I been trying REAL hard not to get involved in this Hunter VS. Rudy ( or ANYBODY) idiotic mud slinging, but I have finally had it.
Here is the scoop for the RABID conservatives with no voting flexability:
Duncan Hunter in 2008 =
Which then =
Posted on 03/13/2007 5:25:25 AM PDT by Ouderkirk
The] "Hustle" may have been a line dance we did back in the days of disco, but today it's what GOP leadership and a complicit media are trying to do to the voters responsible for the Republican Party's successes since Ronald Reagan.
Realistic chances of winning notwithstanding, there are no fewer than 13 Republicans in the contest for the 2008 presidential sweepstakes. But to hear party leadership and the media spin promote the candidates, one easily gets the impression that John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are not just the only candidates, but that McCain and Romney are the opening act for Giuliani as he awaits his coronation.
This is a ruse, a con, and in brief, an attempt to hustle the voters. GOP leadership is trying to "Bob Dole" us. They have, in effect, met in the smoke-filled back room of a private club and decided amongst themselves who they want in 2008. Their problem is how to deceive the voters into believing that said pick is of the voters' choosing.
Their solution: hand pick the candidate, truncate the primaries, shove the candidate down our collective throats vis-à-vis the media's promoting, interviewing and discussing (ad nauseum) McCain, Romney and Giuliani, but in such a way as to always have Giuliani shine brighter. Then, when he has garnered the nomination, we the voters will be told, "Yes, it is true he is a little more moderate than we may like," but if we don't vote for him, Hillary will win and hell will freeze over.
To which, allowing that same has no basis in theological truth, I respond, "If there be a hell on earth, and it freezes over because I vote my conscience and Hillary wins, I'll walk on ice until the party lets the voters truly have a say."
Now, my scenario may not be completely accurate, but you can bet I'm not far off base. One thing is for certain – of the 13 Republican candidates, only three of them are being touted – and don't tell me it's the fault of the other candidates, because a week ago this same media (Fox News included) was trying to convince us that the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith was newsworthy.
I watched as Republican pundits, Fox News, GOP talking heads, and other cable news shows all downplayed the tremendous success of presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., in the South Carolina straw poll. McCain finished two votes ahead of Giuliani, who in turn finished four votes ahead of candidate Hunter.
Even though Hunter finished in a statistical dead-heat with each, garnering 24 percent, of the vote, Giuliani was declared "the clear winner" and "the presumptive Republican presidential favorite." While these comments were without question a slap in the face to McCain, it was Hunter who they chose to disparage the most.
After all, went the reasoning on Fox News, Hunter had his son campaigning for him the entire week before the straw poll – to which Hunter, in classic fashion responded, "You know, I woke up to ... one of the commentators saying that the only reason that Hunter beat all those guys in South Carolina is because his Marine son has been there for a week. Well, I looked down at that army of consultants – everybody who was vertical in South Carolina was hired by the other guys – and I said, 'You know, that is a good match-up: One Marine versus 550 consultants.' We did have the advantage!" (From Hunter's speech given at Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., March 3.)
My point is this: Giuliani is being touted as the "Nation's Mayor" and "the presumptive favorite" by the media and most of the GOP armada, but there are a dozen other candidates, and none more honestly conservative than Duncan Hunter.
But the armada and the media don't want you to know that. They want the voters to think there is a choice of one, and if we don't go along with said choice the sky will fall. They will tell us that our picks/choices can't win and we have to go with their guy.
It is not, however, about whether or not their choice can win – it is about whether or not their choice is fit to win. I've seen Rudy as a prosecutor, I've seen him as mayor, and I've seen him dressed up in his blond wig with heavy eye shadow and makeup, strutting about in drag (1997 mayoral spoof of Victor/Victoria).
Now, I'd like to see the media and the GOP armada of talking heads consistently acknowledge that there are a dozen other candidates, and only one of them a true conservative.
"You got me there (extreme sarcasm), except that you missed my post # 132. You know we are not all perfect like you "antisocial", have mercy on the simpletons like me."
I probably should have added one of these:) or a /s
LOL!
"Let the GOP lose if need be".....and to hell with the international security implications!
"than(sic) just imagine how much further we might get sold out years down the road," Don't worry.....by then, your choice for election will be between Ahmendijad and Kim Jung Il.... Decisions.....decisions.........
"The libs hated Rudy when he was mayor, and pretty much chased him out of the race for Senator in NY, " Yeah, I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was battling cancer at the time.
I don't find that so amazing at all. We still live in a culture that is mass-media driven, and mass media seems to think that Republicans should choose one of three designated front-runners, John "The Maverick" McCain, Rudy "America's Mayor" Giuliani, and Mitt "The Mormon" Romney, who will then go head-to-head with Hillary "The World's Smartest Woman" Clinton for the title of Commander in Chief. It resembles Politics as a Team Sport, where we are picking our star to go against their star.
I am really hoping that conservatives and Republicans don't let this happen, don't automatically sign on with whichever of the three designated front-runners that they think has the best chance to defeat Clinton-Obama. Politics is not sports. The reality is that Hillary is infinitely defeatable by just about any strong male role-model. The media people know this, and they really hope we pick a liberal. They get what they want, plus the added bonus of being able to smear a Republican president for four more years.
Prostate cancer.
I been trying REAL hard not to get involved in this Hunter VS. Rudy ( or ANYBODY) idiotic mud slinging, but I have finally had it.
Here is the scoop for the RABID conservatives with no voting flexability:
Duncan Hunter in 2008 =
Which then =
try harder next time, ok?
Any source is marginalized which doesn't agree with the "Rudy is the only choice" group.
marginalize , marginalise (definintion) relegate to a lower or outer edge, as of specific groups of people
Yeah -- I don't know why the type of cancer is relevant to the point. Unless your point is that some forms of cancer are more serious than others.
It's truly whining to be concerned about millions upon millions of more illegals infiltrating out borders. It's truly whining to be outraged about millins of dead babies. It's truly whining to be concerned about the govt. taking our guns. It's truly whining to be concerned about the trade imbalance with China. If you're okay with a Liberal republican agenda that is in complete contrast to Hunter's agenda, then go vote for Rudy if he wins the nomination.
Although I agree that Bob Dole was a terrible candidate, I don't like it when people (such as Deaniacs and Buchananites) blame the party leadership for the fact that their candidate couldn't win the primaries. That's being a sore loser.
"You could have supported Hitler with that lack of conscience!"
Hitler outlawed abortion on paper (of course the ban only applied to the Aryan women). Osama bin Laden would outlaw abortion without waiting for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that doesn't mean that freepers should vote for bin Laden for president.
I would like to remind everyone involved in (yet another) debate about Rudy's qualifications, that the primaries haven't even started yet!!!
Why are we being "told" to support Rudy during a period (the Primaries, or of course, BEFORE the primaries) when we are supposed to be choosing the MOST conservative candidate?
The greatest argument for Rudy that everyone slings around is his "electability". Is that really what the primaries are for? To select a candidate based on how well he (or she) appeals to the OTHER side? Granted I suppose that could be ONE reason, but is it the ONLY reason?
Here's a notion to consider: The only reason Rudy is riding so high now is because most are under the (MISTAKEN) impression that no one else could win. It's mob mentality plain and simple, with everyone following along because no one wants to loose the "team player" label.
If everyone who is truly conservative would act on their conservatism, NOW, and support a truly conservative candidate like Hunter, or even Gingrich, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. This isn't a lecture about "voting your conscience" or "the GOP has failed us". The time is NOW, to get off our behinds, and support a candidate IN the GOP, and MAKE the GOP work for us. That way we won't HAVE to be left with the dreadful choice of "Guiliani or Hillary" November 2008.
Or don't we here, on FR, TRULY believe that the majority of this country is conservative? Has that been something we've said just to make ourselves feel better? If not, then let's ACT like it's the TRUTH and quit worrying about "electability".
The problem in 1996 was that NONE of them were good candidates and Dole was the least of many evils. Yes, Dole was a bad choice, but who were the alternatives?
So which of the Republican candidates have stated they will tear down the fence, or refuse to seal the border? Not Giuliani, who has said the border must be secured.
It's truly whining to be outraged about millins of dead babies.
