Posted on 03/03/2007 5:38:03 PM PST by ZULU
Among other very serious flaws - yes.
I wasn't discussing Rudy at all. Of course it's early in the campaign, and history shows early leaders don't often wind up the candidate. This discussion has nothing to do with candidates, but with the issues Americans have.
They know very little of his position on a host of social issues which ARE and SHOULD be of concern to them. And I personally will do all in power to appraise them of them.
The point I'm trying to make to you is that those social issues that are paramount to you and many here on FR do not represent the issues of importance to most Americans. Yes, I understand the social right will continue to try and force their agenda into the campaign, but rather than convince Americans, it may well backfire, marginalizing the RR even more than it is now.
That comment and the name calling was out of line. I'm ashamed that I posted it and I apologize.
"Among other very serious flaws - yes.
Yes, a critical one for our country. One that fits in nicely and conveniently "with the ABOVE."
Apology accepted.
I have requested that I be removed from all Rudy ping lists...blood pressure too high.
I will support Rudy IF he's the nominee...but 18 months out is too soon to commit to any one candidate.
Cheers!
Time will tell. But I believe the loss of Congressional seats in 2006 was directly related to the failure of the Bush administration to adhere to the philosophies of his conservative base - the people who put him in office.
In a very small part you could attribute the loss to their inability to push the Conservative agenda, but the loss came mostly because of the media and the Left's relentless hammering of the Republicans and Bush over Iraq. People want to see a winning coach leading this nation. Their votes show they wanted a change not only in the coach but the starting players, the Republicans. They weren't doing the job.
I'm not on any ping lists but I think I'll be avoiding the Rudy threads for the same reason. Geez it's way to early for all this rancor!
Everybody must be reminded and let the readers beware, we are fully infiltrated. Where are those posting supportive conservative news and who are the ranters who try to silence, divide, corrupt and disrupt? Liberal, progressive, phony pretend dirtbags come in here and pretend to be Archie Bunker for no other reason than to be a caricature to ridicule. They don't really expect their rants to win any converts, au contraire, they want to repel any potentials.
But that's not the reality. The social right base turned out; the center-right went elsewhere. Mostly over the Iraq war, but the inability of the 109th contributed immeasurable to the defeat, including the scandals and corruption. But also included was the failure of Congress to deal with a single issue of importance to Americans, including immigration reform, social security reform, tax reform, energy independence, and above all, budgetary control.
They did have time to debate a host of social right issues though.
I agree they weren't doing their job. Bush got bogged down in a situation which seemed to be going nowhere in Iraq - or at least the media so presented it - and the Administration didn't repsond.
There was also the continual hemorrhaging of our southern border and the flood of illegals the Administration apparently is STILL determined to provide amnesty to.
Add to that Dubai, Harriet Miers, and host of other incredible blunders, and the fall out fell on the only available targets - unfortunately.
But Bush II and Reagan BOTH were elected on conservative platforms. So, to a degree was his father the first time around. The Second time around his father was an old tired man and simply not fit to compete with Clinton. He was ALSO sandbagged by the much vaunted Greenspan who throttled a booming economy RIGHT before the election. Dole was pretty much a repeat performance.
The public needs someone who espouses traditional American values - however they are defined at the time, charisma, and an ability to effectively articulate his policies.
The current President has been a disappointment in many of those areas. His pre-emption concept was right on target, but he got sidetracked in Iraq and stalled out there before he finish the job with Iran and Syria. Now, his apparent new military moves there and concurrent attempts to try to cajole Ahmeddinejad (spelling) and the Baathist Syrians to buy into the plan to democratize a territory they are BOTh interested in seizing is nothing short of dumbfounding.
I wonder how Mr. Giuliani would handle the complexities of this current policy and the incredible mess that is mideastern politics. It is something with which he is totaly unfamiliar.
Unfortunately I have to agree.
There seems to be no reasoning with people who appear to feel that they're on a mission from God. But I'm afraid that if their mission was instigated by a spiritual being, he is definitely NOT that divine spiritual Being who has so far protected America and it's people from the fate of all preceding great nations which are now either relatively insignificant players on the world stage or just footnotes in history.
Perhaps it's already too late for a return to America's Christian roots. After 34 years of the American Holocaust and 48 million innocent humans legally killed before or during birth, God's seemingly boundless patience with our unrepentant flaunting of His laws and precepts has no doubt worn very thin.
The true one's are true, but the ugly one's seem to cause resentment, and its obvious that resentment is driving some of these folks opinions.
Ones a poor choice and the other is a poor choice. You decide.
Prove it.
Exactly. And for those who pause long enough to think about it, there is no mystery about why the MSM is pushing Giuliani so relentlessly. Just as you said, if he is the GOP nominee the other side wins no matter how the election turns out.
What a deal for the liberals this election will be if the polls are accurate and continue to go as they are now. The only comparable situation that I can imagine would be if the GOP were to nominate someone similar to Reagan and the Democrats were to nominate Zell Miller.
Agreed. I'll also note, for me, if you have a 2004 "born on date," you are already suspect. I noticed an influx of these types then. Not everybody with a 2004 date, of course, but enough that I watch.
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.