Posted on 03/04/2007 1:04:27 PM PST by Al Simmons
One recent anti-Rudy poster stated the following:
"And if Rudy does get the nod, expect the MSM to open up the hype floodgates on the cross-dressing and the gay stuff -- oh, not condemning of course (wink) but how it's a big change, how will this play in the South, does this mean gay marriage is A-OK for the GOP."
MY REPLY: And if they do it will be countered with images of Rudy's heroism during and after 9/11 and most Americans will be DISGUSTED - at the MSM, NOT at RUDY.
The issue in 2008 will be the WOT - what with Iran's creeping closer to nukes and threatening the world. Not pull-out, but how to best change strategy and WIN.
Your statement does not mean to, but it nevertheless implies that Southerners and all Socons are stupid one-issue voters. Having lived in the Bible - Belt for 8 years I can tell you this is FAR from the truth. Its almost like you have been taken in by, and are repeating the MSM's Koolaid mantra about this group of Americans - of which I consider myself to be one, BTW.
Southerners are the most patriotic of Americans, they know we are at war, they absolutely DESPISE the treasonous opposition like Murtha, and they know that Rudy is the one who will take the fight to the terrorists - and without a velvet glove a la Dubya in Iraq, but with brass knuckles.
Rudy's principled stance on judges and the 'socon' issues (ie. he is a constructionist who will appoint constructionist judges like Scalia and Roberts - confirmed by no less a Federalist Society Conservative luminary than Ted Olsen - combined with his tacit promise that he is not a 'crusader' on social issues but believes that they should be decided by the people's elected representatives is right in line with what 90% of 'socons' (like myself, for example) believe).
So the fact that he is not flip-flopping a la Mitt and trying to brown-nose this "group" is also enhancing his image as a true leader - which he is - its funny how it was the Veterans here on FR who have been the first to catch on to that. Its a 'disturbance in the force' that we are highly attuned to, if you will. We can tell a real leader from a political poseur a mile away - and Rudy is a real leader.
Therefore Rudy will not meet significant opposition in the primary voters block except from a tiny minority of 'no compromise - any time any where' radicals who are squealing like stuck pigs around here the past few weeks because their own tactics have resulted in themselves becoming increasingly marginalized and out-of-the current conservative stream, which gathering itself up into a raging torrent that will sweep Rudy into office.
I was open-minded on Rudy when the bashing started a couple of weeks ago. Now, I am 100% behind him. The misguided attempts at character assassination, and 'can't see the forest for the trees blindness' of the anti-Rdy bots around here has had this effect on many, many Freepers - and is having this effect on conservative voters across the country.
Contrary to the idiotic "Rudy=Hitlary" statements which even the biggest rube knows are BS, the difference between Rudy and Hitlary (besides that one will cut-and-run while the other will get tougher in the WOT) is that Hitlary is a doctrinaire crusading Marxist who will use the FULL power of her office to sign laws and appoint judges who will seek to limit and take away our rights as religious Americans, home-schoolers and 2nd Amendment backers - this will be THE FOCUS of her administration, NOT the WOT. She's waited nearly 40 years to implement Saul ALinsky's tactics for turing America into a Marxist-liberal state. And she is cackling about the dissent she hopes will split the GOP and give her a cakewalk to the WH. Happily, she is DEAD WRONG about this.
Rudy's priorities are straight - WOT is #1, - AND IF YOU GET NOTHING MORE OUT OF THIS POST, PLEASE GET THIS:
Rudy is a PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE who believes that the people should decide most of their social issues through their local elected representatives - and he will appoint conservative judges who have that philosophy - as opposed to Hitlary, who will appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to every open Federal Judiciary Seat ACROSS THE NATION.
THAT is the real difference between Rudy and any national radical crusading left-wing Democrat who will run in 2008 (99% chance its Hitlary in my view).
So look at this issue beyond looking at out-of-context quotes made by Rudy when he was Mayor of a 5-1 LIBERAL city where he had to politically survive in order to save the City (which he did). He was THE most hated politician by the liberal limousine crowd that NY had ever seen. Does this sound like Rudy=Hitlary to you?
Look at his record of leadership and supporting pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment conservative candidates ALL OVER THE COUNTRY in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections.
That is called loyalty and patriotism. This is a man in whom I would have every confidence being back-to-back with in a political foxhole - and I cannot say that about any of the other candidates.
So please, those of you criticizing Rudy so viciously around here - get your 'gaze out of your navels' and see the 'Big Picture'.
Rudy is not a threat to conservatives, he will uphold local rights (especially through his judicial appointments), AND he will fight to protect this nation from a terrorist and a looming nuclear-terrorist peril. The alternative is to elect a Dem and concede defeat - HERE and ABROAD.
He is NO THREAT to the so-called 'socons'.
But he is a DEADLY THREAT to the terorrists and terrorist states (read:Iran) who would destroy us - and he a DEADLY THREAT to the liberal hegemony that Hitlary and her backers would LOVE to impose upon us.
It is the MSM that is playing up the 'Rudy is splitting the GOP base' FALSE stories. They are hoping to create such a split so that they have a chance to defeat him in 2008.
Well, their strategy is NOT WORKING, and he will defeat them - for all our sakes - in 2008.
Over and out!
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.