Posted on 04/05/2007 7:32:20 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
Exactly. Since you have made an announcement that, should the primaries not go “your” way, you will cut and run on Election Day, the rest of the team will indeed count you out.
In fact, many are wondering if it might be the better course to cut you out NOW. IOW, since you have declared you will not support the Republican nominee, should he not be to your liking, some may conclude that it’s better to make a considered judgment NOW as to who the eventual nominee will be and make him as strong as possible, since they can “count you out as a team-mate” anyway.
The point of this thread is to ask someone to demonstrate how a Republican administration, headed in your example by Rudy Giuliani, would be “indistinguishable” from a Rat administration.
I agree there may be issues that are key to you on which the two administrations might be “indistinguishable.”
But you cannot ignore the rest of the picture. You gave me a few names of people you think are representative of the types who would be appointed in a Rudy administration. Now give me a few names of people re a Rat administration.
I want to compare.
You’re missing the point. How well do you think you would like the appointees of the HIldabeast or Obama?
Please. Take the quiz.
All you need to do is make a list of people you think would be representative of Rat appointees and of Republican appointees.
Then we’ll have a context in which to discuss your points, which I look forward to.
Thanks.
I was wondering when you were going to trot that out.
Anyway.
When are you going to take the quiz? You keep throwing around words such as “indistinguishable” and “no difference” and so on, but when are you going to name some names?
Show me.
If the GOP wants my vote, they will need to offer a candidate that I can vote for. Rudy doesn’t fit that category by a long shot.
If Rudy is the party’s nominee, then it won’t matter which party I vote for, since a gun grabbing, baby killing, gay-loving flaming liberal will become President either way. If that is the case, then I might as well use my vote to send a message to the GOP.
I agree with that, under all circumstances.
And, because I agree with that, I also think it’s appropriate to rigorously challenge candidates and then *let the chips lie. * IOW, the candidate in the primaries has to stand or fall on his own.
That said, however, there is one complicating factor here. If we start the process with a bunch of Republican primary voters declaring they would “never” vote for “x” in the general election, we are dealing with a bunch of people who are telling us upfront the primary process is not legitimate in their view.
IOW, they are declaring they will not accept the result of the primary process if it doesn’t go their way.
IOW, they are truly only spoilers. They are not proceeding in the vein you set out, that is, using the primaries to rigously challenge the candidates because that can make them stronger in the general election.
They are simply trying to destroy candidates they don’t agree with, regardless that the majority of Republican voters, in this *voluntary association* known as the GOP, decide to choose that candidate.
They even go so far as to state that they would be okay with the Rats winning the general election (or, as one poster put it, “even the spawn of Satan”), so long as they destroy certain Republican candidates.
That is best for the nation precisely how?
Since they apparently conclude they would rather the “spawn of Satan” take over our country so long as they can destroy any Republican nominee who doesn’t meet their particulars, I challenge them to TAKE THE QUIZ. Demonstrate for the rest of us how a Rat administration and a Republican administration would be “indistinguishable” in its impact on our nation.
Alright. Are you willing to subject your generalizations to scrutiny?
Come November, which party would be more aligned with your “fight for freedom” rather than “surrender to the enemy”?
Name five names that you think would represent the appointees in the respective administrations, and then give us the benefit of your insight into how each administration would impact the country.
Do you need JR’s permission to take the quiz?
If Guiliana supports public funding of abortion and says the 2nd Amendment applies just to militas and says it’s OK to cheat on your wife and says anal sex should have the blessing of the state, I don’t think I can vote for him.
Your quiz is not necessary. His majesty Rudeo the Magnificent has already stated that if we don’t like him, don’t vote for him.
I would say that that is a pretty clear statement that he doesn’t need our vote.
So what are we arguing about?
I would say that that is a pretty clear statement that he doesn’t need our vote.
So what are we arguing about?
**************
LOL! Well done, indylindy.
All this time the Rooty toots have been telling us to vote for Rudy because he speaks out and he will tell the terrorists “how it is”.
