Posted on 08/25/2007 10:46:00 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Early in the pre-campaign for the 2008 White House, New York ex-Mayor Giuliani was regarded by those who hate him as one of those gaudy soap bubbles that survives just long enough for you to yell to your brother to hurry on into the bathroom and take a look; but you're confident it will pop and leave a little moist remembrance on the white tile floor without you needing to blow it or poke it.
That was many months ago, and far from popping, the Giuliani candidacy is gaining, sinking mud-cleats into solid political support and grabbing traction. Why? I think I know. And if I'm right it will be the first time I've really learned from history. Never too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I prefer to take my vote 3rd party [for Hillary] if Rudy is the nominee.
Total bullsh*t! There is no question about Giulliani's commitment to the WOT. This is not about the purity of ideological beliefs at this time as much as it is about our Nations pure survival against the savages. Giullian's position on abortion, gun control and whatever else you want to whine about has absolutely NOTHING to do with fighting a war. Someone not even bright enough to see that doesn't deserve the right to vote.
You haven’t a clue if there will be a 3rd party candidate and are just trying to come up with an excuse to back your lame position.
You didn't fix jack. Why don't you quit pissing on Goldwater's grave by advocating we all support a liberal RINO like Rudy.
Yes, we know that about a lot of you here.
This is not my quote. I neglected to italicize the person to whom I was replying. My words are in bold face.
Rudy's vision of fighting the WOT would be to turn America into a police state and harrass law-abiding citizens with national ID cards and such. Sorry, no deal.
This is not about the purity of ideological beliefs at this time as much as it is about our Nations pure survival against the savages.
So...how did we survive 8 years of the Clintons, then? You're still here posting, aren't you?
Giullian's position on abortion, gun control and whatever else you want to whine about has absolutely NOTHING to do with fighting a war.
Yes it does. Support for abortion means fewer young adults eligible to enter the military and fight. Less adults working to build the tools our military needs. Gun control means citizens can't defend themselves if the WOT ever comes to our shores (And Rudy supports open borders too). But I guess I can buy a woman's outfit and hit terrorists with my purse though. Rudy's a cross-dresser.
You know, there's this little thread JimRob put up in April of this year. I suggest you find it and click on it and read the responses.
Rudy's vision of fighting the WOT would be to turn America into a police state and harrass law-abiding citizens with national ID cards and such. Sorry, no deal.
The president, in case you didn't know it, has no authority to pass legislation. He can propose, sign or veto it, period.
This is not about the purity of ideological beliefs at this time as much as it is about our Nations pure survival against the savages.
So...how did we survive 8 years of the Clintons, then? You're still here posting, aren't you?
LOL. you're lamer then I thought if you are comparing this world from 2001 to now with the world from 1992-2000.
Giullian's position on abortion, gun control and whatever else you want to whine about has absolutely NOTHING to do with fighting a war.
Yes it does. Support for abortion means fewer young adults eligible to enter the military and fight. Less adults working to build the tools our military needs. Gun control means citizens can't defend themselves if the WOT ever comes to our shores (And Rudy supports open borders too). But I guess I can buy a woman's outfit and hit terrorists with my purse though. Rudy's a cross-dresser.
You are in dire need of a lesson in how this government operates. First of all Giulliani's belief in the LAW, which is what he has stated regarding abortion has nothing to do with his belief in the sanctity of life. He has stated many times that he is PERSONALLY against abortion but will support it as long as it is the law. Again I remind you that no president can OVERTURN Roe V Wade. Your excuse that abortion depletes the military ranks is a desperate one at best. It seems you have come to this debate weaponless. At this time in our nations history your concern about gun control is misplaced. With the USSC we now have there will be no mass confiscation of guns in the foreseeable future. As for open borders I believe Rudy is for law and order and as such has changed his position on illegal immigrants. This is what he has said and I believe people can change along with the surrounding circumstances. In fact to be governed forever by past beliefs that will not change no matter what the circumstance would actually make someone totally unfit for office.
If you think it is so important for me to read his post then link me to it.
You didn’t fix jack.
Go ahead, take your time.
At this point in the process, I agree with this statement. There are other factors that could change our definition of the candidate "with the best chance of winning." Personally, I can't see Rudy Giuliani ever overcoming his negatives.
I think Mitt Romney has a chance. I really believe that he never paid attention to the social issues in 1994 or even 2002 when he was elected governor of Massachusetts. I believe he saw himself as an executive who could fix the mess that the state government had become, and his only interest was in making things run more effectively so that the government wouldn't go bankrupt and wouldn't bankrupt the citizens. I don't applaud politicians who are blind to the importance of other issues, but I can accept that they would say things that were wrong without thinking. I can then accept that when they've given the issue proper thought, they would change their minds. Mitt Romney will undoubtedly lose the votes of Christians whose feelings about Mormonism won't let them elect a Mormon to office. He still has to do the hard job of persuading various conservative groups that he is sincere when he says that he will be our friend. However, I think he can mend some fences that Rudy Giuliani cannot mend.
