Posted on 04/16/2007 3:19:27 PM PDT by madprof98
Exactly! 46% of suggested voters have said they WILL absolutely not vote for her. That sets her apart...
“Exactly! 46% of suggested voters have said they WILL absolutely not vote for her”
I believe this number will increase over time : )
Regardless of whether your party registration is "independent" or "republican" or "socialist" or "green" or "constitution" or "reform" or "communist" or "Let's ..." the only realistic choices we have in a Presidential race (and with very few exceptions congressional and gubernatorial races as well) are between the democrat and republican nominees. Given those choices, in general you can count on the democrat candidate to support a position of higher taxes, higher government regulations of just about everything (except they will oppose any and all regulation of abortion on demand), and gun control legislation. You can also count on the democrat candidate to support legislation strengthening the organized criminal institutions known as labor unions. If you want to register as a member of any of those other parties, that is fine, but just remember that if your vote choice helps elect democrats then you are voting for higher taxes, more regulation, more restrictive gun control laws, and in general an economic and political system that leans more toward socialism than toward free-market capitalism.
Well, there’s another way. We can just become leftists ourselves and then our side will never lose.
I would no more suggest we go to the dark side and become leftists, than I would suggest you become a tadpole.
However, I am very, very concerned that we are working ourselves up to ensure that hillary clintoon becomes the next President. (Even typing that makes me nauseous).
I think we are very wrong to attack potential candidates like we do. As I said before, I am not a Rudy fan, but the constant sniping and distortion of his record is self-defeating and just flat wrong.
Does anyone really think he is a transvestite?
Bill clintoon was never divorced - how does that speak to his morals?
Is abortion (as abominable as it is) a Federal issue? If not, then why would we want to use it as a litmus test?
I think we should stick to the issues - the War, the border, appointment of federal judges, presence or lack of spinal fortitude, etc.
And, on that note, I come out of the closet and declare myself as a Fredhead. Run, Fred, run!
Whether you cease posting on FR is something only you can decide, the same as your question on re-registration. Right now, I would say you and others [somewhat] similarly situated are in the drivers seat. It is the GOP Big Tent that has abandoned conservatives--it's your tent now, not ours. Haven't you noticed all those empty seats where conservatives used to sit? Most of us are long gone as a consequence of the hijacking of the Republican party by the big government/expanded entitlements/open borders/NWO yahoos. If we don't see some prompt and dramatic course corrections, we won't be returning. I'm not interested in supporting a Republican party that is tainted with the diseases of European socialism. In other words, it is we conservatives who should be asking whether we should re-register, not you. It's your Big Tent--at least for now.
Having said all that, I would be quite disappointed to see you depart. It is undeniably true that FR is a conservative site (as strongly reaffirmed by Jim Rob on 3/02/07):
" The words of Jim Robinson on pushing a liberal like Rino Rudy. “How many times must I say FR is a conservative site? We do not support abortionism, homosexualism, feminisim, environmentalism, gun control, liberalism, socialism, etc, etc, etc. When I say I suspect we will become even more conservative than we already are, possibly via attrition if nothing else, what do you think I’m referring to? When FR starts pushing hard and I mean hard against abortion, gay marriage, homosexual education forced on our school children, pandering to illegal aliens, gun control, McCaine-Feingold type usurpation, global warming, etc, etc, even if supported or advanced by the GOP, then I fully suspect certain types of moderate/liberal Republican supporters are probably going to be a little uncomfortable here. We will be fighting for traditional American conservatism no matter who we have to fight against and I’m afraid that’s going to piss off some folks.” Jim Robinson, 3/2/07
Nevertheless, your posts here are always on point, articulate, and sometimes brilliant. I look forward to seeing what you have to say on various issues of particular interest to conservatives. While you haven't changed my mind on the issues, I (and others, I believe)have benefitted from your always well reasoned and thorough analyses. I would hate to lose that.
“Most of us are long gone as a consequence of the hijacking of the Republican party by the big government/expanded entitlements/open borders/NWO yahoos. If we don’t see some prompt and dramatic course corrections, we won’t be returning. I’m not interested in supporting a Republican party that is tainted with the diseases of European socialism. In other words, it is we conservatives who should be asking whether we should re-register, not you. It’s your Big Tent—at least for now.”
It’s certainly not MY party now!
Rudy Giuliani supports abortion, and he’s the frontrunner.
I reject abortion.
Romney used to, and McCain supports federal funding for abortion in the form of fetal stem-cell research.
I reject abortion, and that includes fetal stem-cell research.
Although I have argued that the influx of Hispanics may well have a long-term positive effect on the abortion debate, I oppose open borders. I want a wall, and I don’t want any discussion of amnesty until there is a wall.
George W. Bush doesn’t want a wall and does want amnesty.
Ditto for Rudy and McCain.
I reject that.
I don’t care what people do, so long as they don’t do it in the streets and disturb the horses, but I oppose gay marriage.
Rudy supports it.
I wanted to declare war on 9/11.
The GOP chose to go for another Vietnam-style police action in several countries. And we are now reaping Vietnam-like results, for precisely the reasons I enunciated in September, 2001 and have been repeating ever since.
I support the war, but that means WINNING THE WAR.
I did not support the Rumsfeld strategy of going in with too few troops to secure the country. It was stupid then, I said so, and I was right. I was vilified, then, for “Not supporting the war”. Bullshit. Rumsfeld and Bush were the ones who led us off a cliff, lemminglike. I refused to jump. I was not a traitor, I was RIGHT.
And NOW I am still right. I oppose this “Surge”. It does not go far enough. It cannot possibly win. We never had enough troops on the ground, and we still don’t. And thanks to the incompetence of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Army is so broken now that we have to extend tours of duty to 15 months, and jam Navy guys into Afghanistan to plug the gaps.
I support winning the war. THAT MEANS ARMING THE KURDS AND THE NATIONALIST IRAQIS, AND GETTING OUT OF THE WAY AS THEY WIN THE CIVIL WAR. It means allowing them to do what they have to do to their domestic enemies, just like Sherman did what had to be done to the Confederacy. It means atrocities and carnage, but WE won’t be doing it. We need more men, and it has to be IRAQI men, and we cannot control them, but have to let them settle the scores and destroy their domestic enemies. It will be bloody and horrible, but what will come out of is an allied nation not shooting at us, not in Iran’s watchpocket, and not a source of terrorism. That is winning the war. It is the ONLY WAY to win the war now that we have so few troops, the Army is broken and the Civil War is raging. George W. Bush has said three times, publicly, we will NOT do that in any case. He is an idiot. His strategy is the REASON we are losing in Iraq. I blame George Bush and the Republican Party for the defeat in Iraq, not the Democrats, because they have demonstrated the intelligence of Maginot: unbelieveably stupid strategic decisions, overriding their military commanders advice (remember Shinseki? Everybody in the military noticed. Use the templates and say what we NEED TO WIN, and get fired. Of course, therefore, no general ever “asks”. Ask and get relieved? No thanks.)
I want to win the war.
We cannot possibly win the war the way we are fighting it.
We never could.
It was obvious to me from the beginning, but I had hope that the enemy, maybe, would not be so tough. I never had any confidence in the strategy, and now that I have been proven consistently right for four years running, since the very week of the attack on 9/11 (which I survived; I worked at World Trade), I REALLY don’t have confidence in the strategy. I have said what will work. The President has shot it down thrice. It’s Bush’s fault we are going to lose. He refuses to win.
So, does that make me a Democrat?
No.
Those lily-livered bastards WANT TO LOSE THE WAR. Except Hillary (and Lieberman). She still has some spine. But by the time she gets the office (and she WILL win the office if we have not won the war by 2008, and we will NOT have won the war by 2008 with the current absolutely hopeless strategy) it will be too late to do anything. The people who should be under arms fighting on our general side in the civil war in Iraq are the ones who are UNARMED, because we won’t arm them and unleash them, because they will do very bad things (they will. So what? It’s better than losing to the OTHER GUYS doing very bad things.).
So, who do I vote for?
I CAN’T vote Democrat.
The Republicans’ hearts are in the right place. A new GOP Commander-in-Chief may be competent. McCain or Hunter are the two experienced military men. McCain’s pro-abortion (stem-cell), which means Hunter is the best candidate for winning the war. Giuliani, Romney and Thompson don’t know a damned thing about war.
So, how is this MY tent?
I don’t think that Social Security, Medicare and public education are socialism. I think they are public insurance programs and investments in human capital. This leaves me in the cold on Republican economics, supposedly, but George W. Bush is the one who expanded Medicare to cover drugs. I think he was right to do so. Reagan was the one who deepened Social Security. Again, I think Reagan was right. I guess that makes me a Reaganite, over and against all of these Republican “conservatives” who seem to hate Medicare, Social Security and public education as socialism. I will stick with my good socialist buddies Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush on this one, over and against the Ayn Rand conservatives.
So, where can I go?
I asked “Should I post here” because it’s Jim Robinson’s website. Had he told me “No”, publicly or privately, I would leave. But he did not. So, even though I am quite at odds with “conservative” thought on Social Security, Medicare, public education, trade policy and general tax policy, I am still welcome in the tent for other reasons, apparently, so long as I am polite.
So, although I do not agree on economics, at all, I will remain here. I have noplace else to go.
But I will not vote for Giuliani. It’s a bridge too far. And anyway, he can’t win. Neither can McCain or Romney. I don’t know if Duncan Hunter can win or not. Against Hillary, maybe. Against Obama, probably not. Thompson has a good shot at winning against either, so I guess he’s the best option right now. I continue to support Hunter for as long as Hunter is in the race, because Hunter is right.
How is it “My Party” at all, given these views.
In truth, I hope to persuade the Rudybots that the abortion issue cannot be overcome.
I hope to persuade everybody to press Bush on the war to arm the Kurds and Iraqi nationalists and let them fight and win the civil war.
And I hope to persuade conservatives to think more carefully about social welfare, tax and trade policies.
That’s why I am staying, until I am asked to leave by the owner of the site, at which point I will go.
I support Duncan Hunter and will support Fred Thompson if he enters, without qualification.
I do not trust Romney, but if he shows something like a pro-life conversion I can believe, I will probably vote for him if he is the nominee.
McCain is dead wrong on stem cells, which is abortion, but although I hate abortion, McCain is dead right on the need to fight the war. If he’s the nominee, I will vote for him, unenthusiastically.
If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, and I will tell you why.
Rudy is to the left of Hillary on abortion - HE wants to publicly fund it! She’s never said any such thing. By running Rudy, who is vocally pro-abortion, the Republicans are kicking me directly in the groin. Voting for Hillary kicks them back.
Number two, Rudy’s no more pro-war than Hillary. Hillary has taken a lot of heat for refusing to apologize for her war vote. If she inherits the war, she isn’t going to want to lose it. She is a tough bitch. I think she’ll fight. And she’ll be better advised than Rudy. Rudy will get holdovers from the current team, and they’re incompetent. Believe it or not, Hillary is respected by those military officers who have appeared before her in the Armed Services Committee, because she does her homework, asks cogent questions, and is not anti-military. She does a decent job, they report, quietly. I think she will put military men in the security positions, because she won’t trust Dem politicians on the subject, and won’t want to lose. Also, Giuliani’s deferral to be a law clerk bothers me. Not enough to disqualify him. He has no military experience, has not sat on the Armed Services Committee. And frankly, he’s an asshole. He doesn’t like anybody showing authority in his presence at all. I remember how he treated Bratton, who was the real force behind bringing down crime. Hillary is more likely to listen to her generals than Rudy is. I think she would be a better commander-in-chief for picking up the pieces of this broken Republican war than Giuliani.
Then we come to the business of personal morality. Giuliani has the morality of an alleycat, and is estranged from his children. Hillary has played Tammy Wynette to erring Bill, and is adored by her child. She is Lady MacBeth, but once again she looks less bad than Giuliani.
And, of course, I agree: we need universal health insurance. Hillary’s first plan was flawed, but if, as President, she tries again, using a model more like extended Medicare and less like Germany’s model, I would support that. I’ve already said that I think Social Security and health insurance are not socialism at all, but investments in maintaining human capital.
Bottom line: kick me in the groin and name Giuliani, and I vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I probably unhappily vote for the Republican candidate, unless it’s Hunter (or maybe Thompson). Then I’m enthused. You tell me if that makes the current party “My Party”.
From the Senate: Senator Clinton's Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
Washington, DC -- "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
No matter who the Republican Candidate is, after the primaries and the Convention, and even if he wins, somewhere a substantial number of the voters in this country subscribe to the ideas behind this chilling statement from Hillary: an endorsement of imposed death sentences in the operating room that they feel should be sanctioned by law.
Although each of the Republican candidates has now issued a 'pro-forma' support of the Supreme Court ruling on late-term abortion, none has given a clue as to how he intends to roll back the tremendous number of abortions now occuring.
Who will be the first candidate, or potential candidate to lay out his program for accomplishing an end to what is now permitted, in the face over what is sure to be an overwhelming MSM onslaught?
And that is what every Republican candidate, whether we like it or not, is afraid of; coming out and laying out that roll-back program, for fear of being divisive.
Rudy doesn’t need the American Spectator or anyone else to tell him how to finesse the abortion issue. He put the issue out there in the worst possible light, including his support for public funding. He took a 5 point hit in the polls, and now the public has absorbed the information. Giuliani is back to where he was before he took the hit, and never relinquished his front-runner status.
Republican activists are going to find out that abortion is a back-burner issue for a majority of party voters. His abortion position actually helps him, because it increases his viability in the general election, and his support in the primary is driven by that.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
You are spinning horse manure.
Stop it. Killing babies is a Rat issue and it is not popular.
The only horse manure being spun around FR these days is that there is a pro-life candidate in the Republican stable who can win the general election of 08.
A lot of true-believing conservatives are letting their political hopes and dreams cloud their political judgment. It would be laudable but for the fact that the stakes are so high.
Sorry Dude, the pro abortion Rudy is a disgusting degenerate. He has proved to also be a big fool. He is the only candidate we could run that COULD not beat Hillary.
So, anyone else agree that this is horse manure?
So, let me get this right. What you’re trying to say is the pro-abortionist candidates like Rudy Giuliani are winners and that pro-life candidates are losers. Did I hear that right?
**************
We're not destroying our own candidates. What we are seeing on Free Republic is all part of the process, as it should be. Sadly, Giuliani is not a conservative. It is better to acknowledge that now, get him out of the picture as soon as possible and start building support for a more suitable candidate. There are some who claim he can beat Hillary. I say he cannot, and that putting him up as the Republican nominee will lead to a party split and Hillary as president.
Not necessarily. I am saying that Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate in the stable of potential Republican nominees with the capability to win the general in 08. His abortion position is really beside the point, although he does triangulate the Dems on the issue, which may be why he is polling so well.
Only all of America:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Yeah, sure. Most of America ain’t even paying much attention yet.
A true conservative position. Good.
"Although I have argued that the influx of Hispanics may well have a long-term positive effect on the abortion debate, I oppose open borders. I want a wall, and I don’t want any discussion of amnesty until there is a wall."
For me, this is a no compromise issue. While the invasion of Hispanics may very well have a positive effect on abortion, that is not good enough to overcome all of the other negatives. You're good on border enforcement but willing to discuss amnesty after there is a wall. We differ here. I oppose any and all forms of amnesty because it rewards lawbreakers. No amnesty under any circumstances--no compromise.
"I wanted to declare war on 9/11."
Your comments here mirror my own feelings. The problem was not the decision to take out Iraq but rather the limp wristed approach of trying to fight a politically correct war. Too little, too late. As you say, "another Vietnam-style police action".
"I oppose this 'Surge'”.
As do I, but only if it continues the "too little. too late" approach. If there is the necessary heavy commitment of military resources, then I would support a "surge" because I believe we need to establish a military base in the middle east. There is nothing wrong and everything right about fighting terrorism over there and not here.
"And thanks to the incompetence of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Army is...broken now..."
That's what happens when the GOP Big Tent goes for wildly increased domestic spending (which funds your social programs) and either cuts back or does very little to properly fund military resources and operations. Too little for the military and too much for the domestic black holes.
"I support winning the war. THAT MEANS ARMING THE KURDS AND THE NATIONALIST IRAQIS, AND GETTING OUT OF THE WAY AS THEY WIN THE CIVIL WAR."
