I want to focus on one person for a minute.
Lets look at Rudy and see why conservatives should or shouldn't vote for him...
abortion: He is for the killing of babies. Now, no matter who is president, I am not going to kill any babies if I am allowed to or not. And no matter who is President, abortion will not be made illegal. So for me, this is a non issue. Killing babies is wrong, and I will make sure I do not kill any if Rudy is or is not President.
guns: I don't own one and I never will. I agree that you should be able to if you want to...I would have a problem is Rudy tried to make stupid rules that only people who don't break the law will abide by anyway. This one doesn't affect me but CAN affect society as a whole.
gay rights: If Rudy says that all gays should be married and adds that he will help make that happen...that could be the straw that broke the camels back. When you add weakening civil liberties by taking away guns and the ability of people to defend themselves....then add eroding society with the destruction of the family structure.
crime: Rudy comes up strong here. He cleaned up times square and has the resolve to follow through on fighting crime. We could really use someone like that in the white house.
war on terror: Again, if you are talking about resolve and being a tough conservative, Rudy is it...
Overall: Great personality, tough, honest, likable...can you deal with his honest, liberal thoughts?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
GOP favorites' liberal bent alienates right
Posted by
The Game
at
2:14 AM
Labels: 2008 election, rudy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If I wanted to vote for someone who was pro-choice, and anti-gun, I would just vote for a Democrat.
"war on terror: Again, if you are talking about resolve and being a tough conservative, Rudy is it..."
Really? What track record does he have on terrorism? Ask the public servants of New York City how well they communicated as the Towers burned? Interesting that you seem to link his "tough on crime" background with the "war on terror" which you constantly claim should not be treated like criminal activity. How ironic.
"...can you deal with his honest, liberal thoughts?"
No. He gets points for not being afraid to state them, so that you know where he stands. But, no.
Jim,
I would take his "tough on crime" history to translate well toward terrorism for the attitude of dealing with it as it should be dealt with. Look at it this way: Libs/Dems are historically weak on crime and their touchy-feely attitude on crime translated to a similarly pussy attitude toward terrorism. Someone willing to kick criminal ass would most likely be willing to kick terrorist ass as well. So based on his "tough on crime" background, I have little problem assuming he'd take as tough a stance on terror.
Despite my grave reservations toward voting for Rudy due to his lib social position, I'd have to vote for him against any of the pretenders on the left. The likelihod of the Dem being better on those social issues is nil, so the differences on the other issues would carry the day. The primaries are a different thing. I won't vote for the one "most likely to win" in the primaries if it means putting up someone so wrong on the social issues. But if he's what rises to the top, he's my guy in the general. God help us then.
I am promoting a grassroots campaign for Duncan Hunter, Republican Representative from California. Go to his website and read where he stands on all these issues. If you are Conservative, you will be duly impressed.
I see it is going to to a hard road for rudy...Jim, what the hell are you even talking about.
jim--
I'd rather take a civilian President like Abraham Lincoln that sees the big picture than a distinguished peace candidate Democrat general like George McClellan. (That was the choice in 1864.)
The Union wouldn't even exist today if diplomacy-loving Democrats would have had their way in the past. Grant's policy of unconditional surrender was preferable, even with the loss of 600,000 Americans.
elliot--
You need to think what putting a Democrat back in office entails. Putting the Gitmo terrorists back into circulation. A French veto over American security. Iraq as the international base of terror operations. Iran with the nukes for their apocalypse. Israel thrown to the wolves. And I haven't even begun to talk about higher taxes, nationalized health care, the courts packed with ACLU activists, Pat Buchanan-style protectionism, the idiotic Kyoto protocol, and other nutty things the Dems want to do for the children.
I'll vote for McCain before I vote for these guys. I'll vote for a putz like Duncan Hunter too, though he is one of those bench warmers like Howard Dean that have no chance of winning in the general election.
Your viable choices are Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. As Rumsfeld put it, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would wish to have in the future.
Easy, Jason,
I don't think Elliot intends to vote Dem just based on his comment. It was more a statement of his feeling for Rudy. I concur with it, but against a Dem, I'd have to vote Rudy.
Duncan Hunter may not win a contest if it took place today, but there is time for him to get his name, face and postitions out there, and damnit, I wish he would. Some believe that announcing now and beginning the campaign will by election time, have rendered the early birds less potent as they will have bored to tears those who can't turn around without seeing or hearing them. It also gives them more time to F up. Be that as it may, the race is indeed on, and those with any notions need to keep in mind there is a catch up factor. All need to get their messages out there and explain why their message is a better one compared to the opponents' message or lack of same.
Post a Comment