The other option is that the party will reconsider someone who has been rejected as a candidate who "can't win." My personal favorite is Duncan Hunter, and I think he could win in the fall. Mike Huckabee might have a chance as well. Otherwise, I'm not encouraged at our prospects.
Bill
I don't disagree with your assessment of Mitt at all. I'm sure there are people, not necessarily just Christians, who won't vote for him because he's a Mormon, but I think his religion is the least of his problems. If he were able to convince conservatives of his conversion and sincerity, he could mend a lot of the fractures, and for all the knocks he's received from across the entire political spectrum about being the "plastic" candidate, I think that's mostly sour grapes. He gives a good speech, he's attractive and energetic, he can raise boatloads of $, and he is a first class intellect, and quick on his feet.
I would be very pleased to see Duncan Hunter move up the food chain (my favorite candidate too,) or Mike Huckabee, the one who is without a doubt the most likeable of all that are running, but with things the way they stand, there's one quarter left before the voting starts for one of them to catch on fire and raise enough $ to be able to compete.
This is going to be a very difficult election for any Republican unless something unforeseen happens to change the playing field. I can't imagine why many Republicans want to go into it with a candidate that has no chance at all of mending the base enough to be competitive, unless the goal is to elect the Democrat.
Your density is at least the equivalent of a very large box filled with lead AND boulders. One syllable words are unable to reach your pea brain with any kind of reasoning, so I will spare your feelings and hit the "IGNORE" button on any of your future posts.
Now is NOT the time in our History to be making such a monumental repeat in history as to go for a 3rd party candidate because your candidate didn’t win the primary. Too much is at stake globally and to protect our MILITARY people to allow a Democrat into the White House. Anyone talking about voting 3rd party is a traitor to ALL our service men and women in harm’s way. No 3rd party will win, so guess who loses?
I can't, but if you believe that Rudy will nominate pro-Constitution judges then you're obviously freebasing cocaine.
You can get led by the nose by this cross-dressing, lisping authoritarian neo-Mussolini but I won't.
Why don't you shut up until you know what you're talking about, you foul-mouthed, clueless little twit?
Goldwater was pro-choice and he was for gays in the military. That qualifies him as a liberal RINO by the standards of the anti-Giuliani contingent at Free Republic.
What are you going to do if I don't? Type big font letters and numbers at me?
Goldwater was pro-choice and he was for gays in the military.
Was he though when he ran for President? He became a libertarian whack-job in the late 80s.
That qualifies him as a liberal RINO by the standards of the anti-Giuliani contingent at Free Republic.
And I still wouldn't vote for him or for Giuliani even if Stalin was on the Dim ticket.
Was he though when he ran for President?
When Goldwater ran for president, neither abortion nor gays in the military were campaign issues. They weren't even political issues for Presidents...nobody believed the legality of abortion should be determined at the federal level and nobody believed homosexuals should be in any branch of the military.
Once these two issues came into the public domain, Goldwater didn't hesitate to make his positions known.
And I still wouldn't vote for him or for Giuliani even if Stalin was on the Dim ticket.
Okay! Everybody got that?
1) If Josef Stalin were running for President against Barry Goldwater, "Extremely Extreme Extremist" would not vote for Barry Goldwater.
2) If Josef Stalin were running for President against Rudolph Giuliani, "Extremely Extreme Extremist" would not vote for Rudolph Giuliani.
"Extremely Extreme Extremist" (or should we call him "Extremely Extreme Communism-Enabler"?) would not oppose Josef Stalin with his vote.
It doesn't take much to ferret these wackjobs out. Just get them to ultimate conclusions.
Thanks for getting me to reread your post. Nice to know that someone with such a cool screen name isn’t off the deep end.
As you know we aren’t a two party system. We are a coalition government, where the coalitions are formed before the nominations of the party candidates, and then both parties go after the “moderates”, “independents” and other people who are too uninvolved to have any guiding belief system.
Conservatives on their own can’t elect more than a few Congress critters. Aligned with Republicans and a candidate that knows how to appeal to the “middle”, we can conquer the world. Conservatives on their own make for a third party race where they lose, Republicans lose, and communist sympathizers who also sympathize with jihadists take over the government.
Earlier in our history that was sort of survivible, although Jimmy Carter certainly did set in motion some pretty ugly chickens coming home to roost. Now, when we lose D.C. in the next round of attacks, the blow will reverberate in ways unimagined by most folks.
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.