I'd rather lose to a liberal Democrat than lose to a liberal Republican. I will NOT vote for Rudy, in any election. At least with a liberal Democrat in office, their destruction of our national values wouldn't amount to a personal apostasy for my complicity in that election.
Indeed, when Democrats go about their efforts to bring our nation down, at least they bear the complete blame. I will not have the same results attributed to me and my vote.
I've already seen ENOUGH Supreme Cabal members bear Republican genesis and liberal rewriting of the Constitution. I will NOT see that again. I will not vote for it. I will not convince myself that Rudy will hold true to MY colors instead of his.
At least, Hillary will be more honest about her intent, even as she lies through her teeth about it. THAT's saying something.
If Rudy gets the nod, my vote goes to Tancredo or whatever third party candidate runs, or if none do, then the Libertarian candidate. Rudy supporters NEED to realize that Rudy WILL cost Republicans the election. When a sizeable percentage of your OWN party will not vote for YOUR man, then you have put forth a loser.
I'd rather see the other side win than see my side 'win' in title only. It's not about 'which side wins'. It's about which agenda leads. With a contest of Rudy vs. Hillary (or fill in your loser here), America's best agenda loses, no matter the outcome. I could NEVER support that.
You can cry all you won't that Rudy is better at least than Hillary. I don't see it. In fact, he's worse because he would tag the responsibility of the fallout of liberal socialism with MY label. NO way, no how. Not on my watch.
posted on 03/18/2007 6:37:29 AM PDT
(winning the lotto one vote at a time.)
Hey, Timothy, wouldn't voting for a libertarian candidate be just like voting for Rudy? Seriously, just swap two issues -- support for the WOT [rudy for libertarian against] and gun control [rudy for libertarian against] -- and you have, essentially, voted for the exact same platform.
I am not convinced that Rudy is going to be tough on guns at the federal level as an executive...I believe that he tried to clean up NYC because the people of that city clamored for it and he took a misguided approach but one that, surprisingly, netted positive results. It should have but perhaps there were other factors that reduced violent crimes and perhaps without gun control the results would have been even better.
posted on 03/18/2007 7:00:50 AM PDT
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson