Posted on 03/16/2007 5:05:33 AM PDT by areafiftyone
I'm not willing to vote for one liberal to avoid another.
The election of Rudy would spell the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. At least with Hillary they won't be able to blame the liberal accomplishments on the Republicans. Also, the Republicans in Congress won't feel pressured to support the liberal policies of a Democrat president as they would the liberal policies of a Republican president like Rudy.
So let's all get behind a confessed social liberal to further the cause against secularism. Nice try.
You've got a bad argument here. To beat Santorum the Dems had to run a candidate who was nominally pro-life. If they would have run a typical pro-abortion Dem, they would have lost.
I believe Keyes thrust himself into an unsalvageable race when he tried to replace a scandalized candidate at the last minute. He also carried a "Carpetbagger" image because he had to move from Maryland to Illinois in order to run. Abortion was not a large factor in this one either.
In a democracy, politicians are a reflection of the desires of the people, not the other way around. The majority of Americans live in a cesspool and like it there.
If you wish to change the culture, you cannot do it by changing politics. If you want to change politics, you can do it by changing the culture. This is why the socialists continue to succeed whereas the conservatives continue to slide into a socialist quagmire, even when the conservatives control politics.
Passing laws is only marginally effective in changing behaviors. Therefore, we should have only a few laws and enforce them vigorously. Laws do not stop illegal drug trafficiing and illegal immigration, and they would not stop abortion either. Only changing the culture can do that.
For this reason, I think someone like JimRob or Limbaugh do much more to advance conservatism than any conservative politician you could name. But I stray from my main point that in a societal cesspool, people are not going to embrace social conservatism. Roto Rudy is the best we can do, I am afraid.
I'd not be surprised to find out that a lot of the old Democrat machine voters thought they were voting for his dad. Also if we'd have had some support from the RNC Senatorial folks (Libby Dole) for him instead of spending all of that money on Lincoln Chafee things may have turned out differently.
Neither Chafee nor Santorum got too much RNC/RSCC money, simply because they didn't have much of a chance. And you may continue to delude yourself by thinking that Santorum would have won against a pro-choice Democrat, but that simply isn't true. Anyone could have beaten Santorum, but it was easier for Casey (because of his name) than for anyone else.
Only till the get elected. Then they historically turn left and bow to the almighty media. My firm belief is if we get a roto Rudy we're already getting a liberal. Any further left and we've got Kerry, or Pelosi. Your cesspool mentality only degrades the possibility of good people to succeed. Lowering your expectations to the lowest common denominator is the kind of vision liberal supporters are used to.
Of course it doesn't hurt when wealthy gay activists like Tim Gill donate millions to target prominent conservative candidates.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782951/posts
'Gill alleges his favorite villain was Rick Santorum who compared homosexual sex to man on a dog; it took 20 million to defeat Senator Santorum.'
I will change my mind if a true conservative emerges who can beat the Dim nominee. At this point, I don't see it happening.
How much did Gill donate to the Casey campaign?
How much did Gill donate to the Casey campaign?
He donated to thousands of pro-gay candidates in both national & state races. He quietly targeted conservatives with his fortune.
The real question is, how much has he donated to JulieAnnie?
Also, given the choice between a professed conservative who rules as a liberal, versus a professed liberal who rules as a conservative, I'll take the latter. There is a lot in Rudy's record to suggest that as a leader he would be more conservative on most things than GWB has been.
I have several that work for me that are good but they would not make a POTUS.
He could not have become mayor of NYC as a pro-life conservative.
You mean he could not be Mayor of the cesspool if he was a conservative, pro-life or not.
But New York City was much better off as a result of his capable handling of things, in spite of his social liberalism.
Liberal New Yorkers think so anyway.
If he can do the same for America, I'd say that is a reasonable trade-off, especially since I believe no pro-life conservative can win the presidency.
I'm betting he can't do the same, and to suggest that someone who allows babies to be murdered is a trade-off for anything is absolutely cruel and insane.
Check out Post #228 on the thread I linked below, as well as the other in the chain of posts from Jim Freedom. It was similar to the exercise I went through here on this thread . . .
Answer the question. How much did Gill give to Bob Casey. You were claiming that he contributed to Santorum's defeat, now back it up.
Way too much emphasis on irrelevant issues like abortion and gay rights. In my opinion.
Lucky for you your parents didn't ascribe to your position.
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.