Posted on 11/12/2007 2:45:44 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
You missed a couple items.
Unless what it takes is conditionally principled, pro-gun, USAF veteran, anti-abortion and anti-Iraq War obstetrician shrimp pimp Congressman (L-Texas) Ron Paul.
The anti-Iraq War standing removes Ron Paul from serious consideration. His shrimp-ocrisy simply shows his principles are as deep as an Aransas Bay mudflat at low tide.
Oh, yeah, and the L-Texas stands for Lunatic from Texas.
Jim, you have just summed up why I answer the question of “who are YOU supporting?” by saying “I do not have the luxury of a candidate while Rudy911 is still in the running for the GOP nod.” I like some guys a lot (one of them, unfortunately, is a “one-percenter”), some are okay, and some require nose-pinching to support. But there is one who threatens - with extinction - the Party, Conservatism itself, and many issues I hold dear: Rudy911.
One may or may not believe in the sincerity of Romney’s conversion, or in McCain’s newfound unabashed version of McCain “Conservatism.” One can question whether Huckabee would be a Democrat if they didn’t burn Pro-Lifers at the stake. One can question whether Fred Thompson is as passionate a Conservative as everyone wants him to be. But those types of hesitations PALE in comparison with the impending advent of the Grand New Party that the Melman/Giuliani wing of the party is trying to bring to pass.
Nothing compares to the threat that Rudy911 poses to the Conservative movement in this country, nothing.
So I’m with you - my vote will ultimately get cast for whomever proves to be the most likely candidate to best Rudy911 at the time the polls open in my state. Unless he plummets before then, I do not have the luxury of voting my conscience in the Primaries. This will be the first time I have ever had to say that. But whoever thought that Rudy911 would ever - in our worst nightmares - even be CONSIDERED as the GOP Presidential nominee?!?!
Since when do WE (Republicans) nominate Draft-dodgers and war protesters?
Since when do WE nominate Self-Professed Abortion Rights Activists?
Since when do WE nominate Gay Rights Avtivists?
Since when do WE nominate the most fervent of Gun-Grabbers?
Since when do WE nominate Unapologetic, serial philanderers?
It’s like I’m in Bizarro world, or some kind of alternate universe, that Rudy911 is even in the RUNNING as a Republican Presidential contender!
If it’s Fred, or Romney, or McCain - so be it. ANYONE but Rudy Giuliani, who spent his entire tenure as Mayor trying to use the Clinton Administration and the Court system to remake all of America in the image of New York City. Do the Rudophiles even REMEMBER him as Mayor? Do they even REMEMBER how hard he tried to force NY values on the rest of America? He was tireless, and relentless, in using all of his power and means to do so. Now we’re supposed to give him all the power of the PRESIDENCY?
Let me just sum up by saying this - and I’m only speaking for myself, perhaps: To all of you Rudophiles and Rudy enablers who are calling on, and will be calling on, Conservatives to back Rudy911 if he wins the nod because “we” have to stop Hillary from becoming President - to all of you I say: there is no “we” or “us” or “our” anymore when you hand the Giuliani wing the keys to the Party. There is YOU and ME - we are not together, you are not my ally, we are not a “team” with your common goal of beating Hillary at the cost of Conservatism. Politically speaking, you are my enemy and need to be defeated - politically speaking, you will be treated accordingly.
[Insert Wild, Sustained Applause Here] ;) ;) ;)
This is a bit misleading. We can’t even get Ronpaul to say that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing. It’s not that he’s against the War in Iraq - it’s that he against any form of involvement in the world whatsoever, no matter what, period. The man said that America has never needed to fight a war even dating back to WWI. Heck, even Pat Buchanan said we needed to get involved in WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor!
There is anti-Iraq war, and then there is anti-U.S. defense. Ronpaul is the latter - noone can seriously expect that in the 21st century we can simply build a forcefield around the country and never have a troop stationed overseas. No reasonable person can possibly believe we can have a real National Defense by staying entirely within our borders in this day and age.
That’s the difference - we’re not talking about just an Iraq disagreement here, we’re talking about setting back national defense and interests 150 years in the name of total isolationism.
Tough spot for GOP. Giuliani has the best chance (so far) against Madame Hillary but his positions are fatally flawed. Romney has better positions, but is likely unelectable.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 35% of Republicans and 70% of Independents, not to mention 90% of Democrats, are opposed to a “stay the course” approach in Iraq.
And if Giuliani is nominated, anti-abortion, pro-gun, and pro-family Republicans will stay home.
Does that sound like math that adds up to a Republican presidency in 2008?
Didn’t you learn anything from the 2006 congressional elections?
Things like our involvement in overthrowing the elected government of Iran, and installing the sock-puppet Shah who destroyed constitutional limits on his power and converted himself into an absolute monarch, or our involvement in protecting him from justice at the hands of the Iranians he oppressed for years?
Things like our involvement in supplying satellite reconnaissance data to Saddam so he could better plan and coordinate his chemical weapon attacks on Iran?
That's the kind of "involvement" that Ron Paul is referring to.
There is a difference between bad involvement and no involvement. We should be against bad involvement - Ronpaul is against ANY involvement, even to help our allies.
If Ronpaul were simply against meddling, that would be different. Ronpaul doesn’t even want us looking for Osama.
“Rudy went after the mob when he was a prosecutor.”
Funny that only now, as rotorooter is running for prez that this “news” about the supposed consideration of hitting him comes out.......we ought to be viewing this “news” as campaign propaganda
Yeah, that corruption was the leading reason the Dems beat the GOP. Iraq was second.
However, the Dems are showing themselves to have corruption problems, which will negate that issue next year. And Iraq is being righted ever since Bush finally got rid of Rumsfeld. Public opinion is slowly coming back around as a result.
And finally, my support of the Iraq War is not contingent upon what the rest of the country thinks. If you are that wishy-washy that you seek validation in the opinions of the great unwashed who are too busy watching Entertainment Tonight to get an informed opinion, then you are just as big a joke as the candidat you support.
the only mob ties are those of prosecution against the mob. also, in the prosecutor’s world sometimes deals are struck...
This is a Rudi thread. We got plenty of other threads to debate the other candidates.
Do you have a quote along those lines? Ron Paul voted in favor of the action against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
If Ronpaul were simply against meddling, that would be different. Ronpaul doesn’t even want us looking for Osama.
I think you're quite wrong there. He introduced a bill to have Congress issue a letter of marque and reprisal against Osama and the others involved in the 9/11 attack, for example. Again, I'd like to see a quote along those lines as to where you got that idea.
I’d support Romney over Trudy. I wouldn’t be thrilled about it, but I’d do it.
“but Hillary is not guilty by association with all the scandals of the Clinton administration? Or Livingstone? Or Webb Hubbell? Or the several private investigators that terrorized their enemies? Or the missing billing records? Or FBI files? Or White House Travel Office firings?”
Which is why, in a race between these two a principled conservative has no one to vote for.
D*mned fine post Titans.
I’d rather it be Fred.
I think Mitt has a tougher row to hoe with the base in the primaries and the Mormon issue. Should he however get the nomination I’d give him better the even odds of beating the beast.
What’s wrong with Fred?
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.