Agree.
"We need more men, and it has to be IRAQI men, and we cannot control them, but have to let them settle the scores and destroy their domestic enemies."
Agree.
"I blame George Bush and the Republican Party for the defeat in Iraq, not the Democrats,..."
Agree in part and disagree in part. You are willing to give the Rats a pass in the blame game. I am not. The constant barrage of attacks on the President and the total lack of any Rat support must be considered part of the reason we are in this mess. Even though much if not most of the fault lies with the Bush administration, I will not absolve the Democrats because they behaved then, and continue to behave, like a pack of traitors. That has had its affect.
"I want to win the war.
We cannot possibly win the war the way we are fighting it.
We never could."
Agree. Kind of makes one wonder why we ever thought the people in the White House were smarter than we were and must know what they were doing. Guess not.
"It was obvious to me from the beginning, but I had hope that the enemy, maybe, would not be so tough. I never had any confidence in the strategy,..."
Well, it wasn't that obvious to me but then we try to elect people smarter than we are about such matters. And as for the enemy, don't mistake Islamist terrorist zealotry for strength.
"So, does that make me a Democrat?
No."
Of course not.
"The people who should be under arms fighting on our general side in the civil war in Iraq are the ones who are UNARMED, because we won’t arm them and unleash them, because they will do very bad things (they will. So what? It’s better than losing to the OTHER GUYS doing very bad things.).
Agree.
"...Hunter is the best candidate for winning the war."
Agree. Until someone better comes along, I support his presidential candidacy.
"So, how is this MY tent?"
You provide at least a partial answer to your own question in the succeeding paragraph of your excellent post: "I don’t think that Social Security, Medicare and public education are socialism. I think they are public insurance programs and investments in human capital."
They may not meet the technical definition of socialism in all respects, but make no mistake they have a large socialistic/nanny state component. Moreover, it has been the Republican wild spending and expansion of entitlement programs that is denying you and me what we know we need far worse: more defense spending. So long as you support such programs as the valid business of government, conservatives will get nowhere. Your position in this area of social spending is simply not a conservative position. While it may not make the GOP Big Tent your tent, it does exclude you from the conservative base, and therefore tends to point you in the direction of that Big Tent..
" So, where can I go?"
I have no idea. You don't like the GOP Big Tent and yet your support of big government entitlement spending would make it difficult to say you are a conservative (at least as I see that term). You seem to be more GOP Big Tent than conservative.
"So, even though I am quite at odds with “conservative” thought on Social Security, Medicare, public education, trade policy and general tax policy, I am still welcome in the tent for other reasons, apparently, so long as I am polite."
You are polite, and I cannot imagine you being unwelcome on FR, even though you may be missing a few conservative checkmarks on your card. As for "tent", I assume you mean the FR tent. If he felt otherwise, I am sure you would have heard from Jim by now.
"How is it “My Party” at all, given these views.
Just my own view, but your big spending tendencies are a better fit for the GOP Big Tent than the conservative base. Besides, look at it this way: with the conservative base having largely departed, there is more seating room. You no longer have to sit "cheek to jowel" jammed up against conservatives. We agree on much, but I just cannot swallow that lump called big social program spending.
"I continue to support Hunter for as long as Hunter is in the race, because Hunter is right."
Agree.
"In truth, I hope to persuade the Rudybots that the abortion issue cannot be overcome."
Good. But you won't.
"I hope to persuade everybody to press Bush on the war to arm the Kurds and Iraqi nationalists and let them fight and win the civil war."
Good.
"And I hope to persuade conservatives to think more carefully about social welfare, tax and trade policies."
A change in the conservative position is unlikely.
"If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, and I will tell you why."
Mere words fail me.
"Bottom line: kick me in the groin and name Giuliani, and I vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I probably unhappily vote for the Republican candidate, unless it’s Hunter (or maybe Thompson). Then I’m enthused. You tell me if that makes the current party “My Party”.
I remain speechless.
I don't think anything I've said here should offend you, at least I hope not. I simply felt that your long post to me deserved a reply. I apologize for the time it took me to navigate among your various points, which you have argued well.
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.