Posted on 02/26/2007 7:08:07 AM PST by areafiftyone
Reagan bashers get put on my ignore list.
It's no way to make points for your candidate.
it just doesn't sell.
This guy is trying to cover up Rudy's liberalism by saying he only did it to win elections, as if that makes him any better! It makes him a typical rule by poll politician, something we do not need. Besides that he is a real, died in the wool liberal with an R after his name. We don't need this piece of crap in the whitehouse.
You can repeat that as often as you like. It is absurd to think that quote means anything. Unless of course you believe that, in 2000 when Clinton was running for Senate, she was telling the truth about her policies.
Which itself would be absurd.
He said he WOULD pay for his daughter to abort a child.
He would make it possible for the limbs to be ripped off his own grandchild. Think about that for a minute.
You said that a person could NOT be "pro-life" if they voted for a person who was "pro-choice".
That was an absurd claim, as my response illustrated.
The argument the "pro-life" Rudy supporters advance are of two veins:
1) The issue of abortion is not as important to them as issues for which Rudy is in agreement with them;
2) The presidency has little effect on abortion, and in those areas where it does Rudy has said he would act in accordance to the beliefs of the pro-life people, for example in appointing judges.
You can disagree with those positions, and argue them, without stooping to calling your opponents character and veracity into question.
Unless you are running for President, I doubt ANY candidate is exactly like you in positions. But you will support SOME candidate, and in doing so you will justify doing so notwithstanding their disagreement with you on those issues. And your justification will likely be one of the two listed above.
And someone for whom THAT issue is the be-all and end-all of politics will want to call YOUR parentage into question for selling out your principle on that issue.
So you are saying that Giuliani was too stupid to know that she was lying?
I'm really enjoying watching everyone pretend they don't know the difference between fiscal conservatives and law and order conservatives like Rudy, who has had his accomplishments in NYC with regard to taxes and urban/government policies called the greatest achievements of the 20th century, and social conservatives.
Blah blah blah....
Giuliani is a NARAL candidate. Live with it.
I voted for Reagan twice. It's not bashing to state the record. Nobody is pure. Setting up some false image of a person doesn't honor their memory, it dishonors them.
He said he would advise her against it. Then, if she decided to go forward, he would pay for it. He did not say he would be "happy" about it.
Think about bearing false witness for a minute.
Sadly, the babies cannot.
As long as the laws weren't illegal immigration laws, the violation of which he shamelessly flaunted.
Unlike Alan Keyes who was a NOWHERE candidate.
No, he was saying that for a lot of things that mattered in a New York Senate race, his actual positions weren't much different than the positions she CLAIMED to support.
When our now-Governor Tim Kaine was running as a democrat for Governor, I agreed with MOST of what he said. Because he ran as a conservative, and lied about his positions to sell himself to conservatives.
Frankly, half of what the government does is supported to some degree or another by both parties. It's not hard to agree with opponents on "most" policy. It's really a meaningless phrase. Spiff's table is more useful than a pithy quote.
Gee, I simply can't refute your "blah blah blah".
Amen.
You know that Jim Webb is probably more conservative than Rudy is......
Your blah blah blah post isn't worth refuting. Rooty supporters are impervious to reason and argements based on principle anyhow.
Well, unlike you, Alan Keyes doesn't support baby killer, gun grabbing candidates.
This is why I don't read posts that start with 'well Reagan did...."
Reagan was an advocate, a leader of a movemnet, a movement that's probably dead. As a politician did he compromise? Heck ya! As the leader of a movement did he? No.
We've been without elected conservative leadership since 1989, unless you count Newt from 1995 - 1999.
And no I will not mold conservatism into something that fits the candidate. That would be backwards.
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.