Looks like he is treating the voters he needs, in the same fashion as the terrorists. Easssy....tough guy, you picked on the wrong people, save your tough talk for the bad guys. LOL
Arrogance is going to take him out. He is his own worst enemy.
For some reason, no one has offered any names yet that represent the potential Rat administration that could come to power in 2008.
Well, while you all are thinking on it, here are a few of my answers to the quiz.
Let’s see, for the “ANY Rat candidate,” I am going to go with Hillary/Obama for this iteration. For the “ANY Republican candidate,” I’ll go with Rudy at this point, b/c I know y’all want me to.
Okay, here are some people I think are representative of the type of people the D administration would include and the R administration would include. PLEASE NOTE: these people are representative, not the exact persons I think would be appointed.
SECDEF:
D - John Murtha R - John McCain
Attorney General of the U.S.:
D - Jamie Gorelick R - Ted Olsen
EPA:
D - Al Gore R - Christine Whitman
SEC of STATE:
D - John Kerry R - James Baker
National Security Advisor:
D - Sandy Berger R - Henry Kissinger
DOI:
D - Tom Daschle R - Gale Norton
Homeland Security:
D - Chuck Schumer R - Jeb Bush
CIA:
D - Madeleine Albright R - John McCain
Surgeon General:
D - Jocelyn Elders R - C. Evert Coop
Education:
D - Ted Kennedy R - Tommy Thompson
INS:
D - Bill Richardson R - John McCain
Compare away. (PLEASE NOTE again: these are individuals who I think are representative of the type of people who would be appointed in the respective administrations.)
Did “sending a message to the GOP” work in 1992 and 1996, when conservatives who refused to vote for George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole directly contributed to the election of The Sinkmeister?
The point of this thread is that well-meaning people such as yourself keep generalizing that “if Rudy is the party’s nominee, then it won’t matter which party I vote for.”
Prove it!
Prove that “it won’t matter which party [you] vote for.” Name some names. Take the quiz. Don’t just keep stating what you think is obvious without examining it in such a way that we can see what supports your conclusion.
I completely understand and respect that.
But the point of this thread is that, come November, you are not voting ONLY for the Republican or Rat nominee.
You are voting for (or against)that candidate’s political party coming to power. Real, extensive power.
There’s a reason this thread is titled “Hold your nose or cut it off?”
Come up with five or six names you think are representative of the two parties’ appointments in the next administration. Then ask yourself, considering that slate, which candidate you could or could not vote for.
Nice try at changing the subject.
The anti-Rudy folks have repeatedly said that a Rudy administration would be “indistinguishable” and “no different” from a Rat administration.
THAT is what we are arguing about.
I say: prove it. Can you?
Yoo hoo, ye of “treasonous liberals” fame!
See post #73. When are you going to name some names so we can compare the respective administrations and evaluate your conclusion?
Because even a 12-year-old voting on American Idol knows that if they really want to knock out a singer they can't stand, they have to VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY.
If you truly believe there would be “no difference” between a Rat and Republican administrations, depending on the candidate, name some names and demonstrate that.
You can pick anyone you think is representative of the type of people who would serve in each administration. I never said the appointments would be either more or less conservative or liberal than the president.
This is the thing: there is a HUGE pool of more or less professional political appointees associated with each political party.
These people move in and out of government depending on which party comes to power.
On the off years, when the other party is in power, they go back to being lawyers, academics, etc.
Once they have been a political appointee, their chances of being a “retread” in ANY subsequent administration fielded by their party goes up exponentially. And the more often they recycle from previous administrations, the more likely it is they will get tapped to do something in the new administration.
Throughout their careers, they are sometimes more liberal or more conservative than the particular president under which their party came to power.
In short, this pool of professional political appointees tends to reflect more of the spectrum of their political party than any particular president.
It is fundamentally impossible for the administrations representing the two major political parties to not be “different” on some level.
If someone would make a thoughtful attempt at naming some names, it would be useful in illuminating the arguments on both sides.
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.