Posted on 01/19/2008 9:47:43 PM PST by FocusNexus
Mitt just beat McCain in Michigan days ago, and has more delegates than than anyone else, but he is a proven failure compared to Rudy who hasn’t won anything? Strange logic.
As for Rudy, his strategy reminds me of Patton’s evaluation of Montgomery, “He seems more concerned with not losing than he does with winning”.
When I feel the urge to ride a bicycle, I pour myself a glass of Jack Daniels and lie down until the urge passes.
Hank
The death of the Republican Party>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Already happened.
Tom DeLay was right in his assessment last weeek.
There is no longer a Republican party.
They have handed the Nov. election to the Dems
The primaries have been conducted as if the Republican party was electing a Prom Queen.
I am indeed ashamed.
And there are millions feeling the same way. Welcome to an electoral repeat of Nov. 2006.
“I see it differently than you do. I don’t want either of those guys but if I had to choose one it would be the one that promises to keep GITMO open, not promising to close it. It’s a valid litmus test to me.”
I consider pro-life, pro-gun, pro-marriage to EACH be equally valid litmus tests.
Does “Conservatives” in that poll include the Christian Socialist “Conservatives?
The GOP was NEVER viable in NYC or MASS. Precisely why I give those guys a break in looking at their records.
Both of them, though, have voiced skepticism to some extent about the legitimacy of man-made-global-warming. McCain has bought into it hook, line, and sinker.
I’m here to tell you this Big Lie is the greaters threat to human freedom today. We need someone with the courage to stand up to the environmentalists...McCain has NEVER shown that inclination.
Hank
________________________________________________________
And the worst thing about McCain is that the harder conservatives try to persuade him that global warming is a leftie hoax that can bury the American economy, the more obstinate and moronically stubborn he’ll get about it. Hello Kyoto, goodbye millions of jobs.
McCain getting the nomination means that I don’t have to leave the Republican Party. It left me.
They have handed the Nov. election to the Dems
Ah, there's that Reagan optimism we all cherish!
Interestingly, the Republicans are in better shape with a McCain running against Hillary or Obama, according to Real Clear politics composite polls, which have been pretty accurate. On the other hand, as it stands, having a Fred Thompson run against either one would be handing the election to the Dems. The fact that voters felt McCain could beat the Democrats was a big reason why McCain won in SC. Maybe they're not as stupid as a lot of folks here paint them out to be.
“I don’t see why anyone who would vote for Giuliani would have a problem with McCain, or why anyone who has a problem with McCain would vote for Giuliani.”
I’ve struggled with the notion of having to vote for Rudy. I like his take on the War on Terror, I like that he seems to have a bit of a mean streak and I like that it’s personal. I think he’ll kill more terrorists for my tax dollars than any other candidate, and there won’t be any apologies or PC posturing from him.
I don’t really see eye to eye with him on many socially conservative issues, which are kind of important to me. I think the personal baggage of his marital situation(s) is pretty embarrassing, too. Just not the kind of behavior that I’d prefer from our nation’s chief executive.
I think that McCain has a lot of the same baggage; he doesn’t seem to be strong on issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. He also has his own personal skeletons in the closet. The media really hasn’t seized on his affairs during his first marriage, but you know that they will be all over him should he make it to the general election.
Personally, I think the big difference between the 2 is that while I may not like Rudy’s baggage, it is ALL out there for me to inspect. He hasn’t backtracked or had a “conversion” experience with regard to his stance on abortion, he’s been very candid about issues which conservatives have problems with regarding his policies. Additionally, and for some unknown reason, the media have been all over Rudy’s gaffes, while they seem to give McCain a pass, or at least it seems that way? Maybe that’s just me
McCain, on the other hand, has not really been forced to answer in areas that may run contrary to conservative grain and, when he has, he usually engages in a form of political double speak, which is akin to that of the former First Lady. Additionally, McCain has not been thoroughly vetted on the peccadilloes of his first marriage and the Keating five and the media will take him to the wood shed on such vagaries come the general election.
McCain has very actively pursued amnesty for illegal aliens, he has strongly opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, and he’s not really been smoked out for his positions on abortion and homosexual marriage. Some of his statements on these issues are conflicted or nuanced. Rudy on the otherhand, clearly stated that he was pro-abort. He told Laura Ingraham to her face. Ingraham beat him down for it - and the Mayor knew that he was going to get a beatdown, too! I can respect that. It is transparent.
I recently heard an interview with Rick Santorum on The Hugh Hewitt Show (January 11, 2008)
http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/show.aspx?radioshowid=5
Santorum literally hung ALL of McCain’s dirty laundry out to dry. No one has been a bigger obstacle to moving the conservative agenda forward than Senator McCain. Actually, and according to Santorum, he’s not been an obstacle in the smoky back rooms, he’s been a lively advocate and proponent of liberal agenda.
What is McCain for? Well, how about limiting free speech via McCain/Feingold, subverting the Constitutional process of judicial review via the Gang of 14 and his advocacy of the global warming myth. He also seems to have laid claim to the idea that “the surge” was something that he came up with.
I find him to be repugnant.
I don’t like Rudy’s position on abortion, gay marriage and the second amendment, but feel that he can be browbeat by a vocal conservative constituency.
Giuliani says that he will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia and Alito. Why would he put this out there for the purpose of political expediency, when he has not tried to nuance any other of his political positions that go against the conservative base? What have I got to work with other than the Mayor’s word, along with the vouchsafe of Ted Olson, that he will nominate such jurors.
Have we got even that much from the Ancient Mariner??
That is why I would vote for Rudy Giuliani if he is the nominee of the Republican party, and it is why I will not vote for John McCain under any circumstance.
Megyn Kelly on Fox just reported that McCain got most of his vote from “independents, moderates and senior voters”.
This is not a conservative candidate.
Yes, exactly why I cut Rudy and Romney some slack. They had very liberal constituents and I’m sure many of the positions they took were the result of that.
I prefer Romney over Rudy because of the pro-life issue, other than that, and I think both a far more preferable than McCain.
I have to say I’m not all that worried about McCain getting the nomination. I think a lot of people dislikes McCain and everyone knows it, as long as he’s the “frontrunner”, everybody will stay in and not drop out, and we’ll end up having a brokered convention. I don’t see any way McCain can get enough delegates to win it.
A proud VET with a real Reagan record to back it up with and was anti-illegal alien amnesty of ANY kind not merely the criminal illegal aliens as Guiliani purports to be but also a strongly Pro-Life, Pro-Family Christian, with just as many bonafides in Congress as anyone who claims to carry the "Reagan Mantle."
He also didn't have the phony "religiosity" of a Hunter nor a flip-flopping record of say a Romney. Never the tired, "I don't want to run for President but I do want to be President (on most days) of Fred Thompson, either.
So we stop a RINO with a RINO? At least stop McCain with a Socially conservative RINO (Huckabee). Not Abortiani.
Mc C might have a better chance to win in the general??
Not sure at all !
Do you think sensible people are delighted to vote for a flip-flopers,traitors,unreliable men?
Sometimes i prefer to lose as standing firm with my beliefs and values...That’s a real fight which is going on!
Why is the media afraid to be honest about the SC primary?... McCain had more supporters in 2000, I believe his #’s were around 42%, the media considered that a slaughter by Bush. Why is the media and talking heads afraid to be honest and give credit for McCain’s win to where it belongs.... FRED THOMPSON. McCain should have been thanking Fred Thompson at his victory speech, not the people of SC. The voters spooke when they gave Thompson 16%. Elementary math.... 30% + 16%= 46%
Huckabee wins by 13% !!! It all becomes clear now.... Thompson stragedy for his buddy McCain!
Hmmmmmm.... Might we see a McCain/ Thompson ticket in Nov?
I think it is important to bring to the public attention before the Fla. primary!
I’m for Fred but if he drops out I’m voting for Rudy in Florida to take out McCain. I know many people who have already voted for him for just that reason.
The best thing about McCain and Huckabee running, for me, is that they make Rudy and Mitt tolerable for me to vote for. I’m sick that there’s no true conservative but I think Mitt and Rudy are trainable and try not to use their liberal states against them.
No flames please. It’s how I’m getting through this miserable day.
Sorry, but I have to differ. I’d still prefer Fred, but here’s my take on your “it doesn’t make any difference — McCain vs. Rudy”.
Rudy is right on pro-growth tax cuts and tax simplification.
Rudy has executive experience and a history of getting things done while executive.
Rudy was great at 9-11 and in fighting crime in NYC — putting a focus on those challenges when they required it.
Rudy fought the bureaucracy and controlled spending as much as could be expected of a NYC mayor dominated by liberals.
Rudy’s WRONG on abortion and gay marriage — but changes on those issues requires Supreme Court action and Rudy has promised to nominate strict constructionist judges. For those critical of the judges he selected in NYC: he had to select from a nominating list provided by the City Council and he selected the best available.
On immigration, Rudy was WRONG but he was acting as mayor in a city teeming with illegals. I think he’s gotten much better on this issue.
Rudy is a better communicator than probably anyone in our field. He is used to taking 2-3 press conferences a day and taking very confrontation press conferences. He does that well, and after 8 years of President Bush’s ineptitude, wouldn’t it be great to not fear what our leader might say in a press conference?
On personal issues, Rudy is a mess, and that may leave him very vulnerable during the election. But it certainly wouldn’t hurt him compared with Mrs. BJC.
This is a long-winded way of saying: I’d much prefer Fred to be our nominee, but if I have to settle for a second, I’d sure prefer Rudy despite those things I disagree with him on. The primary points we need in the coming years will be a leader in the WOT, a leader in controlling spending and growing the economy, and someone who will put the right people on the Supreme Court so that it gets out of the business of legislating from the bench and back into the business of interpretting laws as to their constitutionality. On all those points, I think Rudy would be a good president. JMHO. And compared with Senator McNasty, Rudy would be vastly superior. And I don’t think I have to qualify that last point as “just my humble opinion.” That is a fact.
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.