|
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Rejecting Rudy
It seems a lot of Republicans these days are urging Conservatives to "be pragmatic" and vote for Rudy Giuliani next November if he's the Republican nominee. "We have to stop Hillary!" we are told, and that's true. However, if the Republican party puts Giuliani forward as their candidate, election day will find me going straight home after work, instead of to the polls. And I'm not alone in that decision.
I'm not particularly religious. I don't care what James Dobson or his ilk have to say. They don't speak for me. However, I do hold myself to certain principles, one of which is that I won't cast my vote for a person who holds the wrong position on so many key issues. Some disagreement is one thing -- I voted for Bush despite his unwillingness to control Congressional spending and our borders -- but why would I vote for someone who hardly agrees with me at all?
Rudy Giuliani was tough on criminals during his stint as New York City's mayor, which -- imagine that! -- led to a drop in the crime rate. His response to 9/11 was sterling, and his reply to the Saudi prince who donated money for the families of those killed on 9/11 but blamed America for that atrocity was especially praiseworthy. Not many people get the chance -- or would dare take it if they did -- to tell a member of the Saudi royal family where to stick his money. Long before 9/11, Giuliani had terrorist leader Yasir Arafat ejected from a Lincoln Center event for world leaders. As President, Giuliani would probably be fairly tough on terrorists and would-be terrorists, and would likely continue Bush's policies of tapping our enemies' phone conversations and aggressively interrogating them when captured. Also, Giuliani is unlikely to let Congress raise taxes on businesses and punish individuals for making "too much" money.
But that's about as far as my admiration for Rudy Giuliani goes. Because, to paraphrase an old book I read once, what's the point in winning against the global jihad if America loses it soul? It's an important issue, perhaps the most important issue, but not the only issue. It's not enough just to beat the enemy. What are we fighting for, at that point?
Rudy Giuliani believes Americans have a "right" to abortion. He does not, however, believe in our right to "keep and bear arms," at least not without government oversight and control (which pretty much removes the purpose of that right altogether). He also believes non-Americans have the "right" to sneak into our country, violate our laws, and get rewarded by permission to stay... a glaring exception to his "tough on crime" stance, in my opinion.
Giuliani has stated he will only appoint originalist Justices to the Supreme Court -- those who believe the Constitution must be followed as written, not that its words can be "interpreted" to fit the reader's agenda of the moment. But the role of a President is much larger than that in any debate. The President of the United States has the biggest voice in the country -- arguably, in the world. How can anyone make the case for the protection of innocent life, the preservation of our most sacred rights, and the prosecution of anyone who violates our immigration laws when he doesn't really believe in those things himself? At best, Giuliani's speeches on those subjects would seem forced and weak -- full of caveats, backtracking and wavering. Sensing his lack of direction and determination on those issues, Congress would fail to follow his lead. President Giuliani would never get a truly originalist Justice through the Senate, despite his promises to nominate them.
If I'm faced with the choice between a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with an "R," or a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with a "D" after his or her name, I don't really see the point in choosing one over the other. That letter doesn't mean as much to me as the person in front of it, and the principles for which he or she stands. Sure, one of them might fight terrorists more aggressively and keep the economy strong by not raising taxes. But for what purpose?
If Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we Conservatives have already lost the fight for America. The choice between Left and more Left is no choice at all.
Posted at Tuesday, October 09, 2007 by CavalierX
 | | | Jim
October 10, 2007 02:24 AM PDT
Here, here! and Amen! I really appreciate what you've written here, because I've been trying to come to this conclusion myself. I love how you ask "what are we fighting for?"
I'm tired of being made to feel guilty for having an opinion, and, since I'm going to be a bigot and hatemonger no matter what I do, I'm going to do what I want! It's the individuals that should run this country, not the other way around. We need our local governments to be strong, because that's where we live. We don't need some faceless entity in Washington that has all the power and can't control or fix anything. | |
| | | SallyGirl
October 10, 2007 10:19 AM PDT
I see my brother has beat me to the "Hear hear!" and "Amen!" portion of the comments so I'll just add my little comment here:
Damn skippy! | |
| | | cogs
October 10, 2007 10:52 AM PDT
Your decision is foolish and shows a real lack of political will. In truth, Giuliani reduced abortions in the state of New York, (Giuliani's aides note that abortions dropped 16.8 percent in New York City during the mayor's tenure, compared to 12.8 percent for the nation. The difference, they said again, was the culture of life he established.) and his position on the second amendment is one of support. The kind of gun control Giuliani supports is the kind which would keep law abiding citizens owning guns and criminals without ownership. That makes sense. The right to keep and bear arms is not the right of every American, but only those who have demonstrated that they pose no threat to society through ownership. Imposing licensing regulations on gun retailers to ensure that criminals don't have easy access to firearms is not a mistake. Also, Giuliani believes that it should be up to the states to regulate firearm sales for the most part. This brings me to my conclusion,,, for the state of New York there were many things that Giuliani needed to do to make the place habitable by any civilized standards, and he accomplished those with the implementation of conservative programs choosing a culture of life and law. He is a strict Republican, meaning he wants to give more power back to the states supporting Jim's comments about how individuals should run the country. If Clinton wins the presidency because enough republicans choose selfish decisions like yours, the whole country will regret it for decades to come, for everyone who knows anything knows that the battle in 2008 is for the next 1-2 supreme court justices. Should Hillary win you can forget about 'the right to life' as an issue for 40 years... and I would worry considerably about the 2nd amendment as well. | |
| | | CavalierX
October 10, 2007 08:17 PM PDT
>Your decision is foolish and shows
>a real lack of political will.
It's interesting, I suppose, to hear from people who will always vote the straight Republican ticket no matter what they say or do. Well, maybe not. They have nothing to say except "Vote Republican no matter what!"
>Giuliani reduced abortions in the
>state of New York
He did no such thing. Abortions went down, but not due to Giuliani. He still believes it is a right. Just ask him.
>Giuliani's aides note that
Ahh, good to see you use unbiased sources.
>The kind of gun control Giuliani
>supports is the kind which would
>keep law abiding citizens owning
>guns
With the kind permission and oversight of the government, of course, which (as I said) removes the point of even having that right.
>The right to keep and bear arms
>is not the right of every American,
Have you ever even READ the Constitution?
>but only those who have
>demonstrated that they pose no
>threat to society through
>ownership.
So only gun owners should be allowed to own guns.
>He is a strict Republican
Then the Republican party no longer represents me, if their preferred choice is Rudy Giuliani.
>If Clinton wins the presidency
>because enough republicans
>choose selfish decisions like yours
It's "selfish" to vote my conscience? I should shut up about my beliefs and positions on the issues, and just vote for the Republican guy no matter who he is, is that it? If Clinton wins the Presidency, it will be because the Republican party no longer represents enough of the country to win an election, like the Whigs. Perhaps you'd better direct your energies towards convincing the Republican party to field candidates who represent the people, instead of telling people they're "selfish" if they don't vote the way you tell them. What a horribly un-American thing to say. | |
| | | cogs
October 11, 2007 12:09 PM PDT
Barring an alternative who actually has a chance at defeating socialists, you can bet your right arm that I will vote the Republican candidate. You are not hurting my feelings, but then I think I’ve thought this through more thoroughly than you.
You've confirmed that abortions went down in NY under Giuliani... how then? How then did adoptions go up so dramatically in New York under Giuliani? You’ve provided no explanation.
Licensing guns does not remove ones right of ownership. Being a criminal does. If you act like a child, the government (me, my wife,,, father, mother, neighbors, and otherwise law abiding citizens) should treat you like one.
Only those who can demonstrate a respect for law, in other words 'adults', should be allowed to own guns.
Your conscience huh? Your care for the helpless victims of abortion is confounded. Are you really suggesting you are here to help them? When Hillary (not just a pro-choice candidate, but a strong abortion proponent and promoter, a shill for NARAL, NOW etc...) becomes President, controls both the House and Senate, somehow you think fewer lives will be saved? The first order of business would be to draft legislation to attempt to scrap the Hyde amendment. She would then proceed to make federally funded abortions the right of a greater and greater population of woman. On the contrary, Giuliani has promised to nominate strict constructionist judges ‘in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito’ to the Supreme Court, (What part of the equation in overturning Roe v. Wade needs explanation?) and has vowed to support the Hyde amendment and will veto any legislation which would attempt to overturn it.
I would hate to have your dilemma. Confused about what is right. Voting to preserve your ego-state or, alternatively, to renew a culture that embraces human life. This issue is about public policy… policy that will certainly affect us for decades… perhaps even generations… but you want to make it about your feelings.
| |
| | | CavalierX
October 11, 2007 05:44 PM PDT
>you can bet your right arm that I
>will vote the Republican candidate
And so do the Republican party leaders, which will allow them to put forth a RINO like Rudy as their candidate. They think you don't have a choice. But you do. The primaries have not yet taken place. But maybe you ARE more concerned that your "team" wins elections than whether it adheres to Conservative and American principles.
>You've confirmed that abortions
>went down in NY under Giuliani...
>how then?
No, I accepted your statement that the number of recorded abortions dropped... but it went down everywhere else, too. You have yet to back up your contention that Giuliani was responsible for NYC's drop (but not, I suppose, the drop elsewhere).
>Licensing guns does not remove
>ones right of ownership. Being a
>criminal does.
We already have plenty of laws and regulations that force law-abiding citizens to jump through flaming hoops before they are "allowed" to exercise their natural rights, while criminals just buy guns in back alleys. More restrictions on the good guys won't hurt the bad guys one bit.
>Only those who can demonstrate
>a respect for law, in other
>words 'adults', should be allowed
>to own guns.
One must be 18 to LEGALLY buy a handgun. Again, placing more restrictions on the law-abiding citizens will not harm the criminals at all.
>Your conscience huh?
Yes, haven't you heard of this remarkable invention before?
>Your care for the helpless victims
>of abortion is confounded.
Well, it apparently confounds YOU, at any rate.
>Are you really suggesting you are
>here to help them?
No, I'm really stating that I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Why don't you read what I wrote instead of trying to reword it?
>When Hillary (not just a pro-
>choice candidate, but a strong
>abortion proponent and promoter,
>a shill for NARAL, NOW etc...)
>becomes President
Maybe the best way to ensure that she doesn't would be to field a Conservative candidate who actually represents the majority of Americans, instead of trying to triangulate and manipulate your way to a RINO victory. Trying to scare people into voting for Giuliani by saying Hillary would be worse just won't work. Put forward a better candidate, then you can stop trying to use fear to win the election and do it on principles.
>I would hate to have your
>dilemma.
I have no dilemma. I have resolved it by making a decision based on principle. No pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate will ever get my vote. Period. | |
| | | cogs
October 16, 2007 03:12 PM PDT
(you can bet your right arm that I
will vote the Republican candidate)
And so do the Republican party leaders, which will allow them to put forth a RINO like Rudy as their candidate. They think you don't have a choice. But you do. The primaries have not yet taken place. But maybe you ARE more concerned that your "team" wins elections than whether it adheres to Conservative and American principles.
>We’re not talking about primaries here. In your scenario, Rudy has already won the primary. Follow the script. By my ‘Conservative and American’ principles, I lost a long time ago. That doesn’t mean I stop playing the game. In order to bring them back, I’ve got to realize that baby steps are necessary. You won’t change a culture by losing.<
No, I accepted your statement that the number of recorded abortions dropped... but it went down everywhere else, too. You have yet to back up your contention that Giuliani was responsible for NYC's drop (but not, I suppose, the drop elsewhere).
>True, but more dramatically in New York. I did cite a basis for my argument (‘Rudy’s aides’ – in a report from Politifact.com). There is more there like, “…Though his effort to reduce abortions may not have been spelled out while he was mayor, they say it was evident in the way he created "a much better New York." You could see it, they said, in his efforts to get people off welfare, improve children’s lives, create new jobs, promote personal responsibility, clean the city and reduce crime — all of which resulted in "a safe city that leads people to choose life."<
We already have plenty of laws and regulations that force law-abiding citizens to jump through flaming hoops before they are "allowed" to exercise their natural rights, while criminals just buy guns in back alleys. More restrictions on the good guys won't hurt the bad guys one bit.
>How do you conflate more restrictive licensing laws to more restrictions on only good guys? How the heck do you think criminals get guns in back alleys? They buy them from other criminals, not from “good guys”. I don’t think anyone, especially Rudy, would tell you that the reforms were designed to restrict ownership to “good guys” and give more opportunity to criminals. Yours is a foolish argument. The reforms are an effort to keep criminals from having access to those back alley exchanges. So it takes you an extra 5 minutes to buy a gun because they want to see if any guns you’ve purchased in the past have turned up as a murder weapon… Or, as a gun shop owner, they require more accurate record keeping on gun transactions… what a travesty of the justice.<
One must be 18 to LEGALLY buy a handgun.
>You’ll notice the word ‘adult’ is encapsulated in single quotations, its an allusion to maturity.<
(Your care for the helpless victims
of abortion is confounded.)
Well, it apparently confounds YOU, at any rate.
>Well it does confound me… who are you trying to help again?<
No, I'm really stating that I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Why don't you read what I wrote instead of trying to reword it?
>I’ll have to check the records, but I don’t believe that Giuliani has stated anywhere that he is Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice for sure… but that is a constitutional issue. One can be Pro-Choice, but be vehemently opposed to abortion… you understand the distinction, right?<
Maybe the best way to ensure that she doesn't would be to field a Conservative candidate who actually represents the majority of Americans…
>You’ve got that right. Unfortunately, what you fail to understand is that that nominee is Giuliani. Whether you like it or not, a majority in this country supports a pro-choice position on early term abortion. I don’t like it, but that is the way it is. As pro-lifers, we are outnumbered, even within our party. That is no reason, however to make ‘perfect’ the enemy of ‘good’.<
…instead of trying to triangulate and manipulate your way to a RINO victory.
>If not a Republican, how would you characterize Giuliani? By all accounts, what he did in New York was certainly conservative and fiscally responsible. In my reading of what defines a ‘republican’, ‘pro-choice’ is a hallmark. (Would you rather a Monarch, a Radical Socialist, or a tyranny of judges?... You’re not calling him a tyranny of judges are you?) Especially, choice at the state level. Giuliani, on many occasions, has encouraged the right of states to be unencumbered by the federal system.<
Trying to scare people into voting for Giuliani by saying Hillary would be worse just won't work. Put forward a better candidate, then you can stop trying to use fear to win the election and do it on principles.
>Therein lies the rub. Whose principles are you talking about? I have little confidence any longer in ‘American’ principles, nor the average American’s knowledge or interest in the political process for that matter. Socialists aren’t principled in case you haven’t noticed. They also control the medium for the dissemination of morals and values; school and television. It used to be the family and Church, but alas, I guess TV is more interesting. In a country where three quarters of high-school students think it Ok to cheat on their tests, you want to rely on the current culture, without a decade or so of precursory messianic conservatism, to vote for a Republican candidate far to the right of GWBush, John McCain, or yes, Giuliani? A recipe for disaster my friend. I wish it weren’t so, but if we play the game right, and stick together, we can right the ship. It won’t happen all at once or in one election. A national awakening of moral responsibility can start in 2008, but without shining the light on the influence of the media and academia and their ability to ‘socialize’ the populace, and without moving the court to a more subjugated role to the legislature, as intended, we have no chance of moving the ship of culture starboard, and that is what it will take for you and I to have the President of your dreams.<
I have no dilemma. I have resolved it by making a decision based on principle. No pro-abortion…
>Again, he is not pro-abortion…<
…anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate will ever get my vote. Period.
>See you in the gulag then… comrade.<
| |
| | | CavalierX
October 17, 2007 10:47 PM PDT
>We’re not talking about primaries
>here. In your scenario, Rudy has
>already won the primary.
My point is that he'd better NOT win the nomination. The only leverage I have in this matter is my vote. That's why I'm letting everyone know that if Giuliani gets the nomination, he won't get my vote.
>all of which resulted in "a safe city
>that leads people to choose life."
Please, stop with the campaign commercials. Quoting Giuliani's gushing, fawning aides doesn't prove anything.
>How do you conflate more
>restrictive licensing laws to more
>restrictions on only good guys?
Because only the "good guys" obey the laws. That should be obvious.
>I don’t believe that Giuliani has
>stated anywhere that he is Pro-
>Abortion. Pro-Choice for sure…
That's what I said. Pro-abortion. Are you trying to parse words like a Liberal lawyer? Are you going to say it "depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?" Giuliani supports allowing people to kill unborn children. You just admitted it. Dance around it all you like. He will not get my vote for that and the other reasons I mentioned.
>Whether you like it or not, a
>majority in this country supports a
>pro-choice position on early term
>abortion.
Yeah? Funny how abortion supporters are so afraid to put it up for a real vote, then... hiding behind an unconstitutional abomination like Roe v. Wade instead of letting the people decide. And MY position does not depend on what other people's position might be. I do NOT support a "pro-choice position on early term abortion." The choice gets made when the clothes come off.
>If not a Republican, how would
>you characterize Giuliani?
RINO. Socially Liberal. Insufficiently representative of me and my views.
>I have little confidence any longer
>in ‘American’ principles, nor the
>average American’s knowledge or
>interest in the political process for
>that matter.
Then I feel sorry for you. Just because you have surrendered your faith in your countrymen is no reason, however, for me to do the same.
>if we play the game right, and
>stick together, we can right the
>ship
By standing firm on my principles and encouraging others to do the same, I hope to do just that. However, I reject your characterisation of the political process as a "game." I will not vote for a social Liberal just to get someone with an "R" behind his name in the White House. If enough of us say the same, the Republican party leaders will have to listen if they want our votes. If not, then they do not deserve them. | |
| | | cogs
October 19, 2007 10:19 AM PDT
(We’re not talking about primaries
here. In your scenario, Rudy has
already won the primary.)
My point is that he'd better NOT win the nomination. The only leverage I have in this matter is my vote. That's why I'm letting everyone know that if Giuliani gets the nomination, he won't get my vote.
>Yeah… and I am saying either you are foolish if you mean what you say, or you are duplicitous and playing politics, trying to coerce others to vote other than Giuliani in the primary. Both are within your right. But the former is suicide and the latter becomes a problem if you are persuading others to do in the general what you ‘claim’ you would, but really won’t. Jim and Sallygirl now ‘think’ that voting one’s conscious is more important than saving unborn children. You should be proud.<
Please, stop with the campaign commercials. Quoting Giuliani's gushing, fawning aides doesn't prove anything.
>Poo, poo it all you want. There are stats and facts underlying the argument.<
Because only the "good guys" obey the laws. That should be obvious.
>Yes, and only “good guys” then will have guns.<
That's what I said. Pro-abortion. Are you trying to parse words like a Liberal lawyer?
>Nice try… what is more shameful, making the distinction between pro-abortion and pro-choice, or ‘divining’ the conscious of a New York City Mayor?<
Giuliani supports allowing people to kill unborn children.
>Giuliani supports the law. That is all. And not necessarily willingly.<
(Whether you like it or not, a
majority in this country supports a
pro-choice position on early term
abortion.)
Yeah? Funny how abortion supporters are so afraid to put it up for a real vote, then...
>C’mon, there are only two states who have passed legislation banning abortion. If it was so popular with the people, wouldn’t we have states across the country doing the same? Rick Santorum, the strongest pro-life advocate in congress lost his seat in 2006. What does that tell you? (your opinion lacks rational evaluation.)<
…hiding behind an unconstitutional abomination like Roe v. Wade instead of letting the people decide.
>And to think, you want to let any chance of overturning that ‘abomination’ fall by the wayside by ‘voting’ (or not voting) to feed your ego rather than doing what is right.<
RINO. Socially Liberal. Insufficiently representative of me and my views.
>Oh, I didn’t know that you were the standard bearer for the Republican model.<
By standing firm on my principles and encouraging others to do the same, I hope to do just that. However, I reject your characterisation of the political process as a "game." I will not vote for a social Liberal just to get someone with an "R" behind his name in the White House.
>I am not asking you to. I am asking you to reconsider the consequences of not voting for the candidate who most supports the constitution and least represents Socialism.<
If enough of us say the same, the Republican party leaders will have to listen if they want our votes. If not, then they do not deserve them.
>That is really the point now isn’t it. If enough of us say something, then they will listen. Well, we don’t have enough right now, saying what we want them to say, and to expect an organization to run a candidate that won’t get more than 47-48% of the vote in a general election is disaster. You cannot change public policy or the spirit of a culture when you lose. You must have a leadership role for change to take place.<
… to paraphrase an old book I read once, what's the point in winning against the global jihad if America loses it soul?
>America’s soul does no-one any good when America ceases to be.<
| |
| | | CavalierX
October 19, 2007 09:58 PM PDT
>I am saying either you are foolish
>if you mean what you say, or you
>are duplicitous and playing
>politics, trying to coerce others to
>vote other than Giuliani in the
>primary.
Well, then I'm foolish, but at least my conscience is clear. Have a nice life.
>Jim and Sallygirl now ‘think’
Ahh, I see you have come to the "flinging of cheap insults" phase of your non-argument.
>that voting one’s conscious is
>more important than saving
>unborn children. You should be
>proud.<
First, voting for a pro-abortion candidate will never save the lives of unborn children, so please stop lying. Second, I would be extremely proud, except that they already knew that voting their conscience was more important than voting for a RINO just to get the "R" in the White House before reading my article.
>Yes, and only “good guys” then
>will have guns.<
Since we have the presumption of innocence encoded in the Constitution, we are all considered "good guys" unless we have committed a crime. Your excessive gun control laws treat us like criminals until we prove our innocence.
>there are only two states who
>have passed legislation banning
>abortion. If it was so popular with
>the people, wouldn’t we have
>states across the country doing
>the same?
We will, as long as the abortion bans in those states are not overturned by judicial fiat or Left-wing threats.
>Rick Santorum, the strongest pro-
>life advocate in congress lost his
>seat in 2006.
You think that was because of his stance on abortion? I'd like to see you prove that assumption.
>you want to let any chance of
>overturning that ‘abomination’ fall
>by the wayside by ‘voting’ (or not
>voting) to feed your ego rather
>than doing what is right
You think a true Conservative wouldn't appoint originalist judges, but Giuliani -- who appointed mostly Liberal judges -- would? Please. Your "arguments" are getting weaker by the sentence.
>Oh, I didn’t know that you were
>the standard bearer for the
>Republican model
I never claimed to be a Republican. I am an unaffiliated Conservative. If the Republicans no longer represent me, it's their loss.
>I am asking you to reconsider the
>consequences of not voting for
>the candidate who most supports
>the constitution and least
>represents Socialism
Again, you're using fear tactics like a born Liberal. It would be better for the Republican party to run a candidate who represents the majority of the American people, instead of trying to convince people to vote for someone who does not represent them. Maybe in time you'll understand that.
