Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?
hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

Posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:50 AM PDT by Mia T

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?


by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)



From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC --

4/18/2007

"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."

HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth?

GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done.

HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.

GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support....

GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously.

HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito.

GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it.

Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.


"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for
VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English



 

 




COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortionist; bilgewater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-374 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2007 11:04:54 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Miss Didi

ping


2 posted on 04/19/2007 11:07:56 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Lonesome in Massachussets; yoe; YaYa123; joanie-f; ...

ping


3 posted on 04/19/2007 11:10:32 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pissant

ping


4 posted on 04/19/2007 11:16:00 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia, you are ... no, I'll start over, for the sake of peace.

Mia, nominating a person who represents the planks in the Republican party platform is what primary voting is all about. The effort to get more to participate in that process is far more important than pushing a person into the nomination who doesn't represent the planks in the party platform ... unless you want to change the planks and thus the representative reason for the party as it is currently defined.

Short response, get your butt busy turning out more conservatives to vote in the primaries instead of trying to pursuade conservatives to support a person who does not represent conservative principles.

Mia, you do such a great job exposing the liberalism of the Rodham-rodent. Why is it you cannot see how similar Rudy is to the Rodham-rodent? If she is bad for her liberalism, why is Rudy good for his liberalism?

5 posted on 04/19/2007 11:16:36 AM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

So why are you pushing Rudy? He's guaranteed to split the GOP.

6 posted on 04/19/2007 11:16:40 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution.

And that person is Rudy?

Rudy took guns away from law-abiding gun-owners while declaring Roe to be a Constitutional right.

How on EARTH is this guy the one to defend the Constitution when his actions indicate an abject misunderstanding of what the Constitution means?

7 posted on 04/19/2007 11:18:07 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Rudy Giuliani Supports Partial Birth Abortion
Republicans Do Not!!!

Click HERE for Video of Giuliani in his own words.

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
ABC News February 6, 2000


TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.
- CNN December 2, 1999


BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them.
- CNN February 6, 2000

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views
- NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000


***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

8 posted on 04/19/2007 11:18:15 AM PDT by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

bttt


9 posted on 04/19/2007 11:19:05 AM PDT by bmwcyle ( Freep Fox they drop the ball on GOE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

You really crossed a line here, Mia.

If the GOP nominates pro-abort Rudy, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BETWEEN THE GOP AND THE DEMS.

So your attempts to try and blame pro-lifers if it comes down to Rudy and Hillary and Hillary wins is absurd. And insulting. And an indication of just how far you've slid leftwards in your efforts to support Rudy.

10 posted on 04/19/2007 11:20:39 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
So why are you pushing Rudy? He's guaranteed to split the GOP.

Is that what she does?! I honestly don't know, most of the time, what the **** MiaT is talking about and comprehending the actual point of one of her posts or threads is about as rare as finding actual, empiracal evidence of Giuliani's alleged conservatism.

11 posted on 04/19/2007 11:21:33 AM PDT by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

No it's the definition of "can win" that is the point of contention. For the Rudy Tooters the definition of can win is only Rudy and no one else. They then go forth with that premise to start some very ugly and divisive debates.

Rudy in fact CAN'T win because there are prolife people across the country who are not political. They are religious, morally conservative but don't consider themselves to have any allegiance to any party. If there is no prolife candidate on the ballot, they simply throw their hands up and wait for the next election. I wouldn't suggest that, but that's the way it is.

If there is no prolife candidate for President, they skip the election, and in this day and age of razor thin political divisions, that will kill any Republicans chances. End of story. Rudy can't win.

12 posted on 04/19/2007 11:22:39 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; Mia T

Yep. Rudy is the one to save us from Clintonism, according to Mia.


13 posted on 04/19/2007 11:22:50 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

The more I read this, the more arrogant it gets. And ignorant, for that matter.

Tell me, Mia - did Papa Bush lose in 1992 by running too far rightward? Did the GOP in 2006 lose by running too far rightward?

Sorry, but the opposite is the case. Rudy would split the GOP.

14 posted on 04/19/2007 11:24:41 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

empiracal = empirical


15 posted on 04/19/2007 11:27:20 AM PDT by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

empiracal = empirical


16 posted on 04/19/2007 11:27:25 AM PDT by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
If there is no prolife candidate for President, they skip the election, and in this day and age of razor thin political divisions, that will kill any Republicans chances. End of story. Rudy can't win

that is it. in a nutshell.

17 posted on 04/19/2007 11:28:33 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

In the latest FR poll, 71.4 percent of Freepers support Fred, while 6.2 percent support Rudy. So tell me, Mia - do you think nearly 3/4s of the forum members who voted are stupid? That they just don't grasp what is obvious to you?

Or does that major gap - that 6.2 percent support for Rudy - indicate he is no conservative?

