Thanks for the ping.
Posted on 06/18/2006 5:28:38 PM PDT by Mia T
Lopez: Rudy? Does it have to be Rudy?
Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP. He remains wildly popular despite having made almost no public appearances in the past two years. His record as mayor of New York City—which one can plausibly argue is a job equal to being the governor of most states—remains the most extraordinary example of active conservative governance at the local level in the past 75 years. He is not a Washington candidate, which means he can separate himself from the congressional party's excesses and hijinks. Most important, he spent eight years as a liberal-slayer in New York, taking on every major institution, refusing to kowtow to the New York Times and the liberal media, and getting so much done that the city is still reveling in the revival for which he was almost solely responsible.
Lopez: Why not John McCain? Why not an Allen or Romney?
Podhoretz: John McCain has too complicated a history with the social conservatives and activist groups, and is such a gadfly that it seems inevitable he will act in ways to divide the GOP coalition. Unlike Rudy, he seems to prefer making friends with liberals and attacking conservatives, and that's not a good stance for a party leader. I guess George Allen is a plausible candidate, but why is he at three percent in polls of likely primary voters while McCain and Giuliani are nearly 30 points higher? As for Mitt Romney, I just don't think the nation is ready for a Mormon president (and by the way, I say that as an observant Jew who doesn't think the nation is ready for a Jewish president either).
Lopez: You’ve previously talked up Jeb Bush. But not in the book. Why no dynasty vs. dynasty fight?
Podhoretz: I take Jeb at his word. He's not running.
Lopez: Why not woman vs. woman? Why wouldn’t Condi pull it off? Just more of your sexism?
Podhoretz: The presidency is not an entry-level electoral job. Condi Rice hasn't ever been elected for anything. She should run for senator or governor of California and take it from there. I would be thrilled to vote for her in 2016.
Lopez: If you had to bet money today…do Republicans stop her?
Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.
READ MORE
STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]
Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.
Amen! This would solve a boat-load of problems. Nice work, Mia.
You are absolutely right. She is a pig in the truest sense of the word. Grabbing all the resources so that she has no real opposition. Somehow I don't think that sits well with the opposition. I cannot imagine that there aren't multiple coups in the works.
B. U. M. P.
The democrat party has been taken over years ago by the socialists.
When more democrats realize that, there will be more defections from the party.
Democrats like Zell Miller and Ronald Reagan realized that. Reagan became a Republican, Miller stayed and chastises the socialists. - Tom
Why is the picture of Buchannan labeled "Robertson"? Are these Pats equivalent? Is the author that careless? Hard to take seriously authors who do not proofread.
I look for Rudy to be nominated and McCain to pull the stunt of an independant run to get his real soul mate, Hillary elected. If it's McCain or Rudy, I'm voting Rudy.
If Zell Miller tried to run as a third-party candidate, his fate would be the same as George Wallace's in 1968. If there was a true populist groundswell for a candidate who was not one of the CFR-one worlders, the bad guys would take him out.
Thanks for the ping.
JOHN MCCAIN.
IMHO, already bought and paid for by the Evil Teensy Bent One and and his witch-woman, the godforsaken scum.
Just a matter of logistics and details now.
And (unfortunately but inevitably), so many people on this forum will aid and abet the g*dd*am Clintons in their plan. And I just hope it won't be enough to put us in their hands again. Not sure the USA could survive that...
Why are you buying the MSM propaganda, that McCain is the de facto Republican nominee. The MSM is pushing that notion, because they know that Hillary can beat him.
There are two years until 2006 and we need to find a Republican nominee who can beat Hillary or any other Dem. THAT should be the main criteria.
Limited government and a track record to prove it.
I am sick to death of 'the government is the solution' people, particularly Republicans who should know better.
NO MORE RINOs.
I thought that I was clear on that.
I'll vote third party. The GOP should have got the message by now. We're sick of big government, tax and spend liberal BS.
If Rudy or McCain or anyone of that ilk is the nominee, I will vote third party.
RINOs are liberals. Why would I, why should I, how could I vote for a liberal?
And the converse of that is that should the GOP ignore those to whom 'purity' is important, the GOP will be out of power and out of jobs. It is they who should give us our due, not the other way around.
