COURT-ING A DISASTER WITH BASE (Rooty fails abortion test---status in doubt)

NY POST ^ | May 4, 2007 | JOHN PODHORETZ

[Old_Mil]

I have not been a total Rudybot, but willing to consider him. I expected him to do well in debates. If not... What do you think of Romney?

Out of curiousity, why are you only willing to consider the candidates that the mainstream media says you should consider?

[Old_Mil]

I’d say that Romney, Hunter, and Huckabee were the big winners last night, so I’m not surprised to see his name mentioned.

[dirtboy]

Anybody dumb enough to have believed this weasely thug should have their noses rubbed in this quote good and hard. It's a priceless mistake.

Believe it or not, this is at least the second time Rudy has said this. After he said it the first time in an interview about a month ago, every time a Rudy booster said Rudy would appoint strict constructionist judges, I reminded them of this quote. Repeatedly.

And in almost all cases, what happened? Nothing. On the very next thread they would be once again saying Rudy would appoint strict constructionist judges.

Which means the ignorance of the hard core Rudy boosters is not accidental. But instead is deliberate. And you cannot cure that kind of ignorance. Just belittle it every chance you get.

[Carry_Okie]

Agreed.

Love the tag line. You know how much time I spent going toe-to-toe with FareOpinion and the ilk over that RINOcrat mole Arnold Shwarzenegger. Giuliani was running to enact precisely the same gambit for exactly the same globo-socialist thugs. Fghting it was a huge waste of enengy I can now spend articulating how conservatism works to solve real problems, a discourse that is sorely needed. It is where effective sound-bites are born.

[Liz]

I’d say that Romney, Hunter, and Huckabee were the big winners last night.......

I was pleasantly surprised at Romney's sense of humor and the presidential aura he exuded (as compared to all other candidates including Hillary);

Hunter was also impressive----very articulate with LOTS of gravitas.....who flashed a nice impish smile. Hunter gave off the most Reagan aura;

Now Huckabee shone in his defense of our country; Huckabee is clearly looking after the best interests of our Nation when he alluded to those stupid know-it-all skanks in suits who hoodwinked GWB on Iraq.

[Liz]

It would be OK to repeal it," Rudy said, then quickly added, "It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent" .........

Carry_Okie: Anybody dumb enough to have believed this weasely thug should have their noses rubbed in this quote good and hard. It's a priceless mistake.

N-i-c-e take.

[ClaireSolt]

You, fall right in line with media manipulation, I hope you know. They have been nickel and dimeing Romney over Mormon and abortion, because he is the strongest candidate. They want you to love a senator, because that’s all the Dems have. It levels the playing field.

[dirtboy]

Anybody dumb enough to have believed this weasely thug should have their noses rubbed in this quote good and hard.

You'd have to pry their noses away from Rudy's seat cushion first.

[sauropod]

I disagree, i think Rooty’s performance was actually pretty good, including the flip-flop.

Note: I am not a Rooty supporter, this is merely my critique of his performance last night.

[LS]

Whine about how I "fall" or whatever. I listened to Mitt at C-PAC and was impressed about everything except his "War on Terror" section of his speech, which I found disturbingly weak. All he could say was he was going to "increase" the size of the U.S. military. That's a reaction without a thought about means and ends.

Rudy has stumbled recently, but he still has the WoT talk right, and better than most.

Wonder what would happen if a candidate stood up and BACKED Pres. Bush and said, "Heck no we didn't make mistakes, except maybe to play a little too nice. Other than that, I support the President 100%."

[NittanyLion]

Fghting it was a huge waste of enengy I can now spend articulating how conservatism works to solve real problems, a discourse that is sorely needed. It is where effective sound-bites are born.

Boy, you can say that again. The level of discourse around here has jumped dramatically in the last week or two. Where people used to post little other than one line insults, I see far more folks taking time to construct reasoned analysis, others debating it using facts, etc. It reminds me of why I first joined the site 7 years ago.

[stockstrader]

Not to worry. Rudy and his apologists have promised that Rudy will appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges to the USSC.

As just another example, last night he said that he would support amending the Constitution to allow people like Arnold (non-native born) to run for the Presidency. Yep, 'strict constructionist' thinking there too. /s

I guess, then, that he most certainly WILL have to appoint ‘strict constructionists’ (as he has promised)—JUST TO PROTECT US FROM LIBERALS LIKE HIMSELF!!!

No thanks, Rudy. With all due respect to Arnold,,,,,

the Constitution is just FINE as it is.

[NittanyLion]

Romney, who impressed me more than Rudy at C-PAC, unfortunately does look too "slick"...

I'm wondering about that. Certainly he looks slick to me, but then again I'm about as cynical as they come when the topic is politicians. It's very difficult for me to view this through the eyes of your "normal" voter who only pays attention for two months every four years.

and already has so many flip-flops on his record that he is Kerry-esque.

That is undoubtedly a concern. One of the things that may be lost in the analysis of last night is whether any candidate made a major slip-up that will become campaign commercial material. I believe Romney was caught in at least one (regarding his support of abortion v. comments made in a 1994 debate), and it's possible there may be others that we don't catch at first glance.

And given his "evolving" views, there is great potential for more slips. His saving grace may be that he doesn't have the volume of public statements that US Senators do.

[ClaireSolt]

I am a lot more interested in a man’s qualifications and record of accomplishments than in his soundbites.

[dajeeps]

Abortion is a big issue. As a personal choice, however, it’s not at the top of my list when selecting a candidate to support for federal positions because an anti-abortion position at the federal level isn’t what is going to solve the problem.

I would much prefer someone who is about original constitutional intent and is more interested in enforcing the constitutional limit of the Federal Government’s power (including the federal courts). It was an inappropriate exercise of power that gave rise to this issue and other federal debacles, and is the root of the problem.

We’ve been voting for anti-abortion candidates for years and little has been accomplished in reversing the Roe v. Wade travesty, even though they had a majority in congress and the presidency for some years. Anything they have done has been tied up in court for years and subject to judicial opinion. Congress does have the power to do things with the courts, other than confirm nominations, that would produce a favorable outcome and it hasn’t been done. It’s not because their hands are tied; they could have done something about courts that run amuck and they just didn’t.

I think people should ask themselves what they are getting by setting a requirement to be anti-abortion before a vote for that candidate could even be considered. It’s one thing for a candidate to stand up and say they are pro-life and quite another to do something about it, and do the right things. If anyone thinks they would be solving anything by voting for someone with an anti-abortion position, they need only review judicial history to know they are mistaken.

I think Rudy would try to put the abortion question and other issues arising from inappropriate exercise of power not granted by the constitution back where it belongs, in the hands of the states. I did not get the hint that he would be gung ho on signing laws that support and/or encourage abortion in anyway because he doesn’t think the Feds should be involved and I agree.

[LS]

Me too, to an extent. But in our current state of affairs, a man's "soundbites" ARE his accomplishments if one of the main problems with the GOP has been leadership and a willingness to forcefully articulate conservative messages. This translates as, "to be an effective fighter." Bush, for example, accomplished a great deal: tax cuts, solid war on terror effort, Patriot Act, etc. But in the process, he ceded the propaganda war, which is about "soundbites."

We cannot afford to have a leader who is inarticulate and who does not go on offense against the DEMS at every single opportunity. As J.C. Watts said, "What's down in the well will come up in the bucket."

[dirtboy]

I would much prefer someone who is about original constitutional intent and is more interested in enforcing the constitutional limit of the Federal Government’s power (including the federal courts).

Well, Rudy ain't that someone. He was quite fond of calling for federal gun control laws when he was mayor.

[George W. Bush]

We’ve been voting for anti-abortion candidates for years and little has been accomplished in reversing the Roe v. Wade travesty, even though they had a majority in congress and the presidency for some years.

After being blocked by the Court for the last dozen years, we are within one appointment of substantial victories. Even with weak-sister Kennedy as the swing vote, we upheld PBA. And Kennedy's majority opinion clearly opened the door to more waiting periods and forcing women to view ultrasounds of the child they are considering aborting.

Don't try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We won't fall for it.

[DustyWestTexas]

Actually, having Howling Dean would be a great idea as a moderataor. It would/should provide a stark difference between Dean/dims and conservatives. Anyone who would try to appease the moderator would be revealed as one of “them”. We need to skip the notion of an independent moderator. Bring on the moonbats as moderators so that the general public can see the difference and see the Stalinists for who they are.

[thepresidentsbestfriend]

Exactly right... I wish I had said it.