18 posted on 04/19/2007 11:29:21 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.... So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

Where we part company on this is the Guiliani camp's insistence on pushing the false dichotomy of "we must nominate Guiliani to defeat Clinton". It's false for two reasons:

  1. It presumes to know, 18+ months before the election, what the results will be, before any serious campaigning even begins; and
  2. It presumes that Clinton will even be the Democrat nominee. History says that especially for Democrats, the early "front runner" is virtually certain to NOT be the nominee. Also, her negatives outweigh her positives, and the support for the stuffed-shirt Obama shows the left bases' frustration with Clinton.

The fact is, I'm sick and tired of hearing that we must abandon conservatism just to "win". What kind of "win" is it when we sacrifice all we hold dear to get it? You can throw whatever "clarifying statements" you want around, the fact is that Guiliani is a 100% NARAL-supported politician.

He's also no friend to the pro-2A crowd; prior to his 9/11 fame, his record on "security" was to disarm the law-abiding. His supposed "fiscal conservative" record is mixed at best. He's supported illegal immigrants and their enablers. He's in favor of a big, intrusive, and authoritarian government. His personal morals and ethics are decidedly below par for the GOP.

Rudy is the wrong man, at the wrong time, running for the wrong office. If he wins the GOP nomination, conservatism in this country is DEAD -- it will prove that all one has to do is throw platitudes toward the right, provide them with a bogeyman, and then they'll blindly follow along.

I'll have no part of it.

19 posted on 04/19/2007 11:31:42 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Your two errors, in my view:

(1) You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.

(2) Wanting a future for your kids isn’t ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ It’s instinctual.


20 posted on 04/19/2007 11:32:53 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
(1) You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.

What crossover appeal?

Reagan's crossover appeal was largely pro-life and pro-gun Dems. Rudy won't pull those.

And you would have us believe that Rudy, as a pro-war pubbie, can run left to pic up votes even though antiwar sentiment increases dramatically the further left you go in the electorate.

So unless Rudy sells out on the Iraq War, he can't run left. And if he does sell out (and he's given himself an out already for that), then he's just negated your core assertion - that he's the guy to lead the country in a time of war.

21 posted on 04/19/2007 11:38:55 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia T. Bump


22 posted on 04/19/2007 11:39:06 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Wanting a future for your kids isn’t ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ It’s instinctual.

You are making an argument with me as to why these people should get out and vote. But I'm not the one suggesting it. That's the way those people are. If you can go convince them, more power to you. Keep in mind though, they don't read FreeRepublic, they don't follow politics and for the most part they don't watch much news.

As for so-called cross over appeal, the only presidential candidate in recent memory to achieve that in a big way was Ronald Reagan. So I'm not sure who is going to be crossing over for pro-abortion, gun grabbing, homo-friendly Rudy, because on those issues the Dmeocrat is always better.

23 posted on 04/19/2007 11:42:23 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
That is my whole point.

I will vote for whichever R is nominated. I understand the danger of the clintons.

If another R emerges who is a stronger candidate, I will support that R. We will lose only if we, each of us with our own vote, votes for the other guy.

Funny you should ask about GHWBush. He lost because he was a fool and ultimately irresponsible. He understood that the clintons were unfit to lead, he had the goods on clinton, but never used it.

This is not unlike what you would be doing.

24 posted on 04/19/2007 11:51:53 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
That is my whole point. I will vote for whichever R is nominated. I understand the danger of the clintons.

It is not your whole point. You are pushing a flawed candidate who would rift the party the way Papa Bush's leftward drift did in 1992.

Funny you should ask about GHWBush. He lost because he was a fool and ultimately irresponsible. He understood that the clintons were unfit to lead, he had the goods on clinton, but never used it.

Oh, yeah, sure. He had the goods on them. That's a good one.

Bush was a fool because he drifted leftwards. But he went nowhere near as far left as Rudy is now, even with his attempts to move rightward.

This is not unlike what you would be doing.

6.2 percent, Mia. That is Rudy's support among Freepers. Pretty pathetic. Shows he has no support among conservatives. You need to drop your support of Rudy and quit trying to redefine the concept of pro-life the way you have here. Our definition of such works just fine.

25 posted on 04/19/2007 11:56:05 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

No. That’s not my point. I think when faced with clinton, the sequel, the survival instinct will kick in with many of those religious folks, as it will with many women normally on the fence.

As for crossover: Giuliani has widened his lead over clinton in New Jersey (50-41).(Quinnipiac University Poll) But it is the recent Keystone Poll that foreshadows the final outcome. Rudy demolishes clinton in PA (53-37).


26 posted on 04/19/2007 12:00:45 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Did you click the link and listen to what Bush41 said about clinton?

Surely you don’t doubt that Bush had access to documentation of all the nasty clinton stuff.

