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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-374 next last
To: MACVSOG68; Liz; TommyDale

My response to you is short, unlike your long winded response that is the typical response that those for Rudy repeat endlessly.

NO TO RUDY.

And do not expect people to accept Rudy as the candidate and then insult them when they refuse Rudy.

On this side of the argument people finally got tough. They were tired of having their religion insulted, tired of being called names, tired of having Rudy painted as a good candidate when he is not.

People are not going to look the other way about Rudys record and sleazy personal life. It is too much to ask.

I, myself, do not think Rudy will ever get the nomination.

If you want Hillary or Obama as President, keep wasting your time pushing Rudy.


101 posted on 04/20/2007 3:50:03 AM PDT by dforest (Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

thank you, PGalt. :)


102 posted on 04/20/2007 4:33:49 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68; All

Cogently stated. Thank you.


103 posted on 04/20/2007 4:39:07 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. If paleo-conservatives don’t drop their candidates whom the “center” won’t support because they disagree with their positions and support a candidate whose positions we don’t agree with, we will be responsible for the Clintons election. But, the “center” won’t be responsible if they refuse to vote for our candidate should our candidate win the nomination. We will be responsible if we either nominate a non-center candidate or refuse to support a center candidate should said center candidate win the nomination. Okay, I think I’ve got the picture.


104 posted on 04/20/2007 4:39:25 AM PDT by fewz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

thx again, PG.


105 posted on 04/20/2007 4:40:07 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: fewz

You actually got the following things wrong:

1- This problem is not ‘center’ v right. It is not immoral (or amoral) vs moral. It is rational vs irrational.

2- Unlike the Rudy haters, most, if not all, of those supporting Rudy will support WHICHEVER Republican is nominated.

Unlike the Rudy haters, we understand that the alternative to ANY Republican is a danger to ALL our babies, the living, the unborn, the not yet even imagined. Unlike the Rudy haters, we are the ones who are TRULY PRO-LIFE.


106 posted on 04/20/2007 4:55:36 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

As I said, we must get rid of all the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians. (The professional pol is mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition.)


107 posted on 04/20/2007 5:01:26 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
“You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.”

It’s not really crossover when you ask one rather large part of the base to let go of their most important issue.

Rather, it’s thumbing your nose in the face of the pro-lifers.

There are not enough “moderates” to compensate for the pro-lifers who simply will not vote for Rudy.

On top of that, he will absolutely destroy the party on a national level.

If I remember right, you pushed for Jeanine Pirro against Hillary with the same persistence. Remind us of how successful that was.

108 posted on 04/20/2007 5:08:09 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
I think Mia is, and I say this with all due respect, so petrified of another Clinton in the Whitehouse, she cannot think straight.

That, my friend, is called 'projection.'

A little less fear of Rudy (and more fear of the clintons) would quickly cure what ails the Rudy haters.

109 posted on 04/20/2007 5:12:37 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; fewz
"Unlike the Rudy haters, we understand that the alternative to ANY Republican is a danger to ALL our babies, the living, the unborn, the not yet even imagined. Unlike the Rudy haters, we are the ones who are TRULY PRO-LIFE."

Rudy has a 100% approval rating with NARAL, his rating is even higher than Hillary Clinton's. It is totally disingenuous and pure spin, to say that a vote for Rudy is Pro Life.

Babies in New York were never safe under Rudy and they will not be safe now. Rudy goes even farther by wanting taxpayer funded abortions.

Fear of Hillary is more like panic for some. So much so, people are willing to vote for someone who has claimed his policies are like that of Bill Clintons.

Rudy will divide and bring down the GOP, those that pushed him will be most responsible if a Democrat wins.

110 posted on 04/20/2007 5:13:26 AM PDT by dforest (Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

All kidding aside, there are at least 3 people that I like better than Rudy but if Rudy ends up with the nomination, I will vote for him. I just think it’s a bit early to be making the arguments that you are making.


111 posted on 04/20/2007 5:15:42 AM PDT by fewz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'
I concede Pirro was a disappointment. She ultimately chose political viability over mounting a real challenge to clinton.

But OTOH, what did Spencer get us? What could be mischaracterized by the clinton agitprop machine as a 'landslide.' (A HILLARY 'LANDSLIDE'??? NOT SO FAST, MISSUS CLINTON....)

