Posted on 10/27/2007 2:25:06 AM PDT by ebmiller
There are many reasons a conservative should not vote for Rudy in the Republican primary but I want to emphasize one reason that has not been stated enough on most of the websites I frequent. He will depress the conservative vote, which will impact most other Republicans running for office. That means any close race that a Republican might have won because of the conservative vote, will go down to defeat because enough conservatives stayed home and did not vote. It is a fact that many voters will not come out to the polls if they feel that there is no real choice. When you give the conservative a choice of a liberal New York senator or a liberal New York former mayor for President you will get many conservatives staying home. Whether you think that is good or bad, that is just reality. So say goodbye to closing the gap in the US Senate and could lead to a veto proof majority for the Democrats. Say goodbye to any chance on taking back the House of Representatives. Rudy is a recipe for disaster!
That's been my question since RG was 'annointed' as the GOP nom. I just heard a talking head say that Bush's approval rating is 3x that of Congress... so why are Republican's so willing to stomp on conservative candidates??
If there were no Thompson or Hunter in the race, then I'd consider Rudy. You would think the Rep. nom race would be between just those two, with some Ron Paul thrown in for humor. Upside down and backwards, IMHO.
And clearly doesn't understand "Right of The People" and "Shall not be Infringed".
That's my litmus test, and it's in the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on abortion, and many other issues. (Of course that means they aren't the federal government's business). But it's not silent on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I will not vote for a primary candidate who so clearly does not obey the Constitution.
In general election I might have to hold my nose, once again, and vote for the lessor of two evils, which is still evil. But I'd also like to try to avoid that situation by a proper outcome during the primaries.
Which is the way it was before the Supreme Court stepped in and found another emanation from the penumbra. The states would be very unlikely, well most of them, MA and CA excepted, to continue with the "anything goes" situation we have now. I could even see the actual decision in Roe v Wade being adhered too. No restriction in the first trimester, restrictions but no ban in the second, and an ban in third. They might even look at the true development of the fetus, what we can now see on ultrasounds and even directly in some cases, and make that allowed during the first 8 weeks, maybe only 6, restricted for another 8 weeks, and banned after that. Or some variation of that and varying from state to state.
It’s crazy, you’re right.
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.