Posted on 10/13/2007 9:53:21 AM PDT by wagglebee
The time for the “practicality” debate is AFTER the primary not before.
Has Guiliani won? Is he to be coronated or elected?
Has he EARNED an actual majority of the vote?
Has the race been fixed and nobody got the memo?
This is a time to vet the candidates.
This is a time to examine their positions.
If and when Guiliani loses the primary race, this entire debate becomes moot.
Pragmatism also means that you have to accept the notion that not only is nobody perfect, but that nobody is ever going to be in total agreement with you. Therefore, if you must choose someone, choose whoever most closely matches your core values.
Pragmatism also means that whoever is elected will have to compromise what they believe in to some extent, but you want them to keep *their* core values as well.
Now Washington, D.C., is a place of IOUs. This means on one hand “If I vote for your bill, then you will vote for mine”. But on the other hand, it also means, “If you vote *against* my bill, then I will vote *against* your bill.”
But it gets more complicated. This is because the vast majority of bills never make it to law. So often politicians vote for a bill even though they *know* it will fail. But the same politicians would vote *against* the *same* bill, if they knew it was going to pass.
And bills also change many times during their passage from committee to law. And the House version of the bill has to be justified to the Senate version of the bill, often with bizarre modifications.
So all too commonly, you will see politicians vote on a bill one way in committee and another way on the floor, because it is almost a completely different bill.
To confuse the issue further, what a bill is called may have little to do with what is in it, or the bill may do exactly the opposite of what it proposes. And since the bill is actually written *not* by congressmen, but by their aides, the infamous “Hill Rats”, you not only have to trust who you vote for, but the character of the people they hire as staff. Otherwise good and necessary bills are often laden with pork, sometimes to kill them.
Often issues are so complex that it is terribly hard for anyone to even explain it, much less what they think of it. There are almost NO simple issues, except the public demands that politicians treat important issues like they are simple.
Beware those who demand “yes or no” stands on complicated issues. Take opposition to abortion, for example. A politician says he is opposed to abortion, but what does he really mean? For example, if you inquire further, he might answer like this:
Opposed to Roe v. Wade? Yes.
Federal funding for abortion? No.
What if the mother’s life is in danger? Maybe.
In case of rape, incest, and pregnant child? Maybe.
Federal law prohibiting all abortions? States’ rights.
What about the “day after” pill? Yes.
Other contraception? Yes.
Prosecuting legal abortion doctors? No.
etc.
Now, and ideologue might insist on either total adherence to “pro-abortion” or “anti-abortion”, but they never ask the internal questions within the issue. They are more concerned with the politician bowing before them and their agenda item than “pragmatic” results. They are also often indifferent to most other issues.
So when you look out at the field of candidates, what must really be your guide, again, are two things. Does the candidate agree with my few, core values, and second, does he have the strength of character to keep to those core values, when faced with endless compromises he might have to make to get what he wants.
With whomever the GOP nominates, YOU have a chance to influence who the next 3 candidates for the Court will be. 3 Leftists, Stevens, Ginzburgh and...I am drawing a blank are very doubtful to last from now to 2013 With Hillary you have NO chance of influencing who replaces them.
That is the ONLY thing Christian Conservatives should be thinking about going into 2008.
The goal of CONSERVATIVES is to make sure that the GOP nominates a CONSERVATIVE, thus it is MANDATORY to do anything necessary to defeat Rooty Toot. Now, I understand that this might not have the support of your WAnker comrades, but that’s how CONSERVATIVES feel.
Sorry buddy. Rooty has said he believes Ginsberg to be a strict Constitutionalist judge.
Ha. I guess in his world of liberal thinking, she is. I can say at least he is an honest liberal.
Yes, I too believe Duncan is THE principled candidate and I pray for his race.
Rudy is a straw dog. He cannot be nominated. He doesn’t have enough support. The highest I’ve seen him poll is 38%. Most of the time he’s around 30%. That is nationwide. Given the many conservative states, he’ll do worse than that.
That is not a fruit of the spirit. That is a product of human hubris and arrogance.
I believe this best describes you and Rudy.
Sorry, your post is you descibing you.
“The goal of CONSERVATIVES is to make sure that the GOP nominates a CONSERVATIVE, thus it is MANDATORY to do anything necessary to defeat Rooty Toot. Now, I understand that this might not have the support of your WAnker comrades, but that’s how CONSERVATIVES feel.”
Wanker....your UK slip is showing :-)
Rudy will expose his past, and the scandals will take care of the rest.
That title is a perfect example of hubris and arrogance, not Christian humility, at work. NO one is asking Christian Conservatives to give up anything. What they are being told is they do not get to impose their personal whimsy on everyone around them by fiat. That they have to actually work for the prize. This is this person's ego speaking, not the spirit
Rooty is a liberal, there is NOTHING conservative about him.
Why would ANY president ever nominate judges who have political views that are totally different from their own?
Are you actually that obtuse?
If conservatives go along with the GOP nominating a liberal, we have given up EVERYTHING. Rooty Toot is as liberal as ANY candidate who has ever sought the 'Rat nomination, you and your FRiberal ilk seem to think that this isn't a problem -- you couldn't be more wrong.
“Rooty is a liberal, there is NOTHING conservative about him.
Why would ANY president ever nominate judges who have political views that are totally different from their own?”
Rudy has the pragmatism of a trained ape : )
They are not trying to impose their views on you. You are so blind and so full of hubris that you cannot see.
Vote for Rudy if you wish. That does not give you a right to impose your will on Christian conservatives and browbeat and bully people into accepting your view.
Simple concept that seems to evade you.
Face it, you will have to win without their vote. Good luck.
The bluebloods and Hillaryphobes can shriek and scream and hold their breath until they turn blue. There are millions of us who will not compromise.
Never. Never. Never.
I actually held my nose and voted for both Bushes. I cannot do that with Rudy.
BTTT
What part of "principles" and "convictions" and "integrity" do you not understand? Silly name calling like this does your cause no good.
Kettle, meet pot.
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.