Captain's Quarters -

So, you are really ready to trust Rudy for what he says he will do and not what he has practiced or governed as in his previous political life?

Good luck with that, hope it works out for ya!

He is just another poitical hack who will say anything to get the nomination and then move back to his liberal ways to grab the center ... people don't change.

Good news...

Maybe the negative response cleared some heads.

Ginsberg sits on the court, and that should be a healthy reminder of the folly of letting the Democrats - Clintons gain such power.

The damage done cannot be accepted, in hopes for a better day in the future.

Laying down is truly self destructive.

Hillary wants to take things away from us, every Conservative should be wary of this prospect, and work to oppose it's potential.

The FRC is made up of people of principle. They are not going to sacrifice their deeply held beliefs and principles for political reasons. I admire them for that. I am not a member of the FRC nor any other political special interest group because evangelical Christianity is NOT a political faction, but ambassadors of Christ for the furthering of the Kingdom under His rules, not a political action committee. However, to Tony's point, many "main stream" or moderate Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be political opportunists, and much too willing to compromise what is not theirs to compromise (giving in too much to anti-God leftists on a number of issues in the name of non-partisanship). I for one, cannot trust that someone in that mold (like Rudi) would stick with strict constructionist judges just because he/she said so to gain conservative votes in the primaries and general election. I would tend to believe that the more likely action, when faced with the situation, would be that a Rudi would put up someone "acceptable" to the anti-God pols in order to guarantee confirmation after a kangaroo-court show of displeasure (in other words, someone that would accept Roe v Wade as settled law, a facilitator of the ACLU's rabid assault on public displays of Christianity, etc.).

I have to go with Tony Perkins on this one, even if it meant a third Clinton presidency since we'd at least know going in what the country was in store for, instead of a stealth assault delivered by a faux-"conservative."

Hooray for standing up for principles!

Frankly, I'm not sure I'm following how you see the FRC as backing down, except in terms of parlance. Admittedly there is a difference between forming or endorsing a third party candidate and "not endorsing the Republican nominee" but it seems as if the hypothetical result is the same. Whether Perkins pushes his followers to vote for a candidate other than the nominee or whether he implies they should sit the election out, it's a net loss of votes from their ranks.

Clearly any of the candidates (as well as the parties themselves) will have to do the math and make intelligent choices as to where they can make gains and where they can afford probable losses. As we were discussing in the chat room on your show the other day, a Rudy nomination prompts the question as to whether or not possible gains among the moderates will offset or excede the potential loss of pro life votes. Similarly, putting somebody like Fred at the top of the ticket will win back the ranks of Perkins followers, but would he pull in enough of moderates who are seeming a bit gun shy about the GOP right now?

Perkins may still well take his ball and go home if Rudy gets the nod, and it doesn't seem to matter whether he is pushing for an alternate candidate or just saying it's not worth voting. But yes... he risks marginalizing his group in terms of influence in future elections if he does it.

Nobody can foretell the future.

For instance, look how Israel had to cope when Arik Sharon stroked.

I also see Bush presenting a future, so that anyone walking into the Oval Office, won't be setting back the clock.

Here, for evidence? I point to the down-grading of Camp David to Annapolis. It's now out of the President's hands; and into the hands of whoever gets to lead the State Department, ahead. A cat kennel, if there ever was one.

The other thing that's been paying off is the PUBLIC nature of these debates. This was the 7th? I bet more and more people are tuning in; because the Net allows for participation. You've done it here. Live blogging.

I watched it from Little Green Footballs. And, again, if you get enough people to comment, you'll see a wide range of views. (While Charles Johnson refused to give a spot on his poll to Ron Paul. Seems there are flakes out there who like to tamper with the results of Internet Polling.)

One person, commenting up at Lucianne said it best: "Good thread. And, nobody's changed their minds."

It seems, too, those that pander to the religious-right are not those gaining traction with the majority.

And, who knows?

We're treating the future as if we know how this will all turn out. We don't.

And, we're taking for granted that the system, that became scripted for TV, with the conventions having nothing to do with picking anybody ... Also presented the stage, in Boston, where Kerry came and saluted. And, promptly went about his stage setting, with fights from Teddy Kennedy avoiding Jimmy Carter, getting attention. (Well, why else were people watching?)

Hillary's stage, I guess, if it comes to that; will also be interesting. You think she wants to shake President Peanut's hand? You think she wants her husband towering over her? Or he gets to sit in the audience? What if he falls alseep, like he did at Ronald Reagan's funeral? You don't remember?

Scripted stuff isn't really how politics gets done. What you really have is the coming together of the political big wigs (who work behind the scenes). From 50 states. All have their "favorite sons." And, most of them are not crazy folks. So, winning enters the equation.

We will also see the spread, ahead, that occurs when people go to vote in 50 State primaries. And, I don't care if you think this fits under this year's Christmas tree. Or not. The numbers, themselves, will speak volumes.

Heck, even in Idaho, they have to come to terms with having sent Wide Stance Larry Craig, back so often (since Ronald Reagan's 1980's coat tails swept him in.) To being a "fixture" in DC. So, what if he likes to crawl under partitions, looking for gay sex. He says he's not a homosexual. And, that's supposed to be good enough for all of you.

So, the stuff that came about, when the "family values" folks grabbed the GOP levers to knighthood; also have come under the spotlight. And, you have no leadership to show for it!

Of course, the affirmative action crowd also falls short of leadership skills.

And, yes. Guiliani stands out.

No. Not with the social conservatives, he doesn't! But he's in this for the FIGHT. And, if anyone doesn't think the MAINSTREAM holds the fastest current; they're about to get sidelined. As long as Guiliani's health holds up.

Sure. Dobson threatens. While in hollywood, there's a strike. You know why? Writers want a bigger slice of the pie. As if they just go and grab what they want.

Another strike? Chrysler is now out. Why? I presume they want at least what GM got. And, it doesn't seem to be in the offing.

There was once a time in America, when a strike could bring traffic to a standstill. You think things haven't changed?

Well, I'd beg to differ.

And, something tells me as the politica types, who earn their daily bread working for politicians, have to show up ... They'll be picking a survivor.

Sort'a like that show on TV. To remain on the island you need to have audience support for your clout.

Not the same thing as union thugs.

I heard Perkins on Bill Bennett this morning. First he flacked his mover and shaker status in the party and his upcoming FRC event, saying all major Republicans would be there. In the next breath, he said he would not support or even vote for Rudy over Hillary; and refused to rule out a 3rd party run. He totally destroyed his own credibility in a mere 5 minutes. What a maroon.

I fail to see how it is moral and principled to allow a democrat into the White House at this time in our history. The very foundation of our country is being severely challenged not only from terrorists but from the neocommunists within our own country. And to allow TWO liberal Supreme Court appointees that will ensure a liberal court for at leat FORTY YEARS is beyond spiritual arrogance.
Imho, this rant by the FRC is about clout, not having any, that is, for Rudy has pledged publically to appoint justices in the mold of Thomas, Scalia and Roberts. Rudy was Ronald Reagan's attorney general. Show me the basis for distrusting his public pledge.

And, since when is there a competition for whom is the most Christian? Christianity is not a power tool or weapon for establishing superiority, quite the opposite.

This brings to mind the phrase "Cutting off your nose to spite your face". It may be true that the Republicans need the Religious Right voters, but it's equally true that the Religious Right voters need the Republicans. If they sit this one out, they will only marginalize themselves and guarantee that their worst nightmares will assume the Oval Office.

If their goal is for MORE babies to die, then they should go for it.

Perkins and his religious elk are basically self centered idiots posing as moralists. In some respects there's some semblance to radical immans who want society to conform to sharia. What Perkins realizes, but doesn't admit, is that the majority of Americans could care less what his views are. In fact based on his logic he would vote for a fascist monster as long as he was pro life. Sounds like Putin or the fuhrer would suit him just fine. They stressed pro life as central to their platforms.

Let's see. Rudy cleans up New York--including VICE, making it a livable city for all the residents including pro life Christians and yet he is ostracized for being pro choice in a city where the residents are 80-20 pro choice. Perkins, get a life! Get off your phony high horse and recognize that there are many issues as important as being pro life. Here's one for the thinking impaired--the war on terror. Lose that and you won't have a life to choose for. The Supreme court, continue to lose that at this critical juncture---the next president will choose at least two---and your pro life dreams are dead for another 40 years.

Perkins you are just as stupid as Perot before you but for a different set of reasons all of which lead to Hillary winning in a landslide as her deviant husband before her. By his example bj's are now de rigueur in grammar schools. It's not sex.

Stupid is as stupid does.

"There’s no desire to create a third party, no action underway, simply the statement that if the party breaks with social conservatives, then social conservatives will break with thee party."

