Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:50 AM PDT by Mia T
My response to you is short, unlike your long winded response that is the typical response that those for Rudy repeat endlessly.
NO TO RUDY.
And do not expect people to accept Rudy as the candidate and then insult them when they refuse Rudy.
On this side of the argument people finally got tough. They were tired of having their religion insulted, tired of being called names, tired of having Rudy painted as a good candidate when he is not.
People are not going to look the other way about Rudys record and sleazy personal life. It is too much to ask.
I, myself, do not think Rudy will ever get the nomination.
If you want Hillary or Obama as President, keep wasting your time pushing Rudy.
thank you, PGalt. :)
Cogently stated. Thank you.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. If paleo-conservatives don’t drop their candidates whom the “center” won’t support because they disagree with their positions and support a candidate whose positions we don’t agree with, we will be responsible for the Clintons election. But, the “center” won’t be responsible if they refuse to vote for our candidate should our candidate win the nomination. We will be responsible if we either nominate a non-center candidate or refuse to support a center candidate should said center candidate win the nomination. Okay, I think I’ve got the picture.
thx again, PG.
You actually got the following things wrong:
1- This problem is not ‘center’ v right. It is not immoral (or amoral) vs moral. It is rational vs irrational.
2- Unlike the Rudy haters, most, if not all, of those supporting Rudy will support WHICHEVER Republican is nominated.
Unlike the Rudy haters, we understand that the alternative to ANY Republican is a danger to ALL our babies, the living, the unborn, the not yet even imagined. Unlike the Rudy haters, we are the ones who are TRULY PRO-LIFE.
As I said, we must get rid of all the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians. (The professional pol is mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition.)
It’s not really crossover when you ask one rather large part of the base to let go of their most important issue.
Rather, it’s thumbing your nose in the face of the pro-lifers.
There are not enough “moderates” to compensate for the pro-lifers who simply will not vote for Rudy.
On top of that, he will absolutely destroy the party on a national level.
If I remember right, you pushed for Jeanine Pirro against Hillary with the same persistence. Remind us of how successful that was.
That, my friend, is called 'projection.'
A little less fear of Rudy (and more fear of the clintons) would quickly cure what ails the Rudy haters.
Rudy has a 100% approval rating with NARAL, his rating is even higher than Hillary Clinton's. It is totally disingenuous and pure spin, to say that a vote for Rudy is Pro Life.
Babies in New York were never safe under Rudy and they will not be safe now. Rudy goes even farther by wanting taxpayer funded abortions.
Fear of Hillary is more like panic for some. So much so, people are willing to vote for someone who has claimed his policies are like that of Bill Clintons.
Rudy will divide and bring down the GOP, those that pushed him will be most responsible if a Democrat wins.
All kidding aside, there are at least 3 people that I like better than Rudy but if Rudy ends up with the nomination, I will vote for him. I just think it’s a bit early to be making the arguments that you are making.
But OTOH, what did Spencer get us? What could be mischaracterized by the clinton agitprop machine as a 'landslide.' (A HILLARY 'LANDSLIDE'??? NOT SO FAST, MISSUS CLINTON....)
We need someone who has the street smarts and organization to take on the clintons.
***...Why do you think you can win over Christian conservatives?
Because Republicans, however people describe them, respect people who tell them who they are and don't pretend that they're going to agree on everything. Ronald Reagan is kind of my model, and his approach was: "If you're my 80% friend, you're not my 20% enemy." I think I'll do well with conservative voters because they will see that I'm one of the most fiscally conservative candidates in the race. I'm the one who has just about the strongest record on tax cuts. And I think they will be in pretty close to total agreement with me on how to handle homeland security and deal with terrorism. On social issues, they're going to find that the area of disagreement is not as great as some of my opponents have told them.
But so much has been made of your decidedly unconservative positions on gay rights, gun control, and abortion. How big a factor will those positions, your personal history, and Judith's personal history be in the campaign and Presidency?
Ultimately, the election will be about who the American people think will be the most effective leader. And they have every right to examine all aspects of my public life and my private life. Because I've had such a long career in so many different areas—probably the most diverse of anybody running—they can look to the success that I've had even though I've made mistakes and things went wrong, which I think kind of makes me human. When I was mayor, various things going on in my private life did not stop me from reducing crime by 57%, reducing homicides by 67%, turning a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus. It didn't stop me from reducing the welfare rolls by 660,000. Then I had to deal with the worst attack in the history of the city, maybe the country. Sure, I've made mistakes, both privately and publicly, but what's the balance? The balance is that I've been able to have success. So I think they can be pretty confident that that's what would happen as President.
.....You said your wife, Judith, could sit in on Cabinet meetings if she wanted to. What role would she play?
The preface to that, Maria, was a question by Barbara Walters about what Judith would be interested in as First Lady. And her answer was: "I'm a nurse...and what I think I would be good at is educating people about the things they have to do to remain healthy." So then Barbara asked me: "Would you be comfortable with Judith sitting in on Cabinet meetings?" And I said: "I would if it was in areas that she's interested in or in areas where she has expertise." But she has no interest in being part of the Cabinet.....
“But OTOH, what did Spencer get us?”
The real issue is NYC, isn’t it?
See, there's that false dichotomy again. I will not give in to your invalid assumptions that supporting someone other than Guiliani in the GOP primaries is "giving" the election to Clinton.
Such position is asinine, insulting, and would accept the permanent defeat of conservatism.
This is a political forum. You have the same opportunity to make your case as I do. So quit whining.
I'm not. Not by a long shot.
No President has ever willingly appointed a USSC justice who disagreed with him on basic philosophy, and Guiliani won't be the first to so so. (If I have anything to say about it, he won;t get the chance in the first place.)
Yeah, well you're skipping WAY ahead in presuming that those particular "R" and "D" candidates are anywhere near decided.
I will do whatever it takes to stop Guiliani getting the GOP nomination. Not only is he GUARANTEED to lose the general election, it would be the final signal to the conservative wing of the party that they're no longer wanted.
The Los Angeles Times has a rule that the phrase "pro-life" will not appear on its pages because it might offend the pro-abortion crowd, reports Reuters, something a witless opera reviewer found out the hard way.
A music critic for the paper wrote that a Richard Strauss opera was "pro-life," intending to mean that it was a celebration of life. But he had his story changed by a copy editor to read "anti-abortion."
"It's about children who aren't born yet screaming to be born — not abortion," said the critic, Mark Swed. "Somebody who didn't quite get it got a little bit too politically correct ... and we had a little breakdown in communications."
The ban apparently doesn't extend to the phrase "pro-choice."
Partial-birth abortion, as defined by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is a procedure in which a physician:
"[D]eliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;..."
So, you'll be voting for Fred Thompson then? First sensible thing you've posted on this thread.
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.