Posted on 02/17/2006 8:01:45 PM PST by Mia T
Undeniable are Rudy's pugilistic tendencies...
and pencil-neck lawyer Lincoln's obvious limitations as a hat model,
be it Stetson or stovepipe. ;)
I've always held that believing one could--or should--be president should be an automatic disqualifier.
Are you saying that you disagree that the overriding problem is electability?
Of this I can strongly affirm to. As I am of the utmost confidence that Giuliani would never survive the Republican primaries and that a candidate Pence, or Allen, would soundly thrash any Democrat opponent, especially Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But it's not why I posted the quote from Luke.
This was in response to your haughty presumption that we conservatives aren't aware of the pernicious climate in the world today and the threat to America.
Not only are we keenly aware of it, we possess also the confidence that America can defend herself without shedding our responsibility to other components, (economical, social, cultural, and moral), that make up our nation.
If you require evidence of this, look no further back than the 1980s, when the conservative of that era threw down the gauntlet to the world's leading 'terrorist' of that time, the USSR.
America faired pretty well in that decade. She stood tall among the nations of the world - morally, economically and as a guarantor of peace.
If the denizens of NYC are so enthralled with Giuliani, then reelect him as your mayor and allow the less sophisticated to focus on the war on terror along with attending to those other elements ascribed in our Constitution.
Your erroneous implications about my political leanings and your ad hominem characterization aside, you misuse the term.
'Terrorism' implies asymmetric warfare and the absence of both a nation-state and the deterrent of MAD. The cold war, OTOH, was contained and containable -- and ultimately winnable -- precisely because the actors were rational and could be counted on to act rationally, power varied directly with weapons stock... and any attack would necessarily come with a return address.
The '80s is not a template for 2008.
My argument centers not on your lack of awareness of our perilous state, but rather on your priorities. You have told me you would place a de facto vote for hillary clinton, i.e., sit out the election, before voting for someone not conservative enough for you.
To my mind, that is beyond naive. It is even beyond confused. It is plainly dangerous. By placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton, you would be helping to empower precisely what you profess to revile, what you must know would be lethally dangerous for our country.
This is an utter fabrication.
"de facto vote for Hillary" is the phrase you use to describe anyone who refuses to abandon their consciences, ideals and even personal or religious beliefs if they won't capitulate to your wishes of the nation voting en masse for any (R) opposing Hillary Clinton.
I've never said I'd "sit out" an election. I did say that I'd vote only for the true conservative candidate. If no such candidate were on the ballot for POTUS, (hypothetically, as there will be), I would then pass on voting for that particular office.
And you throw that term "ad hominem" around quite leisurely.
If the Chesterton fits...
I don't do fabrication, jla. I was speaking shorthand. It is a distinction without a difference. Either sitting out the election or voting for Perot redux is placing a de facto vote for hillary. You confirm my account.
Indiana. Dunno why it says KY there.
And btw, no semantic games. We are talking president, here. In this context, not voting for president is 'sitting out the election,' whether or not you vote for any of the offices down the line.
thanx pagey :)
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.