[Mia T]

ping

[ElkGroveDan]

ping

[dirtboy]

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

So why are you pushing Rudy? He's guaranteed to split the GOP.

[dirtboy]

someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution.

And that person is Rudy?

Rudy took guns away from law-abiding gun-owners while declaring Roe to be a Constitutional right.

How on EARTH is this guy the one to defend the Constitution when his actions indicate an abject misunderstanding of what the Constitution means?

[Spiff]

Rudy Giuliani Supports Partial Birth Abortion
Republicans Do Not!!!

Click HERE for Video of Giuliani in his own words.

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000

---

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999

---

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

---

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

---

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

[dirtboy]

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

You really crossed a line here, Mia.

If the GOP nominates pro-abort Rudy, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BETWEEN THE GOP AND THE DEMS.

So your attempts to try and blame pro-lifers if it comes down to Rudy and Hillary and Hillary wins is absurd. And insulting. And an indication of just how far you've slid leftwards in your efforts to support Rudy.

[ElkGroveDan]

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

No it's the definition of "can win" that is the point of contention. For the Rudy Tooters the definition of can win is only Rudy and no one else. They then go forth with that premise to start some very ugly and divisive debates.

Rudy in fact CAN'T win because there are prolife people across the country who are not political. They are religious, morally conservative but don't consider themselves to have any allegiance to any party. If there is no prolife candidate on the ballot, they simply throw their hands up and wait for the next election. I wouldn't suggest that, but that's the way it is.

If there is no prolife candidate for President, they skip the election, and in this day and age of razor thin political divisions, that will kill any Republicans chances. End of story. Rudy can't win.

[dirtboy]

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

The more I read this, the more arrogant it gets. And ignorant, for that matter.

Tell me, Mia - did Papa Bush lose in 1992 by running too far rightward? Did the GOP in 2006 lose by running too far rightward?

Sorry, but the opposite is the case. Rudy would split the GOP.

[dirtboy]

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

In the latest FR poll, 71.4 percent of Freepers support Fred, while 6.2 percent support Rudy. So tell me, Mia - do you think nearly 3/4s of the forum members who voted are stupid? That they just don't grasp what is obvious to you?

Or does that major gap - that 6.2 percent support for Rudy - indicate he is no conservative?

[kevkrom]

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.... So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

Where we part company on this is the Guiliani camp's insistence on pushing the false dichotomy of "we must nominate Guiliani to defeat Clinton". It's false for two reasons:

1. It presumes to know, 18+ months before the election, what the results will be, before any serious campaigning even begins; and
2. It presumes that Clinton will even be the Democrat nominee. History says that especially for Democrats, the early "front runner" is virtually certain to NOT be the nominee. Also, her negatives outweigh her positives, and the support for the stuffed-shirt Obama shows the left bases' frustration with Clinton.

The fact is, I'm sick and tired of hearing that we must abandon conservatism just to "win". What kind of "win" is it when we sacrifice all we hold dear to get it? You can throw whatever "clarifying statements" you want around, the fact is that Guiliani is a 100% NARAL-supported politician.

He's also no friend to the pro-2A crowd; prior to his 9/11 fame, his record on "security" was to disarm the law-abiding. His supposed "fiscal conservative" record is mixed at best. He's supported illegal immigrants and their enablers. He's in favor of a big, intrusive, and authoritarian government. His personal morals and ethics are decidedly below par for the GOP.

Rudy is the wrong man, at the wrong time, running for the wrong office. If he wins the GOP nomination, conservatism in this country is DEAD -- it will prove that all one has to do is throw platitudes toward the right, provide them with a bogeyman, and then they'll blindly follow along.

I'll have no part of it.

[showme_the_Glory]

pingaling

[MACVSOG68]

Mia, thanks for the well thought out and intelligent post. I notice from the 30 plus posts here so far, that you are getting little more than the usual inanities I see regularly aimed at anyone who believes that Hillary is infinitely worse than any Republican candidate.

But you are 100 percent correct. Those who would destroy every Republican candidate who has any chance of victory against Hillary don't begin to understand what conservatism means. Conservatism never meant committing political suicide simply because your candidate doesn't get the nomination. Most here have no idea how important the next election is. They seem to forget that in all likelihood 2 vacancies will occur on the USSC.

They seem to forget what is at stake in the war on terror, the major challenges from China and Russia, the growing Marxist movement south of our border. Somehow they cannot fathom having a nominee who will bring together the center and moderate Republicans as well as the conservative Democrats and independents. Somehow they do not understand that Americans shun the extremes of both parties, and sincerely want a leader who will work with both parties to bring about the legislative initiatives promised by the 109th Congress, but that achieved little more than corruption and sleaze.

The party that fails to appeal to the independents and moderates of both sides will lose the next election.

As you so eloquently said, the social values of the right wing are to be prized and respected. But many of those issues are not even on the radar with most Americans with so much more facing this Country.

Thanks for the great post.

[KATIE-O]

"....But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum....."

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Mia, for your intelligent and analytical approach to the political conundrum we find ourselves involved in at this time. The choice of electing a very strong, fiscally conservative leader who can win the majority of the big electoral college states but who we disagree with in some areas, versus voting for someone who passes all the litmus tests but can't possibly win the election.

What should be a no brainer at this time in our history has become a food fight within some Republican circles. The argument that "I'm more conservative than you are" is so silly when we have an enemy as brutal and unrelenting as the Islamofascists who want to take over the West. I will vote for my party's nominee, no matter who it is, because any Republican in the White House is better than any Liberal Democrat!

[areafiftyone]

(((((PING)))))

[Gop1040]

That you for the great post. You hit the nail on head squarely. The same old “usual suspects” who tried to debunk your argument went down on flames. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi....”winning (against the Clintons) isn’t everything, it’s the only thing....”
Thank you again.

[Ciexyz]

I’m satisfied that Rudy will appoint pro-Constitution judges like Roberts and Scalia.

[trisham]

This is a joke question, right?

[Eric Blair 2084]

You obviously took a long time to post this, and it needs to be aired. Thank you.

[gonzo]

It's simple for me, Mia. I'm Conservative by nature and a Republican by choice.

Politics is a team sport! You fight-like-hell in the Republican primaries for the candidate of your choice!

When the Republican Candidate is chosen by voting, any person of minimal intelligence throws all their support behind the Candidate and votes for that Candidate!

To do anything else could result in electing a dimocRAT! 'If you vote for another Perot, you'll get another clinton!'

BTW, always encourage Ralph Nader to run again. Don't give him any money, but cheer him on ............. FRegards

[PGalt]

GRRRRREAT graphic and text and the top of this thread BUMP!