We need someone who has the street smarts and organization to take on the clintons.

112 posted on 04/20/2007 5:20:38 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Interview: Rudy Giuliani On Iraq, Taxes, Mistakes

***...Why do you think you can win over Christian conservatives?

Because Republicans, however people describe them, respect people who tell them who they are and don't pretend that they're going to agree on everything. Ronald Reagan is kind of my model, and his approach was: "If you're my 80% friend, you're not my 20% enemy." I think I'll do well with conservative voters because they will see that I'm one of the most fiscally conservative candidates in the race. I'm the one who has just about the strongest record on tax cuts. And I think they will be in pretty close to total agreement with me on how to handle homeland security and deal with terrorism. On social issues, they're going to find that the area of disagreement is not as great as some of my opponents have told them.

But so much has been made of your decidedly unconservative positions on gay rights, gun control, and abortion. How big a factor will those positions, your personal history, and Judith's personal history be in the campaign and Presidency?

Ultimately, the election will be about who the American people think will be the most effective leader. And they have every right to examine all aspects of my public life and my private life. Because I've had such a long career in so many different areas—probably the most diverse of anybody running—they can look to the success that I've had even though I've made mistakes and things went wrong, which I think kind of makes me human. When I was mayor, various things going on in my private life did not stop me from reducing crime by 57%, reducing homicides by 67%, turning a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion-dollar surplus. It didn't stop me from reducing the welfare rolls by 660,000. Then I had to deal with the worst attack in the history of the city, maybe the country. Sure, I've made mistakes, both privately and publicly, but what's the balance? The balance is that I've been able to have success. So I think they can be pretty confident that that's what would happen as President.

.....You said your wife, Judith, could sit in on Cabinet meetings if she wanted to. What role would she play?

The preface to that, Maria, was a question by Barbara Walters about what Judith would be interested in as First Lady. And her answer was: "I'm a nurse...and what I think I would be good at is educating people about the things they have to do to remain healthy." So then Barbara asked me: "Would you be comfortable with Judith sitting in on Cabinet meetings?" And I said: "I would if it was in areas that she's interested in or in areas where she has expertise." But she has no interest in being part of the Cabinet.....

113 posted on 04/20/2007 5:23:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

“But OTOH, what did Spencer get us?”

The real issue is NYC, isn’t it?


114 posted on 04/20/2007 5:36:19 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
To be clear, to avoid voting for Rudy, (who will appoint strict constructionist judges and prosecute the war with all he has-what more can a president functionally do?), you will, in fact, be placing your de facto vote for hillary clinton

See, there's that false dichotomy again. I will not give in to your invalid assumptions that supporting someone other than Guiliani in the GOP primaries is "giving" the election to Clinton.

Such position is asinine, insulting, and would accept the permanent defeat of conservatism.

115 posted on 04/20/2007 5:57:51 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
. You seem to be the AUTHORITARIAN around here, pushing your beliefs on everyone.

This is a political forum. You have the same opportunity to make your case as I do. So quit whining.

116 posted on 04/20/2007 6:00:02 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

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

I'm not. Not by a long shot.

No President has ever willingly appointed a USSC justice who disagreed with him on basic philosophy, and Guiliani won't be the first to so so. (If I have anything to say about it, he won;t get the chance in the first place.)

117 posted on 04/20/2007 6:00:06 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You really have only 2 choices in this de facto 2-party system of ours, R or D. If you vote 3rd party (or sit it out), you will be helping to elect the D.

Yeah, well you're skipping WAY ahead in presuming that those particular "R" and "D" candidates are anywhere near decided.

I will do whatever it takes to stop Guiliani getting the GOP nomination. Not only is he GUARANTEED to lose the general election, it would be the final signal to the conservative wing of the party that they're no longer wanted.

118 posted on 04/20/2007 6:02:25 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"Life in LA

The Los Angeles Times has a rule that the phrase "pro-life" will not appear on its pages because it might offend the pro-abortion crowd, reports Reuters, something a witless opera reviewer found out the hard way.

A music critic for the paper wrote that a Richard Strauss opera was "pro-life," intending to mean that it was a celebration of life. But he had his story changed by a copy editor to read "anti-abortion."

"It's about children who aren't born yet screaming to be born — not abortion," said the critic, Mark Swed. "Somebody who didn't quite get it got a little bit too politically correct ... and we had a little breakdown in communications."

The ban apparently doesn't extend to the phrase "pro-choice."

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN

Partial-birth abortion, as defined by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is a procedure in which a physician:

"[D]eliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;..."

119 posted on 04/20/2007 6:04:34 AM PDT by yoe ( "Deliver us from evil......nay, deliver us from stupidity is more like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
We won’t solve our problems unless and until we purge DC of the professional pols and replace them with citizen politicians, people of high character and achievement who will lend their expertise for a term or two and then return to their day jobs.

So, you'll be voting for Fred Thompson then? First sensible thing you've posted on this thread.

120 posted on 04/20/2007 6:05:12 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
A little less fear of Rudy

I don't fear Guiliani. I just think he's absolutely the wrong man for the job, especially when there are better men running.

121 posted on 04/20/2007 6:08:35 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Gracey

Thanks Gracey. You keep up the good work.


122 posted on 04/20/2007 6:14:37 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
My response to you is short, unlike your long winded response that is the typical response that those for Rudy repeat endlessly.

Well, you have apparently posted to the wrong person, as I have not made any statements supportive of Rudy, merely supportive of the Party. Rudy is one of 3 declared candidates who can win the election. I will support the candidate of the Party, whoever that is. As for my "long winded" response, it really wasn't for you but for the numerous lurkers here who need to understand that the far right no longer has the Party under its thumb.

And do not expect people to accept Rudy as the candidate and then insult them when they refuse Rudy.

I expect no one to accept any particular candidate until he becomes the nominee of the Party. And as for insults...well, that seems to be your only tool left.

I, myself, do not think Rudy will ever get the nomination.

And that's fine. He may not. It's early in the election cycle. But I think you understand Rudy was not what my post to you was about. It may have been long winded, but you failed to address a single point I made, so I presume you simply didn't read it.

123 posted on 04/20/2007 6:22:03 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

And thanks to you for the great starter.


124 posted on 04/20/2007 6:22:48 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

Comment #125 Removed by Moderator

To: kevkrom
Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs.

This isn't Fred Thompson.

Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.



126 posted on 04/20/2007 6:34:57 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs. This isn't Fred Thompson. Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.

LOL! Relying on Wikpedia's leftist editorializing to discredit Thompson?

Look at Thompson's lobbying history -- it is universally in favor of deregulation, period. As in, get the federal government out of regulating things it has no business dealing with in the first place.

Deregulation generally works. To point to one failure that deregulation may have allowed to happen does not invalidate that deregulation was still the right thing to do.

127 posted on 04/20/2007 6:38:44 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: KATIE-O

thank you, KATIE-O. :)

Excellent commentary!


128 posted on 04/20/2007 6:44:35 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

The points you want addressed are the same things that have been hashed and rehashed too many times.

It is the Rudy supporters that have nothing to sell but the same old product with a new deceptive label, to make it look more palatable.

Rudy lovers have the idea that social conservatives are not allowed to fight back, if they do, that makes them hypocrites. Many here are not willing to drop over and accept Rudy because we have no place to go.

We are also sick of being told that if we don’t vote for Rudy, we are voting for Hillary. I have posted to many Rudy people with many things other than alleged insults. Funny, too many times those posts are left unanswered. Perhaps what you call insults are the only way to get a response to a post that Rudy lovers wish to avoid.


129 posted on 04/20/2007 6:49:26 AM PDT by dforest (Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Of course, polls are increasingly predictive the closer we are to an election. But to say they are meaningless is not true. Not only do they have some predictive value, they feed on themselves (to affect donations, support, etc) and thereby influence the ultimate outcome.

To say the campaign hasn’t started is also not true.


130 posted on 04/20/2007 6:50:13 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
We are also sick of being told that if we don’t vote for Rudy, we are voting for Hillary. I have posted to many Rudy people with many things other than alleged insults. Funny, too many times those posts are left unanswered.

I will answer it. To say that sitting home or voting third party is a de facto vote for hillary not an 'insult.' It is simple mathematical fact.

If you are 'insulted,' by that fact, that tells me that either you lack a basic understanding of the mathematics involved... or, more likely, you prefer to rationalize away your de facto vote for hillary clinton, (which is understandable).

