Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: L.N. Smithee
Honestly, I thinks it's more healthy to be posting that stuff on the Obamas and Hillarys past.

You're not going to see this guy seriousy digging up dirt on another republican candidate before an election is held. I mean, I would'nt want to put myslelf in a situation where I end up having to advocate for the same guy I attacked because he is running against a Clinton.

I dont hate Rudy. I do have a problem with his stance on guns and not fond of his abortion stance either. He's definately not one of my top choices.

If it were a choice between Rudy and Hillary or Obama. Rudy's got my vote. Cant say that I'd be overly excited to go out and passionately try to get him voters. Because of that, I think it would be a political problem for the GOP if he did win the primary.

To answer your question, Sometimes it's better to exploit absurdity by being absurb.

91 posted on 05/06/2007 6:24:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan (http://www.cafenetamerica.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: tsowellfan
To answer your question, Sometimes it's better to exploit absurdity by being absurb.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt: If your implication is that what Rudy said about Jonathan Pollard is ancient history, you're full of baloney.

The challenges to Giuliani based on his past actions as an executive are as relevant as what Hillary did when she was acting like a tyrant in the White House (Billy Dale & the travel office, Grand Jury testimony that prosecutors didn't believe but couldn't indict her on, etc.). He's got to take the bad with the good about his past, and having gone on record as suggesting the release of an American agent spying for Israel wouldn't be tolerated of a Democrat, either.

Those of us who were warned that the "compassionate conservatism" practiced by then-Governor Bush was more liberal than we were being led to believe feel burned and betrayed. If it weren't for the terrorist attacks that made the war priority number one, Bush's most rock-solid stance would be the opening of the borders to illegal immigrants.

As Jim Robinson said in his controversial thread, this isn't about beating Hillary or Obama, it's about changing the definition of "conservative" for years to come, win or lose; if Giuliani or whoever prevails by being closer to the center than Hillary, Obama, or (ecch) Edwards, it could be curtains for true constructionist jurists in Federal courts from the Supreme Court on down (ever forget that the only reason we have Roberts and Alito today is because Bush made it to a second term and didn't get his wish with Harriet Miers). If he loses, then the message may be the answer is to move further to the center.

101 posted on 05/07/2007 12:38:02 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson