Posted on 04/03/2007 4:02:00 AM PDT by Liz
Tsk, tsk, tsk——poor baby. Don’t like being outed, I see.
You do know you mindless types have a higher rate of heart attacks, don’t you?
Better get your blood pressure checked, pronto.
Read my posts. They are clearly presented and full of information. Then read yours. They are ad hominem and rather dumb.
The NRA and GOA don’t matter. Republicans already know Rudy’s limitations—but these don’t counter the tremendous clout he brings to the table in terms of his appeal in so many important and key states—places like OH, PA, FL, NJ and CA. That’s not something you dismiss easily. I agree it’s a tough decision for a lot of social conservatives—but we need a big winner this time around. If we lose in ‘08—it will give the Democrats a clear field to impose their vision on the rest of us. Only Rudy can prevent such a disastrous scenario in my opinion.
I believe ole Nancy’s trip and Harry Reid shooting his mouth off about the aid package to our troops are going to have repercussions. While the dems did win seats, they won by the hair of their chinny chin chins. The dems will sink themselves with their idiotic policies and are right now being shown for the fools that they are. As someone else here on FR noted, 16 million people voted 3rd party, that’s alot. If 16 million voted that way because they could not go with the wimpy republicans, what makes you think Rudy is going to bring them back? If anything, if Rudy is the nominee, that 16 million will grow.
Actually the Dems are better organized than ever and have more money than ever. They won the last mid-term election and only very narrowly lost the previous elections. So they remain a formidable force which you can’t dismiss by pointing to a few missteps by Pelosi or Reid. The only way to get rid of these people is by nominating someone who can turn blue and purple states red. Only Rudy can do this. The rest is wishful thinking.
Democrats disgust me but, they don’t scare me.
Then I'm not sure why some claim that he would usher Republicans into Congress. He either has influence or he doesn't. If he does, then he will certainly use that influence to try to get more into Congress like himself. If he doesn't, then you might want to tell your fellow Rudy supporters to stop using that claim as a reason he should be supported.
He only influences the vote by reducing the number of ticket-splitters.
He also influences the vote by turning off some Republicans, i.e. social conservatives, those whose hot button issue is gun rights. They may choose to vote third party or not at all. You might not like that or understand it, but you know it's true.
Rather he would usher in the very people who support the views you hold.
Explain your logic to me. If, as Rudy supporters say, he will get elected because he appeals to 'moderate Democrats' and independents, how is that going to get more conservative Republicans elected? Doesn't make sense, so you'll have to explain your reasoning.
This is why I say you are not thinking clearly on this issue.
I believe it is the Rudy supporters who have not been thinking clearly. Guess it is all in the perspective.
You need to take a longer view and realize the consequences of not supporting someone like Rudy
For my hot button issue, there is no difference between supporting Rudy and supporting Hillary. I would suggest that Rudy supporters who try to marginalize those who do not support a liberal 'Republican' candidate should take a longer view themselves.
No, I don't. Go to this thread and read the article yourself. (Sorry about the link. You'll have to copy/paste it into your address line.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812448/posts
He has said morally he is opposed to it.
So what. John Kerry said the same thing. It's all just talk. If they truly felt it was wrong, i.e. murder of an innocent, they wouldn't just shrug and accept it. They'd be trying to stop it. (And he certainly wouldn't be calling for government funding for abortion if he truly felt it was immoral. But Rudy has done just that.)
That’s significant in my opinion
Not mine, since Rudy has said he believes it is a constitutional right.
Indeed. I don't see how electing a liberal, pro-choice candidate will do a thing to achieve the goals I have.
My view is that only by defeating the Democrats and securing the Congress for the GOP can we protect our values.
I really don't see all that much difference between Rudy and Hillary. I do understand your position. In fact, it is the position I have taken when some conservatives have criticized George Bush. But Rudy is just too far to the left. I can't support him.
You just want to vote for the man who reflects your point of view—even if he would lose us seats in the Congress.
Absolutely. Just having an 'R' after their name is useless if it doesn't pull the country back to the right. Electing a liberal 'R' only pulls us farther left.
That’s politically suicidal and would do greater harm to conservative values in the long run.
I don't agree, for the reason I've just stated.
I don't see it happening with Rudy.
Which party in power is opposed to abortion?
Rudy supports abortion. And there are many, even here on FR, who want the pro-life plank removed from the Republican platform. Electing Rudy would only facilitate that, not prevent it.
Rudy is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Not lesser enough to make a difference in my view.
