Don't Be Fooled Again (Joseph Farah: Do We Really Want A Drag Queen President? Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | April 5, 2006 | Joseph Farah

[Mr. Brightside]

I look forward to Rudy stepping into the race.

We should welcome him with open arms, because when he loses the nomination he will stand on the podium and give his ringing endorsement of the GOP candidate and bring all the other RINOs with him.

Bush could not have won without the RINO vote.

So that's why I don't mind Rudy running for president. If he doesn't throw a lot of mud in the primaries, he will be a good asset for us in the general election.

[wintertime]

My objection to Rudy is the shameful way he handled the divorce of his wife. This a man with no redeemable character.

[proud American in Canada]

I agree with you.

[ilgipper]

Yes, Rudy would excel in many of the most important issues to people on this board. The question is what would happen with those other issues.

I would support Rudy 100% in the general election, and unless someone viable shows up on the scene, or one of the current candidates ups his game by a lot, I would support him in the primaries.

My biggest concern with Rudy would be judicial appointments. I would need to hear something in this area to show that he is going to appoint judges in the manner that Pres. Bush has.

[proud American in Canada]

I daresay he would prosecute that war with even more vigor than the Bush Administration.

I think you might be right on this.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...a GOP candidate like Rudy Giuliani, as I already stated - the choice should be a no-brainer.

Precisely, a vote by someone who has no brains at all... I'll think for myself, thank-you...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

...he IS capable of leading America in the War on Terror, and for the scoffers who say "uh uh", here is an excerpt from his address to the GOP Convention in New York City in 2004...

Just more blah, blah, blah...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

what is needed and what must be done for the United States to prevail in this conflict:

Nuke Mecca and Islam is finished. The sooner, the better.

In WWII, it took two of them to prevail in SE Asia.

Even General Patton thought we could still lose the war in Europe after he had already landed in Italy.

George Patton and Douglas MacArthur were right and we are paying that price for not listening to them now with China and Russia monkey wrenching our efforts to reign in Islamic nukes...

Giuliani hasn't a clue...

[SUSSA]

Character doesn't matter, right? We heard that for 8 years from Move On .Org and the DNC. Now "Republicans" are starting to say it.

NO THANKS! We don't need a RINO Billy Boy in the White House. The Democrat version was bad enough.

[zarf]

A man in drag during a benefit....one of the oldest comedy gags around.

From ancient Greece to Milton Berle and Monty Python, it's always gotten the laugh.

Now all of a sudden, it's a shocking affront.

Farah's a loon.

[SUSSA]

I will never vote for a man who cannot keep his vow to his wife and the mother of his child.

###

That's not the worst of it. He brought his sluts into Gracy Mansion. Why wouldn't he bring them into the Oval Office?

He's so pro-baby killing he favors partial birth abortion and said he'd give his daughter the money to have her baby killed.

But what the hell, CHARACTER DOESN"T MATTER HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO WIN.

[Wallace T.]

Giuliani and for that matter McCain and Romney will draw in moderates, but repel conservatives. You will get an outcome similar to what the elder Bush experienced in 1992 and Dole in 1996. Lack of conservative enthusiasm is deadly for a GOP candidate. The better showing Bush had in 2004 (52%) vs. 2000 (48%) was due to his cultivation of evangelical Christians. Giuliani and Romney may be able to pick up New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, with outside shots for their respective home states. However, they would likely lose Ohio, Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado, and even Virginia and Florida, all states where the evangelical vote tips the scales. Throw in a strong third party candidate like Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, and the entire South and maybe the Rockies and Plains states are no longer securely Republican.

To win, the GOP must have an unqualified, strong conservative at the head of the ticket in 2008.

[arthurus]

Anti-life, anti-gun, pro-homosexual, Keynesian- what's not to love? G is positioning himself in the same way that H is positioning herself. If they both become the nominees then the great guessing game will begin... who is the Democrat? and Does it matter? even a little?

[arthurus]

And others protest their purity too much.

[arthurus]

Less than perfect? That is far too charitable.

