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!
Exactly why is selling firearms "cheaply" a bad thing? Oh, it's not, is it? It's only because Rudy doesn't want ANYONE to be armed and able to defend themselves that it's bad. But if you're a CONSERVATIVE, why would you support someone who felt that way about firearms? I never could do that and look myself (or anyone else) in the face again. If I supported someone who wanted to ensure that my wife was unable to protect herself from a would-be rapist, what does that make me? You call yourself a woman, yet support a Rudy who wants women to be nothing but VICTIMS; what does that make you?
I acknowledge your thoughts. While I disagree, I know I will not change your mind. If Rudy is the nominee, all I ask is for you to have a good and thoughtful discussion with me.
For now, work for your candidate. I will strongly support the Republican nominee.
No such phrase. Drop and give every FReeper who's served in uniform 20!
Look, I'm one of those much-maligned, highly-disdained 'socons'. I kinda like the guy; he campaigned (to little benefit, unfortunately) for Ken Blackwell here in Ohio so I respect him for that, especially given the fact that Ken is also a 'socon'. I wish Ken Blackwell would have won the governorship so he could run for president but I digress. Anyway, Mr. Rudy also seems like a very personable guy.
But what I'd like to know how can you all say that he will be the kind of president we need to be strong against the Islamofascists when he supports illegal invaders coming into our country? Security for the country means securing our borders because, as it stands now, ANYONE can come into this country through those borders and that is scary.
And can I get an answer without name-calling and insults, please? I don't care which supporter of Rudy answers me but I am asking a sincere question.
Well, that explains how well the Reform Party among others has done lately.
Never mind that a third party has never been remotely succussful this century or the last one.
Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't get one to work.
However, you're telling me you have the formula down. Okie dokie.
"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?"
Since I am registered as an INDEPENDENT, I could care less about the Republican Party. However, since you ask, the spirit of American INDIVIDUALISM is on life support over at the Pubbie headquarters, sad to report. MY sense of individualism is doing quite well without that magical (R) anymore, since I actually have respect for the CONSTITUTION and the Republic our Founders handed off to us. It appears that you don't, else you wouldn't have to ask.
Times change. Parties change. No election in my memory or knowledge of history has seen a party nominate a candidate opposed to 80% of the platform of the party. The status quo exists till it changes.
No such phrase. Drop and give every FReeper who's served in uniform 20!"
Does the word "Baguero" (phonetic) mean anything? *ducking* ;>)
"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."
That is in fact an act of disrepsect, and it assults those you want to open a discussion with right up front.
So at some point down the road you hope to be on higher moral ground as to this issue.
As I have stated, if Rudy is the Republican running for POTUS, I will not vote for him, and the party will loose IMHO.
Then maybe, but I doubt it, the leaders will get the message. But I do not think so, after the recent defeats the party leaders couldn't look at themseleves to see where they may have failed, it was all blamed on the voters.
And no the chioe between Hillery and Rudy is not so clear cut and here is why.
If they are the choices then this country is very sick and needs to get better. The solution is not to delay the fever by electing Rudy, but let the fever run full course and elect instead his partner in crime Hillery.
Then maybe, just maybe the so called leaders of our party will understad, but the voters will get to see Socialism at itsvery worse, and not the slower to be inacted Rudy version that still takes us to where Hillery wants to go, but maybe in a couple more years of pain.
Hell lets do it and get it over with, I take Hillery over Rudy, both are liberail/socialists.
Instead show me how he isn't a copy of Hillery, or can you?
It's true Rudy is ahead in the polls...it's true he is not a social conservative...and those two facts do raise the ire of social conservatives - just as dog gone stated.
Oh, never mind. It seems you are only interested in calling names. (Bet you really wowed them in your debate club at Harvard!)
Excellent photo!
Surely he isn't presidential material.. you must mean someone else.
Thank you for your response. Now explain what it is that you said?
Maybe you should have left out the request for no name-calling or insults.
=P
(just playing!)
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.