Just a reminder: Free Republic is a conservative site
Posted on 04/11/2006 6:33:35 AM EDT by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612942/posts
I emphatically agree with Badray. Voting for me-too Republicans who spend the deficit ever higher and expand the state as vigorously as the Democrats in the name of party unity is a delusion. For both the lamestream imperial parties and their partisans, more power and more profligate spending to keep their snouts close to the most personally advantageous place in the tax revenue trough is what it's all about. Both parties need to be replaced by people who are committed to shrinking the state by ending the reign of corporate and underclass welfare, and one does not reach that goal by voting for either faction of the perpetuators of this system.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I have to respectfully, but adamantly, disagree with your conclusions.
If the GOP puts up a candidate who is Democrat light, why in the world should I be obligated to vote for that person?
The GOP doesn't own my vote and when they put up lousy candidates and pass lousy and unconstitutional laws, they do not even have my interests in mind.
Do I want the Dems? Hell no. But it is the nice republicans who are making socialism acceptable in this country. Every time the vile and nasty Democrats push too hard and too far, the American people smack them down. Then we get a compassionate conservative who does what the Dems couldn't do. They do it piecemeal and get applauded for it.
No thanks. No more RINOs. They'll kill us faster than the Dems.
BTTT
ping
- God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half.
--Paddy Chayefsky
And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless. --Mia T
The clintons' and the Left's FLIM FLAM will work ONLY IF ENOUGH OF US (AGAIN!) FALL FOR IT.
The control of this issue--whether we'll be duped again and suffer another clinton--is in OUR HANDS.
Also from Jim Robinson... and right on point:
[T]hey're using the same divide and conquer techniques. They infiltrate our political parties and organizations. They plant disinformation bombs and sow the seeds of political discontent. They are masters in the use of propaganda and rabble rousing.
Recognize the enemy for what he is and do not allow them to use divisive issues to destroy our conservative movement.
We are winning. We must not be sidetracked by an issue that will be solved in due time as we elect more conservative members to our government and continue replacing liberal activist judges with constitutionalists.
The goal is the same as it's always been. We must hold the line and advance our cause. Never willingly give ground to the liberal/socialists! Never retreat! Never surrender!
The Beast must be destroyed!--
The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies!
May 10, 2006 | Jim Robinson
Lopez: If you had to bet money today…do Republicans stop her?
Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008.
Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead?
Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing.
Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side?
Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book....
Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary?
Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.
Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.
STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE
(and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]
Mia T, 5.12.06
What's black and white and read all over and is more self-destructive than pre-9/11 thinking?
- by Mia T, 5.14.06
re-clinton thinking, that's what....Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.
We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations. We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first one.)
ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)
by Mia T, 4.28.06
ALBRIGHT1: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War2 on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'
I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
by Mia T, 11.11.05This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.
Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.
According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.
Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.
If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
READ MORE
'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
THE ADDRESSTHE (oops!) TRUTH
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war....
But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak. And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 6
So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... 1
I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright. Listening."
bill clinton
Fulbright Prize address
April 12, 2006
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.
We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].
At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'
I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."
bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
- "You know... the job which we should have done 1... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."
hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA
- ... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards. I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office. In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough.
bill clinton
Fulbright Prize address
April 12, 2006
- "Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week."
Bill Schneider
CNN
reporting on the Fulbright Prize
April 14, 2006
- WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby
- There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL
- At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.
Mia T
Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
MISSING CLINTON AUDIO! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)
HEAR CLINTON! 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
by Mia T, 4.24.06
LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE AUDIO: Fulbrighters' gasps of horror follow clinton's "I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak...."
I suspect the horror was provoked not by the (proven) fecklessness and recklessness and rigidity and danger of the purported clinton 'terrorism policy' or even by the absurdity of the argument; I suspect the gasps of horror were in response, rather, to the Kill-Bill kind of violence (albeit "virtual") contained in bill clinton's words.
- God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half.
--Paddy Chayefsky
And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless. --Mia T
The clintons' and the Left's FLIM FLAM will work ONLY IF ENOUGH OF US (AGAIN!) FALL FOR IT.
The control of this issue--whether we'll be duped again and suffer another clinton--is in OUR HANDS.
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.
