Posted on 02/15/2007 11:25:14 AM PST by azhenfud
Just as the title says.
No, I don't think I'm wrong about this. You cannot demonstrate that these losses occured because staunch conservatives stayed home. If you were right about 76, Reagan would have won the nomiation. Moreover, Reagan didn't win in 80 because he was so very conservative, but because he touched something in Americans' hearts and minds and because he was running against the totally weak, ineffective, pegged-as-a-loser Carter.
Bush and Dole might very well have won had it not been for Ross Perot, not exactly a "conservative's dream" candidate.
GWB mustered 51% in the an election with one of the highest turnouts in American history, particularly among the religious right. 49% voted for perhaps the furthest left wing candidates since 1948. Don't tell me that a chunk of those people voted for Kerry because Bush wasn't conservative enough.
If I have to choose between having a Republican president and have lots of local GOP winners, in today's climate, I'll take the former.
Some don't think in those terms. Hey, if my guy doesn't get past the primary then I will have to suck it up and deal with it.
I voted third party under the same conviction the net outcome being no different.
BTW, your ears are much closer to the ground than many, STS; RinoRudy created a sanctuary city/state in New York, that exists and was even expanded under Bloomberg, is that still the case? What's been the arrest rate of illegal aliens in NY under Rudy and Bloomberg or is that info even available to federal agencies or the public?
Some declare there's absolutely no chance of illegals getting caught in New York - and if one is caught, city policy prevents sharing their illegal status with appropriate agencies - this even years after the attacks that brought down the WTC towers.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
That was sposed to be a joke.
Great, so have a choice between pulling the lever for Hillary or a republican that you don't agree with on issues but Hillary is hands down the worse of the two.
Do you:
1) Vote (R) to block her?
or
2) Vote 3rd party or stay home and by default support her candidacy?
Great, so have a choice between pulling the lever for Hillary or a republican that you don't agree with on issues but Hillary is hands down the worse of the two.
Do you:
1) Vote (R) to block her?
or
2) Vote 3rd party or stay home and by default support her candidacy?
***Today we are talking about which candidates we support for the primaries. I don't have to take that choice now because it's a false choice, and I have a better candidate than your guy, by far. The primaries is when you vote for the guy you like. Why would a Socon go to a RINO site and try to push his guys on them when he's known to be unpopular? Why do RINOs come to this Socon website and push their guy on us when they know he's unpopular? Has rudytootyfruity made any headway with socons? No, and he won't. He's doomed. Will Duncan Hunter make headway with the political middle/log cabin/Rockefeller Repubs/Reagan Democrats? Absolutely, because all the other candidates are phonies and Hunter is the real deal. The electorate knows that on an instinctive level.
It wont happen, I can compromise on alot of things but *abortion* is not one of them. And many *many* Conse3rvatives feel the same way.
So quickly we forgot the lessons of the last midterm. Running with the slogan 'its us or Nancy Pelosi' did not win in 2006 whay in the heck would 'its us or hrc' win in 2008?
Well, I suppose that's a choice we all have to make for ourselves...
Say what you like but Perot woke up the Republican party to the fact they wont win when taking populist stances he may have cost us the whithouse in 1992 but the lesson republican learned from that gave them the house and senate for more than a decade afterwards, seems they have forgotten again and now they might need a reminder (apparently 2006 was not enough)..
I can see "moderates" (vague term, covers a lot of ground) voting for Rudy, but libertarians? He is firmly pro-gun-control and is basically a Democrat when it comes to the border. Not being pro-life alone should eliminate him from the nice list for roughly 1/3 of libertarians. He may get a pass for supporting gay civil unions, but the rest should make a libertarian wary of Rudy (just like it makes social conservatives wary, to put it mildly).
If Rudy does not represent your brand of conservatism (he seems very slightly right of center, closer to BJC than RR), now is not the time to make happy noises about his candidacy. Sink him now or be faced with potential nose-holding later. Make the moderates hold their noses and vote for a Hunter or a Tancredo to prevent HRC.
Your either ignorant or lying. New Yorks Illegal alien sanctuary laws, which Rudy signed, defiantly harbored law breakers and Rudy knew it. You would also have to be ignorant not to think or know some illegal Muslims would like to attack us. It's not like it didn't happen in 1993
No, it's not that I'm ignorant. I'm simply sane and rational. By your logic, GW Bush has done the same as Rudy Giuliani, not enacted immigration laws tough enough to suit your extremist views.
You can rant all you like, but your extremism blinds you, renders you politically irrational, useless, impotent.
Continue that way and the most you and those like you will ever be able to do in a national election is to help far-left candidates --the enemies of this nation -- win.
Maybe I missed it but what is he saying thats so extremest? we should not harbor those who break the immigration laws of the land?
Then you're purposefully ignoring the fact Rudy ORDERED his underlings to ignore knowing someone was in the city/state illegally AND not to distribute that information if they DID find out about it. I don't believe that's entirely been the case with the President - he has allowed some crackdowns.
"...your extremism blinds you, renders you politically irrational, useless, impotent."
Those believing Rudy is the GOP's equivalent to Viagra are only going to get one huge headache.
"...the most you and those like you will ever be able to do in a national election is to help far-left candidates --the enemies of this nation -- win."
WIN?? Do you call having a Democrat House and Senate, then putting a person of any party with 95% convictions the same as liberal Democrats in the WH a WIN? Do you believe ceding one's values - if you have any - is ever a WIN?
Respectfully I say YOU lose, I lose.
The assertion was made that in terms of fighting the war on terror, Rudy and Hillary were completely the same, and that Rudy somehow made NY a haven for terrorists. I'd call that pretty extreme. It was also claimed that I was either "ignorant" or a "liar" to reject such claims. I'd say that was fairly extreme.
Basically, your complaint is that Rudy didn't crack down to your satisfaction on illegal aliens. Then that somehow gets twisted into claiming that Rudy turned NY into a haven for Islamic terrorism. The exact same logic could be applied to GWB.
My number one issue is NOT illegal immigration, except to the extent it specifically relates to stopping Islamists. My number one issue is winning the war in Iraq and the war against Islamists. That means that I will support Rudy Giuliani over any Democrat. Everyone is welcome to take a different view. But when people call me "ignorant" or "liar" because I refute or reject their assertions, I give as I get.
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.