This is posturing. The question is not whether the Republican Party can survive without social conservatives but whether social conservatives survive without the Republican party. Mr. Perkins is merely stating his strong preference that the party not nominate Rudy. Perkins has worked hard for the party, but he should also know that Rudy has worked hard for the same party. Look for Perkins and other social conservatives (myself, included) to take a second look at Rudy in the coming months. Rudy's personal failings may work in social conservatives favor if we truly love the sinner and hate the sin. In Rudy, social conservatives have a man who has fallen and could genuinely find redemption within the broader cultural reform movement.

This is difficult. I don't want the Clinton's back, but my Christian belief argues against a vote for Rudy, who from last night's debate, looks like the best to go against Hillary.

A third party will almost guarantee a Dem win.

I vote GOP because it is the pro life party, or at least it was. I don't feel like I am leaving the GOP if they nominate Rudy, the party is leaving me.

Not sure what I will do on election day, and I am sure I am not the only one weighing these factors.

First of all, Ronald Reagan signed legalized abortions into law, (for the State of California), two years before ROE gave blanket protection to women, across all our fifty states. No more back alley abortions. Or criminalizing doctors.

And, I'm surprised to see the shift!

For 30 years, the religious right took hold of the republican's levers of power. They frightened off enough voters, because the senate never did reach bullet-proof status. Plus, the GOP then had so many turkeys sitting in its leadership; it's no wonder they collapsed in 2006.

2004, on the other hand, was a blow out success for Bush. In spite of all the lawyers lined up by the Bonkeys, to steal back the White House. And, the corruption, on election night, where no TV station was willing to call the election for Bush. Until 3:AM Eastern. And, by then? People in the White House had turned in for bed.

This has left a bitter enough taste in the mouths of many in the audience. It's the last time I followed anything on TV. And, it's been years since I've had to turn on my TV. (So I cancelled DISH).

Lose customers, and they don't come back, again. That's just the nature of traffic.

And, here? Sure,the republican stage last night had at least three idiots espousing "family values." But it doesn't give them a bounce at all. And, Guiliani is sitll the best best to collect not just republican votes, but independents, as well. And, he can also include the "shedding" of democratic voters; who'd much prefer to see him, selected, than just about anybody else.

I also don't think we've seen ALL the fight that's in Guiliani. He's very impressive. And, he's willing to connect to the American People.

(While Mitt Romney thinks he has to talk to lawyers. And, Ron Paul? Well, he's just nuts.)

As entertainment, last night's debate was perfect. It delivers. And, since last night's was the 7th, I'd bet it's delivering larger audiences as well. PLUS, these people, like me, see this on the Internet. Where you get links to watch. And, you get threads that are bringing on "live blogging" comments. Participation never gets better than this.

Perot, by the way, is a phenomenon that came and went.

Perhaps? So too the crushing effects the religous right put on the republican party? (I'm just not sure. But one smart remark I heard from Ann Coulter, when she was a guest on Drudge's radio show ... And, the discussion was Fred Thompson; Was Ann's belief that even in "socially-conservative" country ... ALL politians just extended themselves out on that religious limb, as far as they had to go, to collect votes!) In other words? There was no sincerity to it.

Then? The funniest clip showed up on U-Tube. Where Jon Stewart cut Chris Matthews' a "new one." Chris' book is supposed to tell you how to be "successful." By duplicating what successful politicians "do." In the clip? The reference is how Bubba got the gals, "because he listened to them."

Uh huh. Jon Stewart pointed out that Bubba's "trick" is lacking soul. He doesn't give a damn about the women he beds. Or plays with. (I don't know where you draw your lines on sexual activities.)

But the "trick" of being insincere, isn't a selling point. Because? It doesn't fool enough people.

For what it's worth, it seems the MAINSTREAM is paying closer attention to this race, than say they did back in 2000.

You bet. 2004 was pivotal.

And, we got the best man for the job. Nope. I no longer want to misunderestimate Bush. He's gonna be powerful. When it comes to being heard inside the tent. By other men who are merely republican players. In my opinion. Of course.

A decision to reject the GOP candidate unacceptable to the FRC based on principle guarantees the election of Hillary Clinton, a choice even more odious and long-term in consequences to the ideals of the FRC. Presidents have the power to choose Supreme Court justices.

As noted at Powerlineblog, "Tony Blankley has instructed conservatives in the prudential considerations that may dictate subordination of their primary political concerns to the survival of their coalition with the Republican Party. The upshot of Blankley's teaching is this:

Every faction within the GOP coalition should agree immediately to make no further demands of their party. Just as the liberals did in 1991 and 1992, the conservatives of 2007 and 2008 simply should let their strongest candidate campaign in a way most likely to gain victory. Every conservative principle thereby would be safer than if heavy demands yield a Hillary presidency. Given the grotesque irresponsibility of the national Democrats, keeping them out of the White House should be the first calling of every patriotic conservative.

An expansion of the reasoning is here.

A Guiliani ticket balanced with a candidate of conservative principles would appeal to Americans motivated by multiple issues of national security, fiscal accountablity, and Constitutional soundness.

The only hesitation that I have with Guiliani is the liability that his wife presents in that she hearkens shades of Tuh-ray-zuh Heinz in terms of her personality.

I tend to look at all aspects of a candidate, including the moral compass...we need to vote for our kids, grandkids, the future of this country. I am concerned about having enough kids to keep this country going if abortion continues along the path of "being just another option." I hope that candidates will stand up for those who have no vote. Hey, look. Generation X and Generation Y are having a tough time keeping school buildings open and taking care of elderly in nursing homes because our population has been halved of the Baby Boomers. So now we have an illegal immigration/national security problem. I hope if Rudy really wants to be the nominee, he sharpens the saw on these types of issues and ignore his wife's ideas.

First, why shouldn't the Christian Conservatives leave the Republican Party? If some of the above commentators are any indication, there's nothing here for us- except insults and demands that we shut up, surrender our beliefs, and get in line for the benefit of a party that no longer represents us. Sorry, but I have no interest in becoming another vote farm like the NAACP or NOW are for the Democrats: a bloc of votes that is de facto guaranteed and therefore need no longer be shown any respect.

Now let's turn this around. If my not voting is likely to create a President Hillary, isn't it the responsibility of the Republican Party to work harder to make me want to vote? And if I see nothing in the hypothetical Republican candidate that makes me WANT to vote for him, isn't it YOUR fault- all of you 'social lib conservatives'- that you didn't compromise YOUR beliefs for MY vote? I love my mental image of all of the Guiliani Republicans standing around President Hillary's inauguration, counting the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, and congratulating each other on "...really showing those stupid Conservative Christians where to get off!"

The more I learn about Guiliani, the more unsettled I get. There are a lot to choose from out there. I don't think it is time to narrow it down to him, yet. We need to keep shopping...don't want a cheap toy made in China and have it break when I get home.

Has anyone else noticed that the original announcement only seems to have helped Rudy's standing in the polls? Rasmussen had Thompson beating Rudy previously and now (presumably before the results of yesterday's debate) Thompson is losing rather considerably to Rudy.

It looks to me like the Salt Lake City announcement by FRC, Dobson, etc. have only helped propel Rudy ahead.

I don't trust Rudy's gun-grabbin attutude either but the thought of Hildabeast, Slick, the Burgler et al romping around in the WH again makes me ill.

How do you guys figure Rudy can beat back the Beast? What are the odds these days...Vegas have a line on it yet ?

Hey, guys on the social side of conservatism, calm down for a second.

First, things are not set yet. The only thing we can count on is Hillary being the opponent. Anyone who's asking you to lay down your principles is overstating the case.

You have a broad range of opinions being represented in the Republican primary right now, and although the picture is slowly clearing up, we frankly don't know who the nominee is going to be. It is a close race, and it is also worth considering that the most clearly unhinged member of the Republican primary took in the third-most donations recently.

It is entirely possible that there will have to be a combination ticket to make people happy- it would seem that the most likely VP candidate would be Mike Huckabee, if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney is not the nominee.

I don't regard myself as much of a social conservative, so I would humbly ask those of you who are (in the least snarky way possible) to examine a couple of things- 1) the extreme fear on the left of Giuliani as an opponent, and 2) the guarantee of a further-left Supreme Court if Hillary is elected.

You may very well be in a no-win situation- I don't get that impression from Giuliani- but again, social elements are not ultimately what drive my vote. To my way of thinking, anyone right of center loses if Hillary Clinton becomes President... starting with the unborn.

tmi3rd

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Caesar runs our court system and Caesar runs law enforcement.

Pass all the pro-life legislation you want and the majority of it will never be enforced, particularly as it starts to infringe on Big Abortion (aka "Planned (non) Parenthood").

I have little to no confidence in the law enforcement approach to abortion.

If you don't succeed in changing the culture amongst those who are getting abortions (and they're generally not pro-life Republicans), then pass laws from sunrise to sun up, and they will not be worth the paper on which they are written.
Democrat courts and Democrat politicians ignore laws they disagree with.

The Church wastes their time and resources getting involved in politics. It would be better spent on changing the culture of death.

Hillary and her minions are the culture of death. She's enthusiastically supported by NARAL, Emily's List, Planned Parenthood and every other abortion peddling, multi-million dollar corporate butchers who want to make abortion more available, more prevalent and more profitable.

Hillary is supported by those who desire to "educate" our children regarding abortion by using our public "schools", so as to advance the normalization of abortion and to advance the culture of death.

Rudy will do what he can to limit abortions. Hillary will do what she can do to keep abortion legal and profitable (because it's never been "safe").

It's a clear choice.

Heh - the fact is that the FRC is right. The Republican party DOES take them for granted. It's a crappy feeling.

It will be the death knell for your party in '08. Who here thinks that the Republicans can afford to lose even 1% of the vote, and still prevail? There's plenty of evidence that the country is predisposed to vote Democrat in general; it will be an uphill slog for whatever Republican candidate wins the nod to begin with. Remove some of the hardest-working and highly donating members of the party from the equation and you can forget it.

There's also the fact that Rudy is, to put it simply, not sane. Crazy. His personal life is not compatible with the morals and values which are espoused by the Republican party. A ten year old could run an effective campaign against the guy.

I know you guys aren't big fans of McCain, but he's the best candidate on your side.

Not one single Rudy supporter that I have encountered has ever said they would not vote for the republican nominee, whomever it is. The ones demanding their way or else is the FRC. And they have been doing this for a long time. Where is their candidate?

Some of us Christians have a big picture view and a long term view. We are able to work with the cards we are dealt. And for all intents and purposes, that means Rudy is our guy.

The power struggle is backfiring on these "my way or the highway" groups who have no respect for the other coalitions in the republican party. They can't be trusted to work together. They see their clout fading and their actions are a symptom of the problem. This ain't gonna fly no mo.

Rudy is authentic. He is the man. And he engenders inspiration often when I hear him speak.

"First, why shouldn't the Christian Conservatives leave the Republican Party? If some of the above commentators are any indication, there's nothing here for us- except insults and demands that we shut up, surrender our beliefs, and get in line for the benefit of a party that no longer represents us."

That's right Dave, it's all about you isn't it? How about thinking about the entire country instead of your little ideological slice of it. What upsets me most about the pro life advocates--and I have been one my entire life--is that there are competing issues just as important, in some cases more important, given the times which they ignore in their holier than thou facades.

The war on terror, the supreme court, the size of government are just a few for starters. I practiced my pro life beliefs by not creating possible abortion situations. The other issues I can only influence with my vote as opposed to by my behavior. You stay at home Dave and contemplate your navel while society crumbles around you because you let other candidates get elected. That's just brilliant.

Many here act as if allowing the Dems to run the place for a while would be the moral equivalent of 'a plague of locusts o'er the land.'

Perhaps people would get better receptions to their ideas if they turned the Hyperbole knob down just a few notches...

I'll be up front and say that I'm taking a very cynical view here.

It seems that there is a phenomenon when a group of people see a problem. They organize, a spokesperson emerges, they get publicity, they get money and some power. They begin to make significant progress in solving their problem or resolving their issue.

And as they get close to actually completing their task, a strange thing occurs. We see this on the left and on the right. The group begins to make decisions and act as if they DON'T want the problem solved--because if the problem is solved, the group dissolves, the publicity goes away, the money evaporates, the spokesperson has nothing more to say, and on and on.

This is why government grows--no one works to put themselves out of a job, generally. I think we might be seeing this with FRC. What would happen to his group if Rudy appointed 2 or 3 strict constructionists? It's possible right? It could happen. But with Hillary as president, there is no possibility of this occurring. There are rational decisions from the mind, and there are rational decisions from the gut. These two types of rationality are not always in agreement. Cynically, I think the gut usually wins. It is irrational to put oneself out of work--from the gut.

Hence, words aside, FRC will de facto support Hillary. Its actions will help her to become president--gut rationality leaves little choice.

Dave P. and other SoCons:

I think I should note that we're talking about the general election here, not the primaries. I would encourage you, if you find Giuliani to be a less-than-acceptable candidate, to pour your money and efforts into another candidate that more closely matches your beliefs. Now is the time that you can have the most affect on who the party nominates.

However, once the Republican nominee is chosen, you have to take stock of the situation. If the choice is between a candidate that you don't agree with on a few issues, and one that you don't agree with on ANY issues, isn't the choice obvious? I personally have NEVER voted in an election where either of the candidates agreed with me 100%--but I still voted. Sometimes I had to hold my nose to do it, but I did it, because I knew what would happen if I, and others like me, did not.

So put forth your best efforts to get your candidate to be the nominee. But once the nominees have been chosen, then take a realistic look at what the presidencies of each candidate would produce, and make your choice.

RE: Cycloptichorn (October 10, 2007 3:42 PM)

Many here act as if allowing the Dems to run the place for a while would be the moral equivalent of 'a plague of locusts o'er the land.'

If we're lucky. I more fear the Darkness they'll create. I could probably handle the frogs and such. They'd retreat soon enough.

I've only seen very few comments about our MOST important issue and that is the SECURITY of this country. In my opinion, it TRUMPS all issues. To allow HRC to walk into the WH will be a disaster for this country (security wise). This lady will roll back so many security programs that it will open the back door for terrorist to attack us again. MoveOn.org will force her to comprise our security and this is unacceptable. Any movement or group that allows this will have to live with that burden. Now we're not just not talking about unborn but now we're talking about ENTIRE CITIES.

I too do not want Hillary for president under any circumstances. If I lived in a state where it would make a difference I would register democrat before the primaries and vote for OBama in order to spare our country even the chance of that disaster but it would make no differnce in the red state where I live. I also am not fond of Guiliani but I will vote for him if that is the only way to stop a Hillary coronation. However, I do not understand why there is such a dearth of acceptable candidates in either party. Nor do I understand why Christian leaders have not foreseen the coming vacuum of acceptable attractive candidates and picked young people of promise and groomed and promoted them on the national level for leadership (not as Christian leaders but as leaders with character and priciples who happen to be Christian). Perhaps the US needs leadership academies where young people who are interested in political science are trained and grounded in history and ethics and leadership skills and put on track for future governing and political roles.(I know there would have to be two academies, one for teaching conservative principles and one for instructing liberals as never the twain shall meet.)
Our military academies already do some of this so why don't we have more middle aged military retirees (and I don't mean Generals) running for office?
And patrick neid I asked the elk around here if any were religious and none would admit to it (sorry, know it was just a slip of the finger but couldn't resist the tease. I like your posts)

There are over 160,000 soldiers alone and thousands more American civilians, that we sent to Iraq to overthrow a dictator and help them build a pluralistic of government.

For the last 21/2 years the current democratic leadership ran a scathing anti-war campaign, they needlessly divided the country, they made the work of our military and civilians hundreds of times harder with their “get out of Iraq” ravings. Honorable legislators like Jim Talent, George Allen and slews of good Republican congressmen lost their seats because they would not stand down from the mission and faced the hysterical anti-war ravings of HRC and the other lefties.

After 2006, the only thing that has stood between a complete disaster in Iraq was GW’s veto pen. Now as the surge has worked HRC & Co (Pelosi included) are advocating the very positions they railed against the Republicans for, namely we cannot cut and run from this war.

After the dishonesty and the ruin that HRC and Pelosi wrought on our troops with their rantings, to reward them and worse yet leave this war in which thousands of American lives and millions of Iraqii lives are at stake to HRC, Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry, by not voting for the Republican candidate( even if he were Bozo the Clown) would be the highest disservice to our fallen heroes and to the men and women who are our greatest beacons of our faith and freedom.

I’m not trying to impugn anyones beliefs or their patriotism, but I don’t care what your conservative values are, we owe it to the men and women who give us our freedoms to vote for the candidate who will best protect them and give them the backing they need to complete their most important mission.

If the Clinton's win the election, I believe there will be a mass exodus from the military of our most competant and experienced people. Their disdain and hatred of the military is well known and documented. The Democrats continued betrayal of our military, the constant slander of our soldiers and our allies will lead to a hollowing out of the miltary like we have never seen.

This election is shaping up to be one of the most important in recent memory. If the Clintons win, coupled with a filibuter proof majority in the Senate, this country will take a radical turn to the left that will take decades to undo.

Social issues are going to play almost no role in this election and if the Republican run on social issues, they will get killed. The "culture wars", while important, are greatly trumped by the real war against radical Islam. Most probably, pocketbook issues such as health care, taxes and spending, the deficit, free trade and illegal immigration will dominate the election.

If social conservatives want to stay home or form a third party just realize that you will directly helping put the Clinons back in the Whitehouse.

Well, honestly, I don't understand why so many are so eager to push Giuliani as the nominee when Thompson is just as good on economic and foreign policy issues, plus comes with the added benefit of being pro-life. Is it because lots of people lined up behind Giuliani before Thompson decided to run and now are too entrenched to switch? I don't see any advantage to nominating Giuliani over Thompson, and the downside is huge--the loss of the pro-life base. They're both fiscal conservatives and they both advocate a tough stand against Islamic fascists. I think both of them are intelligent, likeable, and able to connect with voters. Thompson is bascially the same as Giuliani with the added benefit of being pro-life (and pro-second amendment, which is also a problem for Rudy). What is the point of voting for pro-choice Rudy when we can have the pro-life version in Thompson?

Tim W said

"This election is shaping up to be one of the most important in recent memory. If the Clintons win, coupled with a filibuter proof majority in the Senate, this country will take a radical turn to the left that will take decades to undo."

Especially when it comes to Judges and SCOTUS Justices. If the anti-Rudy crowd is so worried about him appointing Supreme Court Justices who would keep Roe V Wade intact, let me remind those people that the SCOTUS Justices President Hilly would appoint would make their hair stand on end. And they would easily be confirmed by said filibuster-proof majority.

This is in fact the most important election in our lifetimes. Remember that before you stay home instead of voting.

It's almost too obvious to state, but no vote or a vote for a third party candidate is, in effect, a vote for Hillary. It's hard to see how helping Hillary win, and ensuring at least another generation of Roe as the law of the land, is somehow "taking a principled stand" against abortion. The only principled stand is to vote for the person most likely to help the pro-life side by appointing strict constructionist judges.

Dave writes: "Now let's turn this around. If my not voting is likely to create a President Hillary, isn't it the responsibility of the Republican Party to work harder to make me want to vote?"

The answer is simply this: No. It's the role of the Republican Party to win elections. Rudy is ahead in the great majority of the GOP primary polls and is competitive (although slightly behind) Hillary in the general election polls.

"If the Clinton's win the election, I believe there will be a mass exodus from the military of our most competant and experienced people.'

Absolutely. I left active duty in '97 and joined the reserves, after living through the Clinton years (don't ask don't tell off of the bat, the Tailhook nonsense and other assorted idiocies) and I didn't want to deal with a possible President Gore.

"Their disdain and hatred of the military is well known and documented."

Not only theirs, but the entire cabinet of geriatric hippies they will undoubtedly want in their cabinet.

Not to mention, Hillary is completely and thoroughly unqualifed to be Commander in Chief, much less President. This dingbat has a two paragraph resume and the absolutely worthless Democrat Party is actually proposing that she occupy the highest elected office in the land?

Democrat lunacy much be stopped at all costs.

Nicole:

The difference is that Rudy has a track record. I've pretty much made up my mind that he's my guy, even though I'm strongly pro 2nd Amendment and anti-abortion, because he's got the cojones the next president is going to need.

Rudy took on New York City when it was in dire straits. Under those circumstances, if you're going to solve the real problems, you don't go tilting at windmills. His accomplishments speak for themselves.

And for my fellow Christians who are sounding just a little holier-than-thou, remember, it was Saul whom Christ asked to take His Church to the gentiles. I trust Guiliani to do what he says he will do: Appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. That is the only way a President can really affect the 2nd Amendment or abortion. So chill out already.

See, Jack, I don't trust him to appoint judges who would overturn Roe. Rudy could have come out and said he thinks Roe should be overturned. I know several pro-abortion people who admit that Roe has no basis in the Constitution and that the abortion issue should be left to the states. Rudy could have taken that position, but he didn't. In fact, he has said he thinks a strict constructionist could uphold Roe. For him to think that, he either doesn't understand Roe or doesn't understand what "strict constructionist" means.

And why take the risk with Rudy when you have a guarantee with Fred? I'd be willing to bet Fred has just as many cajones as Rudy, and as for track records, Fred had a consistently conservative, pro-life, pro-2nd amendment voting record in the Senate and a solid anti-corruption track record as a prosecutor. Rudy made a good mayor of a liberal city, and I think he'd be a fine Secretary of Homeland Security, but I don't trust anyone to run the country who thinks it should be legal to kill babies. I mean, the number of lives that have been lost due to terrorism is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive slaughter caused by abortion. That's why to me, the abortion issue overrides all others. What could be more urgent that stopping the intentional killing of 1.5 million children every year? That kind of bloodshed is staggering. With Thompson, there is no need to compromise the lives of millions of innocents. With Rudy there is. To me, the choice is easy.

Patrick Neid, all politics is about building coalitions.

We also, now, have some history under our belts, in how the republican party misused it's majority. Building big fat pork barrels. And, holding assinine hearings, where the trick was to want to break the law (by saying ROE wasn't the law.) When, clearly ROE is the law!

It turns out that the Whigs also managed to make disasterous leadership decisions; so that they were the conservative party of their time. Abraham Lincoln was treated like garbage by political hacks. (So, too, was Ulysses S. Grant.)

Fine men of talent can sometimes find themselves under the thumbs of lesser men.

For starters, here? Look at Trent Lott! Look at all the garbage that passed for leadership. WHY? What was really going on? Is DC just one big party?

I think when the republicans used to say they'd become "bullet proof" and they'd get 60 republican members into the senate; it turned off so many voters, that instead of voting for republicans, it became easy to send democrats. All in close elections. Like george Allen's 2006 loss to James Webb. Happens.

At the end of the day, those who get sent to DC have to perform. And, it seems the requirements weren't all that high. That's how Larry Craig survived.

Today, even in the religious community, there are people who are tired of the pickering.

I think if people had their druthers? They'd prefer the Code Pinko's to disrupt the Bonkeys.

And, for out country to be LED. And, the President NOT HARASSED!

Yes, the Bonkeys bought the inflexible "hate Bush" syndrome to DC.

And, yes. Yesterday, when Ron Paul made a fruit cake of himself, it shows ya; he got elected on a republican slate ... but how? The guy's a dingbat.

Maybe, that's it?

Now that people see the war on terror; and the sacrifices our men and women in the military are making, they want something better.

For me? Guiliani is the candidate that gets mainstream voters! He's also gone out of his way and asked Ted Olsen to be there, putting together the team he will want to use, if elected.

Yesterday, it dawned on me that it's possible Guiliani would ask McCain to be his veep. I keep looking at all the candidates; and wonder what's going to happen IF the GOP pulls together TO WIN!

That means no "cutsey" approaches, with these hidden religious messages. People are gonna have to find better ways to get along.

As to the name calling, why even take it to heart?

Completely off topic, but when I was a young working woman, I worked for a Greek boss. And, absolutely wonderful woman! And, she'd talk about what it was like growing up. (Where the restaurant business was taught to her before she was 10.) And, how it's NORMAL to fart after you eat. Not a subject most people particularly like. But I remember what she said. When you fart after you eat, it's a compliment to the mom who made the meal.

Go figa.

Maybe, we just have to develop thicker skin?

Look what our president faces. And, he's always got a ready smile. (Me? I'd probably be caught picking my nose. Or making faces.)

One of the greatest things we're getting from the Internet, is that WE CAN DEBATE our reactions.

It's priceless.

I remember in 1992, being unhappy with both the choices; Bush the elder. And, Bubba. So I went out and volunteered for Ross Perot. Just to feel something could happen that would clue in the party heads ... that they needed to improve the menus.

This time? I'm just amazed at how good everyone looked last night. The two hours just flew by.

And, I didn't even have to go away from my computer.

Patrick, I'm glad you post, here. I always read your "2-cents."

Nicole,

You asked why the GOP can't get behind Thompson because (according to you) he has most of the same attributes (politically) as Rudy but the plus is, he's pro life.

Initially, when Thompson's name was mentioned I was interested in him. Alas, Thompson's slow dance to get into the race gave me a chance to look at the other candidates. I've watched all the debates so far, I've been Googling my little fingers off trying to get as much info as possible on all the candidates. Security trumps most issues with me.

Rudy won my admiration and respect on 9/11, although initially I wasn't that interested when his name was first bandied about as a presidential candidate. I've been leaning toward Rudy for a while now, but I was still interested to see what Thompson would have to say. Watching the debate the other afternoon I must say I found Thompson's performance, at best, underwhelming. Quite a few pundits said Thompson didn't make any mistakes; I would say that's true, but I wasn't inspired by Thompson either.

