Replies

Enough bashing of social conservatives who supported Rudy.

It's never enough. Don't even pretend to tell ME what to do.

As a conservative, I supported Rudy knowing full well he was a moderate, because the political climate wasn't friendly to strong conservatives at the time, and he was a good candidate to attract voters alienated with the GOP brand.

If you supported Rudy, you were by default endorsing his views on infanticide and you were supporting someone that NARAL thought was just dandy for their cause. That isn't conservative.

Rudy was strong on defense issues and was a solid fiscal conservative who turned a dump like New York City around. He is a friend of Israel and an advocate of freedom and capitalism. We were going to run against Hillary or Obama and their socialist agenda was well known to those who supported him, and we needed an articulate candidate who could make the case for our ideology as the best direction for the nation.

Yeah, a real shame Rudy missed 'Round One' against Hiliarly, when it was time to step up to the plate, he had that convenient prostate problem and all those 'personal' issues' he cited when he ducked out.

The ironic thing here is that Rudy didn't have contempt for conservatives.

What planet were you living on? Rudy refused to even *consider* meeting conservatives half way on issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, etc., and that proved without doubt that he didn't give a good damn about the conservatives that constituted the Reagan base within the GOP.

It was in fact social conservatives who had an unyielding contempt for the man and for all those who supported him.

Rudy's views on abortion alone were more than enough reason for any true conservative to hold him and his sycophants and apologists in contempt. Perhaps you might explain how Rudy's views on killing unborn babies differ from Comrade 0bama's?

Take all the time you want.

Rudy lost, as conservatives didn't want him, and that's fine. So we got someone the media and the GOP establishment wanted, and we know what happened. I support conservative causes and conservative candidates 100%, but in the absence of a strong, credible conservative leader I had to choose the best GOP candidate available to go against Hillary or Obama. I was right about the negative consequences that came from electing Obama. However, it isn't a vindication, since the stakes are high under Obama's leadership. If you compare Rudy with Obama, the choice is clear that Rudy would be much less harmful and detrimental to our nation and our way of life.

Under 0bama, America's social fabric is being shredded on a daily basis. Under Rudy, it would have been only twice a week. Your logic is that of choosing between dying, and dying a little faster. You bemoan the 'absence' of a strong conservative leader, but you had one: Congressman Duncan Hunter, whose 26 years of experience on national security issues alone put him head and shoulders above ANY other GOP primary candidate, bar none, he was a Reaganite who arrived in Washington WITH Ronald Reagan in 1980, his conservative views were the strongest of ANY candidate out there, but he never got traction due to the institutional bias of the media, the GOP establishment and the east coast Ivy League RINO crowd who looked down their nose at someone who would have been the second coming of the Gipper.

Republicans had the choice between show horses (Giuliani, McCain, et al) or a WORK horse (Hunter). As befits the general trend of our shallow society, they were wowed by name recognition, clever sound bites, and did what they were told to do by the GOP elitists running the Party.

Though Rudy was my preferred GOP nominee in 2008, I certainly don't agree with him on every matter, and in fact disagree with him on several significant issues. My posts here on FR have consistently made that clear.

It's never enough. Don't even pretend to tell ME what to do.

Same here, do not even pretend to be so smart as to think I'm not a true conservative.

Take all the time you want.

It didn't take much time at all. I couldn't reply earlier because I had been eating dinner, but it won't take me much time to respond to you. My post was clear.

I included the words "credible GOP leader" in my post, and while I admire Duncan Hunter and agree with him on many issues, the fact is that he was never particularly credible in the national election. He is a good conservative man, but a candidate needs to win elections not just be a good conservative. Whether we like it or not, matters like persuasiveness, name recognition, and national appeal are essential in fielding a winning candidate. Note, I said 'essential,' not 'important.' Hunter just didn't deliver. He couldn't even win his own home state of California in the primary, let alone the general election. He won only 1% of the national vote in the primaries.

This isn't Fantasy Island - it's not about picking the most conservative candidate, it's about picking the best conservative candidate who can win. Rudy isn't a pure conservative, but he is certainly more conservative than not. And he is certainly more acceptable to conservatives, as a whole, than Hillary or Obama. The goal in politics is to win, not field the best losing candidate. If you knew more about politics, you would know that.

No question about it, Rudy is pro-choice. He is against infanticide, though – he is against partial birth abortion. And as I have said many times, I didn't agree with every position he holds. This was one of those cases.

Republicans had the choice between show horses (Giuliani, McCain, et al) or a WORK horse (Hunter). As befits the general trend of our shallow society, they were wowed by name recognition, clever sound bites, and did what they were told to do by the GOP elitists running the Party.

To be fair to Rudy, he was not a liberal media-preferred candidate. The liberal press in NYC hated him throughout his run as mayor of NYC. While I agree that Rudy probably isn't the type of candidate most Freepers would prefer, the fact is in 2006 and 2008, conservatives candidates suffered cascading losses at all levels of government. In a year where JD Hayworth lost in Arizona, it's simply not credible to believe that Hunter would have won the presidency. Or even have run as well as McCain.