[arthurus]

The president's influence on law enforcement depends entirely on his choice of personnel. Rudy for AG! For president, no. If he is the nominee he will elect the Democrat, whoever the Democrat nominee will be. Giuliani is Mrs. Bill Clinton's only good shot at the presidency.

[beezdotcom]

Personally I'm with Strategerist. I'd rather compromise and have a less-than-perfect Republican President than proudly and nobly end up with a perfect Democrat.

I'll say it now: I think President Hillary would be more likely (thanks to triangulation) to sign conservative legislation than would President Rudy. They're both liberal, and so when the conservative backlash begins against the liberal policies they push, I'd rather see that backlash against a Democrat than a Republican.

[Dustbunny]

We really like Rudy Guiliani. How he handled the 9/11 tragedy was fantastic. He truly cared.

That said, he does not give us the impression that he would be great Presidential material. I know there will never be another Ronald Reagan, unfortunately we cannot support someone for President that does not even come close.

[mkjessup]

Nuke Mecca and Islam is finished. The sooner, the better.

The difference between a military genius and a fool is having a sense of proper timing.

Nuking Mecca is always an option but timing is everything. The War on Terror will be won over many years, not by the 60 second sweep watch on your wrist.

In WWII, it took two of them to prevail in SE Asia.

Try Japan.

Even General Patton thought we could still lose the war in Europe after he had already landed in Italy.

Any war can be won or lost depending upon a multitude of factors.

George Patton and Douglas MacArthur were right and we are paying that price for not listening to them now with China and Russia monkey wrenching our efforts to reign in Islamic nukes...

As gratifying as it would have been to see General Patton lead the charge in World War III against the Soviets in the wake of World War II, that would very likely have dragged the West into a Eurasian conflict that we were not prepared for. We had only one additional atomic bomb at our disposal in 1945 after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and our ability to build more was based upon delicate and sensitive construction by hand, not the more advanced automated assembly methods that would come later.

General Patton might well have prevailed against the Soviet Red Army, however there is no way to tell how hard the Russians would have fought to keep their recently reclaimed territory, freed from Hitler's grasp. Add the very strong possibility of Europe ending up in Soviet hands, and a premptive strike by Patton could well have turned out to be a disaster. If anyone could have done it, Patton could. But the stakes were too great to risk throwing the dice on it.

And you can believe that while we (America and the West) were engaged in that Eurasian conflict with the Soviets, that the ChiComs would have been sweeping through all of Korea, Vietnam, and all of the then-recently liberated Japanese occupied areas as well. Mao was well on his way to dispatching Chiang Kai Shek to Formosa (which took place in 1949), Chiang's retreat may well have taken place earlier if U.S. forces were tied down in a conflict with the Soviets.

By the time MacArthur was advocating the use of atomic weapons on the ChiComs and North Korea, the U.S. inventory of atomic warheads stood at 13, which was the only thing preventing a Soviet invasion of Europe, because had Stalin started a war in Europe, those 13 atomic warheads would have had to be delivered on their targets by B-36 Peacemakers, and as glorious as those planes were, they had their share of problems, meaning that there was no guarantee that those 13 atomic bombs would have ever made it to their target(s). MacArthur did not know that, mainly because he was a General in the Army, and it was Truman who was President and saw the larger picture.

I blame no one but MacArthur himself for getting his ass fired because he refused to obey the Constitutionally established authority of the President of the United States, and gave Truman no other course of action except to fire him.

As infuriating as it was, to have to take so long to win the Cold War, it was won best by Ronald Reagan, who won it without firing a (nuclear) shot.

Some "warmonger" as he was vilified, Reagan won the war AND the peace. That peace was squandered by the likes of GHWB and his New World Order fixation, and by the eight years of Emperor Billigula and his depraved crew.

Giuliani hasn't a clue...

Don't kid yourself. He was nearly a casualty himself on 9/11. He's got more than a clue, and I would daresay he's got more of a clue than you do.

[Ditter]

I will answer your question with a question. In hind sight, who would have been a better president Bush the Elder or clinton? Or who would have been better Dole or clinton? If you say clinton there is something wrong with you.

[veronica]

Reagan was in a movie with a monkey, for crying out loud. Did it make him any less of a great President?