Both Rudy & Fred have had to deal with health issues; but in looking at the two I see Rudy displaying zest and enthusiasm for the race and I don't see zest or anything close to enthusiasm emanating from Fred.

For those of you who say an anti-abortion candidate is the only candidate you can support, I would respectfully caution you to be careful what you hope for.

We've had a strong Christian, pro-life president in the past...........Jimmy Carter. The law of unintended consequences writ large.

Ya know? I think the problem is that the right actually held political powers in this country! They were catered to, by the republicans, during primary season.

That's why you see this crazy fight to hold the Iowa caucus during Christmas dinner. (Okay. A slight exaggeration. January 3rd.)

While it's obvious that it's way too early.

But it's this crazy game of "first-ies."

Maybe, once, it made sense? But the mainstream, in 2000 got FURIOUS with the presidential election system. (And, that fury, as I tried to describe from my own point of view. Is what led so many to Ross Perot, in 2000.)

Today? We've been through the Pat Buchanan splinter ticket. And, the Ralph Nader, splinter ticket.

It's as if people know there's gonna be changes; and they just refuse to leave. (Not just Larry Craig. But the porksters, in general.)

And, when Hastert left? Did you see how angry he was?

When people start getting angry their ability to make good decisions goes downhill.

Sure. I've been focussed on the presidential election. NOT on who else is gonna be running. Where ALL the HOUSE come forward. And, that can become an interesting rotation, right there.

That the democrats think they have a senate advantage? Well? They only have 12 seats up for grabs, while the GOP has to defend two dozen. And, one of those seats belongs to Larry Craig.

Still, there's so much money spent on polling, etc., you'd think the insiders are fairly well equipped to read what the public's mood is? I'd be surprised if this was a "big unknown," as Donald Rumsfeld used to say.

But it's more than just who gets elected to the presidency. When a Ron Paul shows up on stage; or John Murtha. I think people can't quite grasp how little districts make for these big fishes.

I, think, too, Pelosi is a crushing disappointment to many Americans. I think if there was a poll? Monica Lewinsky would come out on top, and be more popular than Nancy. Congress is giving Americans indigestion. To go with all the prancing. And, skirting under toilet doors.

We're facing major threats from islam, and this is what's representing us in DC? How did it get this bad?

Gee. Last night, when Guiliani said "if only we could cure our problems from K through 12; and, he said we could do this with vouchers ... I finally heard from someone who has an organized mind. And, who knows just how lots of Americans are thinking!

BINGO. It wasn't even hard to think of this ... like the "broken windows" he fixed when he became mayor of NYC. Fix education so that the clowns can't keep pushing their agenda; and we really would be doing our countrymen a service. We'd fix a major broken item, where taxpayers are furious at the lack of quality they're getting delivered.

Easier said than done?

Did DC break down so far that they can't fix something like this?

It's not about ROE.

Oh, Poodlemom, that's a funny last line! And, so true! When the choice was between Gerald Ford, and "the Baptist."

Rudi is NOT the only problem the GOP has in trying to hold the coalition together.

Every person I've spoken to IN PERSON about Fred Thompson has dropped any plans to consider him.

I don't know anyone who is considering voting for Mitt, on the basis of him being a MASSACHUSETTS politician.

Mike Huckabee is more Socialist than Christian - plans to regulate WHO IS ALLOWED to have HEALTH CARE, and is trying to keep a lid on how PRO-ILLEGAL IMIGRATION that he is.

McCain - yeah, Gang of 14, McCain/Feingold/THOMPSON etc.

Sam Brownback - McCain enabler

Sorry, I won't consider any of them.

Any more than Zell Miller was willing to consider Hanoi John.

If they are going to sink the ship, I really don't care if they are going to do it a different but VERY SIMILAR WAY to the DIMS, and generally by ENABLING THE DIMS so they won't feel so DISSED!

I don't care how DISSED the DIMS FEEL when I vote for someone to DISMANTLE THE DIM POLICIES AND PROGRAMS!

Like this D$%#&&D INTERNATIONAL COURT TREATY THING that wants some MEXICAN ILLEGALS let off fromthe DEATH PENALTY when they raped and murdered a couple of teenage Texas girls.

Maybe they'd like it if we sent some folks down to burn some Mexico flags on Mexico grounds, in return - would that equalize the Treaty values???

Hillary wants to take things away from us, every Conservative should be wary of this prospect, and work to oppose it's potential.

***********************************

So do most of the RINO GOP CANDIDATES.

It's a LOSE LOSE proposiotion as long as part of the GOP base is arguing the solution is MORE OF THE SAME.

Gerald Ford... Robert Dole...

How proud we were of Zell Miller for rejecting Hanoi John!

I won't vote for a DIM-ENABLING RINO.

Didn't anyone notice Rudi's CLARIFICATIONS on what HE CONSIDERS a STRICT CONSTURCTIONIST TO BE, in September??? And if the person happens to be PRO ROE V WADE but Rudi thinks he or she is a person of good conscience, well THAT IS FINE WITH RUDI.

So much for guaranteeing a SCOLIA nomination!

The man's ego is not to be trusted - that day I saw him offering, "IF they really want me..." to the crowd chanting to throw out the Bloomburg ELECTION...

Hey, guys, INTERNATIONALLY AIRED LIVE at the awarding of some tribute to Giuliani after Bloomburg's Election for all Rudi's fine work on the 9/11 clean-up work. AND TWO WEEKS TO APOLOGIZE with most of the news channels mentioning it a few times aday at the time.

WHY HAS THE MSM CLEANED THEIR INTERNET RECORDS OF THAT EVENT?

Rudy is authentic. He is the man. And he engenders inspiration often when I hear him speak.

********************

Why vote for the DIM ENABLER if you can vote for the REAL THING?

If you want the BASE to vote to BLCK the DIMS, why do you insist they help ELECT A PRESIDENT who will HAND MULTIPLY MAJOR VICTORIES TO THE DIMS, and won't be a DIM BLOCKER, himself?

Oh, yeah, all you GOP VOTERS - throw yourself down like a coat before the chariots. But the CHARIOT that passes over on your back is going to be CARRYING a CALIGULA. But we NEED that CHARIOT!

No, I do NOT think Fred, or Rudi, or Mitt or McCain, Newt, Huckabee or Brownback are any of them ONE WHIT BETTER than Hillary - THEY WILL EACH ENABLE HER POLICIES EVERY TIME CRUNCH COMES TO SHOVE!

Fred - no to Fed Marriage Amendment - no to Torte Reform, HAPPY with McCain Feingold

Rudi - abortion, homosexual marriage, gun control, open borders and sanctuary cities, and entitlemenst to illegal aliens

....ditto ditto ditto the rest of them.

I am not voting LEFT of where we are NOW.

Posted by Mike in Oregon | October 10, 2007 6:12 PM

It's almost too obvious to state, but no vote or a vote for a third party candidate is, in effect, a vote for Hillary. It's hard to see how helping Hillary win, and ensuring at least another generation of Roe as the law of the land, is somehow "taking a principled stand" against abortion. The only principled stand is to vote for the person most likely to help the pro-life side by appointing strict constructionist judges.

***********************

You got a half a dozen RINOS who will say anything, but when in office they will lay the ship over flat on its side.

You got the Dims who will absolutely flip the ship like the Poseidon.

And you try to tell us that voting for the guys who will lay it flat on its side, listing so far over it will still swamp and sink, just as quickly --- THIS IS NOT ONLY AN IMPROVEMENT IN YOUR EYES BUT THE VITAL SALVATION OF OUR NATION??????

And it will be our fault if the ship sinks Poseidon-style instead of LISTING-style.

Let me tell you how much I care how you arrange the tables and chairs on the deck, in the meantime!

Yeah, you have me locked in the hold, and I don't have away to do anything about it - but so what!

You want to make excuses for how the ship sinks, go ahead and have yourselves an "ADVENTURE" for your money, instead of a "disaster".

If you want a unified GOP base, then vote for someone the GOP Conservatives have NOT been screaming at you for YEARS they will NOT vote for.

WIN THEIR VOTES instead of trying to blackmail them with Hillary.

Like I said before: WHO IS THE CARROT AND WHO IS THE STICK???
And don't try to feed me a bunch of DAFFODILS in the meantime!

Dah Ahnold Man.

California felt Arnold was vastly more electable than Tom McClintock, too - AFTER Arnold entered the race for his own designs - which were essntially to see if he could get America interested in changing the Constitution so he could run for President - and effecting changes in the law enforcement of PIRACY of Hollywood products.

Well, California got the vastly more "electable" Arnold!

Oh, and you Fredheads who think h e'll nominate good judges - he thinks McCain Feingold is GOOD LAW and PUSHED THE ISSUE ADS element with a FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF.
But worst of all, he voted that a perjury committed during an INTERNATIONALLY AIRED LIVE DEPOSITION was a "TRIVIAL MATTER".

I don't want a judge that Fred respects. Prolly a SOUTER or typical 9th CIRCUS panel member, or the one who let the OJ trial become a fiasco.

No. Dah Ahnold Man is all I need to remind me the GOP doesn't need me to vote for their favorite RINO.

Check those election numbers on Gerald Ford and Robert Dole, and remember - Perot split the Conservative vote of those who went to the poll, but he didn't take any Dole voters away from Dole - ask the people you know who voted for Perot.

I didn't vote for Perot, you could already tell he had Clinton connections, and it must be a frame-up.

But Dole framed up Bush Sr, before that - he was a RINO, too. And a BACKSTABBER.

But those two LEFTIES just couldn't drag enough folks to the polls to give them a win.

I DID NOT DRAG ANYONE IN EITHER OF THOSE ELECTIONS TO VOTE AGAINST THE GOP CANDIDATE, NOT a SINGLE VOTE.

So those numbers don't represent a "MOVEMENT" - especially Gerald Ford - that was just the guts of a lot of individuals who said NO WAY IN THE DICKENS!!!

I am one who didn't vote for either of those men - BUT I DO NOT REPRESENT LEADERSHIP WHO CUT THE HERD.

The CANDIDATE THEMSELVES DID THAT!

If you, hearing the screaming from the Right lo8ud and clear, proceed to nominate someone THOSE FOLKS already told you they will not vote for, andyou disregard what they say in warning, the resulting loss will be your own.

If you listen to them and vote for a TRUE Conservative, and the votes don't come in, THEN it is THEIR FAULT and not yours.

But if a person sits down at your ice cream bar and orders a hot chocolate fudge Sundae with extra cherries, and you give them an ice cream scoop with sardines and dill pickles and they don't eat it, you can try to collect from them, but the law won't back your play, and it isn't their fault if they refuse to eat it and tell you what a wonderful job you did.

These RINOS don't EVEN remind us of what we are looking for, and Hillary isn't any scarier than these RINOS.

Rose, you keep using Tom McClintock as an example of an electability calculation against Arnold Schwarzwenegger, but that's simply not true. Both of them ran for Governor in the same recall election; there was no primary for that election; and Arnold beat McClintock very handily along with the Democrats in the same race.

In that example, Arnold proved that he was the most electable candidate by winning the one election that was held.

Tom McClintock is a fine man and an excellent representative, but he has no statewide constituency. That's the applicable lesson in this race; it's the reason no one from the House has been elected President in over a century.

These RINOS don't EVEN remind us of what we are looking for, and Hillary isn't any scarier than these RINOS.

Rose,

I would hope your not serious about this statement because if HRC walks into the WH..worring about RHINO's, social issues or SC appointments will the least of your trouble. I'm going to keep beating my SECURITY issue. Rolling back programs that have protected this country, reducing our military force (Bill's history), cutting defense spending for more social programs, cutting budgets at the CIA and the FBI will be on her first year agenda. Trust me, if we let HRC win...MoveOn.org and George Soros will have her agenda all layed out and we're not on it.

I'm getting sick of the supposedly 'religious' rightys trying to sabotage any Repub that isn't 100% to their liking. If James Dobson himself is the nominee and he actually gets elected President, guess what...abortion will still be legal. Get over it.
I don't like abortion either, but the country is pretty much 50/50 (or whatever %) on the subject. And most of the 50% that opposes abortion only somewhat oppose it. They aren't willing to 'go all the way' on this issue. It's just not that important to them.

If you want to make a fuss, go ahead. Just make sure you do it during the nomination process. Once the candidate is chosen, don't be a baby and sabotage the election just because he is not 100% to your liking. Grow up. If really are as religious as you portray yourselves, then the best thing you can do is pray for the candidate, no matter who he is, right?

If the Moderates see this election as so vital, please explain why they also see it as vital to NOMINATE a RINO they know ahead of time will drive away MILLIONS of Conservative voters, i.e., Robert Dole and Gerald Ford - and will then be content to have forced a loss by knowingly driving away the Conservatives fro m their party - because at least they can "blame the loss onthe Conservatives".

Makes me think they secretly desire to have Hillary, but don't want the blame for it.

You see married couples try these shenanigans of manipulation on eachother.

They know going into their own anniversary party that if they get drunk and flirt with certain ladies, the wife is going to go ballistic.

So they go in and get drunk and flirt with those ladies they know ahead of time will yank their wife's chain, then yell at her as she is smashing things, "I KNEW you were going to be like that!"

But it's her fault for having a hissy fit, even though HE KNEW and still FLIRTED with the hussies.

TOUGH. You go flirt with your RINO HUSSIES and see if I care.

You will sink this boat anyway, even if your RINO wins, HE will sink it as surely as the DIM hussy.

My VOTE won't make him become a CIVILIZED human being just because YOU ANOINT HIM with ABSOLUTE POWER. He is STILL a Socialist OBVIOUSLY AND OVERTLY moving HARD TO THE LEFT.

Difference being, I ain't holding your hand while the ship sinks!

And if I make it to a lifeboat, I won't extend a helping hand to you - I'll save my helping hand to others who were also shouting at you to stop before you destroyed us all with your RINO "Dah Ahnold Man" Syndrome.

Posted by Captain Ed | October 11, 2007 5:23 AM

Rose, you keep using Tom McClintock as an example of an electability calculation against Arnold Schwarzwenegger, but that's simply not true. Both of them ran for Governor in the same recall election; there was no primary for that election; and Arnold beat McClintock very handily along with the Democrats in the same race.

*************

True, Captain Ed, very true - but if I had a PENNY for everyone who told me they loved Tom McClintock best, but "he just wasn't electable", so they were going to vote for Dah Ahnold Man, instead, I'd be the wealthiest woman on earth. And Dah Ahnold Man would STILL be the GOVENATOR.

All I'm saying is, I didn't lead anyone in '76 or '96 to NOT VOTE GOP - and the Conservatives still did it. And as horrible as everyone thinks Carter and Clinton were, I don't hear ANYONE saying, OH, IF ONLY I HADN'T BEEN SO STUPID and voted for someone besides Ford and Dole - I NEVER HAVE HEARD THAT FROM ANYONE WHO REFUSED TO VOTE FOR THOSE TWO - They just say, WELL, look at the choices we had that year! NO WONDER!!!

I'm ONLY THE CANARY IN THE MINE!

I'm NOT a LEADER in this ANTI-RINO stampede.

Trouble is, as a Texan, and voting since Nixon, who I did vote for, thank you, and BTW, look at our alternatives THAT YEAR, too ---- I've seen the people vote in the one who was the Lesser of Two Evils too many times, and you know what - they always got a lot of BAD STUFF into effect, THAT THE REAL EVIL ONE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH!

That is why I say, IF THE CANDIDATE IS MOVING LEFT, I'm NOT going to put my endorsement on them.

If the Party's reaction is, YOU EVIL WOMAN, and NOT, well, gee, folks, maybe we should think about one of the more Conservative guys, and see what happens if we promote one of the CONSERVATIVES for a little while... (A RINO IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING DOESN'T COUNT!)

But that isn't happening, even though the GOP KNOWS that a NAMELESS "GOP CANDIDATE" against a NAMED DIM in a poll always tests badly but perks up great inthe Election. (Remember they always add about a 15% slant in the "OFFICIAL POLLS", and explain the ELECTION RESULTS aren't the right model for percentages.)

Do you REALLY think that all those Conservatives would be as likely to stay home if Duncan Hunter were on the ballot, just because they don't know him as well, when the same Hillary is still onthe Dim ballot????

I should smile.

But they will stay home for a better known candidate they hate, like they did for Dole and Ford.

They knew Bush Jr - and they knew RIGHTLY that HE IS STILL TO THE FAR RIGHT OF FORD AND DOLE!

But Fred, Rudi, Mitt, Huckabee, Brownback, and McCain, not to mention Newt - are ALL LEFT OF BUSH Jr.

I'm getting sick of the supposedly 'religious' rightys trying to sabotage any Repub that isn't 100% to their liking.

