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.
"Gun control" is not a social issue. It's a constitutional one.
It's how we're going to defend ourselves if the Islamic terrorists decide to start getting busy here in America.
"Illegal immigration" is part social issue, part national security issue, part constitutional issue ("The President shall protect the US from invasion" to paraphrase that part of the Constitution.) I don't trust Rudy on this point.
Those two issues disqualify him in my eyes. Abortion is just icing on a very bitter cake.
Only problem is, Dole actually had some conservative credentials in his resume. That's how far the GOP brass has drifted in 10 years, to now tout a flaming liberal as the best choice.
Can't scrub that abortion blood off your hands yet, can you?
Unlike someone of your elitist nature, most of us hicks can no longer tell the difference between the Democrats who support increased government and the Republicans who support increased government. Nor are we sophiticated enough to tell the difference between the Democrats who would open our borders to a invasion of Mexican criminals and the Republican President who would do the same. In the same vein, many of us can not tell the difference between a Democrat candidate who supports abortion on demand, and a Republican candidate who supports abortion on demand.
Perhaps someday we will all be as enlightened as you beleive you are..............But I doubt it.
Just as a side note, why is WND considered not credible? I'm curious.
This is not an attack on Bush, it's an attack on a flagrantly liberal candidate that the base does not want. And that will manifest itself over the coming months.
I don't think I'd call that an attribute, though. Every time a Senator looks in the mirror he sees a president....
Were they supporting Rudy in an election, knowing full well Giliani supports abortion, or were they simply cheering an excellent speech by a mayor of a city that had been recently attacked? If I am not mistaken, they were cheering for the speech, not the candidate, because the candidate was GWB. Heck, I cheered the speech, but I certainly cannot support a scumbag like Rudy and the many views that are contradictory to a conservative stance.
Yes, if you support Rudy, you have the sam abortion blood on your hands as he does. It doesn't mater if it's morning or night.
Oh yeah, I'm supposed to add this, aren't I? :)
""Gun control" is not a social issue. It's a constitutional one.
It's how we're going to defend ourselves if the Islamic terrorists decide to start getting busy here in America.
"Illegal immigration" is part social issue, part national security issue, part constitutional issue ("The President shall protect the US from invasion" to paraphrase that part of the Constitution.) I don't trust Rudy on this point.
Those two issues disqualify him in my eyes. Abortion is just icing on a very bitter cake."
Your point on the second amendment is well-taken. I am willing to trust Rudy on this point - he has often pointed towards strict constructionalists when it coes to judicial appointees. I'll take the chance.
On immigration, I trust him less.
However, in both cases, Rudy's mind may have been shaped or changed after 9/11. In any event, IF he becomes the nominee (no lock), I feel I have to deal with those question marks, as opposed to the Hillary/Obama certainty.
Giulliani cannot be "quite like Hitler". Hitler, as you used it, seemed to be an analogy, not a comparison. I took it as an analogy, not a comparison. Hitler personally ordered the forced execution of millions.
At best, Giuliani aquieses to others forcing the execution of millions.
In some ways we all aquiesce to some degree, as we don't do everything in our power to stop abortion, just as we don't do everything in our power to stop genocide in africa.
I am happy to suggest that the analogy between the holocaust and abortion is an apt analogy. I am uncomfortable with, and cannot support, taking the analogy a step further and claiming any moral equivalence between Hitler and Giuliani.
People who look to the MSM for acceptable Republican candidates don't appreciate websites like WND.
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."
I think there are more people that think like this and will think like this by the time the election rolls around than can be drawn in from normally Democratic voters.
Rudy Giuliani a social liberal, fiscal conservative, and very strong on defense and national security, and he is a great leader to fight the war on terror, the most paramount issue of our time. All democrat candidates are extreme social liberals, extreme fiscal liberals, and they want to surrender to the terrorists and cause the United States the biggest catastrophe in its history. Here are the many and very important differences between Rudy Giuliani and the all the other democrat candidates. Now I am not an elitist what so ever. The elitists are people like this author who thinks that Republican voters are too stupid and they will follow whatever the Republican leadership tells them to vote for. No matter how you spin it, Rudy Giuliani overall is far, far, far better to be President than any other democrat nominee.
See my post 72. I think Hitler and the holocaust is an appropriate analogy, as is the idea of Hitler being a strong leader blinding the majority of Germans to his evil social agenda.
Kind of like the "Mussolini made the trains run on time" argument.
But I did not intend, and do not support, equating Giuliani TO Hitler.
And THAT is the difference between Duncan Hunter and Rudy McRomney.
Hunter is an American -- the other three are media creations.
He's pretty well-read, if not well-respected on this forum.
We cheer what people say. That's not the same as cheering FOR that person.
I've clapped listening to Joe Lieberman talk about support for the war. I'm not clapping for HIM, but for the ideas he is expressing.
at CPAC, the attendees were clapping for the things Rudy said that they agreed with. He smartly didn't talk about anything they disagreed with, or they would have booed those parts of the speech.
They weren't clapping for the MAN, nor would they have been booing the MAN, but rather the ideas expressed.
Democrats stand up at the SOTU address and clap when President Bush says things they agree with, and they certainly don't support him.
Thompson has but to throw his hat in the ring to get my consideration.
I could even hold my nose and vote for McCain.
However if we are going to have a democrat in the whitehouse it should be one with a (D) after their name, not an (R). I will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances.
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.