131 posted on 04/20/2007 6:59:55 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
You see? You can respond in a reasonable manner if you want. I did not make the point that a non vote for Rudy was a vote for Hillary. I simply said that when the dust settles and we have a candidate, that true Republicans and true conservatives will support him (whoever it is) over Hillary.

Perhaps what you call insults are the only way to get a response to a post that Rudy lovers wish to avoid.

Perhaps. I think you can distinguish an insult from a reasoned discussion. In any case, I do find it interesting (since I'm not even close to picking) that this anti-Rudy frenzy is almost cult-like. I see some of the same relating to the other 2 mainstream candidates, but nothing like Rudy. Well, I'm not a part of the social right, so I really can't understand such reaction, only judge it.

You take care.

132 posted on 04/20/2007 7:03:15 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #133 Removed by Moderator

Comment #134 Removed by Moderator

Comment #135 Removed by Moderator

To: Mia T
To say that sitting home or voting third party is a de facto vote for hillary not an 'insult.' It is simple mathematical fact.

The best hope for the conservative cause would be for Rudy to lose. Rudy is unacceptable. If he should win with conservative help, our cause would be over. If he loses, it will be a wake up call to the GOP and proof that conservatives are not willing to go left to appease the Rudy types.

That is conservative thought.

No battle is easy, but to simply "drop" your principles out of fear and fail to stand by them is the biggest loss the conservative cause can take.

Unlike you, I don't think Hillary or Obama are unbeatable. I believe if we get a good strong conservative rational candidate, to contrast the Democrats and lunacy from the left, we will have a large groundswell of support from this whole party and maybe pick up some of the Reagan Democrats we lost.

136 posted on 04/20/2007 7:14:41 AM PDT by dforest (Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Mia T

Why were posts #133 and #134 pulled? There was nothing objectionable about them (they’re quoted in their entirely in #135), even if I disagree with the premise presented?


137 posted on 04/20/2007 7:21:17 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Wow, heck of a thread...

Oh, and good morning to you.

5.56mm

138 posted on 04/20/2007 7:21:59 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

I pulled them because they were wrong. I misread what you said.

Boy, you’re fast on the trigger. :)

As I don’t stand by those statements, would appreciate it if you pull your refutation. Thx.

Will be posting a replacement soon.


139 posted on 04/20/2007 7:32:53 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

To be clear, I stand by the statements generally, but they don’t apply to your comments or to the situation here.


140 posted on 04/20/2007 7:35:02 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Boy, you’re fast on the trigger. :)

Yeah, when I get in "the zone" I'm quick on the draw sometime. ;)

It probably would have been better to have just posted an "oops" than to have had the messages deleted, though.

141 posted on 04/20/2007 7:36:08 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68; indylindy; Liz
"I truly hope you folks can once again come into the mainstream of the Party, push the candidate of your choice, and in the end help propel our Party to victory."

Almost everyone here at FreeRepublic are already in the mainstream of the GOP, because the GOP is comprised of several elements: Religious Right Conservatives, Pro-Life Conservatives, Pro-2nd Amendment Conservatives, etc. These elements always have voted Republican in past elections, and we have always had candidates who unite the party.

Rudy Giuliani, his handlers and his supporters who have never "thought outside the New York box" are wrongly assuming that those conservative elements will abandon their principles in order to win. No, you must run a candidate that can unite ALL Republicans. The fact that Rudy says "If you don't like my positions, don't vote for me" will be taken literally, both in the primaries and in the November general election.

Here's the key: America is not a "bigger version of New York". New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept.

142 posted on 04/20/2007 7:48:44 AM PDT by TommyDale ("Can debate over four hours with no need to call a doctor!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
It requires wisdom to legislate against generic inclination--S& L deregulation was débacle waiting to happen--and character and political courage to legislate against self-interest.

In any case, Thompson is hardly a 'citizen politician.' He is very much a part of the DC power structure.

As for his winning attributes, listen to Lamar Alexander: EARTH TO LAMAR: FRED THOMPSON LOOKING THE PART AIN'T ENOUGH (41-second video FLUB)

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy? (NB: gross is net, i.e., McCain has no conservative support to lose.)
FRED'S GREATEST ROLE?: an alternative theory of Senator Thompson's not-yet candidacy

143 posted on 04/20/2007 7:55:49 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
It requires wisdom to legislate against generic inclination--S& L deregulation was débacle waiting to happen--and character and political courage to legislate against self-interest.