I'm sure you realize that this issue is going to be resolved by the USSC eventually, and that the president has nothing to do with it?
It's truly whining to be concerned about the govt. taking our guns.
Not sure which guns you are referring to? Perhaps you believe that reasonable regulation of guns is unconstitutional, but most people don't. I would think I have a much better chance of keeping mine, which are not designed to overthrow the government, under a Republican administration than a Democrat administration.
It's truly whining to be concerned about the trade imbalance with China.
I've not heard any specifics from anyone on the trade imbalance with China, but I do know how Hillary feels about still owing China for its help to her husband.
If you're okay with a Liberal republican agenda that is in complete contrast to Hunter's agenda, then go vote for Rudy if he wins the nomination.
You see that's where we differ, I will vote for either of them if they win the nomination. I'm not going to scream about sitting it out or voting a third party, etc. That's the kind of whining I'm talking about.
It is relevant. It's not like he had non-hodgekins lymphoma with a prognosis of death in a few months.
He had prostate cancer which may have kept him from making some appearances but it was by no means life threatening.
NY republicans got hung out to dry waiting for Rudy to decide what he was going to do, and got stuck with Rick Lazio. Not that I disliked Lazio, but he was handicapped by getting in the race late in deference to Rudy. Hence, at the general election, we get Hillary. Thanks for nothing Rudy.
Conservative believe deeply in their convictions. Right?
My convictions tell me that Duncan Hunter is:
Right on Immigration.
Right on China (and foreign trade in general.)
Right on Taxation.
Right on on Criminal Prosecution.
Right on the Constitution (especially the 2nd Amendment.)
Right on Abortion. (Even though I disagree a bit on how to
get to that point)
Right on war prosecution.
Right on prisons.
Right on marriage.
Right on Checking Murtha types hard and fast (and the Democratic party as a whole) as he did with a few sentence reolution in the House to combat the America hating rhetoric!!!
Right in the notion that a straight question deserves a straight answer and a bogus question deserves to be exposed for what it is.
Right in voting one's convictions.
I fully intend to vote for Duncan Hunter in the primaries.
Come presidential election time, I will be voting for Duncan Hunter as well. If I have to write in his name, so be it. Why? Simple, I vote my convictions.
I have a favorable view of Rudy but I am not going to vote for him just because I think he can draw enough independants to beat Hillary. I think Duncan Hunter can do that anyway.
I am not a bandwagon fan who is going to vote for who I think others will vote for. Doing that only cheapens my own vote. Sheeple mentality like that belongs in the liberal left of the Democratic party.
The media is not affording Duncan Hunter major play because what you see is what you get, there is no DRAMA. His popularity will grow as time passes, of that I have no doubt. I think many might just have to eat these early election cycle words they type now. You never know, maybe I will be one of those people.
But in the end, I will know that I cast my vote according to my convictions and my beliefs. I will know that I didn't lower my standards just to be on the 'winning' team. I will know that did the right thing. I will know I made my vote count the way I wanted it to. I will know that I did what the Framers wanted me to do.
2006 saw the Republican Party taught a lesson. They should learn from it moving forward. Look at the Democrats today fighting amongst themselves looking like FOOLS! A reality check for the Republican party happening when the Democrats look as foolish and ineffective as they do right now needs to be capitalized on. Not matched!
Conservatives are the base of this Country, not just the Republican Party and when it comes right down to it, most Americans have a majority of conservative core values. (So long as they are not fringe one issue voters.)
Folks, Im Just sayin that if you want to spend your vote playing a lottery because you think it's a winning ticket, go for it. It is your right to do so. Just remember when you scratch of your ticket and things don't work out the way you wanted them too, you will have to look inside yourself and answer this question.
Did I vote for someone to best represent my convictions and beliefs or did I vote for someone to insure controlling political party power sacrificing some of my core values and beliefs in that attempt?
I know how I want to be able to answer that question. Do you?
"He had prostate cancer which may have kept him from making some appearances but it was by no means life threatening." Tell that to Katie Couric.
Nominating someone who stands for the opposite of many of the values of Social Conservatives does not make any sense. It is just asking to lose to Hillary or whoever wins the Rats nomination.
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.