Posted on 02/01/2007 5:41:39 AM PST by areafiftyone
And add Rick Santorum to that list of social conservatives who lost their re-election in 2006.
All of which proves my point, not yours. Sorry.
It's early, but I'm betting that isn't true.
From what I'm hearing of Rudy, he's got the potential to win those folks over. He's got a proven track record of managing a difficult govt structure. He's tough on crime, terror, defense. He's a stirring speaker.
When the Rudy train gets rolling, I bet things will turn. He's not going to do anything negative on abortion, it doesn't seem. He'll have to promise not to grab guns, which I think he will.
That leaves just gays. And if some folks are so homophobic they would vote against someone like Rudy on just that . . . well, you can't please everyone.
Let's run them down again, let's see if the Republicans were men/women of their word, and see if they stuck to their promise or not....,
Judging from my count, they failed the test of the American people and the basic tenets contained int he CwA, and many here wonder why the American people got fed up and tossed them out.
Not for ideological reasons, but I predict that Rudy would be such a shameless liberal in the White House that contributions here would dry up as people lose interest in Republican politics.
JulieAnnie has a track record of running a city, a LIBERAL one at that. His accomplishments were only accomplishments because that worked for New Yorkers.
It's entirely different expecting the rest of the nation to mimic New York City.
As I said earlier, our core philosophies on the RKBA are 180 different. Neither of us is going to convince the other. I would also recommend that you search FR's archives for Waco threads if you think the FBI was in the right there.
If you don't want Hillary, we need to find a much less divisive candidate than Rudy. He is about the single most unpragmatic candidate you can come up with.
Outstanding post.
I wonder if we can make this entire election about the CwA?
I think that would be a massive landslide.
Exactly my sentiment. When a candidate campaigns, their plea is "Vote for me!"; when I go to the polls, I vote FOR those I determine fitted to the position.
If the GOP wants my vote, they'll offer someone to vote FOR them, not some lame-a$$ excuse to vote against their opposition especially when the two kool-aids are the same flavor. I believe, with a Democrat House and Senate, the GOP needs someone with more definition as a Conservative Republican than JulieAnnie, or else Republicans can expect to be railroaded.
With JulieAnnie's record, there ain't a whole lot of differentiation from the Democrat challengers to sway towards him. If that's the best the GOP can offer it deserves to lose.
I think it would be too if they got back to the basics of the CwA and stuck to them. If all Republicans campaigned on and followed the 8 guidlines outlined in the CwA they'd win BIG.
Running NYC, just the management of day-to-day activities, is an amazingly difficult job. He excelled at it, cleaned up that city, handled serious terrorist attacks, etc.
That's good on a resume, without a doubt.
Now does that prove he'd be the second coming of Ronald Reagan? Of course not. But it does establish a record of good decision making on day-to-day management problems. A record of 'tough on crime' going back to his days as a prosecutor.
Mayor of NYC would be a good stepping stone to the top job, I would think. More than Governor or Arkansas, at any rate!
You're really got something there. I wonder if there is any chance what-so-ever of that becoming reality?
I think it would be if they weren't so hellbent on erecting bridges to nowhere, legislating waste, passing a balanced budget, and giving corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle a pass.
Pilots would not fly in such conditions. Why not allow them to carry bombs on board as well?
If it survived the Schiavo jihad it can survive ANYTHING.
It was okay the US government betrayed Indians by violating every treaty written without expectation of consequence?? [Treaties are still in effect some tribes are profitting by them. Hyperbole is not history and has nothing to do with Lincoln's militia service during the Blackhawk War in protecting settlements.]
In any case the most egregious violation of human rights the US government ever undertook was driving the Cherokee and Choctaw out of the South East in order to satisfy the lust for gold of the white residents of the area. Andrew Jackson's Trial of Tears is perhaps the greatest blot on the good name of the American Republic. It was certainly worse than anything leading up to the Blackhawk War.
Another fact is that it was Republicans who believed in abiding by treaty obiligations and who appointed honest, human Indian agents to deal with the tribes. Those given power under Democrats did as they always have: cheated, lied and stole what was intended to help the victim.
Cherokee blood (a little anyway) flows through my veins and I resent what was done to them. Visitors to their encampments repeatedly express the view that the Cherokee were more civilized and decent than the whites which surrounded them.
All of which proves my point, not yours. Sorry. [Only in your own mind.]
Contrary to the position of some on this forum, Rudy Giuliani is NOT the only candidate in the Primary Election.
[Why do you say such things when NO ONE has said that or even implied it? Or even WANTS that to be the case.]
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.