(h/t – The Corner)
Republican Presidential Nomination Time 03/09 – 03/12 631 RV Giuliani 40% , McCain 20% Giuliani +20.0%
It will be very interesting to see how nasty McCain becomes if this trend on the GOP side continues. By the way, even though the MSM has ignored it, Rudy has been the GOP frontrunner for the better part of a year now.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce, I hope that MrStr8Talker can resist, as well as his surrogates, from slamming any GOPer —Giuliani, Romney, et al– in order to move up in the polls. Except, I think, McCain believes that the 2008 GOP nomination ought to be his by volition of past service to the Party and because of that entitlement, his campaign will do whatever it takes to get to the Convention as #1 leader or #2 broker with all the chits.
Giuliani was back in Michigan this weekend –looking for support among solid GOPers and some Reagan Democrats (anti-tax, pro-WOT)… this, in a state where McCain’s forces have had a strong coordinated base of support… and he stayed on message: don’t discount the 80% we agree on by focusing in on the 20% we might not fully agree on.
Curiously, the only naysaying to Giuliani’s visit came from the Michigan Democrat Party leader Mark Brewer who offered to journalists: I wonder what all those blue-blood social conservatives will think when they learn Rudy is pro-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-guns? He ought to be running as a Democrat.”
Can any of the lower-case-clanners here argue Brewer’s comments weren’t anti-gay… by demeaning a “pro-gay” GOPer to the supposedly neanderthal base? Nice guy that Brewer… taking a page from Kerry/Edwards on the “but the Veep’s daughter is a lesbian”.
Re: the comment that the MSM has ignored Giuliani’s continuing lead. None of my friends could name a single GOP candidate. I’m sure that’s the intended consequence of the MSM’s blackout of anything GOP.
McCain….too old for me. He’s not inspiring at all. He’s buds with Chris Matthews when he’s anti Republican. I’m a diehard conservative. Sen McCain gave Pres Bush too much trouble and I vowed to not forget it. His McCain Feingold bill was just anti free speech and inexcusable. He didn’t support the Bush tax cuts which have led to this amazing economic rush. So outside of economics and free speech why should we support McCain?
Ah great minds think alike! Just like I’ve always maintained, McCain is not going to let a liberal Republican steal what McCain believes should be his. Rudy has had a free ride so far and there’s plenty on which to attack him. McCain’s operatives might even get personal by using Rudy’s second wife’s tearful press conference footage but they’ll have to be careful that it doesn’t look like McCain is behind it. Even if they don’t get personal, there is plenty in Rudy’s record to knock such as his close ties to mob friend Bernie Kerik. I’d also like to know what it was exactly that Rudy did to deserve all the accolades after 9/11. Maybe the McCain campaign can remind us all of the great Rudy decision to put the NYC emergency command center in WTC #7. Oops. Negative campaigning against Rudy should be easily able to knock his numbers down to the point where Rudy’s infamous thin skin gets exposed.
All that said, were Rudy to be elected President, I think you’d find he’d accommodate an almost certainly expanded Dem majority in the House and the Senate. He’d have to be really careful in his choice of judges and I think he’d let his liberal leanings surface with a little prompting from a Dem Senate. Of course, if he’s the GOP nominee, he’ll immediately be put on the defensive, since by that time, the escalation will have flopped like all the rest of those “corners turned.” In any event, it looks like an interesting campaign developing.
I agree with Gene. I used to like him, being that he was one of the few truly visible and seemingly independent Congressional leaders. (My perception back then was overly influenced by talk shows and pictures of the young McCain when he was hot.) However, he’s liberal on the wrong issues and conservative on the wrong issues. Like a volcano, he occasionally spews fire and ash, whereupon one can only count on the unpredictablility of his vomit. His friends run for cover and he generates lots of video. As such, he doesn’t really respond to litmus tests; rather, he’s more of a Rorschach, but as a negative and without chiaroscuro. And as for his age, why is it that conservative so often means preservative ?
“I think you’d find he’d accommodate an almost certainly expanded Dem majority in the House and the Senate.”
Sounds like Bong Hits 4 Jesus to me…
Regards,
Peter H.
Ian writes: “Just like I’ve always maintained”… ummm, to do that you’d need to have an original thought, buddie-boy-o. Not a likely prospect in this decade.
I guess since Ian’s weighed in on what the GOP nomination landscape will be in 6-12-16 months, plus offered his incredibly astute insights into the inner workings of political campaigns, plus defined all the issues that will play out between now and the Convention AND, if that wasn’t prescient enuff to simply dazzle any uniformed characters here, he’s already predicted where the WOT-Iraq is heading despite the trends saying he’s full of it…
Way to go, Ian! And you even took time to explain how Rudy as Prez will affect Congressional races in 2008… wow, and to think you’ve lived your entire life as an uninspired tool of the Democrats? Balanced, fair, unbiased… your opinions must be beyond reproach, eh?
Gentlemen:
Rudy Giuliani does not stand a chance of being the Republican Candidate for President for the two following reasons.
1. Gun Control. Rudy favors gun control and this is not acceptable to me and the 150 million gun owners in America. The NRA and the 150 million gun owners in America will defeat him.
2. Abortion. Rudy is pro-abortion and on the record saying he does not support a partial birth abortion ban. Rudy supports murder of innocents by abortion. This is not acceptable to Christian America who will defeat him.
Rudy is a lost cause.
The Texican………..
PS: scratch Rudy and you will find a leftist liberal under a fake conservative skin………………
Hey texican, why stop there… your truck engine is still running, the trailer is unhitched, there’s a fresh bar of velvetta and some ding-dongs awaiting on the dash board… go for it. Let’s call Rudy Giuliani the worst thing in the whackedRight’s play book: a progressive, compassionate moderate Republican and Yankee from a big city, to boot… and an Ivy League lawyer, too! Oh my Gawd. Go ahead and toss in Bolshevist or dego WhOP and maybe even sissy.
Sorry, but I think the GOP rank & file and leadership is moving away from it’s sterling association with the farRight… and Rudy is the perfect antidote for all those corrupted conservatives like TomDelay, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, et al.
The only question is: Do you wrap a slab of velvetta around the ding-dong BEFORE or AFTER you heat the ding-dong up on the engine’s manifold?
And as an life-long NRA member, hunter, and sportsman, I think he’s a perfect fit and the only viable choice to defeat Sen Clinton. Sorry, pragmatics wins over any purity tests this round.
What part of “Why make an enemy of the 20% we DON’T agree on instead of embracing the 80% we DO agree on?” do you not get yet?
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich — an erstwhile GP co-favorite, if I recall correctly — calmly watches from the sidelines, waiting for the opportunity to pounce.
Hey MM:
don’t eat ding dongs, but week old cinamon rolls are great hot off the manifold…………….
Rudy will not make it regardless of your desires……………..
Rudy is a leftist liberal in a fake conservative skin…………abortion and gun control will scuttle him.
the emails are not yet flying about Rudy and his support of abortion including third term abortions…………and his support for gun control…………….Christians and Gun Owners have the majority as Reps and the majority in America………..
this race has yet to begin for all of the players are not yet playing…………..
Newt, Tom or another sitting on the sideline will be the Rep Pres Candidate.
it will be interesting…………….
Hey Michigan Matt. When did you stop being the shill for the GOP?
#12 – Don’t forget immigration. Some of the right-wing true believers, e.g. the Freepers to whom GP referred so warmly above, are positively aghast at what they perceive as Giuliani’s “coddling” of illegal immigrants when he was mayor.
Whether Giuliani succeeds in national politics depends on the extent to which he repudiates the policies that worked for him in NYC. In other words: he has to flip-flop, or he has no chance.
Let me get this straight. If Rudy stays true to his convictions, vaara and The Texican agree that he has no chance at winning the nomination.
Interesting.
Let’s not overlook the fact that a certain enormous state on the West Coast recently moved its Presidential primary to February from June. This will have the effect of pushing both parties’ candidates further to the left than they might feel comfortable with.
Rudy’s gonna have a lot of triangulatin’ to do if he intends to win simultaneous primaries in California and South Carolina.
#12:
Certainly some truth there. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who is more representative of the GOP base when it comes to primary voting: you or sophisticated urbane homosexuals like Matt.
#16:
I don’t think the California GOP is particularly liberal.
Ahh. So we should compromise our beliefs and re-define conservatism just so we can call someone (who isn’t) a conservative so we don’t feel GUILTY.
I’ll support Rudy G. if he gets the nomination, but somehow I doubt he will.
I think Rudy’s latest wife would look great in the White House. The MSM should stop ignoring her.
TGC writes: “So we should compromise our beliefs and re-define conservatism just so we can call someone (who isn’t) a conservative so we don’t feel GUILTY.”
OK TGC, it’s a set of political policies… these aren’t beliefs like your religion, tenets of our democracy, etc. They aren’t “beliefs”… they don’t even come close to rising to that level of uncontestable moral propositions… it’s P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S and if you still think “pure and true” ought to be applied as litmus tests for candidates, what Giuliani and others have said speaks directly to you –why make the 20% you disagree about the enemy of the 80% you agree on? Because if you do, it’s unlikely the 80% candidate will win and you’ll get stuck with someone from the other camp you disagree 100% with.
Newt and Fred Dalton Thompson and others can sit on the sidelines… but it’s only good for tossing bricks or taking pot shots at the field… unless we get to a brokered convention… and then the #2 or #3 guys can be a serious problem for the inconclusive #1 leader… especially if they team-up.
Hey texican, thanks for taking the ribs in their intended good-natured fun. Are there nuts on those rolls? And do you call them pah-kans or pee-cans?
I think Slick Willie’s soon-to-be-former-wife would look out of place in the White House. The MSM should start ignoring her.
Would that all the above come true.
Funny that the lower-case-libtards crow and catcall over Gingrich and Giuliani’s marital affairs, but fail to see how Slick Willie constantly cheats on his lawfully wedded wife.
Then again, if you were married to Shrillary, I guess you would too.
Regards,
Peter H.
“And do you call them pah-kans or pee-cans?”
Well, M-Matt, I can’t speak for The Texican, but here in Houston along the Texas Gulf Coast, we call them “pah-KANS.” “PEE-cans” are something you use while hunting when proper facilities aren’t readily available.
Of course, we are also known to pronounce praline as “PRAY-lean,” much to the disgust of our Creole neighbors east of the Sabine River. I was quietly reprimanded by a Brennan’s maitre’d once when I used that pronunciation. (They call them “PRAW-leans.”)
FYI – The pecan is the state tree of Texas. Our official pie is the pecan pie. Just another example of how our taxpayer dollars are spent in Austin.
Regards,
Peter H.
I like Newt because he’s the only (un)candidate I heard who understand the complexity of the world we live in.
Check out this webpage
http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4029
and reveiw this Powerpoint presentation and tell me who else is discussing these things
http://www.newt.org/UserFiles/File/RealWorld_RealWar_012307.mht
Two words …
Fred Thompson
http://Draftfredthompson.com
Cheers,
Julie the Jarhead
BTW have you noticed how little the Democrat Congress has really gotten done? My employees are still waiting for a minimum wage increase. They are really suffering. They look very hungry to me and I keep telling em to call their congressmen or Ms Pelosi. Typical Dem, the House passed it and the Senate is locked up. What’s the deal? Has it been 100 hours yet? LOL
I’ve been hearing about Fred Thompson but I don’t think I’m quite ready to give up on Rudy. As for this…
“Rudy is a leftist liberal in a fake conservative skin…………abortion and gun control will scuttle him.”
I’ve heard him speak and there’s nothing fake about his conservatism. He understands the virtue of market forces and the dangers of socialist solutions to problems. Better yet, he communicates very well.
Abortion and gun control *could* scuttle him, but only to the extent that people for whom those are important issues feel insecure. It also helps a great deal that people for whom those are important issues just *might* feel that Islamic Jihad is a real and immenent threat. They may have no trouble at all voting for someone who takes that seriously while determining to take personal reponsibility for social issues themselves.
It also matters greatly who they expect to be on the Dem ticket. If they don’t pick a candidate who can pull at least some people away from voting for the Dem candidates in the general election they’re going to end up with abortion and gun control in any case.
Well, Syn, that’s what primary voting is all about. Survival of the fittest.
Regards,
Peter H.
#10, #21 – Matt: Take a chill pill. It’s legitimate for people to be NOT fully bought-in on Rudy. (Or McCain, or any candidate.)
And no, it’s not about some ideological purity test, either. Some of us GayPatriots are Independents or other non-Republicans, and couldn’t begin to care about Republican or conservative purity. It’s about people forming THEIR OWN thoughts and opinions on who will be best for the United States.
Please try explaining to people who disagree what you think is great about Rudy – rather than apparently jumping to the conclusion they must be rednecks or worse.
#27 – Synova: I like Rudy whenever he talks about Islamism or the GWOT, you’re right. Unfortunately, when he opens his mouth on Manbearpig, it’s a different story – he sounds fairly bought-in to the Left myths on that one. I.e., that to fight Manbearpig, we need to increase government controls, socialism and U.N. power.
P.S. and as for McCain… forget it. Two words: McCain-Feingold. So, I’m still looking for someone good.
#26 – “the Senate is locked up”
And whose fault is that?
vaara: You ask the question as if it’s a bad thing.
#27 Now, manbearpig denial really would make a person unelectable. I doubt there is any other single thing on either side that would do it.
BTW, do you know, where did the term “manbearpig” come from?
Dems could live with Rudy, maybe that is why you Repubs want him…you have come around to the fact that the country supports the Dems and that is why you are trying to push Rudy down the rank and file’s throat.
Isn’t that what Matt would call “pragmatic?”
Fred Thompson? Why is it that you repubs clamor toward the Hollywood types? Is it the fake leadership he shows on law n order? Do you like the idea that he can tell Sam Waterson what to do on TV?
here is an actual comment from “FriendOfFred” on draftfredthompson.com:
“I have been watching you on Law And Order and you are a true Conservative like we have needed for too long since Reagan.”
Ha! I hope he gets its. The parodies will be endless and hilarious
I’m hoping Fred plays the role he did in “Hunt for Red October” .. that would kick ass.
#34 I don’t quite get your complaint. Are Republicans obligated to only nominate a candidate whom swing voters will hate or else they aren’t ideologically pure enough? I thought that trying to find a president that would appeal to the broadest swath of America was a good thing.
Or are you just complaining because Dems have made a virtue out of the small tent yet like to pretend they have a big tent so when someone starts talking about a Republican candidate that will appeal to Democrats you’ve got to find some way to maintain that illusion?
And I don’t watch Law & Order. I’ve boycotted the entire franchise and don’t even miss it. I’d rather watch Rosie on the View.
#29:
I hope you have better luck at getting an answer than I have. I’ve repeatedly asked for something concrete that Rudy did as mayor that shows his wisdom and good judgement on terrorism. Nobody ever comes up with anything.
#33 – It’s a “South Park” reference.
#38 Ah, thank you. My education is sadly lacking when it comes to South Park.
“I don’t quite get your complaint”
The point of the post was that Dems could live with him. He is a former Dem who still holds to many Dem’s issues. He is talks like a repub on taxes but he oversaw one of the highest taxed areas in the nation. As a New York Lawyer he was very aggressive clamping down on Wall Street. He is lock step with the majority of Americans on abortion, gun control and he could do something about gay rights and I have no fear that he is going to appoint conservative judges.
No my only real “complaint” is we don’t know what his foreign policy is and he appears to be corrupted into the “stay the course” mentality that has lead us into the mess of Iraq we are in now.
Besides that with a Democratic Senate, Dems win either way and that makes me satisfied. Not complainy
And Further, I think Thompson would be a hilarious candidate. I would love to see a debate of Obama. vs Thompson polish and substance vs. curmudgeon and folksy sayings.
So no complaints here!
Dems could live with Rudy, maybe that is why you Repubs want him…you have come around to the fact that the country supports the Dems and that is why you are trying to push Rudy down the rank and file’s throat.
You just go right on believing that, keogh.
You see, the one thing that will ensure a return to and continued Republican control is when you and your leftist friends forget that “Democrats” like Heath Shuler — anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-tax — are what made it even possible for you to win.
Go right back to pushing your punish-business, jack-taxes, anti-military, anti-gun, unlimited-sex-and-abortion, and pro-terrorist ways, and we’ll see how long you last.
you have come around to the fact that the country supports the Dems
Oh is that why they’ve been so successful in the last 27 years? Before you bring up lord BJ, remember how much of the popular vote he got each time.
I would love to see a debate of Obama. vs Thompson polish and substance vs. curmudgeon and folksy sayings.
You mean “Magic Negro” who isn’t “black enough”, but is (apparently) the only “articulate” and “clean” black guy. Oh and don’t forget, as Mrs. “Osama Obama” said, he’s “My baby’s daddy!”.
Please tell us the “substance” of “Magic Negro”. I’m sure the voting public would love for SOMEBODY to explain it.
#42 Gawd I find that offensive. I realize that you’re quoting others so I’m not getting on your case TGC, just… I find the simple fact that his blackness, or the legitimacy of his blackness, is something that is considered relevant in any way, offensive. Does anyone care anymore? Who cares anymore?
Well the Leftists make such a huge deal about the fact the man can make a sentence… can you blame us for noticing?
Calarato writes #29: “And no, it’s not about some ideological purity test, either. Some of us GayPatriots are Independents or other non-Republicans, and couldn’t begin to care about Republican or conservative purity. It’s about people forming THEIR OWN thoughts and opinions on who will be best for the United States.”
Calarato, with great respect, the chill pill isn’t needed. When posters here note that someone can’t win the GOP nomination because of their stand on guns, abortion, guest workers or civil unions (or any combination thereof), they ARE speaking about tests –single issue purity tests and the struggle to maintain their group’s ideological standing in the GOP or society. We aren’t talking about independents or non-GOPers… we’re talking about single issue control groups trying to vie for standing inside the Party by excluding candidates because of a stand on single issues. It’s why Giuilani’s 80-20% perspective is salient.
Sorry to say, but the conservatives brought that whole “pure enuff, true enuff” test into the Party and it’s time to set it out at the curb. The GOP isn’t alone. The Democrats have their own problem with the single issue mentality.
Political parties ought to be about winning national, state and local office… not about purity tests, litmus tests, and single issue mandates. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the end of the day, being pure enuff and losing the race isn’t why we have political parties… it’s why we have special interest groups –they can go use the litmus tests over there. Frankly, it’s what underpins the RINO nonsense by some fiscal conservatives and single issue types.
For me though, the real rub comes when those single issue folks –who mostly sat on the sidelines in the last election and gave us the current crew in Congress—come out and demand that the GOP nominate someone other than Rudie McRomney. At CPAC, I saw young conservatives glomming onto the “Anyone but…” bandwagon while pushing Hunter, Gingrich, Brownback, Santorum, Allen, Tancredo, Thompson and others. Great, just what the GOP needs… more whacko Righties running us so far into the endzone we’ll never win a General. Pure enuff, true enuff? Stupid enuff in my book.
The post I was referring to –and have referred to others in the past—begin with the theme Rudie McRomney can’t win because of 1) guns or 2)abortion or 3) he’s pro-gay or 4) illegals or 5) he’s a marital wreck.
