Posted on 03/30/2007 2:53:04 PM PDT by poisonivy27
Agreed. The WOT is the ONLY issue in the '08 election. Unless we are successful in defeating Islamofascism AND debombing Iran, we won't have to worry about abortion, guns and gays.
Thanks! I'm not sure I made that statement but I certainly agree with it.
You made many excellent points and I'm amazed that some here prefer to put social issues ahead of the WOT, Iran, North Korea and the huge mess this country would be in if Hillary and Bubba are back in power. It's too excruciating to contemplate.
In a perfect world we may be able to hold out for a strict conservative who agreed with us on every single issue. That time is not now. We need strong leadership, someone we know can walk the walk and send Hillary (and the Pervert) packing.
8 more years of a Hillary and Bubba administration would bring us more corruption, more lies, more SOCIALISM, higher taxes and a more illegals flooding across our borders. Not to mention the appeasing DEM-WITS trying to play kissy face with the worlds worst dictators. Sandy Burgler would manage to blackmail his way into a position in a Clinton II administration (does anyone believe he stole those documents on his own?) No thanks, I'll take Rudy any day.
Re: Donut Holes
Word for the Day:
Wowser (Noun)
Pronunciation: [waw-zê(r)]
Definition: Regional colloquialism (Australia and New Zealand). A puritanical fanatic, a prudish teetotaler; a killjoy and party-pooper all rolled into one.
Usage: The 'Daily News' wrote April 4, 1909, "‘Wowser’ is a term applied by certain portions of the Australian press to persons of all denominations, more particularly to those fanatical on temperance and social evils."
According to 'The Nation' May 11, 1912, a wowser is "one who wants to compel everybody else...to do whatever he thinks right, and abstain from everything he thinks wrong." The noun is wowserism "party-poopery," the adjective is "wowserish," and a wowserish person may also be a wowserite.
I'm not a Romney supporter as of yet, but at least he has some semblance of a conservative record.
I haven`t decided yet, although need to add Thompson to the list. All four would be better then Bubba`s wifey.
But if Giuliani is elected, we will have lost the party; conservatives will no longer be running show. It will be a party run by Giuliani/McCain/Lieberman/Chaffee/Jeffords types rather than the party of Reagan.
We will find ourselves without a viable conservative party to mount national challenges against a veritable force of liberal kooks that now run the Democrat party. There is more at stake than just beating Hillary.
The nominee of the Republican party will be a Conservative. Not in some peoples eyes of course, doubt Reagan could get their support, them being so highly principled then we mere mortals. But even though they think so, they DON`T control the party and they don`t get people elected. People that can`t compromise a little, don`t get things done and most voters realize that. Just look at the number of New Congressman Tom Tancredo added to his legion’s in the last election. ZERO
He would run the war on terror much like Lieberman probably would, not such a bad thing but it doesn't mean I should vote for him in the primary when there are also real conservatives running, and it certainly doesn't make him one.
OK, then let's call up the RNC and cancel the primary; no since in having it because only Giuliani can beat Hillary. From now on conservatism is no longer defined by ideas, it is instead determined by your ability to hold an early lead in the polls.
Another rule of thumb is that anyone who points out the inherent liberalism of Giuliani is just trying to get Hillary elected.
Boy I love the way this party is going.
“Several”?
-there is no set definition of a conservative, so you have no right to judge who is and who isn't a conservative, especially Rudy
-Rudy is tough on terrorism
-he cut taxes dozens of times
-he is tough on crime
-he's a leader
-he says he'll appoint constructionists judges
-he can beat Hillary
The Rudy bots saturate their brain with these tidbits, and then put blinders and earmuffs on to everything else. Don't bother brining up Rudy's endorsement of federal funding for abortion or his support of gun registration. They'll just do what Democrats do with terrorism, ignore it and treat it like it doesn't exist.
They then become irrationally angry and vindictive to anyone who questions whether Rudy should be the nominee, and they usually throw in something like "not supporting Rudy is just as bad as voting for Hillary."
They're hoping that Rudy's early lead in the polls will translate into automatic victory without any real debate on conservative principles.
I also think that Rudy's candidacy is part media creation rather than any kind of real grassroots repub support. The media is dreaming over a Giuliani/Hillary '08 matchup.
It is not in this picture...
While he was the “Republican Mayor” of New York City he appointed more than 60 men and women to the Civil, Criminal, and Family Court benchs. In all of those judicial appointment only two were Republican.
All of his other judical appointments were either registered Liberals or registered Democrats. As the “Republican Mayor” he had appointment power over more than 70 full commissioners in more than 50 City agencies, yet at no time during his administration did REPUBLICANS account for more than 10% of those appointments.
He even appointed Chuck Schumers wife as the City’s Department of Transportation Commissioner.
________________________________________________________________
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9054.html
“he says he`ll appoint our types as judges “
He lied. See above.
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.