>You must have a leadership role
>for change to take place
A leader would not have to beg for support. I don't remember Ronald Reagan saying "Come on, I'm at least slightly better than that other guy, right? Just a little bit?"
>America’s soul does no-one any
>good when America ceases to be
I wouldn't talk about America's soul when trying to force a pro-abortion candidate on us by transparent, cheap scare tactics. It's poor salemanship. | |
| | | cogs
October 22, 2007 02:24 PM PDT
(Jim and Sallygirl now ‘think’ that voting one’s conscious is
more important than saving
unborn children. You should be
proud.)
I don’t see the insult. It was your intention… to be persuasive that is.
>First, voting for a pro-abortion candidate will never save the lives of unborn children, so please stop lying.<
If the difference between Rudy and Hillary is the prevention of even 1 abortion, your argument fails. You are so blinded by your righteous indignation you don’t see it. I am sure that our Heavenly Father has the same opinion on this.
>Second, I would be extremely proud, except that they already knew that voting their conscience was more important than voting for a RINO just to get the "R" in the White House before reading my article.<
“I really appreciate what you've written here, because I've been ‘trying to come to this conclusion myself’.” - Jim
Doesn’t sound like Jim was that sure until he sought your oracular authority.
>Since we have the presumption of innocence encoded in the Constitution, we are all considered "good guys" unless we have committed a crime. Your excessive gun control laws
treat us like criminals until we prove our innocence.<
You know, you have a point there… I feel the same way when the dmv wants to check my vision before issuing me a driver’s license… or when those meddling police officers check my blood alcohol content after speeding away from the bar in my car.
(there are only two states who
have passed legislation banning
abortion. If it was so popular with
the people, wouldn’t we have
states across the country doing
the same?)
>We will, as long as the abortion bans in those states are not overturned by judicial fiat or Left-wing threats.<
What?
(Rick Santorum, the strongest pro-
life advocate in congress lost his
seat in 2006.)
>You think that was because of his stance on abortion? I'd like to see you prove that assumption.<
C’mon, I didn’t say it was because of… The fact that it didn’t seem to help him means that it wasn’t much of an issue with the people, was it.
>You think a true Conservative wouldn't appoint originalist judges, but Giuliani -- who appointed mostly Liberal judges -- would? Please. Your "arguments" are getting weaker by the sentence.<
My concern is that the candidate whom you are calling ‘a true conservative’ will alienate more people than Giuliani. Whether or not they appoint the right judges is irrelevant if they don’t win the general. Giuliani has given his word that he would seek judges of the caliber of Roberts and Alito. I do trust Giuliani to do what he says.
>I never claimed to be a Republican. I am an unaffiliated Conservative. If the Republicans no longer represent me, it's their loss.<
A real free thinker huh? A lone wolf… Isn’t that special.
>Again, you're using fear tactics like a born Liberal. It would be better for the Republican party to run a candidate who represents the majority of the American people…<
You said that already,,, I think you are confused about who the majority of Americans are.
>…instead of trying to convince people to vote for someone who does not represent them. Maybe in time you'll understand that.<
In time huh? Ok skippy. As a conservative, You’ll have three choices in the general. Republican, Democrat and ‘certain loser’. That’s just life… don’t shoot the messenger.
>A leader would not have to beg for support. I don't remember Ronald Reagan saying "Come on, I'm at least slightly better than that other guy, right? Just a little bit?"<
By your current standards, you would not have voted for Reagan either. He was elected because Americans perceived him to be a no-nonsense principal who could deal with the spread of Communism across the globe and a fiscal conservative who would pull the Carter (read Socialist) economy out of the mire. As important as the pro-life issue is, most ignored his expansion of abortion rights as California Governor. You, it is apparent, would not have.
| |
| | | Huck
October 22, 2007 06:29 PM PDT
CavalierX - This is one of the reasons why I respect you, though I almost always disagree with you. Personally, I would take all things into consideration, not just a few, weigh the least worst alternative, and, on the basis of considering the worse being better than the worst, hold my nose and vote accordingly. There are defensible arguments for this position. But there is also a lot merit in your principled stand.
One little bitty aside, though. You write: "Because, to paraphrase an old book I read once, what's the point in winning against the global jihad if America loses it soul?" I couldn't agree more, which is why I think Giuliani's support for "enhanced interrogation techniques" (what would otherwise be called torture if, say, Iran were to utilize such techniques against American citizens) and his cavalier dismissiveness of the sanctity of habeas corpus applied to all enemy combatants <i>on principle</i> in itself are reasons to oppose him, not support him. In many ways, under the Bush administration sanction of torture, we've already lost a bit of the best of our soul.
