Posted on 02/14/2007 7:14:04 AM PST by meg88
I hope he doesn't pick McCain. Surely he'd be smart enough not to do that. McConnell would be a good choice. Or perhaps Cornyn.
But why not?
If you are right, then those who would defect, are being silly.
The silly ones are those who fail to nominate from the center of the party.
Who is Gilliani?
P.S.... How hard is it to check the spelling on a headline before you post?
" beginning to believe Rudy Giuliani would lose in a landslide"
You believe correctly! Let's hope we don't have to find out!
I don't agree with your conception of what it means to "foist". "foist" would be: a plurality of people prefer one guy, but (the (R) leadership? someone?) tries to talk up another guy. That simply isn't happening. Nearly the opposite of that is happening, in fact.
Indeed, what you're saying is basically that you don't like the preference of people being expressed in these polls, and that you wish a more conservative candidate were... well, foisted on people instead.
See, the problem is this. On the issues I hold dear Rudy has said, publicly, he differs little from what Hillary has said her views are. Also, we don't know Rudy's foreign policy plans, or Hillary's for that matter. We can make some inferences, which may or may not be valid, but we don't know.
As a Christian, I believe that we will answer for our actions, and there are some things that can not be justified. I personally believe that abortion is one of those "trip wires".
As a conservative, I am also very much in support of gun rights and limited government. Neither of the currently MSM annointed candidates are for that. Both are for gun control, and expansion of government.
So that leaves foreign policy. Of which we have very little data that Rudy would be better than HRC.
It would depend on his opponent, and what this switch really meant re: Rudy's personality and makeup. Possibly, possibly not.
My fear is this. Many people are pushing Rudy as the anti Hillary with out looking at his views and positions. He has much more in common with her than he does with the current president.
So basically what you're saying is that between a Giuliani Presidency and a Clinton Presidency, you have no preference whatsoever. In that case it's perfectly rational for you not to vote (or to vote 3rd party). But is that truly what you believe?
Then once again I will point out to you... WE ARE IN THE PRIMARIES! This is the time for free and open debate on ALL the candidates.
Why? Because those who find Rudy unacceptable under any circumstance have set in their hearts a moral compass directing them against voting for anyone who openly opposes and would undermine their core beliefs?
If you are against abortion for whatever reason and a candidate wants you to defy your conscience, you'd better NOT do it. If you're against SSM and a candidate says you have to accept it if you cast a vote for him you'd best follow your conscience, if you have one, and not do it.
I'm sick of people pretending to be what they're not and that includes those of this party pandering to leftist liberals because all they can see is "winning" the White House. You compromise now. The left will still be around tomorrow wanting you to give in a little more here, a little more there and because you were "tolerant", they'll gladly accept your surrender.
I believe that both will be similar. Their stated policies are very close.
GOTV in the rural areas will be what we rely on. In the long term, if the unfettered illegal immigration continues, the state will flip and become like California, Illinois and New Jersey.
You're right of course, but some methods of debate are more rational and defensible than others. Saying you favor whoever over Giuliani in the primary because of positions XYZ is fine. Saying/threatening/bluffing? that you'd vote against Giuliani in the general election, and that's why the rest of us should stay away from Giuliani, is silly (unless you're ok w/a Clinton presidency, like I've said).
No, you condemn yourself when you purposefully violate the gift of conscience you've been given.
Because someone will become President, and if Giuliani is the (R) nominee, then it's either him, or (presumably) Clinton. To say Giuliani is "unacceptable", even under those circumstances, is to say that a Clinton Presidency is acceptable. Of course, you've basically said as much, so I guess what I'm saying doesn't apply to you.
If you are against abortion for whatever reason and a candidate wants you to defy your conscience, you'd better NOT do it. If you're against SSM and a candidate says you have to accept it if you cast a vote for him you'd best follow your conscience, if you have one, and not do it.
This makes sense if we're talking about the primary. It doesn't make sense if the general election ends up being Clinton v. Giuliani. Because then either candidate (by your assumptions) would hold those positions you dislike, and "not voting for Giuliani" would not be an effective method of influencing those policies either way.
"we might as well hand the election over to Hillary."
If we run Rudy, we could just as well.
I see. Well, now I know where you're coming from.
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.