Posted on 02/06/2007 10:43:27 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
1. Kerik was a big mistake.
2. He was too ill to run.
3. New York City's economy would collapse without the illegals. That doesn't mean Rudy is in favor of open borders, but it probably means he would favor amnesty (or "comprehensive immigration reform," as the Dems like to say). He certainly wouldn't favor everyone reporting them when they're discovered.
I see your point. Also, I really like Gingrich. He seems to have a total grasp on the reality of today's world and the guts to do something about it. He also has respect for God. The biggest problem I have with the core values is that the "general public" do not seem to care about them anymore. Only the Christians. It's a very vexing situation. CO
Second, programs instituted by leftwing governments are very, very difficult, even impossible to reverse in the future even when conservative governments get elected. Look at social security and medicare, rent controls in NY, and affirmative action (yes, I know Nixon had a good hand in starting the latter). Look at socialized medicine in Britain and Canada. Everybody knows it is hugely expensive on a macro level and provides substandard service, but no one wants to give up their "free" healthcare, no matter how bad it is. Leftism creates dependencies in populations that are very, very resistant to change. Every democrat administration leaves us in pretty much permanent worse shape.
Rudy can beat Hillary due to her persistant likeability problems versus his enormously impressive reputation. His name recognition nearly matches hers. No, I am not happy with his position on abortion or gun control, but a Hillary administration will leave us with Hillarycare, at the very least, and that will be a disaster! Can you even think of being ruled for another four or even eight years by the arrogant, conniving, toady scum that surrounds the Clintons?
You haven't refuted my argument at all. Rudy is a NY liberal and was elected as one. Romney campaigned as a RINO to win in MA also, yet is now running as if he were a conservative. That's why I can't trust either one.
There used to be plenty of liberals who were strong on national defense by today's standards. That's all Rudy is. If we back him, we are telling the whole world that the Republican Party is just "Leftism lite," and merely a few years behind the Demonrats on the road to perdition. That's exactly what the Libertarians have been saying for years, and I used to hate them for saying so, but I fear maybe they were right, judging by the Rudy-mania here.
Why do you include "surrender to terrorists" here? I know we're being overwhelmed by it, but Rudy should not be mentioned in the same argument.
Given a choice between Hillary or Rudy?
I vote for Rudy, and I like his answers on Sean Hannity last night.
"Liberals can only set the conservative agenda back. RINOs are attempting to define it out of existence."
Nice eh?
Thank you for answering. I agree. What I don't agree with is politically knowledgable people who refuse to vote for one candidate, but then claim they have no responsibility for the election of the other candidate.
As you have said so well, the average voter probably doesn't think things through in these terms. But I find it disingenuous in the extreme for politically knowledgable, committed and active voters to refuse to vote for one candidate on the basis that he only delivers 30% of what they want, and then claim it's not their problem that a candidate who only delivers 2% of what they want got elected.
Yes, I have heard that stated. It's conceivable it could happen, however. My other point is valid in any case: Change "health" to "life" in the abortion debate, and we have made progress.
Again, thank you for your response.
One more question. Let's say, in your analogy, we don't succeed in getting "fresh bread" nominated. Then what?
The wishy-washy "general public," or "sheeple," can often be swayed by great leaders, like Thatcher, Reagan, or Churchill. Certainly our "front-runners" like Rudy, McCain, & Romney, who were are being urged to commit to, are anything but great. If they can't even oppose the abomination of partial-birth abortion, if they have no fixed principles, they will not move the people as Reagan did.
Rudy or Hilary..
That's my point. There is no question who to vote for. If conservatives stay home they deserve Hillary. End of story.
Rudy's willingness to make political compromises brought him to the highest office in the city. We needed him; we got him. >>>
you're right, politics is a give-and-take system and in order to win you have to build coalitions.
I was just saying this to DH, as he recounted Rudy's SH interview. I said, even if we got the standard changed to "life of the mother," rather than "health," this would be incremental progress.
When a change such as that is made, the courts have to recognize that "life" must mean something different from what "health" meant, otherwise the change would be meaningless. So this would represent an actual tightening of the standard.
Not saying liberal courts wouldn't still try to read into it, but it would open doors even to be able to debate the point in court.
Oh, I just love your Rino collector cards. They are such a great tool, and they drive RINOs wild.
Well, that graph certainly put things in perspective...
I'm not voting for a queer loving, baby killing, gun outlawer....and neither will a lot of the folks in the Bible belt that I know!
Ain't gonna happen.
Commissioner Kelly's idea. A good one. And Rudy had the nerve to implement it.
Then it's all over.
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.