It’s amazing how many ways the Rudybots can day “duh.”
The thought of having Rudeo sending even one American soldier into battle for these airheads is disgusting.
Its okay, my son has already almost served his time in the US military. He is due to be out in 2008.
It is hard to think of sacrificing ones self for the golf club crowd.
Obviously the tough elite Republicans, tough national security guys, don't know the people that serve them.
The Republicans can at the very least, protect Americans , and American values, or they can go buy a pretty burka for their little wife. Its kind of funny, you know, when the enemy knows you better than you do.
Could this be what they really want?
“Democrats disgust me but, they don’t scare me.”
They should. They’re dangerous.
“I am looking for a leader, not a social liberal groveller to every wrong politically-correct idea that came from the liberals. Wrong on abortion means not a good leader. Wrong on immigration means not a good leader. Wrong on Federal marriage Amendment means not a good leader. Social issues on the back burner? What, we cant find a PResident who can walk and chew gum at the same time?”
“What leader, then, are you looking for since not a single viable candidate would affect any change whatsoever in any of these areas. Not Thompson, not McCain, not Romney. Sure they will talk about these issues—but all they could do as president would be to propose legislation to Congress or nominate judges for Congress to vote in. Nothing else.”
This is demonstrably untrue. I mentioned abortion, immigration, marriage.
Consider the life issue alone: President Bush has worked to ensure that we dont fund abortion as we support UN population programs; he signed a partial birth abortion ban (which Guliani opposes); and he nominated Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito who could help decide if we keep the Roe decision.
President has not influence on Immigration?!?
“but all they could do as president would be to propose legislation to Congress or nominate judges for Congress to vote in. Nothing else.” - You talk as if the nominations power and bully pulpit are small things. Only if the President makes it so.
“Unless the Congress returns to the GOP, you can kiss your issues goodbye. “
Then we should simply end the Rudy coronation train right now. Rudy will have no coattails, just as Arnold had no coattails in California, because he is at odds with his own party on the issues. We are more likely to get a GOP Congress under other nominees or even under
AND IF WE HAVE A GOP CONGRESS OR A SPLIT CONGRESS, AND A RINO PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT BACKING UP CONSERVATIVES ON ISSUES ... WHAT THEN? WE WATCH RUDY DO WHAT WE ARE AFRAID HILLARY WOLD DO ANYWAY?!?
Yet you call Rudy a ‘fiscal conservative’ although the evidence for that is meagre-to-nonexistent. Will Rudy cut the spending like Romney promises to? Will he actually fix the effort in Iraq?
“This means thinking outside the box—which most of you on this thread are not doing. It means thinking the unthinkable—selecting a candidate who would appeal across a wider spectrum ... “
Live by the polls die by the polls - Rudy is no longer beating Hillary in the poll matchups... We heard the same thing in 1988, 1996 and 2000. We got what we got. I refuse to believe that if we find another nominee, Romney, Thompson, whomever, that they cant have the appeal sufficient to win. It is nonsense to think that Rudy is the only electable candidate.
“Yet you call Rudy a ‘fiscal conservative’ although the evidence for that is meagre-to-nonexistent. Will Rudy cut the spending like Romney promises to?”
Are you kidding? You apparently know little about Rudy’s record as mayor of a city with a larger population than most states. Romney doesn’t come close.
Rudy shrank government and saved hundreds of millions of dollars by reorganizing the police force and transit authority and trash collection agencies. He cut taxes and levies over and over, saving billions for taxpayers. He cut NYC’s top income-tax rate by 20.6%. Local city taxes on a family of four dropped 23.7%. He cut the commercial-rent tax. He cut sales taxes, including taxes on clothing. He cut the marriage penalty taz. He cut taxes on commercial rents and on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers. He privatized municipal assets, selling city-owned radio and television stations and divested the City from the New York Coliseum adding $345 million to erase the City’s red ink. He cut NYC’s hotel tax from 6% to 5%. Tourism increased 50% in the city per year during Rudy’s tenure. Personal income increased 50%. Unemployment in the city went form 10.3% to 5.1%. He ended the set-aside program for minority contractors, refused to meet with Al Sharpton, and otherwise refused to be cowed by racial politics. He also went after the welfare cheats, removing illegal recipients, cutting the outlay for welfare by 20%. Over 600,000 recipients were dropped from the roles. At the same time he began a work requirement program for remaining recipients.
You are way out on a limb when you call his record as a fiscal conservative “meagre.” And he did all this by working with a Democratic council. So the next time you say something as silly as this, check your facts.
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.