Everybody Was Good; Fred, Rudy, and Huck Were Best

Yeah, but in that case it will be... well nevermind. LOL

You take care.

Here we are again, running our election based on opposing the democrat candidate rather than supporting someone who actually represents our views. Do we forget that Hillary has a large number of folks in her own party and the center/independent who would vote for anyone but her? That means that they are more likeley to “hold their noses” over conservative positions that a republican may have just to vote against her.

Why on earth would we choose Rudy when we KNOW he will not, in any way, take actions as a conservative? Have we not learned from Schwarzeneggar and Bush the damage a RHINO can do to the party? It has turned the party of the Contract For America into big spenders, big central government, social liberalism and proponents of International socialistic concepts such as global warming, open borders etc.

The American people have shown a vote of “no confidence” for both the republican and democrat parties. Could it be because the republican party has moved so far to the left that it has left most of us disenfranchised?

I will do everything I can to make sure Rudy is never President.

So will Hillary.

Misery loves company.

even if you elect hillary?

“What seems like a black and white decision to you, is in fact a complex decision IMO.”

I have read through your response to this as well as other comments on this thread. I understand and respect the depth of your feelings. For now, the decision is complex. It is primary season and you are not yet faced with the reality of Hillary. There are clear alternatives right now for you to not have to settle. It is human nature to look at your opponent (in this case Rudy to name one) and demonize him. Similarly, it is human nature to put the candidate that you support on a pedestal. The right thing for you to focus on is getting a candidate nominated who best expresses your views. I am a New Yorker who is a strong Guiliani supporter. If there is a Hillary vs Rudy match-up, I will be making the strong case for Rudy who in many ways would be far superior to Hillary. I assume that you strongly think this is hogwash. I am fine for that now. However, if that match-up occurs, I would like to engage you in that discussion. It is too premature to make that argument now. Lets see who the nominee is. Perhaps Huckabee will get traction and get the nomination. If so, I will be a strong supporter of his.

For now, I do want to briefly address some of your premises.
1. You have a reasonable take on the evil of Hillary, however, I believe that you underestimate what a threat of her as president will mean to the country. This for me is the number one issue that transcends everything. The contrast of this socialist criminal with almost every opponent will be clearcut. It is why I do not believe that the decision will be complex at all.

2. I understand your contempt for the Republicans who were effectively complicit with letting the Clintons off. However, I do not in any way accept that this makes them worse than the perpetrator of the crime. The Republican’s crime was cowardice as they did not have the votes in the Senate for conviction. In understanding of this cowardice, one needs to be aware of the media’s impact on distorting the truth and their influence on opinion. It is in the media where we need a revolution to get the media to report the truth.

3. As you articulated very well, there is a lot to criticize Bush for. It is true that some of his policies were misguided and seem little different from a Democrat. However, there are significant differences. He is steadfast on the WOT. The rules of engagement in Iraq were a big mistake but he is to admired for his principled strong stand. In fact, there are now successes happening with a new strategy. Contrast with the Democrats. Harry Reid “ The war is lost” quote at the time our troops are in harms range. Perhaps the most traitorous comment of our lifetime based on someone as high up in government. It surpasses Kerry’s speech to the Congress during Vietnam selling out the troops. (By the way would you go back and vote for Kerry over Bush?)It even surpasses the General Petraius Move On quote. (by the way the admonishment signed by Hillary - although she did sign the Limbaugh smear letter.) How about judges. How do you think Roberts and Alioto (after a brief brain lapse with Meirs) compare with who a Democrat would have nominated. Perhaps you might think we would have been better off with that wonderful visionary - Gore.

4. Letting the country deteriorate by having Hillary president will not succeed in having the country getting behind “pure candidates” that will right all of the ills of society. This is a discussion that I would also like to have once the nominees are known. Allowing known corruption to flourish will poison our society for a long time and I feel will do irreparable harm to the US. Make no mistake about it there is a big difference.

Bottom line, I believe the Democrats, in particular their leadership, to be despicable. Their treasonous behavior with a complicit media, their socialist goals, their hatred for America, attack on our judicial system cannot be rewarded under any circumstance. What conservatives should do is try to get their candidates elected thru the nominating process and try to influence policy. More important, try to a have a cohesive strategy for getting the truth out. That would be to change the media.

I look forward to our discussion come the general election time.

PLA=Peoples Liberation Army, The Chinese Military.

Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, those post primary discussions are going to interesting this year, if one of the conservatives doesn’t pull it out.

I just read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914434/posts?page=178#178

It moved me deeply. I agree wholeheartedly with everything said there, except the choice of candidate. Mine is Ron Paul. I’m not a “kook.” I’m a scared citizen who loves his country and is nauseated by where we are headed. As I read that amazing post by an amazing Patriot, I was sure there was a Ron Paul endorsement at the end. There wasn’t, and that’s fine, but I must say it puzzles me.

If I had to guess, I’d say the hostility towards Paul among Freepers is largely based on social values, where Paul is essentially hands-off in favor of the states, as well as a disagreement on the correct solution to the war, which you all know. Well let me tell you, I’m no dope-smoking hippy pacifist. I’ve been a registered Republican since I turned 18 and have voted along party lines in every election — except in local elections with no Republican candidates, when I would write in Ronald Reagan’s name. This is not hyperbole, it is the truth. I voted for President Bush both times, and was a vocal supporter of the war — at first.

I’m supporting Ron Paul this time around. The last few years have transformed me, I feel I’m more conservative than I’ve ever been, because my primary focus has become the Constitution. It is almost surreal to see myself type those words — the Constitution should be every American’s top priority, as every freedom we have starts there. But there it is; our priorities have shifted. It is now considered kooky to endorse the Constitution, especially if it contradicts the current Republican position. Well I’m sorry, but *that* sounds kooky to me. Not just kooky, but *scary*. The kind of scary that makes you revisit history.

Am I completely satisfied with Paul as a candidate? No. I’m uncomfortable with his demeanor at times; he’s not at all polished. But some of our most revered Presidents were not much better. Washington was extremely terse in person, because either his dentures were killing him or he wasn’t wearing them. Jefferson was an awkward public speaker. Yes, Jefferson! Lincoln had a weak, thin voice and did not project well with large audiences. Etc. Yet these men were all eloquent writers and their writing is how we know them. When we read their speeches we envision them being powerfully delivered, but they were not. The point is that appearances are not everything; in an ideal world they would be nothing. If his mannerisms are the basis of your ridicule, you insult many great man of history. I choose to look past the flaws, past the disagreements (such as they are, but few), and vote my conscience. This will be the first time in my life that I do.

Is Paul a radical? Yes and no. Constitutionally, not at all. But when drawn against the backdrop of our current, messed-up society, he sure seems like one. I view this as an asset. Do you actually think he will accomplish half of what he’s calling for? Not a chance, he will be fought tooth and nail. But with a President coming from a position that far “out there,” whatever middle ground is reached will be decidedly less moonbatty.

You may disagree with Paul on the issues, but you may not disagree with his arguments. To do so would be your folly, as all one must do to discredit you is open the Constitution. This is powerful ground to hold, standing in the starkest possible contrast to the communist left. Imagine how exposed they will be, if to oppose the President is to oppose the Constitution. How could they possibly not be disgraced?

Like the writer of that post, I’ve taken a stand. Am I bothered by the name-calling? You betcha. It hurts. The worst ones are those coming from the position I held not long ago. I expect to be attacked from the left, if for no other reason than my desire to keep my own money. But to be thrown under the bus by the right is devastating to me. Have I betrayed them, or is the opposite true? I’ve been called names by strangers, yet when I quiz them on the Constitution they balk. They don’t think Paul is a kook because of his platform, because that is not possible. They say these things because their friends are saying it, the same friends that are going to vote for Guliani just because he’s running as a Republican. If he wins, hide your guns. Mine are in a safe place.

I’m also done following the crowd. The writer and I disagree on our choice of candidate, but we are on the same page in oh so many ways. Thanks for the heartfelt inspiration. I’ll brace myself for the name-calling.

I’ve been a Ron Paul fan for a long time. When he talks of Constitutional matters I’m generally on board. I like his desire to return a lot of our current policy and give-away programs to Constitutional guidelines. On the other hand, I’m sure there are a number of things I’d disagree with Ron on. This war is one of them.

I’ll confine my commnets now to the war in Iraq. We can wax rhapsodic about foreign entanglements as much as we like, the fact is there are still going to be threats out there, and we’ll have to face them. And unfortunately, if we followed Ron’s suggestions about Iraq, it would impact much of our foreign policy today.

If we were to follow Ron’s guidelines, we would almost certainly have to bring much of our military home from over seas. We would need to bring our embassy staff from around the world home. We would also have to give up on any wars other than the ones where we were attacked directly on U.S. soil.

When we pulled our troops and all other presence from around the world, we would also have to forbid our nationals from traveling overseas. We would have to stop all foreign trade, whether free or fair or not.

You see, if we didn’t do these things, it would certainly lead to situations where our military would have to take actions on foreign soil.

If our troops would be needed on foreign soil, it would be necessary to have our troops in postion to do so. And since Ron wouldn’t want us to take those actions, it would preclude us from being prepared to do so.

