[upchuck]

I am a conservative, proud and loud.

I will be voting for a conservative come Nov, 2008.

Hopefully, that conservative will be from the Republican party and will win the White House.

If the Republicans don’t put up a conservative I can, with clear conscience, vote for, I will still vote for a conservative.

If that means I don't vote for a Republican Party candidate, then so be it. Principles over party, always.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

In regards to Guliani I'm reminded of one time Ann Coulter was on Hannity & Colmes and Colmes was running down the list of liberal POV's of Guliani. Coulter responded by essentially saying that "sure but Guliani was the mayor of the soviet union". Perhaps implying Guliani gets some type of pass since he had to be somewhat moderate or liberal to get elected mayor of NYC. (I know in more recent interviews Coulter has said she could not support Guliani since he's in favor of abortion).

I don't know if Guliani is an economic socialist. He might have vetoed some of the spending bills the Bush signed.

The challenge for Guliani is that he is so far left of many of the cultural issues (not just abortion and gay marriage). When things like the murders at Virginia Tech happen (just like Columbine) many more people are concerned with these culture issues. Voters in Republican primaries are especially concerned about these issues and that is Guliani's challenge duiring the primary season.

[ozzymandus]

I intend to vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who. I’m hoping it will be a conservative, but I’ll never vote RAT.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I have no intention of “embracing” socialism, but I do embrace reality, and will vote for whatever candidates (for all offices) show the least commitment to socialism. I have no idea if that will be Rudy Giuliani, but if I’m facing a ballot that’s offering me a choice between Rudy, Hillary or Obama, and a couple of fringe party candidates who don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, I won’t hesitate to vote for Rudy. Unfortunately, there are no viable candidates who have a real aversion to socialism, because there is only a small minority of US voters who have a real aversion to socialism. That state of affairs will not be fixed at the voting booths — it needs to be fixed through political education of our fellow citizens, one by one. Only after a great deal more of that is accomplished, will candidates who are committed to rolling back the tide of socialism become potential winners of elections.

I lived in NYC through Rudy’s entire time as Mayor, and believe me, the city was much better off with him as Mayor, than it would have been with any of the other candidates who had any chance of actually getting elected. I don’t like his views on the Second Amendment, illegal aliens, or massive social “welfare” programs, but I won’t express my dislike for those views by voting for somebody who holds even more socialist views on these and other topics, or by handing my vote to a more-socialist-than-Rudy candidate by voting for somebody who has no chance whatsoever of winning.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Let me just throw this question out there.

If you disagreed with a canidate on many issues but you were totlly convinced that that person was the best person to confront the Islamofacist. Would you support that person for President?

[calex59]

Well, Jim, since most of your polls show that the majority of us DON’T want Rudy the Rino for president I don’t think you have to worry about us embracing socialism. I sure as he** won’t.

[veronica]

Rudy is running for President. He is a Republican. He has supported Bush unequivocally in the WOT and regards to Iraq. He has been endorsed by some bedrock conservatives, like Ted Olson. Also - Rudy is consistently number one in the polls. He has a record as a fiscal conservative and crime fighter. I certainly respect the fact that you do not personally support Rudy for POTUS. So I guess the question is, do you allow FR, as a forum, to be a platform for those Republicans and Conservatives who do support Rudy, or do you banish them and all discussion of Rudy, excepting anti-Rudy posts? What do you do if he gets the nomination? Does FR become an anti-Rudy site? If it's Hillary vs. Rudy - what happens then at FR??

If FR continues to allow the full slate of candidates to be discussed, and that includes Rudy, then I don't see the point of this thread, and I say that with total respect of the fact that this is your site, and you get to run it as you see fit.

[aft_lizard]

I hope not. It will suck if our two main choices are Hillary and Giuliary.

[trussell]

Yet one of the people who have fought the hardest against Rudy is now banned from FR because the Rudybots started yelling that he was stalking. He was baited at every corner...when he asked them to stop posting to him, they said they would do as they damned well pleased...and they got him banned.

Please reinstate posting priviledges for Fierce Allegiance.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God’s existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children’s education curriculum”

Our founders could never envision the perverse behavior
of the ACLU, and teachers unions who wish to ram homosexuality down our children’s throats. Rudy has no problem with evil and perversity. We cannot allow him to prevail!!

[afnamvet]

Do you really expect me to do that?

No and I stand with you. Liberalism and all the evil that goes with it must be defeated. That fight starts here.

[Bishop_Malachi]

“Do you think I’m going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?

Do you really expect me to do that?”

No, sir. I don’t expect you to do so. And I hope that the conservative movement doesn’t become so unconfident in itself that it believes such expectations are reasonable. The Constitution established by our Founding Fathers - if it had any purpose - was to limit government (especially the federal government). No manner of sophistry on the part of modern liberals can change that.

