Posted on 03/04/2007 1:04:27 PM PST by Al Simmons
Changing the definition of Conservative doesn't do it for me.
Rudy Schwarzenegger doesn't get my vote.
I disagree.
The only conservatives who should support Rudy with enthusiasm are those who genuinely support Rudy with enthusiasm. Asking people to support candidates they oppose is offensive. This is a political competition, and one cannot win that competition by asking supporters of Rudy's competitors to concede at this early date.
Wow. So, I guess you will be voting for "the smartest woman in the word" then?
all of us are on Rudy's "staff" now I guess.
I can tell you Nevada would probably side with Rudy over Hilly or Obama. Same with McCain. But the GOP can certainly lose here, too - if Dubya were running today he would get his rear end tanned by the average voter.
;>)
That may be part of the reason, but I think a bigger issue is that the adoption system has been ruined by meathead bureaucrats and judges. Today, prospective parents have to jump through endless hoops in order to adopt a child, and even once they get the child can't be certain it won't be taken back from them at some later date for causes entirely beyond their control.
If I had my druthers, unmarried girls and women who have babies would be offered two choices:
Unfortuantely, the people who run the system today have financial incentives to keep children in foster care indefinitely. They can't justify nearly as much funding if children are adopted two days after birth.
Well, if it is Rudy or Hillary, I think we have to go with Rudy. He is at least strong on terror and supports the effort in Iraq. Then, hopefully he has long enough coat tails to get more true conservative Republicans elected in the House and Senate and to governorships. His ONLY strength, in my opinion, is that he is strong on defense and anti-terrorism. But, the first job of the President is to defend the country and its borders. Hopefully, a strong, truly republican candidate will emerge.
Listen, I am tired of people running as Republicans and stating they are Conservitives. Then after elected they move to the left and inact their Socialist agenda.
So, if given the choice between someone who is at best a very bad lying two-faced RINO and someone who is a Marxist.
I would chosse the Marxist without question.
The reason is very simple, I know what the Maxist is and what they will try to do. The lying two-faced RINO, well now that is a different story.
And if I believed him and then he betrayed me well boy would I look stupid, but not with the other person, because I knew what I was getting.
And when the Republican Party understands that, maybe they will run a non-RINO.
Besides while Hillery would be very bad for this country, and good for the Republican party, Rudy would be very bad for this country and the Republican Party.
I feel the same way about that two-faced POS McCain.
Remove his medals and his is nothing, sold us out with his campaign fin bill. Nothing more than a Liberal Republican.
He will never get my vote, under any situation.
I for one am tired of spineless, jellyfish coward republicans, they are a disgrace and are a waste of air.
Although I agree with some of it, as a social conservative I don't like the dismissive "socon" stuff.
Some of the most virulent anti-Rudy posters here believe they speak for social conservatives, but they don't. I reject their self-nomination to be spokespeople, and so should you. I think it's politically important to recognize that many social conservatives are indeed looking favorably at a Guiliani candidacy.
Even that sounds like an eternity given the past few weeks here.
Here's the situation as I see it. Anyone may feel free to correct my perception with no hard feelings, at least on my part.
Did I miss any important points?
Nope.
My Constitutional rights are non-negotiable. Period.
L
I would vote for a legless hooker on crack before I would vote for Rudy the supporter of cross dressing homosexual child molesting preverts, and people that support murdering unborn babies..
Video at 11.
That's because in political time, it's, potentially, 3 or 4 lifetimes.
No social conservative has managed to even get name recognition, much less an effective campaign going.
Yet...
Rudy - Hillary
Why, what difference would it make? Amnesty, nope -- gun control, nope -- health care, nope -- abortion, nope -- global warming, nope -- taxes, you're kidding right .... let's see there must be some difference in there somewhere. Maybe on the Iraq war, but it's either done in Iraq by 2008, or it's cooked. Terror, doubtful there is going to be any real difference, until the nukes go off.
Agreed -- The best thing to do is elect a good Conservative Representative and Senator. Put Mitch in charge of the Senate.
I refuse to change the definitions so as to vote for anyone.
What a canard. We will prevail over Islam. The "WOT" is not the be-all and end-all of the United States. Meanwhile our children are under constant attack by homosexual fanatics bent on recruiting them by portraying perversity as diversity. This nation needs a strong Conservative leader to counter these destructive trends.
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.