Easy enough to say with 20/20 hindsight. Every major deregulation is preceded by dire warnings of disasters, from those who benefit from the power of being able to control via regulation.

I also take strong exception to your implication that Thompson doesn't have the "character and political courage to legislate against self-interest" -- in fact, his Senate record shows he consistently voted in favor of limiting Congress' power in matters best left to states. On the other hand, an authoritarian like Guiliani has a record of pressing for laws, and manipulating the system for his own agenda and purposes.

In any case, Thompson is hardly a 'citizen politician.' He is very much a part of the DC power structure.

Depends on your point of view. He has a life and a career outside of DC, but he has some measure of influence within.

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy?

I could just as well ask if Guiliani's sole purpose is to split the GOP to guarantee Clinton the election should she win the nomination? Lord knows he's pretty much just like them anyway...

144 posted on 04/20/2007 8:11:42 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy?

Also on this ridiculous point -- one of Thompson's most admirable traits is that is is patently honest and plainly spoken, despite having a brilliant legal mind. The man says what he means, and means what he says. If he says he's thinking about running for President, then that's what he's going to do. He's not anybody's proxy or "stalking horse". He's not a "politician" in the modern sense. If he's in, he's in it to win it.

145 posted on 04/20/2007 8:17:17 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
Almost everyone here at FreeRepublic are already in the mainstream of the GOP, because the GOP is comprised of several elements: Religious Right Conservatives, Pro-Life Conservatives, Pro-2nd Amendment Conservatives, etc. These elements always have voted Republican in past elections, and we have always had candidates who unite the party.

Well, if so, why are 70+% of Republicans in favor of one of the top 3 candidates, none of whom garner any support from the social right? In fact, in one recent survey, a large number of the RR said they would vote for Giuliani if he were nominated.

But then most conservatives are pro-life to a varying degree. Many would make exceptions, while most of those here wouldn't. Most conservatives are pro-2d Amendment, but understand that it doesn't mean an F-18 in every driveway.

The difference is that these issues, while important to many of the conservatives in the Party, are not what is driving this election, and they understand that.

Rudy Giuliani, his handlers and his supporters who have never "thought outside the New York box" are wrongly assuming that those conservative elements will abandon their principles in order to win.

To the contrary, all of the top three candidates, not just Rudy, understand that conservatives want a safe Nation first and foremost. They understand that conservatives want a sane fiscal policy, and they want a leader who can bring together both the Party and the conservatives from the Democrat Party as well as the independents. Most of those folks have social values, but do not put them before the security of this Nation.

No, you must run a candidate that can unite ALL Republicans. The fact that Rudy says "If you don't like my positions, don't vote for me" will be taken literally, both in the primaries and in the November general election.

I doubt it very much. But for those who do not vote to bring a Republican into office, they can gleefully take credit for anything done by Hillary, including 2 or 3 USSC justices, a complete reversal of our leadership in the war on terror, an increase in income taxes and a substantial increase in the socialist policies she believes in.

But for those who don't really care if they can't get their one percenter nominated, I say again, don't let the screen door hit you in the a$$!

You take care.

146 posted on 04/20/2007 9:18:11 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
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.

Bears repeating. I would add electing Rudy Guiliani to the self-destructive things we want to avoid.

147 posted on 04/20/2007 10:12:17 AM PDT by fullchroma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

You’re right, of course, should Giuliani win the nomination we must support him. Any democratic alternative is much, much, worse.


148 posted on 04/20/2007 10:17:42 AM PDT by fullchroma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale; indylindy; pissant; Spiff
America is not a "bigger version of New York." New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept.

Amen and amen.

Must be a riot at Giuliani Campaign Central, going through the list, deciding who Roto-Rooty puckers up to next.

Must have an aide just to keep Rooty's kneepads in ship-shape condition for constantly kneeling in obeisance.

149 posted on 04/20/2007 1:29:36 PM PDT by Liz (Hunter: For some candidates, a conservative constituency is an inconvenience. For me, it is my hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"America is not a "bigger version of New York." New York is a caricature of politics. It represents everything that most family-values oriented Republicans cannot accept."

One of the more profound statements of the day, and worth repeating, if I do say so myself!

150 posted on 04/20/2007 1:41:38 PM PDT by TommyDale ("Can debate over four hours with no need to call a doctor!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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