[MrEdd]

A canned post that I used to put up still applies.

I am a conservative not a Republican. I will vote for Republicans IF they are conservative. If Bush's opponent had not been Hanoi John Kerry, I would not have voted in the last election.

Islam's war against the west will inevitably bring the US a nuclear strike. The persistent open borders are a hot potato that will utterly destroy the party in power when it happens. I prefer that the borders be closed - but barring that, let it be the liberals who are destroyed if we're not going to move to prevent it.

This is as obvious and foreseeable as the earlier attacks on September eleventh. Aside from the loss we all will have of family and friends WHEN not if this happens, I recognize that the party who emerges in power will be able to radically reshape government the United States. Many on the left foresee this as well, and are actively working to keep our defenses weak.

I therefore am willing to sacrifice important pieces to win the game. Winning the white house or congress are less important than closing the borders. A candidate who could win an office, at the cost of placing someone in office that the left could justifiably claim failed to aggressively defend America costs conservatism control of the board.

By the same token I will not move to save a socially liberal republican candidate merely to defeat the democrat. Sometimes control of the board is more important than saving every pawn.

If I get a liberal in office who votes liberal while claiming (unchallenged) to represent the party with a conservative platform, then my voice is even more unheard than if a liberal democrat is in office. It means that conservatives will vote for anyone who claims conservatism, even if they are to the left of Hillary Clinton. It also means that the Republican party did this eyes wide open, believing that I (and other conservatives) would vote for a yellow dog if it was a republican. Sorry RNC that only works with democrats.

Semper Fidelis

[do the dhue]

We don’t need a liberal to beat a liberal.

It’s not just FR, it is the Republican Party.

If the GOP will not stand up for the unborn baby, who will?

If the GOP won’t stand up for the RTKBA, who will?

If the GOP will not stand up for God in Public view, who will?

Democrats?

The GOP needs to give us a real choice. Socially, there is no difference between Rudy and Hillary.

I need a Conservative Patriot to beat a Commie liberal. The GOP needs to motivate the base.

The media is trying to make us believe we need a liberal to beat a liberal.

The media has not picked a front runner in a long time. Coward Dean was supposed to be the next Demoratic Nominee in 04.

When that didn’t work, Kohn Kerry was going to be President.

That didn’t work, so now I need a liberal to beat a liberal.

I say horse hockey!

I am with you, Jim.

Give me a Conservative or give me death.

[Lancey Howard]

I don’t believe Rudy is a socialist, but I do believe he’s a chameleon who will blow whichever way the winds of Congress blow, and if that Congress happens to be a Democrat Congress intent on making the United States as great a socialist welfare state as France, then Rudy might just go along to get along.

He cannot be allowed to succeed, because his success would only embolden Republican liberals (”moderates”) and make other wishy-washy GOP jellyfish believe that going “moderate” is the way to win elections.

Run, Fred, run.
I beg of you.

[Luke21]

Jim, your leadership is much appreciated. Many of us have had it, just as you have, with metrosexual, lukewarm, milquetoast, bootlickers like Rudy.

[Nova]

"Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?"

"Do you really expect me to do that?"

Hmmm... I'm goin' way out on a limb here and guessin' that you're not real likely to do that.

[tsowellfan]

I agree. And that’s not the only problem.

Most remember in 2000 when Jeffords jumped from the GOP and made Daschle the majority leader by one and Trent Lott the minority leader.

Then in 2002 when the dems lost big and Trent Lott became the majority Leader, Dashle was sitting in that chair in the lonely room the night they lost.

Then Lott was casted out and Frist became the majority leader. In Congress it was Delay and Pelosi.

They knew the names, they knew who Pelosi, Frist, Reid, Daschle, Hastert and Lott were and who they represented.

The difference now is this: Most Americans dont even know the name, the voice or face of the republican minority leader in the senate nor the republican in the house today.
Worse, A surprising number of politcal junkies now cannot name the two republicans in the house and senate.

UNopposed statements from Reid and Pelosi are considered to be “truth” by those who do not pay as much attention as we do. And “truth” is what they will go by when they go to vote in Nov. 2008.

Who in the republican party should be contacted about this problem? Who is responsible?

We need to cut this cancer now before it’s too late in 2008

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

"Well now, Jim, no, I really don't expect you to do that...Remember, All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

[mkjessup]

THANK YOU JIM!

You could not have spelled this out more concisely.

A President Giuliani will be no different than another President Clinton.

After all, Rudy himself said that Clinton's positions were very much like his own.

I think we should take him at his word on that.

If the GOP nominates Giuliani, it is the end of the GOP. They will join the Reform Party in political oblivion.