BTW, just heard an updated Quinnipiac University Poll released today. Rudy would defeat hillary in NJ 49-40.


27 posted on 04/19/2007 12:05:59 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Are you saying that you really aren’t pro-LIFE, that you are only anti-abortion?


28 posted on 04/19/2007 12:09:10 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Are you saying that you really aren’t pro-LIFE, that you are only anti-abortion?

Anti-abortion is pro-life, Mia. Unless you think pro-life is also anti-death-penalty. And anti-war is pro-life. And other left-wing viewpoints in that regard.

29 posted on 04/19/2007 12:12:04 PM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

My positions aren’t etched in stone. That would be foolish. Conditions change.

The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House, not that any particular R becomes president.

We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.


30 posted on 04/19/2007 12:16:49 PM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

pingaling


31 posted on 04/19/2007 12:21:57 PM PDT by showme_the_Glory (No more rhyming, and I mean it! ..Anybody want a peanut.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House

Hillary Clinton is a red herring -- if she manages to win the Dem primary, she will lose to any competent opponent.

We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.

Not if that "R" is a complete betrayal of conservatism. We gain NOTHING in that scenario.

32 posted on 04/19/2007 12:22:07 PM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Rudy would defeat hillary in NJ 49-40.

Today. The campaign hasn't even started yet. These polls are meaningless.

33 posted on 04/19/2007 12:23:21 PM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks you MiaT.
Good video.
I passed it around.


34 posted on 04/19/2007 12:50:56 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Mia, thanks for the well thought out and intelligent post. I notice from the 30 plus posts here so far, that you are getting little more than the usual inanities I see regularly aimed at anyone who believes that Hillary is infinitely worse than any Republican candidate.

But you are 100 percent correct. Those who would destroy every Republican candidate who has any chance of victory against Hillary don't begin to understand what conservatism means. Conservatism never meant committing political suicide simply because your candidate doesn't get the nomination. Most here have no idea how important the next election is. They seem to forget that in all likelihood 2 vacancies will occur on the USSC.

They seem to forget what is at stake in the war on terror, the major challenges from China and Russia, the growing Marxist movement south of our border. Somehow they cannot fathom having a nominee who will bring together the center and moderate Republicans as well as the conservative Democrats and independents. Somehow they do not understand that Americans shun the extremes of both parties, and sincerely want a leader who will work with both parties to bring about the legislative initiatives promised by the 109th Congress, but that achieved little more than corruption and sleaze.

The party that fails to appeal to the independents and moderates of both sides will lose the next election.

As you so eloquently said, the social values of the right wing are to be prized and respected. But many of those issues are not even on the radar with most Americans with so much more facing this Country.

Thanks for the great post.

35 posted on 04/19/2007 12:52:20 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Super post Mia, and you didn’t have to resort to name-calling or labeling those that disagree with you a “Treasonous Liberal”.


36 posted on 04/19/2007 12:55:43 PM PDT by Registered (Politics is the art of the possible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"....But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum....."

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Mia, for your intelligent and analytical approach to the political conundrum we find ourselves involved in at this time. The choice of electing a very strong, fiscally conservative leader who can win the majority of the big electoral college states but who we disagree with in some areas, versus voting for someone who passes all the litmus tests but can't possibly win the election.

What should be a no brainer at this time in our history has become a food fight within some Republican circles. The argument that "I'm more conservative than you are" is so silly when we have an enemy as brutal and unrelenting as the Islamofascists who want to take over the West. I will vote for my party's nominee, no matter who it is, because any Republican in the White House is better than any Liberal Democrat!

37 posted on 04/19/2007 1:03:43 PM PDT by KATIE-O ( Rudy Giuliani '08 - Restoring Optimism For The Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
"I'll have no part of it. "

I join that.

Rudy is just as liberal as the Clinton's.

So maybe I'll be a man without a party like Zell Miller, but someday I will have to answer to the Boss of the Universe.

38 posted on 04/19/2007 1:10:00 PM PDT by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
“.....The campaign hasn’t even started yet. These polls are meaningless......”

Not entirely meaningless. They show a strong, continuing trend. Things could change, but not likely.

39 posted on 04/19/2007 1:18:43 PM PDT by KATIE-O ( Rudy Giuliani '08 - Restoring Optimism For The Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish; Jameison; Sabramerican; BunnySlippers; tkathy; veronica; Roccus; Jake The Goose; ...

(((((PING)))))


40 posted on 04/19/2007 1:19:09 PM PDT by areafiftyone (“.....We mourn and hurt and will never forget, but we don’t live under fear....” Rudy Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68; Mia T
Somehow they do not understand that Americans shun the extremes of both parties, and sincerely want a leader who will work with both parties to bring about the legislative initiatives promised by the 109th Congress, but that achieved little more than corruption and sleaze. The party that fails to appeal to the independents and moderates of both sides will lose the next election.