**************************************************

Well, I don't consider myself a member of the so-called religious right, so I don't know if I'm the best person to respond, but I have never asked for a nominee that is "100%" to my liking. I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but I'd be willing to support a Republican nominee who did, as long as I agreed with him or her on other issues. Ditto with affirmative action, federalized health care, higher taxes, etc. But there are two non-negotiable hurdles a candidate must overcome to get my vote in either the primary or the general election--(1) they must be pro-life and (2) they must be willing to stand up to Isalamic fascism. I am perfectly willing to compromise on other issues, but not those two. That means that any of the current Republican candidates will work for me except the two on the extremes--Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. Other than that, I'd be happy to support any of the current candidates against Hillary, although I lean toward either Thompson or McCain. I don't think asking for a candidate who is willing to defend this country and defend the right to life is asking a whole heck of a lot. It's a pretty low bar.

BTW, to address one other concern of Captain Ed's, at this time, I do endorse Duncan Hunter.

Heaven knows I'm not presenting him as "The Perfect Candidate", not even as ~"The Christian THEOCRACY LEADER"~ - whatever THAT is supposed to be!!!

And as for that, Huckabee is running as "A CHRISTIAN CANDIDATE" - while ready to invade your house to see if you are smoking or eating contrary to his rigid specs - SOCIALIST-STYLE! And turns out to be a whole lot more PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN than he is letting show in his public appearances BEFORE ADULTS (as opposed to his talks to TEENS regarding Abortion).
I won't vote for him - NO MATTER WHAT! No matter what he calls himself! And he has a couple of Christian prophets highly impressed with him, actually!

I may change my mind if he ever gets enough attention for the negative info on him to pour out, as it has on these RINOS in the field.

But at present, I am comfortable with him, don't pretend he has the "oomph" that some people think Hillary has, that they are so afraid of - but he is an ordinary man. And I have a couple of disagreements with him.

But they aren't "show-stoppers" in and of themselves, at this point.

But yeah, Duncan Hunter is a man with feet of clay, and I am not entirely sure how well he can bear up under the mantle of such a high seat.

But I trust him better than some of these considered 'weightier' than he, who have pulled some whoppers they consider worthy of brushing aside or of high praise!

Anyway, at this point in time, as premature as this is, I probably will vote for Duncan Hunter. In the Primary.

I hope some of you will consider - not my own vote, particularly - but those MILLIONS of your friends and neighbors who won't vote RINO in '08, no matter what - and please vote in the Primary TO COURT THEIR VOTE IN THE GENERAL!

I think THEIR votes are worth courting. I think the DIRECTION they want this nation to go is WORTH CONSIDERING, seeing the alternative is plainly before you like the wake of a tornado.

" That means that any of the current Republican candidates will work for me except the two on the extremes--Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. "

You think if any of the other Repubs get elected, that will end abortions? It won't.

Your choice, in this particular General election, is either the Repub or the Dem (probably HRC). I'm leaning towards Fred, though I'm under no illusions that abortion will change one whit under a Thompson admin.

IMO, if the candidate turns out to be Rudy (I said 'if'):
grit your teeth, vote for the candidate that gives you most of what you want in a President, and work for an electable pro-lifer in the next cycle. After he is elected, keep the heat on him and hopefully he won't make the 'pro-abortion' laws any worse.

Don't be a baby and sit out the election. You know, these election thingies are an ongoing process, not a one-time-event. That's American democracy. If you lose one election or primary, you don't pout and take your ball and run home; you work for better candidates in the next election. Because there is always another election.

The choices are Repub, Dem or Stay Home And Pout.

'IF RUDY is elected, keep the heat on him and hopefully he won't make the 'pro-abortion' laws any worse.'

..is what I meant to say above.

"grit your teeth, vote for the candidate that gives you most of what you want in a President, and work for an electable pro-lifer in the next cycle. After he is elected, keep the heat on him and hopefully he won't make the 'pro-abortion' laws any worse.

Don't be a baby and sit out the election."

***********************************************

Sorry Les, but voting for a pro-abortion candidate is not an option for me. I am not the most religious person in the world, and I slack off in terms of my church attendance, but I am Catholic and I do believe in God. When I was younger, and I first learned what abortion was, and that it was perfectly legal in this country, I was absolutely devestated. I cried a lot and prayed a lot. I could not believe that this country, which I had always believed to be a light for goodness and justice and human rights would actually allow--even sanction--such a great evil. And when I prayed, I promised to God that I would use what power I had--my vote--to fight abortion. I promised that I would never, ever vote for a candidate that supported abortion. Making a vow like that is not something I do often or in a trivial manner. And it is not a vow I will break. Giuliani has no chance of getting my vote in any election unless he changes his position on abortion.

I will not sit out the election, however. I will vote in the primary, most likely for Thompson or McCain. I will vote in the general election, but if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I will not vote for him. My vote will go to a third party or I will write in someone, probably, again, Thompson or McCain.

real smart Nicole....

Wrong! We are not pragmatists. We are idealists. If the Republican party walks away from us and acts like the perverts in the Democratic party, we will walk away from the Republicans.

If Republicans want abortionists, then it is time they need a little moral medicine. The Republicans need to be ruled by a bunch of perverted liberals as punishment for their immoral behavior.

Choose today! As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Not the satanic abortionists.

Ra,

Check your meds. By staying home you elect dems who personally have told you on so many previous occasions that you will continue to pay for every one's abortions with you tax dollars.

You are not to bright......actually you sound like today's radical muslims.

The nation is moving pro-life. Abortionists are killing their children and Christians are loving and cherishing all their children. Just when the corner is being turned the Republicans walk away from pro-lifers. Be stupid! Be immoral! Enjoy your abortions.

Its looks as if it is time for America to be deservedly punished. Who can do that better than Hillary?

"Its looks as if it is time for America to be deservedly punished. Who can do that better than Hillary?"

Well, there you go Nicole. You and RA can go be two peas in a pod. Does the thought of that give you pause?

Get the best you can this time, try for better the next time.

Les, I can't speak for anyone else's opinion. Nor do I think America deserves to be punished (and while I don't like Hillary and disagree with her on most issues, I think it's going a bit far to say her election would be a "punishment"). But there comes a time when we are all tested, and we must determine what our principles are. No matter how much better Giuliani may be than Hillary on other issues, and no matter how easy it might be for me to rationalize voting for Giuliani if he is the Republican nominee, I know in my heart it would be wrong. I cannot go against my conscience. Some things are bigger than Republican v. Democrat. There are some principles that cannot be compromised. The right to life is one of them.

Arnold and McClintock were not just floating out there on their own. The state Party machine made a deliberate calculation as to who would get the bulk of public and private endorsements, and the donations, and the volunteers, and it wrongly chose to back Arnold to the hilt. He did not run as an independent, after all.

You want a long-term cost/benefit analysis? Ok... if Hillary wins then the campaign for 2010 starts up, and no (R) will say a frickin' word against our pigheaded 'holier-than-thou' contintental eternal megawhining that helps torpedo the worst excesses of the Clinton Administration, just as we helped torpedo the worst excesses of the Bush Administration.

If Rudy wins then we will be told that it was a total affirmation of the liberal Republican agenda, whatever that turns out to be, and that the abandonment of the 20th century conservative reform movement is totally necessary. No (R) will pay any attention to it in 2010 or 2012 or 2014 or 2016. For ten years we will hear this same speech about maturity, coalition building, and the Republican duty to drown our conscience for the good of the Party. It will not be about what is right or good or practical. It will be about whether we support Rudy.

Dis the pro-lifers and enjoy Hillary. Evil has consequences. When your a moral person you don't need meds.

"Its looks as if it is time for America to be deservedly punished. Who can do that better than Hillary?"

You think you have that kind of power? You don't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Keep that kind of dishonorable talk up and no one will be listening to one word you have to say. And that sentence will make a great campaign promotion for us. Dis the American voter and you will reap double what you sow.

Christianity reviles your statements.

"The choices are Repub, Dem or Stay Home And Pout."

************

No, the choices are 1)Liberal Socialist, 2) Liberal Socialist "LYTE" with an (R), 3) or Conservative.

Try to sink the ship two different ways, or try to pull the ship back from the edge.

If you cannot pull it back from the edge, have you done a great thing to choose to sink it?
Not hardly.
"Well, WE just want to sink it a little more SLOWLY than the MEAN OLD DIMS".

You GOP RINO lovers are like the captain of the Titannic - "This ship is great and this ship and I don't need Gawd Almighty, and FULL STEAM AHEAD straight into the iceburg field! AND DAMN THE TORPEDOES!"

And if we don't want to steam full blast into the iceburgs, you tell us to sit on it and rotate, and stoke the engines anyway. Because it'll work if WE get on board YOUR disaster looking for a place to happen!

Yeah, RIGHT!

Posted by RA | October 11, 2007 6:09 PM

Dis the pro-lifers and enjoy Hillary. Evil has consequences. When your a moral person you don't need meds.

