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!
That may be good advice. I'm letting what happens at this forum mess with my mind.
I deeply care about this forum, and I want it to succeed. But it's not the only thing in life. I could go downstairs and introduce myself to my wife.
That would be weird, but I should do it.
Do you think that the way he posted may have had a affect on responses?
He insulted all who may not agree with what he thinks is his better position.
Well, yes, Rudy is an anti-gunner. I thought it better, though, rather than stating that explicitly, to simply state precisely what it is he did to demonstrate that he is an anti-gunner and let the reader figure out the rest.
Funny you should mention a dragon, but amidst the hundreds to thousands strong Anna Nicole Smith, Ann Coulter, and Rudy threads, a little thread here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795084/posts
may well lead China, Taiwan, and possibly the U.S. to war.
In case you haven't noticed, the republican party encompasses a wide range of views. If not, we'd all think exactly alike. Organized political parties are just that...they are not religions, where we all hold to a certain set of precepts.
Where's your spirit of American individualism?
The end does not justify the means.
"He shouldn't even have an R behind his name he is a Socialist/Liberal"
"Vote for Rudy(SL)"
LOL!
Thank you deport, you have injected a big fat dose of realism into the discourse. You are right of course.
State Leg. Democrat. and like good liberals think illegals are just fine.
Frisco far left, LA has a Mexican mayor and the largest Mexican population outside of Mexico.
Because my city has the largest amount of military in the U.S. helps it along to more Republican majority, though we have with legal and illegals over 1 million Mexicans in San Diego. Bottom line the far left caters to the illegals and with more coming in and having their kids here at tax payer expense which makes it an American Citizen. Republicans are outnumbered
Newt is a GRENNIE.....a tree hugger, repeatedly caved, to Clinton, when Speaker, has spent the last year traveling around with Hillary, helping her push her health care plans, and he is quite taken with Alvin Toffler's crazy books/ideas.
Newt has said that if Rudy is doing well, he won't enter the primaries. If Newt was REALLY serious about making a run for the presidency, he would not say, as he did, that he wouldn't even begin to think about it, until next September, which he now has changed to October. By next October, all of the big money and political backing, as well as the best of the lot, for teams, will have long been already swept up. And unlike you, Newt is well aware of all of this.
Yes, voting third party, especially in a Presidential election, is a big deal. It's a big "I'M A RETARD" brand on your forehead.
If you want to build up a third party, start at the dogcatcher office level and progress from there. Actually build a party.
Look at the candidacies of John Anderson or Ross Perot and tell me how they either helped the country or built a party.
Good luck.
Mia,
If I had a handy-dandy answer to our shared core question, we would hold the House and Senate now, as we did before 11/2006. Not voting at all is default, abdication, foolishness and burying a precious Talent.
Voting in protest 'to teach the Party a lesson' used to be less of a national security risk--because the pendulum would certainly swing back due to citizen outrage at the Party's recent net results.
That's no longer a case that can be relied upon, because of the illegal immigrant voters, the dead voters and others--the pendulum may be artificially 'prevented' from swinging back.
I'm inclined to say that voting a protest vote is bad stewardship/bad strategy, as you and others assert. There may still be a matter of conscience, as I previously noted. May it never become such a Hobson's Choice!
My goal is to help make sure that in the months ahead a strong enough Home Run Conservative (conservative on everything) wins the primary. If not, then God help us.
Come to think of it, God help us anyway...always!
LMAO!
Just be sure to completely log off first.
We don't want her to post under your name blaming us for you suddenly bothering her after all these years. ;-)
Nominated for 'Understatement of the Month'!!!!!!!
We can always count on you to offer simplistic, bumper sticker, DNC talking points and platitudes to the discussion.
Purist conservatives want, clearly, what they want.
We're talking about an election here, not an ordination.
Do the purists deserve what they want just because they want?
What have the purists done to earn a right to be rewarded? Has the left made significant gains in it's efforts to change society to a one which we conservatives find, in some ways, distasteful?---Yes. Have the purists had similar successes, but with opposing goals?---No.
The answer to your question is perhaps so. I am not concerned at this time about the responses. I have noted my respect to those that disagree. Moreover, I recognize that I will not be able to sway those of you who have such heartfelt feelings.
In a previous thread (response 253)"Thinking Hard About Voting for Rudy" Feb 23, 2006 I made the following comment "Any conservative that would hesitate with the choice between Guiliani and Clinton has their head up their butt." This is meant as no disrespect to those who are now articulating no way Rudy even in the general election. My belief this sentiment is really about the primary. To reiterate, there is no reason for you at this time (based on your comment and your tagline) to think about a Rudy candidacy. You need to focus upon your candidate. If, however, Rudy vs Hillary matchup comes to pass, and appropriate reflection and analysis is undertaken, I will stand by my comment. The choice is that clear cut.
I felt I had to state the obvious for the oblivious!!!
Hmmmm, nominated? Who are the other candidates? ... ;)
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.