We can’t post troops around the world if we’re not going to ever be able to use them. We can’t keep troops at the ready if we’re not going to allow them to be involved in a war from time to time. You can teach book smarts all you like. You can train troops on military bases. You can instill the top tactics known to man, but you can’t instill experience in troops and troop leaders. And troops don’t become top troop leaders unless they have experience on the battlefield.

These are of course blanket statements. I’m sure you can understand that, but seriously can you imagine a day forty years from now when we would field the best troops we could on our soil, not having any of those troops ever involved in a conflict on foreign soil? And can you picture those troops being the top military force on the planet?

I don’t think that is possible. You may disagree.

We exert influence around the planet. Under the Paul plan, we would cease to do that. We would opt to only take action to defend our own soil.

How many years to you think it would take for someone to replace us as the world’s leading influence around the planet? Take a look around. Who would you like that to be?

Do you think Russia would be good. How about China? Would you like to see a Middle-Eastern nation jump in? How about the United Nations? Do you want the U.N. to develop a money stream and then field a military force similar to ours? These are the alternatives to our involvement.

Do you see a scenario where any other nation would step in, resolve issues and walk away afterwards leaving nations in tact to govern themselves. Some might, but not that many.

In the 1780s, the world was a different place. It took months to travel places around the planet. Today it takes hours. In the 1780s, our neighbors were close to our borders. Today our neighbors are global. If someone can leave a place and arrive in your nation the same day, they are in effect a neighbor. Just about anyone with funds can come to the U.S. in under 24 hours.

Other nations from around the planet have ships in our ports and on the ocean that are close to our shores. At any time, some of those ships or aircraft could cause an incident involving a foreign power. Within hours our military might need to execute military actions around the world, to prevent actions taking place first on our soil.

Some people realize most of this at once, when they hear Paul talk about the “mistaken actions” we have taken in Iraq. They don’t think the actions are mistaken at all, because they fully understand these dynamics. Since they do, the also instantly find Paul to be incapable of understanding these dynamics and judge him accordingly.

I’ve given Paul a pretty good ribbing on the forum. I realize he’s not polished, but that isn’t all that important to me, if his views were solid. I cannot accept them as solid. IMO, he is woefully wrong as it applies to Iraq and his world view.

If we had the capability to stop millions from dying in 1780 just over our border, do you think our founding fathers would have said, too bad, sure wish we could help but our founding documents won’t let us? I don’t buy into that theory.

Today we do have the ability to stop millions from dying, by using reasoned intervention. That intervention not only saves lives, it makes those lives better, it endears foreign nations to us, and keeps our men and equipment second to none in the world.

I am not embarassed to have advocated our involvement in Iraq. I would be embarassed to have argued against it.

Millions of Muslims in and around the theater of war are finding it better to deal with the United States than Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Even Osama Bin Laden admits his terrorists have alienated Muslims everywhere.

These things could not have happened without our involvement. When the U.S. leaves Iraq, millions of Iraqis will have seen first-hand that a Christian nation could act honorably, compassionately and fairly with an Islamic state. They will also have seen how vicious members of Al Qaeda and Taliban have been and how incapable they were of acting honorably, compassionately and fairly. Tens of millions of them will be living better lives thanks to us. And tens of thousands of them will be alive thanks to us.

I’m glad it was our nation that did this. I am also glad it wasn’t Russia, China or the U.N. that did.

Osama Bin Laden’s heartless bastards were responsible for 09/11. I don’t think any sane person could claim that our efforts haven’t set back Laden and company decades. If appearances in Iraq and Afghanistan are real and idicative of the opinion of the man on the street, Osama is probably out of business.

Would Ron Paul’s policies based on the U.S. Constitution have brought this to pass?

We live in a different age than the one in 1780. I respect the document, but it would be suicidal to conduct foreign policy based on those 1780 guidelines. I don’t take lightly the decision to enter foreign wars. I don’t take lightly the call to allow terrorists safe haven in their lairs either.

You take care.

You are absolutely right on. When we sacrifice victory just for a few (albeit good) principles we just set ourselves up for another good screwing by the Klintoon twins.

A belated thanks for the Hunter info, FRiend. I checked out the videos on Hunter’s site a while back where he explains the unfair Chinese rebates — he did a great job with those. I have trouble sorting out various candidates’ trade proposals in my head — markets are so complex that I find it difficult to even guess what the outcome of a given trade action would be. Ugh.

A belated thanks for the links, calcowgirl! I continue to have some differences with Hunter on some small-l libertarian issues (then again, I have differences with every candidate — some more than others cough-Giuliani-cough). But Hunter is such a solid guy — I especially appreciate your inclusion of his Kelo stance. Thanks again!

You’re welcome.

Communist China’s approximately $250 BILLION trade imbalance EACH YEAR gives China a lot of money to build it’s military, and that in itself is enough for me.