Calarato, I’d like to see the GOP nominate someone who can win. I’d like the Party to return to a more moderate, welcoming attitude best evidenced by leaders like Christy Todd Whitman, Gov Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, Bloomberg, Chaffee and others. I’d like to spurn the single issue control freaks and get back to what the GOP did stand for –freedom, equality of opportunities, smaller govt, lower taxes, fiscal constraint, strong military, personal liberty, etc.
I’m not a Rudy-duty guy. I want a winner to be nominated. While independents and non-GOP social conservatives can sit back and opine “The GOP will never allow…”, the truth is that opinion isn’t of value at this point –it has value when the nominee gets compared to the other party’s chosen one. But not now. Now, it’s a donnybrook for control over the future of the Party and I, for one, don’t want it in the hands of the neo-cons.
#45: Bravo Michigan Matt! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Go Rudy!
When it comes to 401k’s cut-and-paste rhetoric, it’s a minor miracle if he can comprehend it, let alone defend it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Matt, as always, thanks for responding!
I take it that they’re just making predictions. Hopefully, their predictions are based on personal experience with the GOP (which I lack, so I rarely attempt such predictions). And maybe their predictions will be right. Or wrong. Whatever.
Actually, they ought to be about proposing – and doing – what’s right for the country, under some consistent and sensible philosophy. The reason I feel contempt for my former party, the Democrats, is because they so horribly don’t, as Bruce just pointed out.
I’d have to argue with that interpretation of the election and the motives of who sat out.
Bush has been good (not perfect) on the GWOT, which is why I cast my first-ever Republican vote for him in 2004. But domestically, Bush has been just another big-spending “moderate Democrat”.
And the Republicans in Congress as well (plus being personally sleazy). So they all had a spanking coming. Some voters saw 2006 as the year to do it – particularly the ones we used to call “Reagan Democrats”. Reagan Democrats would be MODERATES by definition – current or former Democrats who found themselves inspired by the Reagan philosophy of personal responsibility, small government, and being pro-America. Those moderates swung the 2006 election.
As a purely pragmatic question: I agree that if the GOP goes for “small tent” rather than “big tent”, yeah, obviously they are going to lose. By definition. (Of what democracy is.)
But again, I think the reason the Republicans lost in 2006 is because they were rather too “moderate” and “welcoming” – on a bunch of wrong things. Like Big Government / spending (or so-called “compassionate conservatism”, another moderate position)… Congressional corruption… illegal immigrants… Manbearpig (i.e., accepting the wacky ideas / false premises of the Left)… and other issues where Bush-Hastert-DeLay-Boehner have been wimps and have simply not proposed, nor done, the right thing.
We disagree on some things but Matt, thanks for your civil tone 😉
Matt, I have a long one in moderation.
I think the heart and soul of the Republican party are a few of the items that M-M wished werent litmus tests. Namely, the Court decision abortion. The Republican Party has a great legacy as the party that was Anti-Slavery and I think abortion is the slavery of today.
The moment the GOP gives up it’s Pro-Life stances, it becomes indistinguishable from the Democrats. After all, what good is the GOP if it caves in on the fundamental question of right to one’s life and how it relates to the Constitution.
I have no problem with Pro-Choice folks being in the party, but they should compromise and cede the issue, at least on the Judicial aspect.
Ultimately though, I dont seek a blanket ban on abortion nationwide. I seek a overturning of Rowe vs Wade and allowing the issue to be decided State by State by the People.
Guns is another issue.. it’s the people right to have guns. There is no justification for prohibiting lawful sane people from being armed.
And Entitilement-Elimination. THe Constitution never permitted Federal programs on that scale and they are destroying the budget.
And just as an aside, I have met Calarato…..but we were not in a position to judge anything’s length. 🙂
What I did find is that he is bright, pleasant to be around, and drives a stick shift. Why is he still single?
Calarato, I’ll step back and read it when it gets posted. I don’t know about others, but I’ve had some long-ish and well cited posts never show up in the thread… and because I’m not inclined to save my posts aside from the thread, I don’t go back and reconstruct.
Thanks for the discussion. This week I watched a group of NRA protesters here at a Giuliani event in Michigan with posters saying “Hunters Don’t Believe Him… He wants YOUR rifle” and “Giuliani is Anti-gun”.
Giuliani remarked off the cuff that he’s getting a bum’s rap on the “gun issue”; it’s an 80-20% case. He offered that crime in NYC was over-the-top when he became Mayor. He pushed for gun registrations, limited purchasing for semi-automatics, background checks, etc. He pointed out the 90% of the guns committing the crimes in NYC come from OUTSIDE NYC and that’s why we need federal restrictions… and they ought to be tougher than getting a drivers license.
I wish we’d had some sort of restriction on pilot training before 9-11. Restrictions on gun ownership for sane, reasonable people isn’t the issue– the issue is getting them out of the hands of criminals.
As a gun owner, hunting enthusaist, sharp-shooter and collector who takes his sons to the skeet range on some spring mornings, to the duck blind before 1st light, and has trained them on gun safety as early as3 yr olds, I am not worried about Rudy on “guns”. Nor McCain or Romney. I am with Sen Clinton.
Here’s a reasonable examination about how single issue special interest groups sometimes work gun “control” into the debate for that litmus test, purity test I was speaking about before.
http://www.thebigtent.net/index.php/2007/02/11/rudy-giuliani-and-gun-control/
Calarato, I too have one that examines gun ownership as a litmus test… somewhere in moderation hell.
I’ll step back a bit and read it when it shows up… thanks for discussion.
Upon request, and because I hate to see people like the Texican get beat up on, I’m breaking silence to comment.
It’s disappointing that instead of defending Giuliani’s positions, his fans go on the warpath against conservatives. Given Giuliani’s embrace of lefty politics on manbearpig, Rudy’s history of support for draconian gun control laws, taxpayer funded abortions at every stage of pregnancy, open borders, and appointing liberal judges, I think it’s safe to say there is much less than 80% of Rudy’s agenda many conservatives will agree with. And I think conservatives can be excused for not seeing the point in voting for a liberal Republican over a liberal Democrat whose positions on those issues are identical.
A voter to whom those issues are important may be excused for staying home in 2008 and writing a check to the NRA, thinking that their vote doesn’t matter . And it would be unwise to assume the Democrats are too dumb to exploit that. Suppressing the vote worked very well for the Democrats in 2006, and its easy to imagine Democrat-backed 527’s barraging voters with ads reminding them of Rudy’s liberal positions in 2008, especially in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other swing states.
Even Rudy’s critics will give him credit for his fiscal policies and success in turning around NYC as mayor. Why can’t Rudy’s fans meet them halfway and intelligently discuss why his liberal positions don’t matter? Why are people attacked for simply stating where they disagree with Giuliani and questioning his electability?
Scapegoating conservatives would seem to be an excuse for the GOP to avoid confronting the corruption, fiscal profligacy, and pursuit of power for the sake of power that some have pointed out may be the reason they lost in 2006. (And incidentally, isn’t that what the demand for unquestioning support of Giuliani “because he can win” is all about, putting principle aside for the sake of gaining political power?)
That’s the very attitude that’s driven me off the reservation… both GP-wise and Republican-wise. The same people who cry about conservatives demanding a purity test seem to be advocating another kind of purity test… one of uncritical, unquestioning loyalty to the Republican party and its front-runner, and anyone who questions or criticizes is to be insulted, shouted down and silenced. (Ironically, this attitude is exactly what the left accuses Republicans of holding.)
It’s interesting that the neo-mods heap praise on Christy Todd Whitman. You know who was a big outspoken supporter of Christy Todd Whitman and the “It’s my party too” moderate bandwagon? Mark Foley. Yeah, the party sure could use more Republicans like that.
Thanks NDT.
And folks, likewise, NDT is very pleasant to be around – easy on the eyes, among other things 😉
So Matt, Dan approved #48 from me to you.
I think, Vince, you make a very important distinction.
This poll points out why.
More than three-fourths of the respondents believe that abortion should be legal in varying circumstances.
Thirty-nine percent of the respondents said that abortion should only be legal in a few circumstances, 26 percent believe it should be legal in all circumstances, and 16 percent favor legal abortion in most circumstances.
Another 16 percent said it should not be legal under any circumstances, the poll showed.
Of course, the abortionist spin on that is the first sentence — “three-quarters of respondents believe abortions should be legal”.
But when you look at it, 55% (39%+16%) say that abortion should either not be legal at all or be legal in just a few circumstances. Only 26% of Americans support the pro-abortion position of the Democrat Party, which opposes any restrictions whatsoever on abortion. Meanwhile, strong majorities say that spousal and parental consent should be required before getting an abortion — again, which the Dems completely and utterly oppose.
What people forget was that abortion WAS legal in several states before Roe v. Wade, but only in cases of rape, incest or the child being deformed/medical necessity. Abortion for convenience, such as Dems support, was patently illegal.
The main reason Dems are pro-abortion is because it generates an enormous amount of funding for them. Over 1 million abortions take place in the United States annually at an average cost of $500 each; that means abortionist groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are able to give vast sums of money to Democrat candidates.
Personally, were I ever to reach office, my solution would be simple; make it illegal for clinics to charge for abortion procedures.
I think another overlooked aspect of this is the national security risks of having a flatlining population growth.
Personally IMHO (which doesnt mean anything since I’m never going to spawn), abortion as birth control should be banned because it depresses population growth not to mention the ethical problems with allowing the unborn to be murdered. I guess I’d allow the 10 cases of rape/incest to continue.
All of Europe is on the verge of disintegration because they are not reproducing… this is a historical catastrophe, one that I would put a stop to here immediately.
#50:
“The moment the GOP gives up it’s Pro-Life stances, it becomes indistinguishable from the Democrats. After all, what good is the GOP if it caves in on the fundamental question of right to one’s life and how it relates to the Constitution.”
There is no difference between the parties re. an issue like, say, Iraq? No difference on taxes? The two parties defend property rights equally? How about environmental regulation? Education? There are more than several reasons why I’m a Republican and abortion isn’t one of them.
The Constitution pertains to actual human beings. There is considerable disagreement as to the age an unborn child is viable. I happen to agree that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided not because I’m in favor of banning abortion but because I strongly defend the 10th Amendment.
“I have no problem with Pro-Choice folks being in the party, but they should compromise and cede the issue, at least on the Judicial aspect.”
So you demand we cede the issue and that’s ‘compromise’? That’s like Democrats demanding that Republicans roll over on every issue, calling it ‘compromise’, then screeching about partisanship when they don’t.
Isn’t the ‘Judical aspect’ the only meaningful aspect? If it isn’t, then isn’t that agreeing with the bumper sticker “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.”?
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t refer to flintlock muskets, but it also doesn’t refer to hydrogen bombs.
These aren’t black/white issues.
My post was a rambling mess and I didnt express myself very well. I’ll take another stab at it (no pun intended) tonight.
HardHobbit, it seems like you and Vince are on the same page to me.
I have no problem with Pro-Choice folks being in the party, but they should compromise and cede the issue, at least on the Judicial aspect.
Ultimately though, I dont seek a blanket ban on abortion nationwide. I seek a overturning of Rowe vs Wade and allowing the issue to be decided State by State by the People.
versus yours:
I happen to agree that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided not because I’m in favor of banning abortion but because I strongly defend the 10th Amendment.
I think you can both agree that justices who arbitrarily create “constitutional” powers that are a) not enumerated specifically in the Constitution and b) infringe on the fact that states own the non-enumerated powers.
Where I think you might come to conflict is in deciding at the state level just how much to ban. But really, you seem in synch on the Federal level and in regard to the judiciary.
Dallas (#56),
The beauty of the 10th Amendment allows Vince and me to coexist, but his post indicates that he’s pro-life. ‘Pro-life’ means anti-choice, or if you prefer, very limited choice — in order to save lives, the choice to abort has to be eliminated or severely curtailed. When someone who is pro-life tells me I ‘should cede the issue’, that means I should forget about the very fundamental liberty for a woman to decide whether she is ready or capable to bring a pregnancy to term.
There is nothing in the Constitution pertaining to abortion, yea or nay, meaning there is no ‘right to life’ of the unborn nor a ‘right to reproductive privacy’, phony and misinformed invocations of the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, such as its mythical privacy and doctor/patient ‘right of contract’. (It’s interesting that this same Amendment establishes legal personhood.)
The analogy to slavery is troubling because slavery put a man’s life at odds with the 10th Amendment. After all, if a slave’s life is his, how can his life be relegated to the whim of racist southerners determined to maintain their economic interest? Thus, Lincoln was correct to recognize that slavery had to be a federal issue.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into Vince’s post, but I’ve had conversations with conservatives who used much the same language of ‘ceding the issue’, et al.
For the record, I should mention that privately, I’m against abortion.
Welcome back, V the K.
The ‘purity test’ is a conservative one. As of now, conservatives have no viable candidate and are frustrated. Instead of being pro-active and backing someone like Brownback or Huckabee, they take pot shots at the more moderate front runners. Their frustration is two-fold: 1) There is no appealing, consistently conservative candidate for them to support (many will not support Brownback because he’s not pure on illegal immigration, though he’s pure on probably 95% of the rest); 2) The candidates that are found to be the most appealing (by many conservatives, even) are more moderate, indicating the country is more moderate than they are (this betrays the ‘family values’ crowd [divorce and gay rights]). (I don’t know why a gay conservative would be so anti-Rudy. But I guess the desired purity isn’t quite so pure, is it? After all, why support Brownback if he isn’t in favor of 50-foot walls and barbed wire on the border and why support Rudy if he’s in favor of recognizing civil unions? I…guess that makes sense.)
I happen to greatly dislike the idea of a coronation rather than a brokered convention. I do really like Giuliani and always have (I lived in NY for a time) and so I happen to support the current front runner. However, I don’t want Giuliani to get the idea that his positions aren’t going to be challenged. I want competition in the Republican Party. This means I want conservatives to step up and get serious about nominating a candidate — not because I’m a conservative (I’m not), but because I think we’re a stronger party by introspection. But who conservatives choose is their responsibility, not mine and whether they accept that responsibility is up to them.
Dallas,
My post #61 should refer to your #60 rather than the #56 as previously stated (even though #56 is another of your posts). At the time I posted #61, your #56 was what is now #60. I assume there is an error in the moderation queue.
When someone who is pro-life tells me I ’should cede the issue’, that means I should forget about the very fundamental liberty for a woman to decide whether she is ready or capable to bring a pregnancy to term.
I agree with you that that is a fundamental liberty, HH; however, what I would point out is that an abortion is not the only way by which a woman can exercise her choice not to bring a pregnancy to term.
I agreed with the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases that preceded Roe, in which the court ruled it was an infringement on liberty to prevent the sale and distribution of contraceptives. However, there is a huge bright line in my mind between allowing people to procure things that prevent pregnancy in the first place and ending a pregnancy after it has already started.
If a woman REALLY doesn’t want to get pregnant, she should not have sex or should have herself sterilized. If she doesn’t like either of those options, she should be able to get contraceptives, but with the understanding that there is a risk involved of getting pregnant. But once she is pregnant, that’s that.
Pro-choice also seems to vastly over-state the restrictions that anti-abortion advocates support. I’ve talked to people who were shocked (and I’m not over-stating that, shocked!) to find out that anti-abortion advocates, less the inevitable wacked out nutcase, all think that abortions should be available in cases where there is danger to the mother.
Everyone agrees to that. But somehow the lie is accepted that pro-lifers hate women and want to force them to have children that might kill them. There is a very small risk with any pregnancy… but saying pro-life sorts won’t allow abortion when the life of the mother is at risk is a deliberate lie.
Also a deliberate lie is the idea that pro-life sorts want to force women to have babies they don’t want. That pro-life sorts don’t believe in *choice*. Bull pucky. There was a time when contraception was opposed and while some religious groups oppose contraception for their members NO ONE is trying to stop women from getting contraception. NO ONE wants to take women’s *choice* away from them.
At one time contraception and abortion were a package deal and there was strong opposition to any sort of contraception. That’s not true anymore. People might fuss about who has authority to supply it to children, but no one is trying to make it illegal. Yet this specter from the dark ages is hauled out and waved in front of young women… they want to turn you into a womb on legs, a baby making machine. A cow. A brood mare. NO ONE is trying to take away a woman’s right to be in control of her reproduction… but if she refuses to be in control of it, who’s choice was that?
That doesn’t mean I don’t have sympathy, but the right to make bad choices doesn’t include the right to be excused from the consequences.
Dallas (#64),
We’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s easy for me to be privately against abortion because I’ll never be pregnant and I’ll likely never impregnate (though I’ve been asked to donate semen either via intercourse or medically). Publicly, it’s simply not my place to tell a woman she cannot have access to a procedure that she deems necessary — only she can best determine whether she is capable of raising a child. Politically, it’s a losing issue for the GOP with some reasonable exceptions such as partial-birth abortion, late term abortion, parental notification at a certain age, etc. But this should be decided at the state level.
I dont see abortion as a loser issue for the GOP.. If anything, when the GOP alienates the Pro-Life people (usually done so in the context of turning thier backs on a whole range of issues), then those folks stay home.. like in 2006
None of these issues can be decided at the State level because of the tyranny of Leftist Federal jurispudence.. and until the Republicans get enough Constitutional Federalists on the bench (who will tend to be “pro-life”) , it will never be in the people’s hands to decide these life and death issues.
I shouldn’t have gone on and on like that, but I can’t help saying, HardHobbit, you’ve got every bit as much right to make a moral determination about the unborn as anyone else because you are every bit as removed from that hypothetical woman as I am because you, just like me, are not her. Even though I’ve got a womb and have made the choice to reproduce. I’m *still* not her.
We make moral determinations about other people all the time. Most particularly when it comes to other people’s right to make decisions that impact someone other than themself. I’ve heard a man say, when confronted by another man about beating his wife, that what went on in his home was no one’s business. I can’t fail to see the simularity between that and the claim that what goes on in my body is no one’s business. If it involves another person it is, no matter where that person resides. Even any libertarian this side of an anarchist agrees that one of the very few rules (if not the only one) is about not doing violence to another human being.
The question isn’t if you’ve a right to make a moral determination about what a woman does with her body, the question is if the human life in her body counts or should count as a human life. Good arguments can be made either way. If the human life counts then the fact that it’s her body only counts if it’s a choice between the two.
“NO ONE is trying to take away a woman’s right to be in control of her reproduction”
Except for all those pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills on religious grounds.
How many of them are there?
Quite a few, apparently. They have a website and everything.
At least 11 states are considering “conscience clause” legislation, which would protect pharmacists who refuse to perform the jobs they’re paid for.
Interesting.
Though lets not lose fact of what thier objection is.. they believe they’re being forced to kill people. Seems like a reasonable objection to me.
It’s also reasonable that if their employer doesn’t want to deal with thier issue, that they should be fired.
Conservatism is not just a set of policy choices, it is a belief system, founded on the basic tenet that there are objective truths, and that those truths that have proven to be valid throughout human history remain true under present circumstances.
Conservatives are pro-life partly out of a moral belief in the sanctity of human life, but also because history has shown that there always have been dire consequences for civilization when human life has been devalued.
It is possible to arrive at a pro-life position without being a conservative. (One can, for example, reasonably argue that a pro-life position is the ‘least harm’ position, since a pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience for a woman while an abortion is a permanent death sentence for a baby.) But it is impossible arrive at a position of support for abortion-on-demand if one is coming from a bedrock conservative philosophy.
Conservative policies are guided by philosophy, moderate policies are guided by political calculation.
Now, the question is, if the neo-mods succeed in turning off large numbers of pro-choice voters, gun rights voters, and border security voters from the Republican party, can they still win a majority? If the answer is no, then shouldn’t compromise, rather than antagonism, be a more productive strategy for moderate to advance their own agenda, whatever that is?
“Ex-GP commenter” aka VdaK (welcome back) at #54 raises a few points. I’d like to respond, with respect.
The point of Bruce’s post was that Giuliani was substantially ahead of McCain in pre-pre-pre polling for the GOP Prez nomination. That is significant because McCain –perceived within the Party as a maverick conservative—is getting bested by a conventional, ol’time RIPON type GOPer… kind of the candidate that used to populate the Party in the time of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 and others. Despite Bush 43’s claim of being a compassionate conservative, he’s no RIPON GOPer. He’s part of social conservative movement within the Party… just like TomDelay, Duke Cunningham, Denny Hastert, Bill Archer and lots of others who entered or came to claim power under the RR “revolution”.
That’s significant because it suggests another possible realignment within the Party. That’s bad news for all those relig/social con and libertarian/fiscal con types who have come to use the Party for advancing a litany of conservative initiatives –flat tax, zero-ing out cap gains, FMA, 600 ship navy, gutting the UN, stopping the advance of immigration, reversing affirmative action, reducing entitlements, increasing farm subsidies, right2work, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, some of those issues I applaud. But in the extreme, the conservatives in Congress took the GOP in a direction that strayed into the bizarre… to the point, where at the end of all that powerplay, we had the Schiavo interdiction, the “wetback Wall” and incredible pork-barreling that the fiscal conservatives outside Congress couldn’t imagine would be exceeded… until the Dems got a hold of the fed purse strings.
My point is that to pooh-pooh any candidate’s opportunity to gain the nomination because he doesn’t pass muster for the 1) pro-lifers in the GOP, or 2) the NRA members, or 3) anti-gay civil union folks, or any other group is an attempt by those SPECIAL INTEREST groups within the GOP to try to exert an unearned influence over the party regulars… particularly ironic because many of the members of those special interest groups sat out the last election and gave America the current crop of Democrat loonies who, prior to the election, were the incarnation of evil to those conservative special interest groups. Remember all those Grover Norquist types offering “We need to send the GOP a message and not vote”?
I think it’s fair to say we’ll disagree over the course of the Party. I think it’s fair to say we’ll disagree over whether it was the GOPers in Congress who spoiled the milk or the conservatives (run amuck with power) in Congress. I think it’s fair to say we’ll disagree over what could happen with the nomination.
But through all that, it’s also fair to say and disagree that special interest groups… whose members are mostly outside the GOP… shouldn’t be telling the GOP regulars who to nominate or why.
I appreciate that those special interest groups might not want the GOP to move in a progressive, centrist direction. In a way, it’d be a reversal of a trend that has validated the conservative movement. But the truth is the GOP will not be able to win by running further to the Right, embracing more stunts like the Schiavo interdiction, the FMA and the “wetback Wall”. To win, the GOP has to return to its roots and base principles about smaller govt, lower taxes, strong military, judicial restraint, equality of opportunity, etc.
The battle in 2008 isn’t going to be for the conservative vote… it’s going to be for moderate, independent vote and it will be incumbent upon both Parties to get out their base.
#52 – Thanks Matt.
Same here. On the other hand, I’m grateful to Bruce and Dan for filtering out at least some of the crap for us. (Dan hints about the ones we don’t see, coming from people banned with good reason. I believe him, and I’m grateful.)
In my experience, a comment seems more likely to go into mod if it:
– is long
– has a lot of blockquotes
– has a lot of links / cites
– links another GP article or comment
– names certain banned or semi-banned (“on the edge”) commentors
Having said that – Bruce, and Dan even more so, are pretty good about approving comments within a couple hours – which mitigates the nuisance.
I haven’t thought about the gun issue in depth. I suppose gun registrations and background checks don’t seem all that unreasonable. (I reserve the right to be persuaded otherwise.)
I also think it’s worth noting that Rudy was Mayor of a kooky fascist-liberal city – a city where the lib-fascists today even want to ban “trans fats” and McDonald’s! In other words: I imagine that whatever Rudy did with guns was moderate or even pro-gun – compared to what his kooky lib-fascist citizens wanted. I can buy that Rudy, for all his faults, would probably be better on guns than Hillary.
#54 – X-GPC: Very well said.
Bush may personally be a social conservative; however, as a matter of policy, he’s very moderate. IMHO.
As far as abortion, I think I have forumlated a coherent political argument about it vis a vis party politics. I think the party platform should be to strive to ensure that Rowe vs Wade gets overturned , and the abhorrent position that abortion is constitutionally protected be invalidated.
Then as a matter of the Federal Govt, abortion/non-abortion as an issue should not even exist as it would fall under the domain of the States. Then, each State can enact the laws the electorate of the State desires, as is thier right.
But until the Courts get the message that they dont make the laws, the legislatures do, the people’s will will continue to be ignored.
and at #73 VdaK, you’re right and dead-on about “compromise” on issues, VdaK. It’s why Giuliani is speaking about holding the line on judicial appts for the pro-life interests, etc.
But the issue that’s been undercurrent in this thread is about special interest groups advancing purity tests for candidates… if the candidate is pro-life –forget it. If the candidate is in favor of even reasonable gun controls –forget it. If the candidate doesn’t favor repealing cap gains –forget it. If the candidate isn’t in favor of draconian immigration sanctions –forget it.
For me, it’s like the “No Tax Pledge” stunts that come out of the fiscal conservative camp… these are litmus test issues intended to eviscerate candidates and exert unearned influence over the selection process.
Compromise is good. It’s part of the dance to secure the nomination.
Conservativism raised to a religion with an unyielding set of core tenets isn’t going to embrace “compromise”. Party politics is about pragmatic, political calculations. It isn’t about purity of positions and candidates; if it is, it results in “pure and true” candidates losing elections.
The Party is there to win office, not cull out the unbelievers from the flock of the divinely chosen. Losing elections is a failure of the message and messenger, VdaK. Maybe that’s the closest we’ll come to agreeing on what Giuliani’s lead over McCain means.
Vince P writes: “But until the Courts get the message that they dont make the laws, the legislatures do, the people’s will will continue to be ignored.”
Absolutely right. And does that also extend to the Congress acting in policy areas conventionally and historically left to the states? I hope so.
“The Party is there to win office”…
X-GPC asked a good question: How are you going to do that if you discount, ignore, or just turn off the conservative 30% of America?
(e.g., insulting them as Velveeta-barbecuing rednecks? Or as OTHERS on GP have done: announcing how much “smarter” and “better at political strategy” you believe yourself to be; attacking them personally and pretty stupidly if they dare to not agree with you, etc.?)
They’re not robots, there to shell out money and votes for your GOP when you say.
OK, I really want to stop commenting but I have a real problem with this. On the one hand, the claim is made that the ‘conservatives were running amuck’ in congress and completely controlling the place. But then, the claim is made that Republicans lost because conservatives stayed home because of their unhappiness with congress. How can both of these be true? It is not logical.
It’s not a question of disagreeing with Rudy on one or two issues, it’s a question of Rudy’s history of full-throated support for left-wing positions on a large number of important issues (abortion-on-demand, illegal immigration, gun-control, manbearpig). I also note that Giuliani sued all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent local police from helping enforce immigration laws. Given public anger over the Bush administration’s preference for prosecuting Border Patrol agents over illegal drug smugglers, Giuliani’s assertion that the Border Patrol “terrorizes innocent people” may not go over well with the 80% of the electorate the favors tougher border enforcement.
Conservatives make up about 30 – 35% of the electorate, and a larger percentage of the Republican base. If they stay home, how do Republicans win?
“Giuliani sued all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent local police from helping enforce immigration laws.”
That is bad.
Slightly off-topic: Good to see you back, V the K. But why are you calling yourself an “Ex-GP Commentor?” Just curious.
PS – I love the name of your (new?) blog. Kudos!
Regards,
Peter H.
That will never happen until the 17th Amendment is repealed.
I’m sure (in the wishful thinking sense of the word) there was something was like Unfunded Mandate type of objection.
#81 — Why Ex? Because I decided to quit, but then Calarato talked me back into posting on this thread because he thought I had something worthwhile to say, and also I thought the Texican could use some back-up.
I left because I burned out on politics. I had sort of an epiphany that neither one of the political parties really gives a damn about a regular, ordinary, average American like me. They just represent elites and special interests. Right now, both parties are just locked into playing games with each other rather than addressing serious challenges. And I just didn’t see a point in cheering on one side of elites who don’t give a damn over another set of elites who don’t give a damn. And I believe that is equally true of every Republican and every Democrat presidential candidate.
It’s a revelation that had its roots in the Bush Admin basically making us into Mexico’s bitch over the illegal immigration issue. I realized the reason Bush didn’t care is because to him and the other elites, illegal aliens and American citizens were the same… just peasants to be ruled over. There was nothing about American citizenship that Bush or the others held to be valuable or special. It’s just a ticket to social benefits… the same way others treat marriage. They were willing to give it away like a library card, it means so little to them.
I don’t think the answer to our problems lies with political elites. I think it has to get back to me making life better for myself and everyone I care about and can affect directly. I can’t get worked up over politics any more, because it’s just a game, and it doesn’t matter that much which team of elites is ruling at a given time. They only care about their own interests.
My brother, who is a party activist in Michigan, is coming to visit over Easter. I anticipate a lively discussion.
Vine P, From the article:
I stand corrected.
I’m with you VtK with your contempt for our political class for their continued enabling of a non-functional immigration system.
Given the stakes of having Jihadis simply walk into the country from either the south or north, why there isn’t a mile-high wall with a mile-wide trench on each side , filled with burning oil and sharks with laser beams by now is a deriliction of responsiblity. At least on the South border.
Though I always wondered what prevents someone with a boat from just pulling up to the coastland on either oceanshore at a non-port and entering that way.
VdaK writes: “On the one hand, the claim is made that the ‘conservatives were running amuck’ in congress and completely controlling the place. But then, the claim is made that Republicans lost because conservatives stayed home because of their unhappiness with congress. How can both of these be true? It is not logical.”
No, I beg to differ, it is logical.
Nearly all of the leaders in Congress had ratings in the mid-80’s and up from the Amercian Conservative Union… for the others here: ACU are the guys who put on the C-PAC convention each year and draw “true, blue and pure” to DC for some serious backslapping. It is THE group most often identified with the modern conservative movement.
Those conservative leaders in Congress deserve merits/demerits for the excesses in spending, the inability and incapacity to pass meaningful reforms in SS and make the tax cuts permanent, the last-minute “Save our Sinking Ship” stunts I’ve noted in #74, and the moral irresponsibility to dismiss corruption and sexual misconduct in their midst… hell, the conservatives almost EMBRACED some of the misconduct.
That turned off a large segment (21% by BobTetter’s polling) of the rank & file conservative voters –who are behavioral GOPers at best. They stayed home. I even recall before the election, VdaK, you were part of that “send the GOP a message” bandwagon.
Well, for me, the message received was “don’t count on conservatives” when things are critical… don’t count on their special interest groups to turn out the vote… get back to basic GOP principles, get back to winning elections, don’t worry about maintaining the RR legacy and, frankly, if conservatives in Congress wrote the obit for conservatism, ok.
It is logical to see the conservative leadership of Congress caused the 2006 losses… the irony is that their own “faithful” tipped over the boat and wouldn’t toss em a lifejacket, no matter what. Conservatives ran amuck in Congress… conservative rank and file voters stayed home.
Logical. Especially so if you add into that base of the stay-at-home conservatives a large group of angry, frsutrated and impotent Libertarians who rarely vote except in Pres yrs.
Because cheap labor for Nancy Pelosi’s winery is more important than protecting US citizens, and Karl Rove thinks manual labor is something his children should never have to demean themselves to perform.
Calarato, you write: “X-GPC asked a good question: How are you going to do that if you discount, ignore, or just turn off the conservative 30% of America?”
Stop, for a moment. Just stop.
The issue wasn’t, isn’t and ain’t about ignoring or discounting any segment of the likely voters in 2008 or, more precisely the 2008 primaries. The issue was about Giuliani’s lead over McCain… and then some here took it to the Rudy-can’t-win-because of 1) abortion, 2) gun control, 3) immigration, 4) blah blah blah. The GOP won’t let him; crap.
This wasn’t a thread about “How Great is Thy Rudy”. He isn’t even “my” guy. I’m speaking about the Party and how we get from near -0- now to restored power.
Calarato, I think Rudy is doing a great deal to appease those very social and fiscal conservatives you point out can’t be discounted or ignored if the GOP wants to win in 08. But he’s doing it in a way that will NOT take him to the farRight fringe of the Party… and for the farRight fringe, that’s apostasy. It’s like that RINO nonsense that comes from the farRight fringe… pure enuff, true enuff or hit the road.
I dare say that Rudy could pledge to repeal Brady and mandate school instruction in gun ownership rights to 4th or 6th or 8th or 10th graders and the gun lobby still wouldn’t be happy.
Same with pro-life. Same with illegal immigration solutions. Same with fiscal restraint. Same with taxes. Same with the War on Secularism.
Rudy, no matter what he does, will never be pure enuff, true enuff for the social conservatives. His positions are taken out of context… he’s smeared because he looks viable and the social conservatives just can’t allow that to happen. IE, Rudy McRomney.
Um, Matt, accurately citing Rudy’s stated positions is not a smear.
Matt: I think you have to give the process some time to work itself out.. no one knows where everyone is going to fall in line once the primaries actually begin (in what.. a year from now? oy.. a whole year before there’s even a primary vote… Lord give me patience).
I think Rudy will have his platform to explain his NYC-era doings.. I’m satisified with the explanation that he was the mayor of the NYC… the East Coast HQ of the Left, and had to compromise on this issue or that since after all, he’s the elected official and not a dicator.
I’m sure many reasonable social conservatives are open to that argument. but right now it’s so early, why would anyone start making grand proclaimations about every nuance of every candidate.
Give it some time… you’ll have a heart attack if you’re this passionate so early 🙂
I agree with Vince. As I told Synova earlier on, let the system have a chance to work and to do some political Darwinism. With all of the primaries being so early and front-loaded now (did you know that Florida is considering a primary move from March to JANUARY??), our gotta-have-it-now-instant-gratification society is going to need some Ritalin before all is said and done.
Regards,
Peter H.
What I would define as a smear is calling people racist for wanting immigration laws enforced.
Umm, VdaK, some of what I saw at the C-PAC convention was a smear of the first order.
I have no problem with people stating a candidate’s positions on issues accurately… it’s how we learn.
Synova (#68),
My position on abortion (pro-choice for first two trimesters, in favor of parental notification, against partial-birth procedure, pro-choice if mother’s life in danger or if a victim of rape, incest) isn’t because I don’t care about the situation (re. your example of what goes on in someone’s home isn’t anyone else’s business). I care about the mother and the situation she faces with an unwanted pregnancy. Allowing her to make her decision is not a detached social libertarianism — quite the opposite, just as government getting out of the business man’s way (less regulation) is caring about him and the health of his business. I agree that I have every right and responsibility to make moral determinations re. the lives and health of others and that includes the mother of an unwanted pregnancy.
Where we disagree is the eternal crux of the abortion debate: when a human being is viable and has rights. This is difficult to determine and no set of laws can be universally applied to ideal effect.
Racist? Racist? Nawh, I think that is bigot and 19th Century Nativist, eh? But it was over the top and I apologize.
And I think I was writing about how the anti-hispanic Whities were using “border security” to thwart immigration and the movement of labor between countries. It’s not about border security… it’s about keeping America for Americans… the right color of Americans. (I’m kidding)
Vince P, thanks for the advice. Did I sound “passionate”? I thought it was measured, balanced, thoughtful, and respectful.
IMHO, the Republicans didn’t lose 2006 because of Republican pursuit of Conservative ideals.. it lost because the Republicans appeared to have completely abandonded them.
Whether or not an individual political calls himself a conservative is no concern of mine what matters to me is the result of the legislation.
Was the Federal Gov’t restrained? No
Were Entitlement programs restrained? No
Were Entitlement programs made more fiscally sound? No
Was real immigration reform passed? No
Was there effective public leadership for the war? No
Were the Democrat tactics to prevent Bush’s judicial nominees fought and overcome? No
The perception was that the Republicans were more interested in incumbancy protection than the values that propelled them to leadership. That is what sunk the party.. it certainly wasn’t any brave and noble stands on princple.
VdaK, as for the smear thing… let’s look at Mac Donald’s “City Journal” quote that the “Spectator” used that you referenced… the last sentence is a smear.
The writer tries to link the tradegy of 9-11 to the policies advanced by a Giuliani “hand-picked” Charter Revision committee.
When did we start laying the blame for the 9-11 terrorists on Charter Revision Committees? The problem was with lax airport prcedures, failures in screening pilot training programs, sharing intelligence, etc.
Not some charter revision committee suggestions. I chalk that up to smear.
I’d add to Vince’s point that if the hope was “to teach Republicans a lesson,” it clearly failed. The national GOP still has no ideas, no policy themes, and no vision beyond “Rudy can beat Hillary.”
Imagine how much worse they would be had they won.
#99 MI-Matt. I’m not sure the last sentence is a smear, since it is factually accurate. I’m not sure it’s an unfair slam on Rudy since he was willing to go to the Supreme Court to defend the principle of non-enforcement of immigration laws… laws the 9-11 hijackers were in violation of, and which Rudy did not want to help enforce.
To the degree it is an unfair slam, it is only because both parties have a consensus that immigration laws should not be strenuously enforced.
Of all the candidates and non-candidates, only Newt Gingrich gives any indication of knowing what this country is facing.
http://www.newt.org/UserFiles/File/RealWorld_RealWar_012307.mht
Of course he has no hope of ever being President.. at least he’s out there trying to bring attention to these things.
Vince P, I understand your perspective on what caused the GOP to lose both chambers of Congress and put the WH and ExecBranch into public policy Hell and partisanship Purgatory.
My point is that it was the conservatives leading the GOP that lead to that result… along with conservative voters sitting on their hands and not voting on Election Day. Moreover, that the GOP is a lot more than the Congressional conservatives muddled together in corruption and scandal.
Either way, is it unfair to strenuously question the Republican front-runner on whether or not he intends to enforce our immigration laws? Is it fair to be skeptical of his willingness to enforce immigration law, given his history of fighting against those laws?
Which conservatives were those?
I think you have it wrong anyway… it’s not that the GOP is bigger than conservatives… it’s that Conservatives are bigger than the GOP.
We’re not like the maniac Leftists and their undying devotion to the Democratic Party above all else.
The GOP has to continiously earn the favor of Conservatives if the GOP expects to get thier vote.
I proclaim my primary alligence is to my nation and not any political party and I certainly am not going to go to cast my vote for a party which only pretends to be for what I am for. (In any case, I live in Chicago, Illinois, so I’m effectively disenfranchised anyway).
I’m not sure what the GOP is without conservatives.. so the party disrespects them at its peril
VdaK, to answer your questions: No and no. I hope you can find a Rudy-duty guy who will debate the substance of his positions –the ones which inform his current position and the ones that predicated his past positions as a Mayor. I’m not the guy to do it.
Make that No and Yes; sorry.
#90 Matt –
I beg to differ. Let’s check a few quotes from earlier in this thread:
There’s more. To me, that is what ignoring, discounting – and in fact, personally insulting – conservatives who happen to disagree with you about Rudy, would look like.
You got one thing right: It isn’t the proper thread topic. But it’s what I was addressing. Let me play American Idol judge here 😉 “Dude, you’re hot, we love you… it just wasn’t your best performance.”
And, “Song choice is so important.” 😉
#85 “I left because I burned out on politics. I had sort of an epiphany that neither one of the political parties really gives a damn about a regular, ordinary, average American like me. They just represent elites and special interests.”
#73 “Conservative policies are guided by philosophy, moderate policies are guided by political calculation.”
Anyone see the contradiction between these two statements?
Our political terminology is completely inadequate, including philosophy. Nonetheless, there are folks like myself who aren’t what is typically considered conservative. I’m roughly pro-choice with the exception of the third trimester and for most conservatives, that’s enough to order me off the reservation and call me a moderate. Nevermind that I’m in favor of a flat tax with no loopholes or exceptions or that I’m in favor of constructionist interpretation of the Constitution or that I’m in favor of securing our borders or that I’m in favor of term limits for Congress or that I’m in favor of both free and fair trade or that I’m a strong supporter of property rights or …
Abortion is a difficult issue for any rational person and I have struggled with the issue and have changed my position several times over the years. My struggle doesn’t reflect changes in the political landscape or an unwillingness to confront what is truly a moral issue and choose an easy path of moderation; rather, it is that I recognize that like most issues, abortion is not black-and-white, for or agin’. I’ve met conservatives who think abortion should be illegal in all cases because a pregnancy, no matter under what circumstances it happened, “is God’s will”. So, if a mother dies because of the pregnancy, “it’s God’s will”. If the mother is raped, “it’s God’s will”. If the mother is a victim of incest, “it’s God’s will”.
I don’t agree. God gave us human will and we are obligated to determine what is best, to use our best judgment. A wrong choice can be forgiven if one’s conscience is clear, a clarity only bought with weighing all aspects of an issue and deliberating what is perceived to be the best alternative. Over time, this empiricism reveals a consistency that likely is apparent and might be considered a philosophy, a systematic means of conducting one’s approach to life. To assume that someone who does not subscribe to a certain proscribed set of views or solutions or positions is not “philosophical” is an error, just as to assume the set of positions singly or in toto is incorrect because it is a set of positions is an error.
Re. political calculation:
There is this unfortunate reality with which we all must deal. We live in a society, a democratic society, that requires us to sort out what is best for us socially and individually. For better or worse, we have a roughly two-party system that includes most of us and satisfies very few. Voting is especially frustrating because we seldom are offered satisfying candidates. I find that more often than not, I vote against a liberal rather than for anyone else. However, I understand that the only way most of my issues will be considered and, hopefully, acted upon in the way I would like is to vote for the party that is 1) most closely aligned with my views and 2) viable. Call it “choosing the lesser of two evils” or “taking the path of least resistance”, but I choose to vote Republican because I know that there are some in government with an ‘R’ behind their names who will be on the same page as I am, give or take a few paragraphs.
Some would consider my being a Republican as being “political” rather than “philosophical”. I disagree because I’m being both. By recognizing the political reality, I intend to work within the party (politics) that most closely resembles my ideals (philosophy), working to change the party from within. Sure, I could join the Libertarians, but I would probably have just as many disagreements with them and the Libertarian Party isn’t viable, so I would be disenfranchising myself — I would be taking myself out of the political system rather than influencing it. This is why I think self-described conservatives who sit out elections or join third parties are so self-destructive, especially since many on the right roughly agree on so many issues. If they really want to influence politics and turn this country rightward and in a more conservative direction, they would heed my advice and vote accordingly. This is all really obvious to me, but to them, I’m a sellout. I’ve had doors slammed in my face by people who tell me I’m not a real Republican because I’m roughly pro-choice, and this after they’ve just told me they haven’t voted in the last 3 or 4 elections because “there’s no difference between the two parties”. It doesn’t make sense, it’s political suicide, and yes, it’s moronic.
That depends on how one defines moronic.
I had a political science prof who argued that voting itself is mathematically irrational, since the possibility of a single vote making a difference is infinitesimally small.
If one truly believes there is no substantial difference in one’s quality of life, regardless of electoral outcome, then choosing not to vote is a rational choice.
I’ve just come to believe that I have a better chance of making my life and the lives of those I care about better through direct action than through voting for a politician, whom I believe to be part of an elite ruling class that serves its own interest and is indifferent to, or contemptuous of, average persons like myself.
HH once called me “miserable.” I don’t feel miserable. I feel liberated. My sense of satisfaction is not tied to any party, or any belief system’s electoral success. If Hillary wins, I’ll shrug it off and just wait until the guard changes again, and another hereditary elite from an established political family takes her place.
It’s fair to tell me I ought to shut up because I’m no longer interested in being part of politics. I’ll grant that. In fact, I have sort of agreed to do that, and only came back to this forum because someone I like and respect asked me to. I am content to go away and write silly captions and hilarious ’24’ recaps and let people who delude themselves that Rudy or Hillary actually care about their lives do the arguing.
On the other hand, I would think a partisan who cared about his party’s electoral fortunes might want to at least understand why a former supporters like myself has grown so disillusioned.
But V… since HH has such superior, coruscating brilliance about politics… that would be… moronic. LOL 🙂
He’s made evident over time that his party doesn’t need people like you, or your vote.
P.S. Now, as for the me/V love affair… just for the record:
We corresponded a bit about Rudy offline. V had some great points. I said basically or in effect, “Those would be good in this other discussion.” He kindly obliged. We’ve never met. I love how logical he is and how he cuts to the heart of an issue – even when I disagree with him (which is more often than some would think). We live 3000 miles apart and I have never met V. I hope I can have the honor and pleasure of meeting him someday.
Well, Cal, HH is a nuanced elite, burdened by a powerful intellect that enables him to see both sides of the abortion issue and be conflicted by it beyond the ability of a dumb mid-westerner like me to understand. I’ve just got an undergrad degree from a midwest “cow college” and a master’s from some public place in the dreadful American southwest. Heck, I’ve even made dip out of Velveeta cheese and Hormel chili and eaten it while watching college football. I have a 4WD Diesel pick-up in my driveway, but I commute in a Jeep. I go to church and Sunday and am dumb enough to believe and take to heart what I’m taught there.
Clearly, I’m just not the kind of voter the sophisticated, urbane, neo-mod GOP wants.
mmm hmm .. sure you have.
#116 Vince P: I’m probably the closest thing to a Bible Thumper on this forum and I have never heard anyone say such a thing.
I belong to a church that’s so conservative that belonging to it is enough to disqualify one from being president of the US (apparently), but even my church has a ‘life of the mother’ exception in its stance on abortion.
In my past I’ve been a good Catholic and I been a good Assembly of God Pentecostal and I never heard anything so stupid in my life.
Calarato, the Texican took those comments as ribbing. He responded with a humbling (to me) humorous rejoinder… you choose to see it as redneck baiting, assailing Motherhood, dismissing God & Country, besmirching Apple Pie and Chevys, and God only knows what else. Discount or ignore conservatives’ votes because someone offers that the GOP isn’t going to elect Giuliani because of abortion or gun control?? I gotta check my meds or something.
What part of being a hunter, driving a Hummer, being born in SC and having met my partner at a family funeral do you think excludes me from rednecks? Sorry Calarato, it don’t hunt. And while we’re on the topic of threads, this one was about Giuliani’s lead over McCain in early, pre pre pre primary polling. It wasn’t about what “Rudy The Great” needs to do to suck up to the conservatives and hold their hand before they run off to another sandbox and pout. I remember the ‘92 Perot pouters –angry with govt, turned off with elites, wanting to be the voice of the common man—running off and pouting and giving us Slick Willy for 8 yrs. Being angry and frustrated with politics goes with the turf for most conservatives; like GayLeft drama queens, they love to bitch and moan. What I’ve learned is that pouting and stomping your feet as an adult doesn’t move the debate forward. No more than withdrawal from the public square; it simply marginalizes one on political standing.
I thought I could ignore the sidebars about “Texican” getting all beat up because he responded with such élan, such verve, such humor (and help me out, don’t pronounce the “h” on humor when you read that line) –so much so that no one could take offense unless their skin in thinner than Hillary Clinton’s worry stone. I was wrong. I think the object here is to remember that pursuing the perfect is almost always the enemy of the pragmatic –it’s an 80/20 thing babe.
HH writes: “This is why I think self-described conservatives who sit out elections or join third parties are so self-destructive, especially since many on the right roughly agree on so many issues.”
HH, it’s the whole purity test thing… if you aren’t more rabid than the guy sitting next to me, you ain’t no true conservative. It’s why Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan and Rush can be so extreme –to conservatives, the more extreme you are, the more pure you appear.
And moderates who compromise with…. with… with, well liberals. Be damned. Look at the thumping contest conservatives are still having with Bush-Kennedy education or McCain-Feingold campaign reforms… there’s gotta be a Biblical quote somewhere… “And if ye layeth with a liberal…”
Politics is about winning elections. Purity tests should be self-administered by special interest groups as a rating of the candidate –not as a way to determine who will or wont be a nominee.
We do have a long way to go before the 08 field is a wrap.
The question isn’t if one is willing to compromise, the question is how much. If the choice comes down to a choice between a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-open borders, pro-liberal judges Republican with a Liebermanesque approach to the GWOT, who believes in expanding government power to combat manbearpig, but probably won’t raise taxes too much … and a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-open borders, pro-liberal judges, Democrat with a Liebermanesque approach to the GWOT, who believes in expanding government power to combat manbearpig, and probably will raise taxes too much… we are no longer in 80-20 territory.
In 1992, conservatives were disaffected, at least in part, because GHWB had sold out on the principle of lower taxes. I guess one could sniff that he was no longer “pure” enough because of the massive tax increase he agreed to… but sniffing doesn’t really accomplish much.
At the end of the day, you go into an election with the voters you have, not the voters you might want, or wish to have at a later time.
#120 Yep and yep. Put it this way:
Newt Gingrich is a brilliant conservative. For me, he’s too conservative.
Gingrich vs. Hillary? I would vote for Gingrich.
Gingrich vs. Dodd? I would vote for Gingrich.
Gingrich vs. Obama? I would vote for Gingrich.
Gingrich vs. Biden? I would vote for Gingrich.
Gingrich vs. Bayh? I would vote for Gingrich.
I would vote for Gingrich every time. Why? Because while I may only agree with him 50% (to be generous), I would rather have 50% rather than 5%. But should a conservative do the same in the opposite direction? Not only no, but hell no. So it’s O.K. for me to compromise as long as it’s in the conservative direction, but conservatives? Oh my, no — they’re far too busy being “philosophical”.
As for my claim that I’ve met conservatives that were against abortion in all cases, well, you’ll just have to take my word for it. I’ve met them and yes, it’s absurd. Their reasoning is “Why should the baby die just because it was conceived during a rape?” I suppose there is a pro-life consistency to the position, but from the standpoint of the mother, it doesn’t make sense.
There is a misperception that I’m an elitist or that I’m far too educated or intellectually pleased with myself. Anyone who has witnessed my clumsy attempts to point out what I perceive to be the faults with V the K’s reasoning should know better.
Yes, I called V the K miserable because that is exactly how he (I think he’s a he) comes across to me. I find him unwilling to discuss, nasty to those who disagree with him, and I find his use of coarse language coupled with his claimed religious conservatism hypocritical. He claims he’s an aggrieved party, but that’s difficult to reconcile with his treatment of others here at GP. I can go find examples if desired. Nonetheless, his feelings are his and I apologize for being so insensitive. Perhaps I’m too caught up in the general tenor of this blog — I can’t point to the same fault in others without recognizing my own. I bear him no ill will — in fact, I wish him well. I call it as I see it and I would like to think that is a trait conservatives (and others) appreciate.
V the K, my apologies. Be well. I hope you change your mind about a few things, but if not, I hope you understand that you’re not my enemy and I’m not yours. What is sad is that we probably agree more than we disagree.
HH, I too have met conservatives who are staunch pro-lifers and hold abortion in wrong even if the life of the Mother is at risk –“she knew the risks going in, too bad”. Cavalier, callous? You betcha. Unyielding, unbending, irrational? You betcha. Principles in defense of virtue are no vice.
But then, I’ve met pro-lifers who think executions for even flag-burners is ok to them… or drive more drunk than sober a few times in the last year… or don’t hesitate to treat their kids like chattel… or don’t support programs to assist the adoption of unwanted kids (and then my blood boils). I’ve never understood the “pro-life” stance and support of extending the death penalty to a long list of crimes (eating Velvetta off the foil wrapper while watching COPS is a crime worthy of a nerf gun blast in our home btw –remember that VdaK).
The majority of pro-lifers I’ve met are conscientious, deliberate, compassionate caring citizens who vote, own homes, work hard, expect their kids to excel in school and make good parents.
But there are those who act inappropriate to the passion that underscores theirsupposed conviction.
I think that’s true for gun control types, eco-terrorists (like Gore), wild liberals like Soros (investing Haliburton) and NancyP and her crew of ethical, do-it-different CongressCharacters.
Kudos on your comments to VdaK, too.
To me, pro-abortion is the Planned Parenthood, femo-nazi types. It’s the NARAL mindset.
I’ve heard Giuliani speak about “abortion” and his moral repugnance at our natl abortion rate. He’s spoken of how much an abortion is a miserable failure of both parties in the act but that the choice lays with the mother, operating on behalf of the unborn. If presented with the opportunity, he’d counsel strongly against it. He’s spoken about the need to reinvigorate our adoption options, to strengthen the family, to prevent unwed mothers from getting pregnant, from the abortion industry preying on the mothers, making dads responsible outside wedlock, etc. And we need to work with those who have had abortions to help them understand the horrible consequence of their act. All by govt? Clearly not at the CPAC event… he said it would have to be from leadership in the Faith-based community and mostly from black, innercity churches who have dropped the ball on this and other issues.
That’s pro-abortion? I’d offer it is not. Pro-abortion is the mindset of NARAL and Planned Parenthood and innercity clinics making bucks off the sorrow and confusion of mothers.
To say that Giuliani is pro-abortion is simply the inaccurate, BS mongering of the Pro-Life and conservative factions trying to cull him from a leading spot in the polling. Guess what? I think a growing segment of GOPers –just like many conservative fed judges—are comfortable thinking that Roe v Wade is settled law. The answer might lay in a state-by-state approach and I don’t dismiss that as a viable option –I don’t know if Giuliani thinks that.
I’d like to see a GOP leadership that strengthens the family, prevents unwed mothers from getting pregnant, that works to see abortion is the miserable option of absolute last resort and that dads responsible for the pregnancy be held accountable where possible. For me, a GOP that puts govt resources into adopting the unwanted kids and reforms the foster care program so that it isn’t punishment for the kids left behind. Frankly, a kid awaiting adoption ought to have a voucher for maybe $45,000/yr available to facilitate that adoption AND foster parents should be screened to the 11th degree.
That’s why when I hear conservatives reduce Giuliani to being pro-abortion like the NARAL types, I think it’s wrong and mostly about special interest litmus tests.
OK Matt. Fair enough.
Where I’m coming from is that I just don’t like lame, straw-man conservative-bashing. Said it before and will say it again: I ain’t no conservative… but I respect them. People who bash Ann Coulter when she deserves it, are one thing. People who bash (say) V, TGC, NDT, or you for that matter, when they don’t deserve it, are something else. Plus, on this blog of all places, it should be OK for a person to have serious questions about Rudy. ‘Nuff said – will drop it.
HH says:
I’m reminded of the adage that whenever you point a finger at others, three fingers point back at yourself.
Further, isn’t the “apology” in #123 rather cheap, considering that the personal attacks (meriting apology) are repeated with length and care in the very same comment? ‘Yes V, you really are an a**hole, but I’ll apologize for pointing it out.’ I guess that type of apology works out for people like the Clintons and Jim McGreevey.
“Heck, I’ve even made dip out of Velveeta cheese and Hormel chili and eaten it while watching college football.”
Who hasn’t, except for maybe John Kerry? 😉
BTW – here along the Texas Gulf Coast, we use RoTel hot tomatoes for our salsa dip. Works like a charm.
Adding my $0.02 to the abortion issue – as a Federalist, I believe this is one of those nasty little quibbles that the Founding Fathers meant to be placed under the Tenth Amendment, which would let THE STATES DECIDE.
Same thing with same-sex civil unions.
Regards,
Peter H.
#124, #125
MM, thanks and I am in complete agreement. Truth be told, I want conservatives at the table. I want them to field candidates, to take part in the process. I just get so fed up with those who think that their philosophy is more important than their ideals, i.e. the fruition of their philosophy — meaning, they’ll fall on their swords to be ‘right’, but won’t compromise to be ‘better’. This all-or-nothing approach is certainly anyone’s right, but it’s a sure recipe for disaster. I guess some are so used to being in the minority, so used to being contrarians that an actual plurality is uncomfortable.
Most Americans are against partial-birth abortion, myself included. I think the number is around 70%. Isn’t a ban on this gruesome procedure better than nothing? Good grief. I don’t consider a demand that prevents any movement on the issue “pro-life” at all.
Thanks re. V the K. I wonder what the Mormon position is re. forgiveness.
Calarato, thanks for the comment.
On the HH apology at 123 “V the K, my apologies. Be well. I hope you change your mind about a few things, but if not, I hope you understand that you’re not my enemy and I’m not yours. What is sad is that we probably agree more than we disagree.”
I read that and, if were going to bigboys here, have to take it at face value as sincere and earnest. Just like my apology to VdaK when he exited this forum for a while.
Now, couple an apology with spite or sarcasm, then it’s meaningless. When someone apologies the standard is to accept it and move on –unless it’s a yankee and then we all know those people are scoundrels to the last man.
Hey Calarato, are you also an American Idol fan? I mean, not that I am, but there are a passle of them about these days (looking like a passle of opossums, too) and I wondered what draws people to that show? Is it the car-crash waiting thing? Undiscovered talent? Variety? The sense lurking in the back of every viewer’s mind that THEY could do it better? Or is it like The View for Babs… just a chance to stay relevant… only for AI it’s be Paula Abdul in the role of Ms BarbWaWalters. (OMG, it is Abdul right?)
Four words: Melinda Doolittle can sing.
OK, here’s a little more. This is the first year I’ve ever gotten into it. There is a definite “freak show” aspect to it – think Sanjaya – and as well, some real talent that blossoms and grows in the course of the show – think Jordin Sparks. So it appeals to both my natures, good and evil together. 🙂
gotcha, thanks Calarato… I think I’m missing out on so much American culture.
#132 – Matt, no problem.
#129 –
I quoted where HH did exactly that! But, whatever. I respect your opinion and we can agree-to-disagree on this one.
Michigan-Matt
How do you see the GOP preventing unwed mothers from getting pregnant? By definition ‘unwed mothers’ already are pregnant or have children?
Emergency contraception? Free birth control pills? Condoms? I don’t see the GOP actually championing those issues. Maybe force them into marriage to prevent pregnancy?