Hope you are well, CavalierX. | |
| | | cogs
October 23, 2007 12:57 PM PDT
Huck... thanks for the reasoned assessment.
On this torture issue... I'm quite sure that many of you on that side of the fence would sing a different tune if you or your loved ones were the next to die in a terrorist attack that could have been averted otherwise... But then the problem with the good intentioned in this country is that most will never face such a scenario, often because 'bad' men do difficult work in 'dungeons', so can only pontificate about how morally reprehensible subjecting someone to hours of Jessica Simpson music is... Torture... Please. | |
| | | CavalierX
October 24, 2007 09:09 PM PDT
>I don’t see the insult. It was your
>intention… to be persuasive that is.
The insult was to them, when you put the word "think" in quotes.
>If the difference between Rudy
>and Hillary is the prevention of
>even 1 abortion, your argument
>fails.
However, I am not making an argument anything like the one you seem to be hearing. I made a simple statement: I will not vote for someone who believes abortion is a right.
>I am sure that our Heavenly
>Father has the same opinion on
>this.
As an agnostic, I really wouldn't know. It's funny how abortion supporters always start making snide remarks and assumptions about a person's religious beliefs if that person doesn't believe killing babies is cool.
>Doesn’t sound like Jim was that
>sure until he sought your oracular
>authority.
More like he was unable to find the right words to express his own thoughts. And sarcasm is no substitute for an argument.
>I feel the same way when the
>dmv wants to check my vision
>before issuing me a driver’s
>license… or when those meddling
>police officers check my blood
>alcohol content after speeding
>away from the bar in my car.
In the first case, the laws of your state specify that you be checked for a physical impairment that would prevent your safely operating a motor vehicle... NOT the federal government. IN the second case, the cops have an extremely good reason to suspect you of committing a crime. Your blowhard attempt at an "argument" for presuming prospective gun owners guilty until proven innocent collapses under its own ponderous weight.
>C’mon, I didn’t say it was because
>of… The fact that it didn’t seem to
>help him
Please.. this is getting tedious... you clearly intimated that he lost becasue of his pro-life stance.
>My concern is that the candidate
>whom you are calling ‘a true
>conservative’ will alienate more
>people than Giuliani.
Then, as I said, America is already lost.
>I do trust Giuliani to do what he
>says.
Again, as I already said, he will be unable to push originalist judges through the Senate. Trust has nothing to do with it. You seem to rely on emotion and feelings instead of reason to make your arguments quite a bit, don't you?
>A real free thinker huh? A lone
>wolf… Isn’t that special.
If that's the best you can do, I may have to ignore your comments as a waste of time in the future. Once again, sarcasm is no substitute for an argument.
>I think you are confused about
>who the majority of Americans
>are.
They're certainly not Liberals, as I'm beginning to believe you are. If the majority really want abortion on demand, restrictive gun controls and amnesty for illegals, why not put them on the ballot in every state and let the people decide, then?
>As a conservative, You’ll have
>three choices in the general.
>Republican, Democrat and ‘certain
>loser’.
Once again, you are crowning Giuliani the Republican nominee without the formality of a vote. If enough people vote principle over party line in the primaries, that will not happen.
>most ignored his expansion of
>abortion rights as California
>Governor
That's one of the lamest Liberal attacks on Ronald Reagan. And the best answer to it is here:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/adamantly_pro_choice_ronald_reagan_and_abortion_in_1967
Funny that you keep calling yourself a Conservative, but sound more like a Liberal with every comment you make. | |
| | | CavalierX
October 24, 2007 09:15 PM PDT
>Personally, I would take all things
>into consideration, not just a few,
>weigh the least worst alternative,
>and, on the basis of considering
>the worse being better than the
>worst, hold my nose and vote
>accordingly.
I know, I know... but I have to look myself in the face when I shave every morning, and I know that I can't do that if I bend my principles so far as to vote for someone who's said he believes in "a woman's right to choose" death for an unborn child. And I really don't want to grow out a full beard again at this point, either.
>Hope you are well, CavalierX.
Thanks, huck, and the same to you. | |
| | | cogs
November 1, 2007 02:11 PM PDT
The insult was to them, when you put the word "think" in quotes.
>I am carrying a logic argument through to the conclusion that it is foolish to believe that voting your conscious is more important than voting to make a positive change… regardless of who you are. It is not an attack on any of you personally, but on the idea.<
However, I am not making an argument anything like the one you seem to be hearing. I made a simple statement: I will not vote for someone who believes abortion is a right.
>Great !! Giulianni thinks it’s an abomination… See we cleared this whole thing up.<
As an agnostic, I really wouldn't know. It's funny how abortion supporters always start making snide remarks and assumptions about a person's religious beliefs if that person doesn't believe killing babies is cool.
