Posted on 04/17/2007 7:01:30 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The same scenario as they counseled in 06. It’s obvious that could care less about us, our soldiers, or the WOT.
It seems its every man for himself now, so be it.
Unfortunately that's something the Rudy boosters don't want. They want a New York sue-me liberal. Why? They think he's tough on terror but yet he hasn't done anything about terror other than shoot off his mouth. Giuliani is all dress and carries an empty purse.
STUPID STATEMENT OF THE DAY.
“Count me in for Fred. 13% and he is not even running yet. Once he declares and begins campaigning, watch his numbers soar.”
What difference would “announcing” make? He’s still listed in the poll—and his numbers remain weak—as are Gingrich’s.
Rudy could have had a great chance to gain some support by insisting that the Va. Tech shootings were enabled by gun control, but again missed an opportunity.
Remember, it's all about being perceived as a "fighter" and the issue right now is gun-grabbing.
“I’ve read about many Conservative ‘leaders’ in the press, in Christian leadership, and commentators saying they will vote for Hillary, if Rudy is the nominee.”
If you give the victory to your enemies, how does this support your principles? On the other hand, supporting Rudy would translate into such support. Right now Rudy is ahead in many blue and purple states. Together with the mountain states and the South, he’d win in a landslide. That would return the Congress to the GOP, with Boehner and McConnell at the helm instead of Pelosi or Reid. For any so-called “conservative” too dense to realize it, a winner at the head of the ticket, whether he leans to the left or the right, would mean a BIG WIN for conservative values in the long run. Only the politically naive don’t understand this or resent it. Politics is a game of the possible. No matter how much conservatives may prefer a Hunter or a Thompson or a Gingrich, the name of the game is victory at the polls—or else you lose everything, the legislature, Supreme Court nominees, the Dept. of Justice, the war on terror—you name it. The stakes are too high to risk supporting losers.
...”During the Republican National Convention, a candidate must win the votes of the majority of delegates to receive the nomination. The majority won’t vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control.”
I agree. There will 2488 delegates to the 2008 convention. Some States are winner-take-all; others are proportional to population or Congressional District. IMHO, withdrawing candidates will release their delegates to the most conservative likely to win. Hint: That’s not Rudy or McCain.
Actually it's the last refuge "It's unpatriotic not to support America's Mayor "
Its not the proper time for anything like that. Even the NRA is not going to comment on that.
Perhaps you're the "dense" one. You can't advance conservativism with a liberal at the helm whether it be Hillary or Rudy.
Go, Fred! Go!
Oh come on, politicalwit. You’re going to rule-out Hillary just because you dont’ agree with her 100% of the time. It’s purists like you that’ll never be satisfied.
Of course she’ll advance Conservatism. She says she opposes activist judges, and she supported Welfare reform when Rudy was suing to stop it. She also supported a ban on Partial Birth Abortions, even without the exceptions Rudy demands. Plus, she never sued gun manufacturers, insurance companies, or tobacco companies.
If you’re going to be a purist, Rudy Giuliani will wind-up winning the election. Then we’re all screwed.
LOL, I would never participate in electing the un-American Hillary or Obama to the Presidency, that is a fact.
Yes, voting for Hillary is stupid, I agree.
McCain stupidly did comment on gun rights already. It will hurt him.
Yes, I’m looking forward to the debates, and voting for whomever is furthest right politically.
And will do the same in the general.
It’s very simple really, as long as one keeps their emotions out of it, drama tends to rule the right these days. (not as bad as the left, yet!)
Who, exactly, are some of these "many" you are referring to?
“Of course she’ll advance Conservatism. She says she opposes activist judges, and she supported Welfare reform when Rudy was suing to stop it.”
Would Hillary also usher-in a Republican Congress and get rid of Pelosi and Reid? If not, Rudy alone makes sense. Conservatives like myself want somebody who can win elections and pursue the war on terror, not losers who turn off the general electorate. I personally am sick and tired of so-called “conservatives” who have no loyalty to the party and threaten to stay home at the drop of a hat—or do worse and vote for Hillary. The Republican Party delivered two fine Supreme Ct. judgeships for the religious right—and still it shows scant loyalty. To hell with that kind of attitude.
Well, you know that’s not the reason. This issue hurts Rudy bad.
Incorrect. Actually, the only individual "in Christian leadership" who supposedly said such a thing is Richard Land, and today the Washington Times has issued a correction - the paper says their report was in error, and Land did not say it.
So apart from about a dozen posters on FR that I've seen with my own eyes who say they'll vote for Hillary as opposed to Rudy, this is a very tiny contingent of idiots.
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.