Posted on 03/02/2007 8:40:17 AM PST by areafiftyone
All day today we are covering speakers and panels at the 34th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. This morning, we'll hear from Republican presidential hopeful former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He will be followed by Reps. Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom Tancredo (CO), and others.
CLICK ON THE MAIN CSPAN PAGE HERE
I think you are "spitting" in the wind. These people including the founder of the forum have ratcheted up the garbage talk because they now realize that most of America and even most of the Republican Party no longer listens to them. They know the game is over, and this is just early retribution against any who are perceived to have taken that leadership role away from them.
What you are seeing here simply demonstrates that the hard right and hard left have much more in common than what distinguishes them from each other. What you see from these people may reflect "social" values, but definitely not conservatism.
I can't say that "they" (and I know several of whom you probably have in mind) are making RUDY converts, exactly, but so many of them are Hunter supporters that it's (rather unfairly to Hunter) making me shy away from supporting the latter.
Winning back the House anytime soon is probably out of reach, unless Ma Pelosi and crew really jack things up, and they appear to be too smart to let that happen.
On strong GOP coattails, I would expect the GOP to get a net gain of maybe 6 or 7 House seats in 2008. All else being equal, it will be status quo for a while, though.
What miserable, petty lives, huh?
Total lie. That was a fabrication by a lying member of the Dem Media. When challenged on it, he refused to retract, but he quit saying it.
The media and the democrats have gotten wise to the tactic of going over their heads to the people. Now the networks routinely refuse to carry important presidential speeches. They kill stories with impunity, because they know that while the alternate media is watching them and competing, they still hold the power to determine the story lines for the week (Anna Nichole being the latest example).
This morning on local radio there was a little story about AP doing an experiment. They decided to not do ANY Paris Hilton stories for a week, and no one even noticed, except for a couple of gossip sites. Now, you might think that this is a good thing in that AP sees that no one is interested in Paris Hilton. What I think they are doing is showing us that THEY can determine what we will be interested in, even at the tabloid level. I have repeatedly heard Fox anchors talk about how "everyone is fascinated" with the Anna Nichole story. I just don't think that is strictily true. A fair number of Americans are interested in whatever is on the news. You could probably make them interested in the production of compost heaps with enough "breaking news" gongs and breathless Shep Smith commentary.
This little experiment by AP is telling me that come next year, we will be treated to a variety of pro-democrat stories and anti-Republican stories, while the speeches and campaign appearances of our candidate are disappeared. If it becomes too obvious, they will simply fill the airways with the current trashy blonde story.
I would think it would be unbelieveable that your colored charts and goofy pictures posted ad nauseum have pretty much turned people off toward anything of substance you may have.
How about the nice collection of conservatives who are aligning with Rudy, like Ted Olson? Is it possible that the conclusions you draw in your post about Rudy might be so overstated that they don't reflect reality clearly?
Just a thought.
I guess you should lump JimRob in with that, eh? So now you are saying the FOUNDER is an impotent keyboard warrior?
On the other hand, the Rudy boosters are more than glad to inform the long-shot backers that even if they were to win in Iowa or NH, it doesn't matter, because the front-loaded primary schedule means money is all that matters.
So that by its very nature means David has to take out Giuliath earlier rather than later.
For sure.
And they want women to die rather than abort a fetus that might be killing them.
It would also be refreshing to see you speak positively of someone, rather than have to wade through the constant stream of opprobrium we are treated to by yourself every day.
Ivan
Oh, no; you're gonna get called a Clown now!
Pro-low taxes. Pro-vouchers. Pro-law enforcement. Pro-government reform. Pro-smaller government. Pro-fiscal responsibility. Pro-states rights. Pro-freedom. Pro-going after the terrorists. Pro-conservative justices. Pro-free enterprise. Dubious of the UN. Anti-public money for religiously offensive "art."
Some folks are willing to compromise quite a bit for power. Of course, when that happens, we get power for the sake of power, unbound by the constraints of principles. And that worried the Founders more than anything. As it should us.
We certainly have to win the hearts and minds of the people to end abortion.
How is that helped when the "pro-life" party picks a president who thinks abortion is fine, that there is nothing wrong with killing the unborn?
How do we convince people to abandon abortion when the president talks about protecting it and supporting it?
How do we argue the abomination of partial birth abortion if we pick a President who can forcefully argue (as Rudy can argue anything, he's very persuasive) that a women's right to her health is much more important than worrying about tearing a baby apart or sucking their brains out?
I can find my way to support Rudy, but he's hardly the best choice if you think we have to win people's hearts and minds.
And that's even if you believe that Rudy will pick someone for the supreme court that will remove the Roe-V-Wade barrier to us stopping abortion. Which I'm not convinced about yet, because I could see a judge who is "like" Roberts or Alito who wouldn't overturn that "precedent", and I'm certain Rudy would have no problem picking judges who personally support abortion, meaning they will be WRONG-HEADED in their personal views and thinking, and thier reasoning suspect.
Heck, doesn't the fact that Rudy finds it so easy to support abortion make you question for an instant his sanity, reasoning, and character? I can put it aside, but how can you be so enthusiastic about it?
Some people just can't handle the truth. You, apparently, are one of them.
Is that yet another new rule around here, we can't respond to anything not directly posted to us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_United_States_Senate_election,_2004
During his campaign, Keyes pointed to parallels between abortion and terrorism, stating that both target innocent life. An August 17 Chicago Sun-Times article interpreted this statement as comparing doctors who performed abortions and women who received them to terrorists of the September 11, 2001 attacks. On a radio program, Keyes responded that this was a mischaracterization. He said he "never spoke of the women who have abortions or the physicians," and that his comment was instead directed toward the objectives behind abortion and terrorism. He explained his position was that the women "are themselves the victims" of an abortion industry that "gain[s] from the crisis of the woman and the death of the child." [12]
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.