>Honestly… I was trying to appeal to the spirit of God which resides in all of us… even agnostics. I was once agnostic… all I needed was someone to help me define what I knew existed… a power beyond myself… a universal power… an omnipotent power… the source of Truth.<
(Doesn’t sound like Jim was that
sure until he sought your oracular
authority.)
More like he was unable to find the right words to express his own thoughts. And sarcasm is no substitute for an argument.
>No, clearly he was undecided and needed convincing. Here are his words again – “I've been trying to come to this conclusion myself.” - Not, “I’ve been struggling for the words to express this same belief”.<
In the first case, the laws of your state specify that you be checked for a physical impairment that would prevent your safely operating a motor vehicle... NOT the federal government.
>Oh, so you would be ok if the states enforced stricter gun registration legislation on you, just not the feds? I think Giulianni would agree with that.<
(C’mon, I didn’t say it was because
of… The fact that it didn’t seem to
help him)
Please.. this is getting tedious... you clearly intimated that he lost becasue of his pro-life stance.
>I assure you, that that is not my argument. If you are so sure that it is, why did you preface your prior remark with, “You think…?”<
Then, as I said, America is already lost.
>Yeah, you’re right. No reason to go on…<
(I do trust Giuliani to do what he
says.)
Again, as I already said, he will be unable to push originalist judges through the Senate.
>What is your reasoning for this statement? Is this the case for all would be GOP candidates or specific to Giulianni? Please explain.<
Trust has nothing to do with it.
>You didn’t even think about this statement, did you.<
You seem to rely on emotion and feelings instead of reason to make your arguments quite a bit, don't you?
>I’ll be your Huckleberry. Show me one instance other than my trusting a man at his word? Besides, I am not the one throwing a tantrum; sniveling like a little child about how I won’t show up to vote if ‘my candidate’ is not nominated. I am the one making a reasoned argument for voting for whichever candidate wins the GOP nomination because the alternative is Hillary Stali… Clinton.<
If that's the best you can do, I may have to ignore your comments as a waste of time in the future.
>Please feel free, but you’d be missing out on a great education.<
Once again, sarcasm is no substitute for an argument.
>Au contraire, sarcasm plays on the absurdities.<
(As a conservative, You’ll have
three choices in the general.
Republican, Democrat and ‘certain
loser’.)
Once again, you are crowning Giuliani the Republican nominee without the formality of a vote. If enough people vote principle over party line in the primaries, that will not happen.
>You seem to have a very difficult time following your own argument. Again, you argue that you would not vote for Giulianni in the general if he is nominated by the GOP. My whole argument is based on the assumption that he has been, which follows your premise.<
(most ignored his expansion of
abortion rights as California
Governor
That's one of the lamest Liberal attacks on Ronald Reagan. And the best answer to it is here:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/adamantly_pro_choice_ronald_reagan_and_abortion_in_1967)
>ahhh… the power of the internet… to make hindsight 20/20. LOL… Recent research does not equate to the prevailing opinion of 1967.
Lets review this argument again. You’ve really muddled it.
I said:
“By your current standards, you would not have voted for Reagan either. He was elected because Americans perceived him to be a no-nonsense principal who could deal with the spread of Communism across the globe and a fiscal conservative who would pull the Carter (read Socialist) economy out of the mire. As important as the pro-life issue is, most ignored his expansion of abortion rights as California Governor and elected him President. You, it is apparent, would not have.”
Obviously not an attack on Reagan, but an extrapolation that, holding the same view of a man who failed to veto pro-choice legislation, you would not have voted for Reagan. Without the luxury of historical research conducted 40 years after the fact, you - like many Americans did - would have viewed Reagan as pro-choice and, by your egocentric policy, would have shunned his candidacy.<
| |
| | | StarkTruth
December 19, 2007 11:07 AM PST
My only comment (cause I agree with Cav about 99% of the time) is that you can't avoid the polls if Giuliani gets the nod...that does nothing to deter the GOP from continuing its march toward the middle. Instead, you should go and write in a candidate or vote for a third party candidate or something...not casting your vote gives no ammo for those that want to bring the GOP back to the conservative side IMHO. I would rather "waste" my vote, than not cast it.
Besides, my belief.... and this is clearly just speculation, is that after McCain loses the primary, he is going to team up with Lieberman as an independent ticket....and then we have our "Centrist" party
Just the thoughts of a rambling idiot that once cherished politics and now despises the asshats that control it all. | |
| | | Maureen
January 9, 2008 08:32 PM PST
Ok, All that is written here has merit, but here is the quetion......I have looked into his eyes.........have you? The man is not all there...............enough said
It's a BIG NO for Rudy | |
|
|
