A person who believes in the principles of law and order, the free market and being strong on the war against Islamo-facisim would have to be an idiot to vote for a 3rd party candidate and not for Giuliani if, in fact, it’s him vs. Clinton.
Because that would insure a Marxist President for the next 8 years who would try to turn this country into a socialist nanny -state.
A Giuliani Presidency is far more likely to produce that. There is no stopping liberal legislation pushed by a RINO.
A person who believes in unalienable rights would have to be an idiot to vote for a “Republican” who believes:
- women have a constitutional “right” to procure the killing of their unborn children;
- the government should pay for this “right”;
- folks have little, if any, real rights to bear arms;
- gun manufacturers should be sued to pursue gun control strictures that couldn’t be had from the legislative process;
- homosexuals have a “right” to the legal equivalent of marriage;
- the state should be able to seize automobiles from folks ACQUITTED of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
- initially opposed the Bush tax cuts;
Because voting for such a person would be voting for a statist liberal. In that this person would also be the head of the Republican Party, it would leave to the destruction of the Republican Party as a force for conservatism.
sitetest
>>A person who believes in the principles of law and order, the free market and being strong on the war against Islamo-facisim would have to be an idiot to vote for a 3rd party candidate and not for Giuliani if, in fact, it’s him vs. Clinton.<<
My advice: save your breath. I’ve been arguing for months with the idiots on this board and its beyond frustrating. I’ve read more than one poster who has actually referred to RG as a “socialist” being (evidently) unaware that the free-market Cato Institute gave him very high marks as a tax and budget cutter.
If you try to argue that half a loaf is better than none — a concession one often has to make in a two-party system — then you will be met with the one-issuer voter (typically abortion) who just repeats the same thing over and over, impervious to any argument. If you try to argue that even on abortion he would be preferable given his announced intention to appoint strict constructionist judges, you will be laughed at. Yet his two top legal advisors are Ted Olsen and Steve Calabresi — isn’t it at least possible that one or both could be appointed to SCOTUS? And isn’t it totally impossible for anyone even remotely that good to be appointed by Hillary?
And if you cite his electability — he is running ahead of every Republican against Hillary — the response is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the social conservatives won’t back him. Well, convince them and maybe they will!
I don’t know what world a lot of the people on this board live in. They talk to their like-minded friends and think that the country is ready to elect some 100% purist conservative — and, as you’ve no doubt noticed, even Newt Gingrich is regarded as suspect in these circles.
The reality is: in 2000, the leftists Gore and Nader pulled an absolute majority of the vote. In 2004, the incumbent Republican barely won re-election. In 2006, the Democrats swept both houses. And in 2008, the generic Democrat is winning by a landslide. Under these circumstances, only a Republican candidate than can add substantial numbers of moderate voters has a prayer. We are so very fortunate that the Democrats are going to nominate Hillary, who has a lot of negatives. If we pull together and are willing to overlook imperfection, I think she can be defeated.
For many of the true-believers (and they freely admit this), they’d rather see her win than vote for a moderate Republican. Maybe, as the election nears, and they contemplate the thought of waking up day after day to a future where THAT is the leader of the free world and commander in chief of our men in uniform, they will relent. But I’ve concluded its a decision they will have to make, you or I will never change their mind.
If the race is Trudy vd Hillary! THAT would insure a Marxist President for the next 8 years who would try to turn this country into a socialist nanny -state.