You need meds to address your ignorance hiding behind phony righteous.

What part of this are you having a hard time with:

By not voting you are helping to elect Hillary. A candidate that would expand abortion at every opportunity including partial birth abortions.
So when you are on your knees praying for forgiveness include that in your begging.

You need to be real about what we can do. Go read Maggie Gallagher's current column.

You won't get a strong enough turnout to elect a Rudi, regardless of what the polling data tells you, just like Robert Dole - regardless of Perot. Those who turned out to vote for Perot would have just stayed home if he hadn't been there - FACT! They never would have gone if Perot wasn't there, to vote for Dole - in the face of Clinton, whom they knew! They hated Dole worse than Clinton because HE PRETENDED TO BE BETTER. But he was a blatant backstabber didn't care who saw what he did to Bush Sr. FOR THE DIMS.

(I went to vote for a write-in, that Election.)

You cannot get them to turn out for a Rudi, and if they find out the truth about the other of these RINOS, it will be the same for them.
Not because they don't comprehend about Hillary.

Listen - I talked and pushed and shoved and pulled fro all I was worth, IN TEXAS, for George Bush Jr, with people who voted for him for Governor - in the Presidentials - TO NO AVAIL.

I voted for Bush - these guys are NOT SORRY THEY DID NOT. I am still glad I did, I am pro-Bush, and NOT just anti-Gore and Hanoi John!

I am telling you, sincerely, the polls CANNOT tell you who won't show up to vote at all, when you look at these "GREAT POLLS" for Rudi, Mitt, Fred, Huckabee, etc.

These people say to anyone who asks, these guys inthe GOP are just as bad.

You know what they said in 2004? We did what you asked, we gave them the HOUSE, the SENATE, and the WHITE HOUSE - and they didn't DISMANTLE ANY OF THE HORRIBLE STUFF THE DIMS DID - THEY BUILT ON IT.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES.

These RINOS are the worst candidates the GOP has EVER put forward - all the way down through Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback.

Mike Huckabee, READY TO MONITOR YOUR HOME FOR SMOKING AND WEIGHT PROBLEMS - ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT REGARDLESS OF PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL PROBLEMS - READY TO TELL AMERICANS THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAL CARE!!!

You should see people's faces down here when I tell them FRED VOTED NOT GUILTY ON THAT PERJURY FOR AN INTERNATIONALLY AIRED DEPOSITION IN A PERSONAL INJURY LAW SUIT - as if Bill had the right to molest those females and then harrass them and any witnesses into silence, like European ROYALTY of the Middle AGES????

People around here sat on their couches and watched EVERY SECOND of the Watergate hearings, the Clarence Thomas Hearings, THE OJ TRIAL, and other stuff like that!

HOPING TO SEE JUSTICE COME EVEN TO THE HIGH AND MIGHTY, without "RESPECT OF PERSONS" - according to our Constitution.

They saw the GOP POLITICIANS STAND BY AND ALLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS TO BE REMOVED FROM JUDGE ROY MOORE'S COURTOOM! STAND BY AND ALLOW TERRY TO BE MURDERED. (PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED!)

KELO!!! NO JUDGE HAS LOST HIS JOB OVER KELO!!!

THEY SIMPLY DO NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE!

If you think they BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that RUDI, or Mitt, or Fred will give them JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS that are better than the 9th CIRCUS, better than the clowns like Judge BUTTONS who let the Sierra Club make a mockery of property rights in Texas, better than GINSBURG, no matter WHAT they promise, NOW.

Let me tell you, THEY DO NOT!

They do NOT perceive these RINOS as "THE CARROT".

They do NOT perceive the GOP as an IMPROVEMENT over the DIMS.

Because when they have control THEY DO NOT DISMANTLE THE DAMAGE! We are lucky if the BLOCK TEMPORARILY.

Look at Health care today! DO YOU THINK IT IS AS GOOD AS IN '92?
You think people don't know the GOP LET INCREMENTAL DESTRUCTION TAKE PLACE WITHOUT RAISING A HUE AND CRY???? THEY ALLOWED 75% of Hillary Care '94 to become the law of the land, piecemeal???

WHILE THEY WERE IN POWER - JUST LIKE THEY HAVE DONE ABOUT THE SHAMNESTY????

They only do right, now, ONLY when the FLOODLIGHTS are on them, and people are weary of having to be at FLOODLIGHT stages 24/7/52.

RUDI HAS SUED THE FEDS TWICE IN FAVOR OF MAKING NYC A SANCTUARY CITY. I live an hour and a half from Mexico's border. RUDI IS NOT BETTER.

Fred is a BILL CLINTON ENABLER. I would rather charge him as a fellow conspirator if Bill ever got the trial he deserves!

Statements come out NOW that Huckabee has said OUTSIDE THE SPOTLIGHT, of his PRO-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION stance - again, I LIVE CLOSE TO THE MEXICO BORDER - Huckabee the SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN - is a SOCIALIST AND A LIAR - NOT BETTER THAN HILLARY!
Sam Brownback ENABLES McCain the Gang of 14, McCain Feingold THOMPSON, etc, etc, etc...

FIND ME A CARROT! Don't try to feed me a METAL IMMITATION LOOK-A-LIKE SO THAT THE HUNTER CAN USE A MAGNET TO REAL ME IN! That didn't work for Wile E. Coyote and Elmer Fudd.

You will have to find someone acceptable to you AT LEAST AS FAR RIGHT AS DUNCAN HUNTER. I am not going further LEFT that Bush Jr or Duncan Hunter.

Because nobody to the LEFT of them can save this nation from going over the edge, even if they do "spare you Hillary".

That is like, you see Wile E. Coyote (GOP) get hold of the stick of dynamite in time to put out the fuse to save himself, and then see that he stopped running to catch it out about 10 feet over the cliff, then he falls hundreds or thousands of feet to the canyon floor, and then his boulder follows him down and lands on him.

Don't tell me these guys CAMPAIGNING RIGHT of where they governed, RIGHT of where they have already expressed THEIR OWN HEART is, are going to govern RIGHT of George Bush. They will NOT.

Fred and Mike have made statements of "unity" or of NOT LETTING THE DIMS OWN a particular SOCIALIST position!

So for as far as Hillary is concerned - what the Right is telling you is, if the boat is ALREADY SWAMPED AND GOING DOWN and YOU WILL NOT START THE PUMPS TO BAIL IT OUT, then don't tell us that Hillary, drilling more holes in the HOLD is going to make things WORSE!

When you REFUSE TO STOP UP THE HOLES PULL THE DIMS OFF MAKING MORE HOLES AND REFUSE TO START THE PUMPS REFUSE TO RIGHT THE LISTING, that Hillary can make it worse!

HOW!!!

Are murderers and rapists more likely to be convicted and get a RIGHT AND JUST SENTENCE today than in '98?

Do Christians have to go to the court LESS to protect their First Amendment rights TODAY, than 15 years ago?

Do we feel safer with the 6 FLYING IMAMS not only FREE but SUING WITNESSES in AMerican courts?

DO YOU SEE THE GOP UP IN ARMS AT BUSH FOR SAYING WE HAVE TO TURN TWO CONVICTED ILLEGAL ALIENS FREE FOR THE MURDER OF TWO GIRLS IN TEXAS BECAUSE AN INTERNATIONAL COURT ORDERED TEXAS TO DO SO???

Do you see the GOP making sure those who HUMAN SHIELDED FOR SADDAM GOT TRIED FOR TREASON?????????

Is FRED THOMPSON WHO CALLED BILL CLINTON'S PERJURY A "TRIVIAL MATTER" supposed to make us feel America is going in the RIGHT DIRECTION???????????

I heard David Barton a few nights ago list off the American men who have been impeached for FAR LESS than what Clinton does in ONE WEEKEND, based on the same definition of "IMPEACHEABLE OFFENCES" - and their cases didn't even include PERJURY TO PROTECT HIMSELF - JUST THE DEBAUCHERY!

One case was about lewd remarks one politician made to a woman, unprovoked and uninvited and uncalled for. Because a politician isn't supposed to treat the constituents so disrespectfully. They do NOT have "the Royal Privileges".

And he wasn't even talking about Fred Thompson!

You've pointed out already, NOT RUDI AND NOT SOMEONE RIGHT OF HIM WILL SAVE THE BABIES from Dim bad horrible inconsistent antiConstitutional case law - and then tell us they ae better than Hillary. THINK ABOUT IT.

Well, they said last year we couldn't stop the influx of illegal immigration, or make them go home. And in less than 6 months after they gave up on the GOP, and started taking local actions on their own, there are areas that are making the aliens FLEE.

If the Head at the GOP won't help us correct the damage, what good are they to us. They are an albatross.