to advance them.

Why are you always in such a hurry to defend/advance liberalism? Never mind. I really do not want to know.

I'm interested in advancing conservatism and attracting as many people as possible to that banner. I am interested in denying the Democrats power and ensuring America maintains its leadership role. I am interested in driving a stake through the heart of the Clinton legacy and Obama. To refer to that as "liberalism" is totally incorrect; a "shot from the hip" remark will not make it otherwise.

Ivan

[econjack]

When I think about the control the Republicans had in both Houses and what they did during all those years, it makes me sick. I look at the goals that Jim mentioned and then review the voting record of the Republicans in the recent past and all I see is a bunch of weak-kneed, power hungry people who have abandoned what conservatives envision and, instead, are marching lock-step with the Democrats. Geez...look at the battle they had to fight just to keep the current tax cuts in place. How difficult can it be to convince your constituents that we can spend our money better than some political hack in Washington?

With that in mind, you'd think we could find ONE person in this country who could restore the conservative viewpoint yet still be electable. Evidently not, and I find that so discouraging.

[pookie18]

Agreed. I supported Keyes in 2000 & voted for W. I like Hunter now, but I'm voting for the Republican nominee...whoever that my be...

And by the way, how's Soupy, Whitefang, and Blacktooth doing these days?

Click "me" below to find out...

[Graymatter]

What is really worrisome is not Giuliani but the fact that a lot of conservatives are ok with his candidacy. We are discovering that there are frogs more nearly boiled than we realized before this.
A liberal Republican president could do more damage than a Democrat president. After all, Carter got us riled up enough to lift Reagan onto our shoulders. The action of a liberal president brought about the reaction of a great conservative movement.
But for our party to accept a liberal, that is a self-inflicted failure and a surrender. Much harder to correct.

[hellinahandcart]

Other issues, like abortion, can be advanced if the social conservatives make a deal with him - saying, OK, Rudy, you're popular, but you need us - if you give us our judges, leave our 2nd Amendment alone, and choose a solid VP who can run for the top job in 8 years - that too will advance the conservative agenda.

But he's not offering us anything, Ivan.

And if I know Rudy---and after voting for him three times, I think I do know him---he won't.

[David Isaac]

"Reagan had to deal with a Democrat Congress, for example, and signed bills he'd rather not, in order to advance the agenda incrementally."

Few conservatives would argue this point. However, when we have had a GOP President and a GOP Congress, the only agenda that was advanced incrementally, was the liberal one. That is the bone of contention, whether to continue in this vein or to stop the bleeding, now.

[Tolkien]

My greatest fear is coming to pass: that the GOP is putting up the 3 stooges of RINOism that the Christian base cannot and will not vote for.

ergo; President Hitlery.

[GoldwaterChick]

If the choice does come down to Rudy/Hillary or Obama, does this mean most Conservatives will stay home, resulting in another Carter/Clinton Presidency and the real end of the United States as we know it?

Anyone who believes that the current state of our Union has nothing to do with the results of their shameful administrations--which has left us with thousands of Civil Service hangers-on in our Defense Dept., State Dept, Justice Dept. and every other Dept., WHO CANNOT BE FIRED, and whose goal is to bring down George Bush and our Country, is living in a Hollywood world. (Sorry for the run-on sentence)

I say if Sandy Berger, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton and countless others are your heroes, please stay home. I'm sure you will be able to explain to your children and grandchildren why they will soon be living in an Islamic paradise. Hopefully the females in your families will soon adjust to a burkha. And they certainly won't be expressing their opinions on Free Republic or anywhere else.

This is not a rehearsal, it is a fight for all our lives. This is not the time to cut off your nose to spite your face.

[FairWitness]

The United States has always had a two party system; if there is to be a new party, one of the existing parties has to die. The Federalists gave way to the Whigs, the Whigs to the Republicans. Furthermore, the new party has to poach people from both of the main parties - when the Republicans formed, they poached anti-slavery Democrats, Whigs and members of the Free Soil party.

In a parliamentary system, with multiple parties, once the election is over (and assuming no one party wins outright) a coalition must be formed in order to govern. In the U.S system the coalitions are built before the election. Messy as it is, it means that the winner is ready to govern immediately, rather than engage in building a coalition that is often rather shaky and sometimes can't even be built. Unfortunately, it seems like the Republican "coalition" is now in danger of falling apart.

[ikka]

Since Rudy what did in NYC has been called one of the greatest fiscal,urban and governmental achievements of the 20th century, this full blown hysteria on FR

You realize that this statement is itself hyperbole?