BINGO!!! You hit the nail on the head. If 2006 didn't convince them then they are going to lose in 2008.

41 posted on 04/19/2007 1:26:07 PM PDT by areafiftyone (“.....We mourn and hurt and will never forget, but we don’t live under fear....” Rudy Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
“.... If she is bad for her liberalism, why is Rudy good for his liberalism?....”

Hillary is a corrupt, lying, power hungry Socialist/Marxist. Rudy Giuliani is a fiscally conservative, tax cutting, law and order LEADER who happens to believe in a woman’s right to choose, even though he loathes abortion, and who is not opposed to equal rights, under the law, for tax paying citizens who happen to be gay. This does not mean GAY MARRIAGE. President George Bush is also for civil unions and, if he were alive today, I can almost guarantee you President Reagan would be too. I had rather have a candidate who can win the election than one who agrees with me 100% on all issues, but cannot win.

42 posted on 04/19/2007 1:31:21 PM PDT by KATIE-O ( Rudy Giuliani '08 - Restoring Optimism For The Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bttt


43 posted on 04/19/2007 1:35:59 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
That you for the great post. You hit the nail on head squarely. The same old “usual suspects” who tried to debunk your argument went down on flames. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi....”winning (against the Clintons) isn’t everything, it’s the only thing....”
Thank you again.
44 posted on 04/19/2007 1:37:20 PM PDT by Gop1040
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I’m satisfied that Rudy will appoint pro-Constitution judges like Roberts and Scalia.


45 posted on 04/19/2007 1:47:36 PM PDT by Ciexyz (Is the American voter smarter than a fifth grader?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KATIE-O

Congratulations, you missed my point almost entirely. The primaries are where we get the people out to vote for what our party stands for. If you people want to change what our party stands for, get ‘er done, but your plea to nominate someone who doesn’t agree with the planks is as absurd as Rudy’s pandering is. You, apparently, are incapable of recognizing the pandering of a liberal in conservative skins, not too covered in those skins, but trying to cover his liberalism. Congratulations on serving the liberal agenda. When I read crap like you posted, I suspect you claim to be a Rudyfile but are in fact a Rodham-rodent agitprop. Hatellary’s goons recognized years ago that Rudy would be easily defeated ... remember the senate run she made and got elected by the liberals of New York? Yeah, you remember, and now you’ll no doubt try to spin that confrontation deferred.


46 posted on 04/19/2007 1:49:22 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; mia; areafiftyone

How can Rudy be flawed when most Republicans support him by a HUGE majority over the second popular candidate. Your logic is FLAWED.

The reason, IMO, that Ronald Reagan was elected twice has more to do with his appeal. He made me and people believe in themselves, in the future of America, he made us feel positive about the future of our country. He was a positive man. Americans love that charisma about their president. It had little to do with pro life, anti gay, social issues. Federal government should keep their noses out of most of these issues, IMO. They belong at the STATE level.

IMO, Mia is one of the brightest, smartest, astute people on this forum. Her goal, as is mine.... is to DEFEAT the MARXIST/Socialist/Hitler/ candidate Hillary Clinton....or Obama/Osama/Hussein. There is no other candidate at this moment that shows an ability to win. If and when that candidate shows up, I’ll be supporting that R candidate. To do anything else is plain IDIOTIC and Suicidal politically speaking.

Go MIA..... we love you and what you’ve done for FR.


47 posted on 04/19/2007 1:53:37 PM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Registered

I’m glad to see there are many GREAT freepers who have a sane perception this election year. Thanks for all you’ve done.


48 posted on 04/19/2007 1:57:06 PM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
How can Rudy be flawed when most Republicans support him by a HUGE majority over the second popular candidate. Your logic is FLAWED.

Your premises are flawed. It's still a long ways to the primaries, and Rudy's support is slipping. And it will continue to slip as Rudy commits gaffe after gaffe.

Rudy's only hope is that the conservative vote splits. However, that is no way to win the general election. He will not hold the party.

49 posted on 04/19/2007 1:57:32 PM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I agree with you that Rudy is not perfect, but neither is Fred Thompson, who I like a lot. My favorite is Duncan Hunter, an honest, decent man .... with views that I totally agree. However, he’s a 1@ candidate with little appeal. We need someone THIS ELECTION that has the ability to win the moderates, independents, to BEAT THE MARXIST. Do you understand what life will be like in American with Hitlary in there for 8 YEARS. We will never be able to survive an UNAmerican president. She wants to make this Europe Socialism.

WAKE UP AMERICA. We can survive Giuliani, we cannot survive HILLARY. Take your pick.


50 posted on 04/19/2007 2:02:21 PM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-374 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson