1
Why do I oppose Mitt and Rudy?  It's because I'm a conservative.  It's also why
I opposed Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton, and Carter.

2 Allah isn't the only masochist writing today.

3 Eh, I don't think people mind the flip-flopping, exactly, but the result of it.

Romney *seems* too fake, and this plus the easy "flip flop" tag will get him destroyed in the general.

Rudy, I still sort of like, except that the East Coast elite tried to shove him down Republican throats.  It's pretty clear that this would kill the party.  Plus, you forgot his huge problem with amnesty.

4 Meanwhile, everyone's taking a second look at McCain

Who's this everyone, Kemosabe? I won't vote for McCain, period.

I won't vote for him in the primary. I won't vote for him in the general.

5 It boggles my mind that Rudy isn't walking away with this.  For some strange reason, everybody doesn't think exactly like I do.  Weird.

6 Actually, the best case for the "Mitt couldn't win the general" argument -- which seems an obvious gut feeling to me, but obviously your own gut's milage may vary -- was made several months back by a Rudy supporter.

Y'all should read it.

7 >>>Romney *seems* too fake, and this plus the easy "flip flop" tag will get him destroyed in the general.

Yes, but, what of this "substance over style" thing I hear so much about?

Romney does come off as inauthentic.  Like Fred comes off as apathetic.  Neither's a good tag to have but it's not the most important thing.

Re: Getting destroyed in the general

Maybe, I dunno.  He does seem to me to be one of the weakest candidates versus the Dems, but I don't know.  A bit of success in the primaries may give him the confidence to not seem so phony and pandering all the time.

Hey, Fredheads are expecting their boy to transform in terms of manner and level of charisma soon, too.

8 Giuliani's fading because people are waking up to the fact that his personal life and his association with Bernie Kerik and the alleged Pederast Priest are big-time electoral liabilities. It has little to do with policy.

I'd rather think that Romney's problem is that he's too establishment in a year when voters are still fed up with GOP establishment. Also, some voters see his religion (which happens to be mine as well) as an electoral liability. Why he evokes visceral hatred in the Huckabee camp I think has more to do with the reality that southern Baptists have a particularly strong animus toward Mormon folk.

Unlike Ace though, I would never pull the lever for McCain. He is the one candidate that could make me vote for Hillary or Obama.

9 McCain's base of support is states with open primary systems.  In states where only Republicans vote in the Republican primary, he tanks.

If he gets the nomination, he gets my vote.  That's it.  No money, no volunteering...heck, I won't even really write anything in support of him.  Just the vote.

10 I won't vote for Rudy because I don't think he's a conservative at all.
He'd be a fine nominee for the Democrats I suppose.

I don't have a problem with Romney, wouldn't mind voting for him.

11 The other thing about Mitt's flip-flopping is that he's only swung hard right on social issues.  On Iraq, he's never actually stopped being the leftmost of the serious (Republican) candidates.

This is disturbing.

12 Why do I oppose Mitt and Rudy?  It's because I'm a conservative.  It's also why I opposed Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton, and Carter.

Well, there's the voice of reason.

Hey, skippy, I'm also a conservative and that's why I oppose Hitler and Carmel Mochiattos and boy bands. Unfortunately, none of those have anything to do with the point at hand; Guilliani and Romney are solidly conservative and if you don't think so, you are writing out 90% of the population. Good luck being the bottom 10%, chief.

PS. I figure the Stupid Party--of which, alas, I am a lifelong member--is afraid of Guiliani because these closeted homophobe Christianists--being illiterate barefoot zealot Bible-humping sister-bothering terrorists--never read his name. All they ever hear is Jew-lee-a-nee, and really, having a Hebe in the Big House is too much for them. I have no evidence for that, but I just going to go with that, because being a dick is too much fun.

13

Lifetime conservative here.  I got bona fides out the wazoo.

I can't vote for Giuliani because of the ick factor.  A man who is not honorable in his marital relations is generally not honorable in any relations.  Not impressed by his mayorship.

I can't vote for Romney, whom I like, because of the Mormon thing.  I just can't.  I don't for a minute believe that he will suddenly start taking orders from a dark cabal of Mormons; I just can't respect someone who believes this nonsense.  It's 19th century Scientology from a snake oil salesman.  Indians are the lost tribe of Israel?  Who came over here in submarines 3000 years ago? We all get to be gods when we die?  Dude.

McCain IS a conservative, (so sayeth the ACU), who took a bad turn on immigration amnesty.  His "maverick" stands include ending farm subsidies, which is about as conservative a position as you can have. 

I am a 9/11 voter now, and I don't doubt that he will do the best job on terrorism. 

14 On Iraq, he's never actually stopped being the leftmost of the serious (Republican) candidates.

Well, there's Huckabee.  I don't think he's a serious candidate, but he's certainly acting like one.

15 McCain IS a conservative, (so sayeth the ACU), who took a bad turn on immigration amnesty.

Among other issues.

Taxes
Free speech
The "deal" on judges.

16 "Hey, Fredheads are expecting their boy to transform in terms of manner and level of charisma soon, too."

No, we don't.  (We simply expect him to wear very well.  You're not going to get sick of Teh Fred -- quite the reverse.)

If he's the one R candidate in the general, the press certainly isn't going to be able to freeze him out as they do now.  Plus, the narrative of "comes from behind to win the primaries" will squash all the "fire in the belly" crap.

In fact, I think the comfortable, no-BS demeanor for which he's now getting knocked is absolutely the best way to destroy Hil.  Put the two of them on the same stage and there is no way a TV viewer is going to come out wanting to vote for her.

17

I don't think it's as much "animus" as it is a consequence of the primary process.  If you have a favorite candidate at this point, that implies you have made a choice between several candidates, and selected one over others - in the process identifying things you like about your candidate and things you don't about the others.  Identifying those things you don't like about the other candidates, for me at least, isn't showing animus.  It's applying subjective judgment.  There are a number of positions held by Romney and McCain that I consider too liberal.  However, if my first choice (Thompson) doesn't get the nomination, I'll still vote for the Republican nominee in the general.  But I'll be disappointed.

18

Ace,

I'll just address Rudy for now.

For one thing, you forgot immigration.  Rudy was a sanctuary city mayor.  That's a big 'un for a lot of people.

And on the abortion front, here's why I can't forgive Rudy.  It's not just because he flip flopped on the partial birth abortion ban - and I'm sorry, but being opposed to that ban isn't just pro-choice, it's -extremist- pro-choice - like Ron Paul level of crazy extremist.  All abortion is barbaric IMO, but that one is so evidently barbaric that someone has to be an amoral pustule not to "get it".

But fine, let's say everything else you said about that issue was right, that judges is all that matters and we can trust him despite him being a huge -extremist- on the issue.  Here's what I can't forgive.  Recently, he said he now supports a PBA ban.  When asked why, "Because now it contains an exception for the life of the mother."

This is fucking bullshit.  EVERY PBA ban that ever came across the books had an exception for the life of the mother. No one has ever even suggested passing a ban that didn't include that.  To sternly oppose such an exception -would- be pretty damn wrong.  But basically, Rudy slandered all pro-lifers in a massive way by claiming we opposed the life of the mother exception, like we'd all be happy to see mom die to save the baby.  And he slandered us -to get our vote-.  Fuck.  That.  Shit.

Add to that the guns, immigration, and overall just generally being a huge statist that makes every libertarian bone in my body cringe, no, I won't be voting for him in the general.

Romney, I'll vote for in the general if he wins, but I'll be holding my nose.

Qwinn

19 angler,

No I think it is actual animus for many.  I have nothing against most of the major candidates -- even McCain, I will vote for, with reservations.

But a lot of people just seem to be utterly dismissive of Romney or Giuliani, many vowing they'd never vote for either.

20

Ace,

I think a lot of the "animus" relates specifically to trust in relation to pro-life politics.  Social conservatives, being one of the 3 main planks of the party, have basically felt that they were treated as if they were expected to vote Republican but not to expect to receive much in results.  Social conservatives were very upset over the Hariet Miers nomination because they felt she would eventually drift leftward.  They felt betrayed that Bush would gamble the Court on such an unknown character, no matter if she was personally Evangelical.

Like fiscal conservatives, who refuse to vote for a person who raises taxes, social conservatives will not vote for someone untrustworthy on abortion.  Period.  That means that Guliani is out for them.  It doesn't matter that he promises to appoint judges.  Talk is cheap.  He's pro-choice.  There is no way that a Court would overturn Roe on his watch, or throw abortion policy to the states.  No chance.  So Guliani is out.

Romney is untrustworthy only because he was pro-choice in the past, and only recently says he changed his mind.  Social conservatives do not like to gamble on that kind of thing and would much rather prefer someone who has been historically pro-life their entire political career, like Thomas or even McCain.

It doesn't matter if the President is unable to influence these things or not.  Little things matter also.  For instance, every year the President has phoned into the March for Life rally.  It'll probably happen again this year.  It's a little thing, but it's a telling INSULT.  What, he can't show up?  Meanwhile, they have a black tie event for the White House Press Corps, and the President speaks at numerous other gatherings to various constituents.  Pro-lifers are supposed to feel satisfied that the President is even paying attention to them at all, apparently.

 A lot of the Huckabee surge is in part explained by his solid pro-life credentials, even if he is a liberal on anything else.  Seriously, abortion is a big, big factor in this race.  And I don't want to comment on any potential crack-up in the Reagan coalition, but social conservatives will not be Republicans if the Republicans do not continuously make efforts to slow, restrict, and end abortion in America.  No fiscal conservative would call himself a Republican if the Republicans kept raising taxes, or refused to fight against raising taxes.  Pro-lifers expect the same sort of treatment.

21 I'm with Dennis Miller on this whole thing. I'll vote for whichever repub get the nomination, but I think Rudy wants to kill jihadists the most, and that's trumps pretty much everything else.

I'm not worried about his ethics because that's the last thing Hillary! will want to talk about.

Guns? Abortion? What's the president going to do? Rudy's pledged to nominate Alito/Roberts type judges. That's about all they can do.

And I think he'll be fine on taxes and spending.

22 The MSM continues to encourage us to inspect Rudy's personal life with a microscope, and never once suggests that Hillary, Barack, or Edwards should be given the same scrutiny... in fact they scream "smear" anytime these factors are raised by anyone.  What is proper scrutiny for R's is unfair dirt-digging on D's.  It is not so amazing that the MSM plays the Dem's game, but that we do too!

23

Why The Animus For Romeny

Because they're gypsies! Nomadic hucksters and thieves and grifters.

24 Qwinn,

Oh yeah, immigration, I forgot that.  Yeah, he'll have plenty of control over that, and that's where I've knocked him the most.

I've said before why I think the "sanctuary city" thing is a bad knock -- look, 90% of the GOP was willing to go along with a don't-ask-don't-tell policy on illegals UNTIL last summer, so it's hardly fair to blame Giuliani for being in the GOP mainstream in the nineties.

On the other hand, he still talks up this stupid fucking "Virtual fence" and only occasionally mentions a real fucking fence.

25 Okay.  I'll stay in the 10%.  Flip-flopping is not my thing.  If that is what gets you into the 90% club, you can leave me out.  Fred hasn't had to "move to the right" like Mitt and Rudy have.  I'll stay where I am.

26 Mitt has flipped on gay rights, abortion, taxes, his opinion of Reagan, etc. Which would be fine if all his decisions about these topics didnt suddenly change the moment he decided to run for president.

His "life long hunter" "I saw my dad march with MLK" quotes and his handling of that situation seals the deal as far as my opinion that he will say whatever he thinks people want to hear at the moment.

I just dont trust the guy..

Rudy. I like him personally. But he is wrong on immigration. Wrong on the second amendment. His policies are just too liberal for me. No animus.The only thing that gets me angry is when people say we must vote for him "because he can win." Thats just stupid. I do trust him more than Romney though.

There are more reasons but you get the gist of it.

27 "not impressed by his mayorship?" WOW, just WOW! It's the only real thing going for him. I wonder who does impress you as a mayor?

28 Romney's acceptable to me as a second choice and I think he is to most people, except the direst Huckabot Roundheads.  I say often that I've actually come to like him more during the campaign that I did when it all started, so he's doing something right. 

29

People change their positions, sometimes out of conviction, sometimes out of convenience. It's not laudable, but I'd prefer a Romney who flip-flopped to conservatism to a McCain who keeps his precious "integrity" by maintaining his pro-amnesty views.

Best summary ever, Ace.

By the way, are you going to create a "Dungeons and Dragons Guide to the Candidates" for 2008? That one you did for 2004 caused me to fall out of my chair when I read it.

 

30

I'm fine with Mitt, Rudy, or Fred; no, there's not much ideological agreement in the three, but the first two have shown leadership qualities I like and the third is the one I agree with in terms of policy. I'd be happy with any of the three as a nominee. Yes, they all have weak spots, but all the candidates do. Let's be realistic here.

McCain.... eh, I don't like being called names because I disagree with a guy's views. Very impolitic there, John. But I would vote for McCain over any Democrat. I wouldn't be particularly pleased with it, but then it would take McCain out of the Senate, which is a plus. Some of the things he went for were shot down and would be shot down if he were Pres. So I'm not worried about the damage he could do re: immigration, as an example.

31

From an earlier Fred thread:

(And. I acknowledge that McCain would make a good CIC: but I take McCain-Feingold *personal*-like ...and I take his authorship of that piece of excrement legislation as de facto evidence that - unlike Bush 2 - he's truly dangerous when it comes to running rough-shod over the Constitution. Fuck 'im. Vote Hil'.)

So. I won't vote McCain regardless, even against Hilary. I'd vote Rudy in a pinch, but I'd choose Hilary Teh B!tch over Romney (who I'd only cast a vote for against Edwards or Obama ...as I've said before: because at that point I think we're hosed anyways, so what the hell, I'd vote party line).

...which shows that moron conservatives can also be complex morons.

 

 

32

With any of these guys you have to look at their stated positions and make up your own mind whether they're serious about them or just paying lip service, right? But it works both ways. Do you really believe any elected GOP president is going to walk away from Iraq just in time to blow the whole show? Hell, I don't believe any of the Donks would do it. So I wouldn't place a lot of importance on what any of them say when they sound less than bullish on Iraq.

I know we'd like a cheerleader to step forward and say out loud that we're staying for as long as it takes to get the place up and running and we're stealing the oil after all, but I suspect that doesn't poll well with women.

Damn stupid women.

I don't like Rudy because he's a statist, authoritarian asshole. I'm not sure I could vote for him for any other reason than to piss off Lefties, a not inconsiderable concern. But if it's raining that day? May not make it.

33 test

34 "On the other hand, he still talks up this stupid fucking "Virtual fence" and only occasionally mentions a real fucking fence."

Right.  If he wanted to be actually believed on a great-postshamnestydebacle-conversion, he would be pushing to go after these guys as hard as he likes to go after OTHER lawbreakers.

Between this and not being able to say that Roe was fucking bad law and should be obliterated ASAP, let's just say that the trust level on these issues is lacking.

35 Oh and as for why im supporting Thompson - it's just that simply cant vote for anyone else(except for Hunter). I dont even think of myself as a Republican anymore after the last few years of the way the party has run things.

Thompson sort of renewed my faith that there were a few conservatives out there.

Unfortunately he is bombing and I realize that a big part of our party is Jesus freaks and people who will pull the lever for anybody with an R in front of their name 'cause they can win!"

36 I really don't understand logic behind refusing to vote for whichever of these douchebags wins the nomination, unless one genuinely thinks Hillary!, Obama, or Edwards would be more conservative on any set of issues.

It's juvenile.

37 I don't want Rudi as president so much. I want him to come and be the major of Detroit.

38 Oh and Fuck Fred if he endorses McCain.

39 I will refuse to vote for Huck. He's pretty much the only one.

40 Oh, and Ron Paul, but we're not treating that seriously anyway.

41 "I really don't understand logic behind refusing to vote for whichever of these douchebags wins the nomination, unless one genuinely thinks Hillary!, Obama, or Edwards would be more conservative on any set of issues."

Because the party -- and the movement -- are about more than one election covering four years.

A win by, say, Huckster could literally destroy the institutions that make conservative victories possible.

42 I have to laugh when people tell me they oppose Giuliani's ethics. As opposed to...every other politician?

McCain isn't a conservative who went awry on immigration. He voted against tax cuts, obviously supported McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, etc.

I'll vote for Fred, Mitt, Rudy...all but Huckabee. Huckabee is soft on crime, has pathetic knowledge of foreign policy, is weak on terror, etc.

43 >>>By the way, are you going to create a "Dungeons and Dragons Guide to the Candidates" for 2008? That one you did for 2004 caused me to fall out of my chair when I read it.

Maybe, after I see the new classes and mechanics in the fourth edition.

But honestly, that's a pretty hard well to get water from a second time.  Even on the first list I had to depart from the D&D thing a lot because just saying "This guy is +5 against fetuses" gets old quick. 

44 "Romeny". . . .he's not flipping back

What, did you look into his soul?  I am looking forward to Romney getting the nomination so when he starts talking like he's running for Governor of Massachusetts again your head will explode. 

Giuliani's plunge has little to do with his positions, it has to do with the fact that he's a corrupto who used taxpayer $$$ and the NYPD to fund and facilitate his tomcatting.

45 A win by, say, Huckster could literally destroy the institutions that make conservative victories possible.

How do you figure?  It could split the party(ies) forming a new coalition.

Who's to say?

46 I really don't understand logic behind refusing to vote for whichever of these douchebags wins the nomination, unless one genuinely thinks Hillary!, Obama, or Edwards would be more conservative on any set of issues.

No its not. What if you were given the choice of voting for Hillary or Howard Dean?  Which one would you pick? How much time and money would you donate to your choice?

Every election cycle our Republican candidates are becoming more and more "centrist." By voting for Rinos again and again we have ended up with a Rino party. Enough of that. I want a conservative party.

I am not Hugh Hewitt.

47 He could split the conservative party. Which would be great ... for the Democrats.

Honestly, he's the worst possible combination. Socially conservative and fiscally liberal. What middle grounders or liberals are going to leave the Dems for THAT?

48

No fiscal conservative would call himself a Republican if the Republicans kept raising taxes, or refused to fight against raising taxes.

Um, they keep fudging on spending, you know. Bottom line: abortion, intrusion of government into economics, and muscular foreign policy is an uphill battle. The Left has been gradually pulling things their direction for 80 years. Over the last few years, we've started pulling things in our direction, but it's going to be a long slow slog. Getting the next down is the ONLY acceptable goal. Then the next one, and the next one, and the next one until we're in the endzone.

Back on-topic, I know a lot of Southern Christian Conservatives, and they emphasize philosophical foundations a great deal as the determining factor in someone's actions. If someone is a Mormon, so the theory goes, it MUST have a negative impact on honesty, reliability, and clear thinking. If someone is divorced, they are inherently unreliable people who don't take commitments seriously.

I think they're wrong. A divorce MAY indicate a basic lack of honesty or reliability. Maybe it even indicates these things in Rudy's case. But I think they're far too cavalier in their philosophical assumptions. Man is not a simplistic creature and they're too sure of their knowledge of human nature and of its predictive power.

49 that first paragraph was supposed to be in Italics. I blame Pixy. Fuckin Rino!

50 No fiscal conservative would call himself a Republican if the Republicans kept raising taxes, or refused to fight against raising taxes.  Pro-lifers expect the same sort of treatment. 

Fiscal conservatives ARE threatening to walk, they have been ignored, fiscal conservatism is not just cutting taxes, its about cutting bloated budgets and bureaucracies, and the GOP has been getting fat at the publicly funded trough almost as bad as the Democrats, Bush has continued to grow government, and Huck would be even worse.

51 Also animus is not a synonym for animosity.  So what you mean is animus against Romeny [sic].

52 Talk is cheap.  He's pro-choice.  There is no way that a Court would overturn Roe on his watch, or throw abortion policy to the states.  No chance.  So Guliani is out.

This is what I simply don't get about the single-issue voters on either side of this issue: *no* president is going to do either of those things! *Never*! Anyone who tells you he's going to do them (or anyone who warns you that someone else is going to do them) is playing you for a fool!

I just don't understand the willingness to vote for an oaf like Huckabee just because he flatters you a little. Having him in office might, maybe, change the terms of some parental notification or Medicare fine print. I can't see how that makes up for things like like not having heard about the Iranian nukes NIE.

53

I really don't understand logic behind refusing to vote for whichever of these douchebags wins the nomination, unless one genuinely thinks Hillary!, Obama, or Edwards would be more conservative on any set of issues.

It's juvenile.

Gee, thanks for -asking- before declaring that we're "juvenile".

There's two reasons:

1)  Less importantly:  If we believe that Candidate X is going to be Only Slightly Better than the Dem candidate, then let the Dem candidate win and get the blame for the disaster to come.  There's a whole hell of a lot of people to the right of the Republican Party these days (including myself), and I'd rather not lose them all or provide such huge impetus for a party split just to get a -slightly- less liberal candidate in office.  Not worth the damage it would do to the party in the long run.

2)  More importantly:  A Republican liberal would get more liberal legislation passed than a Democrat would.  Why?  Because if Hillary is Pres, every single Republican will vote lockstep against her, and there should be enough for filibusters at least, plus a few blue dog Dems.  We'd probably get similar gridlock to what's going on now.  A Rudy or a Huckabee?  The Dems would vote for it because it's a liberal policy, and enough Pubs would go along because of party affiliation that we wouldn't even be able to filibuster.  We'd be screwed to hell.

So you see - it's not "juvenile", there's considered reasons for it.  You may not agree with them, and that's your perogative, but spare us the assumption that you must just be so god-damn more mature than the rest of us, thanks.

Qwinn

54 It seems we all have our 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices to whom we support or would vote for.

Personally I am a Fredhead, but would vote for Mitt, Rudy or even McCain over a Democrat, but not Rue Paul or Huckabee.

55 Flip-flop and executive history do matter.

Presidents cut deals with Congress and sign legislation

Presidential Executive Orders (recall how Slick used them?)

Presidents appoint federal judges

Rudy Giuliani would sign any gun-control legislation a Dem Congress sends him.  Mitt Romney, I figure the same.

Abortion funding bills and gay marriage bills, the same.

Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain have turned themselves into pretzels for this campaign.

Fred is the real deal.

56

This is what I simply don't get about the single-issue voters on either side of this issue: *no* president is going to do either of those things! *Never*! Anyone who tells you he's going to do them (or anyone who warns you that someone else is going to do them) is playing you for a fool!

Um, I totally disagree.  What -Huckabee- is insisting on, an actual constitutional amendment to ban abortion, is never going to happen, or at least not for a good 20 years after Roe is killed.  But appoint a fifth anti-Roe judge?  I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility at all.  I believe Fred would do it, Hunter would do it, heck I even think McCain would do it.

Qwinn

57

"I can't vote for Romney, whom I like, because of the Mormon thing."

He was born into the crazy. If he was a convert I would agree with you, but it is a different beast if people are raised with their weird religion.

58 Don't forget Rudy's ghastly record on judicial appointments.

59 He could split the conservative party. Which would be great ... for the Democrats.

There's no way to predict what who would benefit from a split. There's a lot of Dems who won't vote repub for no other reason than the alliance between the religious right and all the other little groups. Plus there's the vast base of people who are turned off by both parties as they stand now.

My point is that losing won't necessarily force change and throwing the election on the assumption that it will is a lame strategy.

60 He was born into the crazy. If he was a convert I would agree with you, but it is a different beast if people are raised with their weird religion.


Sorry - I was born a snake handler and i will die a snake handler.

61 woops, forgot to change moniker

62

As far as Guiliani goes - I'm not cool with someone who advicates for a proceedure that involves pulling a baby halfway out of its mother, jamming a suction tube into its skull and sucking its brains out.  That's a dealbreaker for me.  A person that immoral is not fit to lead.  The amnesty thing is a problem as will.

I haven't made up my mind on Romney.  I'd most likely hold my nose and vote for him, but he seems awfully slimey.  I guess I'd be less bothered by his flip-flopping if it weren't for Bush serving up us conservatives so many shit sandwiches (all of which I rate a B+, of course).

63 Going through all the "what-ifs" on which Republican is best suited for the presidency is what occurs at this point, and it will hopefully clear the field for whomever is best positioned to win the White House.  But make no mistake -- allowing any Dem into the White House will bring on the worst horror show this country has seen in a long, long time. 

Once the primaries are over and we have a Republican nominee, you sitting at home on election day and pouting because your man isn't on the ballot will be the worst thing you could for this country. Look at the Supreme Court -- how many of the left-leaning judges are just WAITING for a Dem president so they can step down and retire?

How would those of you who won't vote (and are so concerned with Romney's and Giuliani's old abortion positions) if your man isn't the nominee feel with several 30-something-year-old hard left judges getting a lifetime appointment to the SC, effectively guaranteeing the continuation of Roe for the next 40 years? 

I can't stand McCain, but jeebus if he somehow got the nomination I still won't stay home or vote for any dem.

64 One thing to remember about Rudy and judges...yeah, he's squishy on abortion (a strict constructionist could uphold Roe v. Wade? Um, no) but more than being pro-choice, Rudy is a law and order (lower cases) guy.  I see that being a major factor in his judicial appointments. It seems pro-law and order judges who are pro-Roe would be an odd combination.

I think with Rudy you get pretty good judges. I mean he's good enough on that issue for Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada, so I think he's good enough for me there too.

65 Whoever we put up there, if they get elected, is going to have to deal with the Democrats.  We aren't going to have a solid majority in Congress, so to get anything done we need a hard core political horse-trader.  Rudy has proven in NY he is good at this, I don't have any confidence in Romney pulling it off.  Just a gut feeling, but he doesn't seem like a hard nose negotiator to me.  McCain is s proven loser at this, and Huckabee's Arkansas record is not impressive.  Fred, I have no idea.

66

Quinn,

I wouldn't have used the word "juvenile," but I, too, don't understand voting for a liberal Democrat in the general over any of the Republican primary candidates.  Letting a liberal Democrat win but then forcing the Dems to take the blame for a mushroom cloud over one of our cities, for amnesty, for increased taxes and for a horrible economy might increase the chances of a true conservative winning the next election, but that seems a bit too high a price to pay for "the movement."

67

Maybe, after I see the new classes and mechanics in the fourth edition.

They have a 4th edtion now? Then again, I quit playing about two decades ago when I left high school and got into university and had to study and work for money too. And after that I discovered I wasn't such an ugly duckling after all and I actually *could* got out and get laid. I dropped the goth habit about then too. :-) I last recall a new class of fighter being created, Cavaliers, and Paladins being made a subclass of those.

But honestly, that's a pretty hard well to get water from a second time.  Even on the first list I had to depart from the D&D thing a lot because just saying "This guy is +5 against fetuses" gets old quick.  

Understandable. Hell, I just appreciate you being here. Your comparison of good looking amnesty supporters to inbred amnesty opponents some time back was also a diamond hit.

 

68

"Sorry - I was born a snake handler and i will die a snake handler."

Ahh, The Church of God and Signs Following. I wish I was there to see the start of that one.

69 Conservative Belle,

Heh, I saw your link after I posted my comment. Interesting article and something to consider but in his defense, as mayor he picked the lowest level judges and had only members of the NYC Bar to pick from.

You aren't going to find too many Alito and Scalia types in NYC who are interested in being the equivalent of town justices, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

70 He could split the conservative party. Which would be great ... for the Democrats.

There's no way to predict what who would benefit from a split. There's a lot of Dems who won't vote repub for no other reason than the alliance between the religious right and all the other little groups.

I'm having flashbacks of Perot. That worked out so well for us ...

I know of NO liberal who would vote for someone socially conservative. Shit, it's the socially conservatives aspects of the party that drive many away, because they don't care about the other stuff. How many chicks vote Dem purely for abortion?


My point is that losing won't necessarily force change and throwing the election on the assumption that it will is a lame strategy.

My refusal to vote for Huck isn't "throwing" an election. I find him totally unacceptable, and those fucking Iowans are out of their mind. What may happen, if he gets elected, is that even MORE people leave the conservative party. Why are people sick of the Republicans now? Not because they are too conservative, that is for sure.

71 >>Re: Getting destroyed in the general

>>Maybe, I dunno. He does seem to me to be one of the weakest candidates versus the Dems, but I don't know. A bit of success in the primaries may give him the confidence to not seem so phony and pandering all the time.

Yea, because it's not like Romney hasn't already demonstrated he can get elected in the most democratic place in the country. Who else besides Rudy has done that? Nobody. So where does this spin come from? I heard this same thing at the beginning of the race when people said that an unknown governor from MA who was polling 2% had no shot at the nomination. How's that working out?

The truth? Far too many people who claim to be sick of the MSM spin when it comes to Fred eat it whole when it comes to "east coast RINOs". The simple fact that it is both much harder to get elected in democratic controlled areas and next to impossible to get things done never seems to enter into the equation.

The great Romney flip flop? He ran, not governed, but ran as personally pro-life but pro-choice (ie follow the law) in his public life. Now he is rejecting the pro-choice label completely and going fully pro-life. Not that it matters, all that matters are what kind of SCJs he would appoint. Having the endorsement of Bork and Doug Kmiec seems about as conservative as you get but for some reason nobody pays attention to that.

He did not flip on gay rights. He ran on a platform to guarantee gays equal rights. He fought gay marriage and an activist court tooth and nail, one of the reasons Bork is endorsing him and excitable Andi slams him daily. It's beyond odd that people who call themselves conservative whack him for being to soft on gay rights and the gay community is incensed with him for fighting the gay lobby. He also made enemies of the state teachers union where he fought, and won, for English immersion while raising the schools to some of the highest rated in the nation. He was one of the first states to sign up to have the state police work with ICE to catch and arrest illegal aliens. He took over a huge state bureaucracy and cut and consolidated it. He is not a RINO but a conservative guy in the most liberal state in the union. He doesn't just talk the talk, he has walked the walk.

Fiscally, he took a $3 Billion deficit and balanced the budget. Yea, he raised some fees to the tune of $250 million, in a state that at the time had a budget of about $16 billion, including docking your boat at a state park, greens fees for public golf courses, running signage on state roads... things that hadn't been raised in over a decade. Horror. He also tried to cut personal income tax but was overridden by a veto proof Congress. Horror.

Gun control. The truth is he did restrict some guns laws WHILE loosening others. Thats not spin, its a fact. Reagan signed gun laws. Governors do that, particularly govs of states with large inner cities where guns and gun violence where an epidemic. If you honestly believe the 2nd Amendment has no limits then you should call Reagan a RINO and never vote for Romney.

He has unequalled executive experience, particularly in the private sphere where you don't get rewarded for wasteful spending. And for those who think being a governor of a state that is 85% democratic is somehow a negative when you get anything done, I'm not sure anything will get through to you. Its a testament to political skill, not a weakness.

The plastic image, meh, whatever. The guy has been this way forever. He actually is a gosh golly gee wiz kinda guy. If you would rather have 4 years of a snarling McCain, go for it. Personally, every time I hear McCain open his mouth I want to kick him in his nutsack.

As for the uber-conservative thing, sorry, Reagan didn't win because the world is so conservative. He won because he campaigned like hell and he ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. The country votes for leaders. People they think can inspire and get things done.

Our greatest presidents (yea, this includes Reagan, look at his actual record) were not overtly conservative or liberal. They were people who led and fought and got positive things done.

72 i.....n Romney pulling it off.  Just a gut feeling, but he doesn't seem like a hard nose negotiator to me.

He did pretty well in the business arena, and you don't succeed at the 100,000+ foot level in business without having negotiation skills. 

73

Bottom line: abortion, intrusion of government into economics, and muscular foreign policy is an uphill battle. The Left has been gradually pulling things their direction for 80 years. Over the last few years, we've started pulling things in our direction, but it's going to be a long slow slog. Getting the next down is the ONLY acceptable goal.

It depends if the next guy will help in those causes or not.  Pro-lifers do not think that Rudy will merely abstain from damage, but could seriously damage their cause by appointing a pro-choice judge.

sinistar: Fiscal conservatives ARE threatening to walk, they have been ignored, fiscal conservatism is not just cutting taxes, its about cutting bloated budgets and bureaucracies, and the GOP has been getting fat at the publicly funded trough almost as bad as the Democrats, Bush has continued to grow government, and Huck would be even worse.

I apologize if my post gave the impression I support Huckabee.  I most certainly do not.  I think he's terrible and a slimey jerkoff playing to identify politics.  Pro-lifers are smart enough to see through him (maybe some evangelicans like his identity politics, though).  And I agree that many fiscal conservatives are threatening to walk as well.  I didn't mean to merely portray fiscal conservativism as only about cutting taxes, it's much bigger as you explain. 

Ideally, the Republican party would be made up of both fiscal conservatives who can live in a pro-life America, and social conservatives who are happy to cut the government of its budges and taxes.  Each of the planks of the Republican party should more or less accept the other plank's big issue.  You can't have a Republican party with fiscal conservatives saying there's no room for pro-lifers to have a pro-life America, or a Republican party which has pro-lifers saying that the government should raise taxes, spending, and bureaucracies.

This is what I simply don't get about the single-issue voters on either side of this issue: *no* president is going to do either of those things! *Never*! Anyone who tells you he's going to do them (or anyone who warns you that someone else is going to do them) is playing you for a fool!

First, I don't support Huckabee.  Second, I'm not a single issue voter (but I am seriously pro-life), third, your premise is false.  Politics is the art of the possible, to be sure, but there's no law of nature that says America must be a nation in which abortion is legal.  Pro-lifers are not idiots for merely wanting to enact their policy preferences, anymore than fiscal conservatives are for wanting tax cuts and less government.  What makes their issue any more different?

74

Everything that can be said about policy has already been said on this thread, so I won't waste much time there.

As to winning the general, however, I think Romney has the best chance. He's proven to be a great campaigner, while Giuliani and Fred have faltered.

I'd love to see either Fred or Romney win, as I believe both are genuinely conservative. Abortion, guns, and immigration are not Romney's big issues, so I see no reason to suspect that he won't tow the party line. His strength was and is the economy.

75 Yea, because it's not like Romney hasn't already demonstrated he can get elected in the most democratic place in the country.


By running as a liberal Republican. Compare his positions on all the major issue now to what he was saying when he was running against Ted Kennedy. Look at it like this - Mitt is running for the Republican nomination - this is as far right as he is going to get. As soon as he gets to the General the drift to the left will begin. How far left will he go to win? Pretty far if you look at his first campaign against Ted the Drunk

76

angler:

Did you not read the 2nd part?  About my belief that a liberal Republican would actually get more things passed through Congress than a Democrat would?  You didn't adress that at all.  It's basically the "Only Nixon could have gone to China" concept writ large, on many different policies.

Qwinn

77 DrewM, on your point, which is a good one, I would say this. If Rudy will pledge not to appoint to any federal bench, any of the liberal/moderate judges who he appointed from NYC, then I will buy his "Alito, Scalia, Roberts" claim. Sound reasonable?

78 McCain IS a conservative, (so sayeth the ACU), who took a bad turn on immigration amnesty.

Well, yeah.  Like on CFR, you know, the whole McCain-Feingold thing.  Where he decided his personal pet project was more important than free speech and the Constitution?

"I would rather have a clean Government than one where quote First Amendment Rights are being respected" - John McCain.

... after having taken the Senate Oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution".

But hey, at least he made it harder to get anyone except an incumbent elected by making the rules harder on newer politicians.  At least somebody won.. odd that it was him and his buddies.

So, we have a narcissistic/power hungry decision that his desire trumps the Constitution, oath-breaking, and "unintended consequences (that were the obvious outcome)" that help him and his...

Have you been getting your definitions of Conservative from people at DU?

79 >>>If Rudy will pledge not to appoint to any federal bench, any of the liberal/moderate judges who he appointed from NYC, then I will buy his "Alito, Scalia, Roberts" claim. Sound reasonable?

I believe his power of appointment was restricted to choosing from a list offered to him from the very liberal City Council or whatever.

You can believe it or not as you like, but law and order guys don't like liberal judges either.  I'm not big on abortion politics (though I am very annoyed by the judicial legislation of roe v. wade), but I'm for anti-roe judges just because I know they have the right philosophy about the limits of judicial review and the proper role of judges in a democratic government. 

80

Maybe, after I see the new classes and mechanics in the fourth edition.

But honestly, that's a pretty hard well to get water from a second time.  Even on the first list I had to depart from the D&D thing a lot because just saying "This guy is +5 against fetuses" gets old quick. 

 

Ace, even if it's "old", we'll still laugh. It's THAT funny. Pretty please?

81 I got no problem with the Mormon thing, heck I'd vote for a pentagram tattooed satanist if he was a fiscal conservative.  Romney-care, however, makes me projectile vomit. 

It looks like the libertarians might nominate someone who isn't a moonbat twoofer, checkout Wayne Allyn Root.

82 Honestly, they're all a bunch of wankers.

I think Fred is our best choice, but if you morons choose somebody else, I will vote for 'em in the general.  (Unless it's Ron Paul or Huckabee, in which case, goodbye GOP.)

83

The ACU is the ultimate arbiter of conservatism. If Johnny McAmnesty gets a good rating  that means that amnesty is conservative.

Amnesty has a more conservative rating then Mike Crapo.

Just face the facts. Anyone who doesn't support amnesty is, some random people would say is a RINO. I wouldn't say that myself, so don't get mad at me. I'm just telling you the facts that some people would.

84

It looks like the libertarians might nominate someone who isn't a moonbat twoofer, checkout Wayne Allyn Root.

Which makes it even worse. Haven't we learned that 3rd parties are either (1) a joke, or (2) short lived cults of personality that get co-opted by one of the two major parties?

 

85 Qwinn:

Did you not read the 2nd part?  About my belief that a liberal Republican would actually get more things passed through Congress than a Democrat would?

This illustrates my point. In Qwinn's strategy we should throw the election in favor of a Dem who we know will propose and sign liberal legislation so that we don't elect a Repub who Qwinn thinks will propose and sign liberal legislation.

But the flip side is that if we do throw the election for the Dem candidate, the Repub congressmen with suddenly stand for conservative values and hold off the liberal legislation. Assuming the Dems don't gain more seats.

Riiiiggghhhttt.

86

I believe his power of appointment was restricted to choosing from a list offered to him from the very liberal City Council or whatever.

Ace, be that as it may, it wouldn't hurt Rudy one bit to make a pledge like I suggested.  Maybe more pro-lifers, like myself, would be inclined to respect his pledge to appoint judges like the constructionists on the SCOTUS. I want to believe him on that issue, but we all know that politicians like to do favors for folks. Just sayin'...

87 Where else, other than a 3rd party, can you exercise your constitutional right to vote for none-of-the-above?

88 Conservative Belle,

I doubt most NYC judges could get nominated to state courts let alone a federal judgeship so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Besides, if Rudy (or Mitt) gets elected they will stay more or less on the straight and narrow because like all first term Presidents they will want a second term. George H. W. Bush isn't that far in the past that the lesson of selling out the base that elected you isn't a hot idea.

89 >>>Ace, even if it's "old", we'll still laugh. It's THAT funny. Pretty please?

I can't; I need to make it "4th edition compliant."

If any of you geeks are playtesters and have the rules, copy them and send them to me, would ya?  I'll pay for the copying and I'll respect the NDA so you won't get into trouble.

But how can I do a proper parody without the new rules?  I need to be *accurate*.

90

runninrebel:

Uh, yeah.  It happens all the fucking time.  I personally don't think Gore could've gotten the Prescription Drug Benefit passed.  Republicans who propose liberal policies almost always get them passed.  Democrats who propose them get a -lot- more opposition from Republicans than a Republican does.  You act like it's a crazy concept. 

Qwinn

91

The ACU is the ultimate arbiter of conservatism.

For crying out loud, Entropy. It's always about the ACU for you. Heh.

92 I will refuse to vote for Huck. He's pretty much the only one.

Yeah, pretty much sums it. Ron Paul before Huck, Satan before both. Again, evangelicals, you lose 2 votes. My vote FOR and then my vote AGAINST Hucktanic.

93

Qwinn,

Electing a Democrat is dangerous for national security, period.  If a Democrat wins the election, it's very likely that they'll pull our support for Musharaff in Pakistan as Jimmy Carter did to the Shah of Iran, and that country will follow the same course of Iran: the hardline Muslim theocrats will take over.  Only this time, they'll have nuclear weapons.

It's one thing to have an argument about throwing an election to the Democrats in order to better re-build the Republican party, but are you willing to bet your life on that?

94

Ace,

Eh.  On the D&D thing, I think you'd be fine using 3.5 rules.  That's what Neverwinter Nights 2 and all the other computer D&D games are based on so far.  I'm still into playing those games, but 4.0 is so new no one even knows what's going on yet, so even if you were "accurate" it'd be less funny cause no one would get the differences.

Then again, I still think Baldur's Gate 2 (2nd edition rules) still blows away all the more recent games, even though I do like the 3rd edition ruleset better.

Qwinn

95 Qwinn:

You don't think Gore would have had the drug benefit passed with Dem majorities in both houses? Really? He would have passed that and a lot more insane bullshit.

The better questions:

Would Gore have even thought about proposing the tax cuts?
Would Gore have retaliated after 911 in any serious way?

96

I doubt most NYC judges could get nominated to state courts let alone a federal judgeship so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Oh, I do worry. Schumer sits on the judiciary committee. If the GOP loses more seats in the Senate, we're doomed. 

97

 Social conservatives were very upset over the Hariet Miers nomination because they felt she would eventually drift leftward. 

Maybe that's what it looked like on Planet Evangelical, but I think the rest of us saw it the other way around.  Harriet Miers was a very dim bulb offered up as a sop to the evangelicals because W figured that all he had to do was quiet the abortion crowd and he'd be golden.  Thank jeebus most conservatives stepped up and said, "no, actually, we want somebody smart on our side" and we ended up with the chief justice who may turn out to be the best ever in history.

But that's all parenthetical.

What you non-Massachusetts people fail to understand about Mitt is the Churchillian quality of his current positions ("Anyone can rat, it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat").  Mitt tried to unseat senator-for-life Kennedy in a state where liberalism is more of a state religion than Catholicism, but less of one than Kennedy worship.  All of his past liberal abortion and gun positions date from 1994 when I believe he was being selectively disingenuous about his true feelings because there are certain positions which you flat out cannot take in this Commonwealth if you want to get elected to anything ever. 

He lacks the Churchillian elan to explain his re-ratting, and feels compelled to try to square his 94 positions with his actual beliefs with some contrived conversion experiences because he thinks he's not allowed to admit he was lying back then.  He does seem overly slick, robotically nice, and politically programmed, but that's only because we are us in the 21st century.  He is him in the 1950s and he really is a gee-whillickers nice guy at heart.

Rudy, on the other hand, is a character issue.  It's not that he's OK on gun bans or abortion (personally, I wish abortion would just go away as an issue somehow. poof! now what can we talk about?).

Rudy is a flat out self-aggrandizing power hungry fuck.  I dislike him intensely, and I intensely disliked the way he ran NYC.  And at the risk of regurgitating something I said in an earlier thread (but in haloscan, so it doesn't count), he's getting all kinds of anti-terror cred out of the fact that he remained calm for one week when everyone was freaking out.  But it was his cops and his firemen whose radios couldn't talk to eachother on that day, and his command center situated in a site that had already been bombed by islamic fucks. 

Rudy is pure and simple evil and whatever it is you think you like about him, try to find those characteristics in someone who isn't Rudy and support that person.

98

Sidney,

A fair point.  But in that particular case, I don't think our support is what's keeping Musharaff in power, if anything our support is hurting him with his own people.  The situation with the Shah was different, IMO - we really were supporting him in ways other than lip service.  Another way it's very different:  Iran was (and you can still argue is) a moderate population that got taken over by a crazy leadership.  Pakistan has a moderate leadership and a crazy population.

Qwinn

99 Amish-

I was in MA for all 3 of his campaigns and sure, he ran as a moderate Republican (which seems to invalidate the point that if someone runs as a conservative they will win). Reagan also ran as a moderate when he ran for governor of CA. That may be distasteful to some but the fact is that was the only way to have a chance in states that are predominately democrat.

Look how Romney governed once in office. I'm not saying he was perfect but he did a damn good job given the circumstances he had to work in. Socially, there isn't anyone on either side of the aisle who is personally more conservative than he is. Fiscally, best executive record in the race, again, either side. He's never had foreign policy responsibility but neither did Reagan or Bush. I think he understands the issues, he is at least as smart as anyone in the race. As far as electable, again, 11 months ago when the race was just starting people had never heard of Romney. He is now running at or near the top in every place he is campaigning. Sure, he has a butt load of money but so did Steve Forbes and Ross Perot. Money only buys you access, he has been able to transform that into support. He has been 1 or 2 by virtually every measure in the debates and there isn't a dem who could touch him in that format.

You don't have to vote for him but he is not the caricature the MSM has made him out to be anymore than Fred is a lazy, slow old coot.

100

Long story short: Giuliani's pro-choice position would seriously hurt the long-term political viability of the GOP.  Too many people would use his nomination as evidence that the GOP doesn't really care about social issues.  It would do very serious damage to the party if its standard bearer was a pro-abort.  On the flipside, I think Huckabee would do more damage to conservatism, but that's another issue.  But even if we set abortion aside, I simply don't think Giuliani is as good a candidate as Thompson, Romney, or even - gasp - McCain. 

As for Romney, I don't happen to share the antipathy towards him, but I understand where it's coming from.  He does seem a bit, shall we say, disingenuous at times.  Personally, I welcome converts and don't think we should hold his Road to Damascus conversion against him.  But, again, I understand why some people do not trust him. 

101 #53: The flip side is that a "liberal" Republican would still have to answer to the conservative base, or risk being a one-termer.

The new power flow is not RINO prez whips congressional Republicans.  It is the base whips the congressional Republicans.  People power.  Online, talk radio activism.  Anti-shamnesty movement has produced the new model of politics.

It's not the late 60s-early 70s, with the leftist media in complete control (and a RINO Nixon). Not these days.

102 >>> On the D&D thing, I think you'd be fine using 3.5 rules

You're missing the point.  This is my way to beg for someone to send me the 4e playtest rules while trying to pretend I want them for "work."

One of you fucking GEEKS has them, I just know it.

103

You don't think Gore would have had the drug benefit passed with Dem majorities in both houses? Really? He would have passed that and a lot more insane bullshit.

Erm, he would've had Republican majorities in both houses for the first 6 years.  Would 2006 have been the same if Gore were in - totally assuming he won reelection in 2004, which is one hell of an assumption to make?  I think that's a little too easy an assertion.  I think most people considered 2006 a referendum on Bush, and if Gore really would've sucked that badly, our majorities would've gotten bigger, not disappeared.

The better questions:

Would Gore have even thought about proposing the tax cuts?

Almost certainly not.

Would Gore have retaliated after 911 in any serious way?

I believe he would've invaded Iraq, yes.  You forget that that was the policy of the Clinton administration.  Gore was the most hawkish guy in the world at one time regarding Iraq, and he gave GHWB all kinds of shit for not "finishing the job".  You forget - Dem histrionics about Iraq are a complete rewrite of history totally for partisan gain.  If Bush had -not- invaded Iraq, they'd be smearing him for it today.

Qwinn

104

Where else, other than a 3rd party, can you exercise your constitutional right to vote for none-of-the-above?

Sometimes less than pleasant, let alone less than perfect, choices have to be made. Maturity, you know. If you want to throw the election to Clitler or some other Commiecrat in order to "vote your conscience", well, that's on your conscience too. As the old song lyric goes, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice..."

 

105

Prufrock: Maybe that's what it looked like on Planet Evangelical, but I think the rest of us saw it the other way around.  Harriet Miers was a very dim bulb offered up as a sop to the evangelicals because W figured that all he had to do was quiet the abortion crowd and he'd be golden.  Thank jeebus most conservatives stepped up and said, "no, actually, we want somebody smart on our side" and we ended up with the chief justice who may turn out to be the best ever in history.

Dude, you're talking to a Catholic lawyer whose grandmother knew Scalia's parents (grew up in the same neighborhood in NJ).  Planet Evangelical?  Give me a break.  Hariet Miers had no solid foundation in legal philosophy, which is what I meant when I said there was a fear she could drift leftwards, despite the fact that AT THE TIME SHE WAS NOMINATED she happened to be pro-life.  So was Sandra Day O'Connor.  You and I are saying the same thing here.  Calm down.

As for your opinion of Rudy, are you a New Yorker?  What specifically did you dislike about the way he ran NYC?  It can't only be the radios that ticks you off, which, given New York, is understandable that they wouldn't work together.  I don't support Guliani, but he was a pretty good mayer (considering the alternatives, especially).

106

GRRR.. I meant my grandmother knew Alito's parents.  Damnit.

107 Romney reminds me too much of Bill Clinton.  He's too slick, too greasy, and his positions seem to be much more mailable than your average candidate.  I didn't like Bill Clinton, and a slick Massachusetts politico seems like a recipe for more of the same.  I would probably vote for Romney over a Democrat, but I would do it holding my nose.

I would not vote for Guliani, because I really don't see a difference between him and Hillary Clinton.  They are both authoritarians who never saw a spending plan they didn't like.  They are both likely to overuse the military, at home and abroad.  (And that is from someone who does <i>not</i> think that Bush has overused the military.)  They are both first-rate arsonists when it comes to civil liberties.  And they both seem like they feed off the tears of babies and kitteh blood.

108 Erm, he would've had Republican majorities in both houses for the first 6 years.

Right, Qwinn, but you are using Gore as an example of what will happen if we throw the 2008 election for the Dems. And that Dem will have majorities is both houses. Get it?

Without of arguing about Gore and Iraq (which is certainly arguable) what you strategy would have given us is Bush without the tax cuts. And that's a net loss.

109

Thank jeebus most conservatives stepped up and said, "no, actually, we want somebody smart on our side" and we ended up with the chief justice who may turn out to be the best ever in history.

Actually Alito was the subsequent choice but I see your point.

110

Qwinn,

In general, I think it's a very extreme position to throw an election to the opposition party.  Your party's candidate would not only have to be the biggest RINO in the world, but also would have to be so objectionable such that other members of the party couldn't influence him.  Basically, he'd have to be someone who just took the name of the party for no reason other than to get political office (like Bloomberg).

I just think it's too dangerous to vote for a Democrat right now.  Besides, you can engage in hyoptheticals all you want about what would've happened if Gore won in 2000.  But I'll tell you what he wouldn't have done: Alito & Roberts.

111 I think you homo-wads should stop bogarting the 4e rules and send them to Ace so he can do a funny post.

112 I agree with that last poster.

113 There is not one conservative policy, even re: the war, that either Rudy or Mitt can be trusted to support, and they both have records of doing the opposite. What they say while campaigning doesn't matter, because they're both powermad liars. They're scum, and they're not conservative scum. They're not "heterodox." Ron Paul is. They're Democrats. Mitt's Kerry, Rudy's Hillary.

That's why conservatives don't like them, and are getting a bit pissy about their supposedly conservative party and its media mouthpieces forcing the rise of these barely-even-RINOs. The much larger majority of the population has other reasons to reject these shitbags (which they will, by a shocking margin). Here's a couple:

The fact that Romney spent even one cent of his own money seeking the office proves him unfit for any. That it's been millions evinces an insanity beyond normal human understanding. If you had the cash, would you do it? No. Because you're not psychotic.

And unless your idea of proper governance is feeding your criminal friends from the treasury, having people who don't like you harassed, and people *you* don't like shot and ass-raped by cops, Li'l Duce shouldn't even be in the conversation. He should be in prison.

114

Sydney, I apologize for misreading you.  I was a New Yorker for most of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s.  Ed Koch was my kind of mayor.

I disliked Rudy before he ran for mayor, when he was a publicity hungry US atty perp-walking Michael Milken off the trading room floor.  I give him some intellectual cred for being the first one to recognize that RICO laws would work, but as much as they were instrumental in taking down the modern mafia the very broad scope of those laws appeals to the power-crazed in Rudy and is part of why I fear them both.  He took all the credit for police chief Bratton's reforms and exiled Bratton when the magazines started to notice. 

Also, he's a weasel.  I don't know how he's hoodwinked a national audience into taking him seriously.  I trusted that what I was reading written by New Yorkers a year ago would have trickled through by now...I'm thinking specifically about his anti-pet-ferret harangues on his radio show. I can't throw stones in the infidelity department, but at least my ex heard it from me and not from TV coverage of a news conference.

Also, I liked Times Square when it was seedy.

115 ace

Instead of D&D, why not just make it a WoW parody?  I'm sure somebody could slam together some characters for the pictures.

116

Without of arguing about Gore and Iraq (which is certainly arguable) what you strategy would have given us is Bush without the tax cuts. And that's a net loss.

In the short term, sure.  Long term, not so sure.  Do you think the Bush legacy has or will make the country drift rightward?  Do you think "compassionate conservatism" for 8 years has been good for conservatism in this country?  I don't think so. 

I'm pretty sure a Gore presidency would have generated a pretty big backlash though, close if not as big a backlash as Bush has suffered.

Tax cuts are nice, but that one thing ain't worth the damage that's been done to conservatism on almost every other front - judges excepted.  That's the best argument I've heard coming from the "Vote for our candidate or you're a juvenile moron" crowd (cause, you know, us Fredheads are the rude self-righteous ones), but when it comes to Rudy, I don't think he will give us decent judges, at all, so that point is moot..

Just to reiterate so you know where I stand:  I won't vote for Rudy, Huckabee or Paul.  I will hold my nose for McCain or Romney.  I would happily vote for Fred or Hunter.

I suspect a lot of people giving me crap for not voting for -any- Pub wouldn't vote for Huckabee or Paul themselves, and the main motivation for that crap-giving is that I don't like their specific candidate, which is weird cause again, I thought it was only Paulbots and Fredheads that were so crass.  Or at least that's what I keep hearing.

Oh - one other thing.  The economy can't keep going as well as it has much longer.  It's beein doing awesome for like 6 years now.  Between oil prices and housing, I don't expect 2009-2012 to be very good on that front.  I think it'd be good for the country to associate that with Dems, rather than having the last Dem legacy most people of voting age remember in their lifetime being the glory days of the tech bubble for which Clinton got the credit.

Qwinn

117

Prufrock,

Somewhere out there is a flash video of Rudy on one of his anti-ferret rants, talking to a pro-ferret guy on the radio.  I don't care about the issue either way, but it was hilarious.  I'm sure some people must've heard about it.  Being a little nutty about ferrets doesn't make you a bad mayor.  I can even forgive his cross-dressing.

I was too young to really have Ed Koch as a frame for mayor.  He seems ok, but I do think that Rudy does deserve some credit for his handling of crime.  He supported the police at every turn, which is a good thing. 

I'm not a big fan of the crowds in Times Square, especially since I live 5 blocks away, but I prefer them over the pr0n stuff.

118 In the short term, sure.  Long term, not so sure.

In politics the long term is determined by the short term policy victories. The tax cuts will only be an issue in the future because they were enacted under Bush. Alito and Roberts will be on the court for decades.

Do you think the Bush legacy has or will make the country drift rightward?  Do you think "compassionate conservatism" for 8 years has been good for conservatism in this country?  I don't think so.

I guess this is where we differ. I don't give a rats ass about any movements, except my own (IYKWIM,AITTYD). I care about politics and policy. Giving away power on the blind assumption that the "movement" will solidify and regain power at some later, undisclosed date, is utopian. And what then will come of that power?

We are never even going to agree what "conservatism" is, fopr Pete's sake. The best we can do is stay on the net positive side.

119 And btw, it's not 'vote for my guy or you are a juvenile moron' it's "vote for the repub nominee unless you think the Dem will govern more conservatively, which is laughable, or you are a juvenile moron".

120

runninrebel:

I've heard it before, I'm afraid.  And every time I've seen Republicans choose power over principle, they've wound up with neither.

I'm not going to vote for Rudy, a man who slandered me in an attempt to pander for my vote (I explained this in post 1.  That made him a no-starter for me.  His positions on guns, abortion and immigration are bad enough, but that was a slimeball move and a hegemonic lie, and I don't trust him whatsoever.  On -top- of that, I think he'd be able to get an amnesty passed that even Bush wasn't able to, and Hillary never could.

Qwinn

121

That would be post 18.  Stoopid smilie!

Qwinn

122   I say often that I've actually come to like him more during the campaign that I did when it all started, so he's doing something right.

There's only two candidates whom my opinion of has improved since last year. One is Romney, who I really didn't care too much for because I thought he was too soft. I still think he's too soft, but a little less so. The other is Ron Paul. I used to think he was a total whackjob. Now, I think he's just mostly a whackjob. His supporters are the total whackjobs.

My dream ticket is still Hunter-Thompson, but alas, that's just a dream.

123 But what a lovely dream...

My dream is Hunter-Clone of Hunter

124 "but he's vowed to appoint conservative judges similar to Scalia, Roberts, and Alito."
WTF?

125 Lots of conservatives have problems with Rudy and Mitt, because they aren't conservatives for the most part. They are both Country Club Republicans in my estimation. Rudy is tough on Terrorism and crime, but otherwise doesn't have many bona fides. I don't think any Republican coming from the NE could be a real conservative though 'cause they never would have ever been elected to any office in the first place. I could live with Rudy since I know he'd be tough with terrorists, crime, and likely nominate decent justices for the SC. He worries me with immigration and guns, but I don't think the Congress is going to roll over and allow amnesty or repeal of the 2nd Amendment in any case. His personal life is messy but I'm not really that concerned about it.

Mitt is an enigma. I started out liking the guy a lot but when you look at his record, other than being successful at business, he doesn't have any really conservative bona fides either. He has flipped and flopped quite a bit, but as Ace pointed out, he at least flipped to the conservative side. His Morman faith doesn't really bother me since I don't think it'll ever be a factor in any decision making. I don't know how anyone could buy into Mormonism, but maybe that's my problem. I will vote for him if necessary. I just think he's a likely loser to the Dems because of his faith. Maybe if matched with the right VP nominee, he'd be a better matchup.

I'll probably vote for whoever becomes the Republican nominee since it'll be better than anyone the Dems will put up and the Supreme Court is at stake among other things. That said, I'll enthusiastically vote for Fred, won't hesitate to vote for Rudy or Mitt, and will reluctantly vote for McCain. Paul I don't think I'd vote for 'cause he's nuts. I also can't see voting for the Huckster since I think he's pretty slimy but if pitted against HillObama, I might have to suck it up, hold my nose, and vote for him. I'm still undecided about it.

126 Romney is my (very) reluctant third choice. Giuliani will never get my vote, ever. If the GOP puts him up? The Democrat wins. Count on it.

127 You could just make the voters guide GURPS compliant or D20 compliant.  The D20 system is open source:

www.d20srd.org

128 again, I really just want a copy of the new rules.

The last thing I did was a mish-mash of crap I remembered from basic d&D and first edition and Star Frontiers and all sorts of nonsense.

129 > Not only is Giuliani actually, truly a judicial conservative -- law and order guys hate the "living constitution" crowd as much as any pro-life stalwart -- but he's vowed to appoint conservative judges similar to Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

> True enough, it's quite possible that he would flinch in the face of political pressure from appointing the fifth anti-Roe vote to the Court. But I think virtually any candidate would eventually appoint either a squish like Kennedy or a random, unknown quantity like David Souter -- someone whose positions are entirely unknown, so it's a complete crapshoot which way he'll go -- because the Democrats will not permit anyone with even the whiff of a conservative record to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with Roe v. Wade on the line.

You can work around that if you have a President with a spine. Suppose a liberal justice retires. Nominate a Scalia/Alito/Roberts. Senate refuses to vote. Just keep renominating. Either the same one or a similar judge. In the meantime the Supreme court has 8 judges. If another lib retires it's down to 7 and know the conservatives have a 4/3 majority.

The pressure of time favors the conservatives so long as the President doesn't concede. And why should he? He gets paid the same whether there are 9 or 8 Supreme Court justices!

130 "not impressed by his mayorship?" WOW, just WOW! It's the only real thing going for him. I wonder who does impress you as a mayor?"

Oh gee, let me think .... how about Ed Koch. Yeah - a Democrat - but a decent man who ran the city to the benefit of all. And I say that as a retired NYPD cop and conservative.

Personal story ... I forget the year, but there was a parade in Manhattan for the Olympics, I think it was. My memory is not that great anymore. Anyway, myself and about 60 cops from Brooklyn North were posted along Broadway near City Hall (unusual because us BN guys were usually tucked out of sight) opposite a construction site. People were on the scaffolding watching when the damned thing came down - sending people flying everywhere. Before the thing hit the ground we were all running towards the building (while everyone ELSE was running away, as usual), pulling people out from under the building and scaffolding. I was tending to a child I had pulled from the wreckage, trying to stem bleeding from the head when I felt a hand on my shoulder asking "do you think he'll be okay, Officer? Can I do anything."

I was just about to say "leave me alone, I'm busy right now" when I noticed it was none other than Mayor Koch, kneeling in the dirt and debris, doing what he could to offer support not only to "his cops", but injured citizens. I always carried a few combat dressing on my gunbelt, and the Mayor - not his bodyguards - tore one open for me so I could keep pressure on the kids head.

I would guess it was an hour and some minutes later when the bunch of us were mustered up in front of City Hall to return to command and Mayor Koch walked over to us from his office and thanked each of us personally for "doing such a fine job."

Prufrock is exactly right. I worked under both Mayors and I'd take Ed Koch over douchebag Rudy any day.

131 I'll repeat myself over on this side, I guess.

I don't have any particular animus against Giuliani. He simply fails one of my litmust-test issues (guns), and on that basis alone I will never vote for him. Good man, but wrong on the issue and wrong for America.

Romney, on the other hand, I absolutely detest. He too fails my Second Amendment litmus-test issue, but does me the additional discourtesy of pissing on my head and trying to tell me that it's raining -- trying to pretend that he's always been a strong 2A supporter, when the cocksucker actually supported the stupid assault weapons ban. This sort of chicanery is emblematic of Romney's entire political career: he's sucked giant hairy unwashed moose cock on a whole host of issues until it became necessary to pander to conservatives in order to be competitive in the GOP primaries, at which point he suddenly found religion. The guy's an utter shitbag.

Additionally, there's what bledsoe mentioned, above: I can't get past the Mormonism. I wouldn't anticipate the dude getting marching orders from the elders in Salt Lake City, but Mormon doctrine is, like bledsoe said, 19th-century Scientology. Anybody who subscribes to that nonsense ought to be disqualified from the presidency as a precautionary measure, as who knows when they'll wake up one morning and, having decided that they're Marie Antoinette, push the button.

132

You're missing the point.  This is my way to beg for someone to send me the 4e playtest rules while trying to pretend I want them for "work."

 

Damn you and your realistic, honest logic. I just want you to bring the funny like I know you would  

133

No I think it is actual animus for many. 

One of the reasons I stopped posting at another board was that I got sick of the hatred for Rudy. Sure, I saw many 'I hate Rudy' posts that addressed matters of policy, but I saw just as many that obsessed over the fact that he once bunked with 2 gay guys and donned a dress for a variety show. Makes me suspect that there's a certain segment of the anti-Rudy faction who can't handle the fact that he's not visibly repulsed by all homos, and for that they hate him.

134

Shades of 2006 all over again - except that the suicide notes are being written 11 months, rather than 1 month, in advance.

It's better to win than to lose - the Dems know that so why can't we learn it?

There is no possible way that either we or this country will be better off with any Democrat winning the presidency, and we should keep that thought foremost in our minds.

Having said that, I really don't know what I'll do if Huckabee gets the nomination.

135 "There is no possible way that either we or this country will be better off with any Democrat winning the presidency, and we should keep that thought foremost in our minds."

There is also no possible way that either we or this country will be better off with certain of the Republican candidates winning the presidency. There isn't even a "vote for the lesser evil!" argument for some of these assclowns; they're just a different flavor of horrendous than a Democrat would be.

136 Rudy is still my guy and I still think he could win. You guys know what he did for NYC and how he handled 9/11. I'm a fiscal conservative so I don't much care about his personal life.

As a matter of fact, that is why I'm a conservative because I don't want the government in my personal life either.

137 Yeah just because the guy has an (R) next to his name doesn't mean he's going to be better than a guy with a (D). It has to do with his policies, not some magical association with a political policy. Take Huckabee, aside from his stance on abortion, he's basically a Democrat. That R by his name won't somehow change him. Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter have proved that party affiliation has virtually no effect on their voting or ideals.

138 I have no particular dislike of Rudi or Mitt, and I would vote for them in the general. Sure, they do some liberal things, but they are still better than any of the donks. McCain, I will never, never, never vote for. I don't give a damn if it's as close as 2000 between him and Hillary. Never will I reward that backstabbing POS for his positions. Don't even get me started on the Huckster.

If you are a true conservative, you must be for Thompson or Hunter. They are the only ones in the mix.

139 Sydney said:

It's one thing to have an argument about throwing an election to the Democrats in order to better re-build the Republican party, but are you willing to bet your life on that?

No, but I *am* willing to bet the lives of RINO Northeasterners who think their ideology is the shit. Newsflash: It ain't.

140 Bruce, thanks for that Ed Koch anecdote.  It's exactly why I liked him, but it would have taken me 10 paragraphs to make your point.

141 Romney is very weak on the GWOT. Right now Iraq is looking good so people can gloss over that. But when Pakistan collapses in 2009, you will watch him consult the lawyers where Rudy or Fred or even McCain would have kicked ass.

Seriously, the success in Iraq hurt Rudy's chances - but I think he would be happy with that trade.

I also think a lot of the East Coast RINO's actually want to be more right wing, but in those states you just can't do that. Does anyone think Romney really is pro-choice? He's a Mormon for God's sake. He ran pro-choice so he could win and succeed in other areas of politics. Same thing with Rudy, though he might personally be more anti-gun as he was a prosecutor, but he probably is not an idiot and would not be signing any gun laws. The Dems don't even try to do those anymore really - they learned their lesson.

Beyond who can win (i.e. who can beat Hill or Obama) I rank my choices:

Rudy
Fred
Mitt

By the way for all the slagging of Rudy that goes on here, America's Mayor has always campaigned for fellow Republicans and is a team player for our party. Its kind of rude to diss him like he's a liberal - the man is not a liberal by a long shot.

142 America's Mayor has always campaigned for fellow Republicans and is a team player for our party.

Even when he endorsed Mario Cuomo over George Pataki?

143

I would be able to vote for Romney because I -am- just dumb enough to maybe buy the idea that he was lying to MA voters, and he's telling the truth now.  Still not real happy that he's lied at all, I don't trust him much, but do believe he would be better -enough- over any of the Democrats to be worth a shot and a vote.

By the way for all the slagging of Rudy that goes on here, America's Mayor has always campaigned for fellow Republicans and is a team player for our party. Its kind of rude to diss him like he's a liberal - the man is not a liberal by a long shot.

If "being a team player" means that he's willing to oppose every partial birth abortion ban that ever came down the pike, and when he flip flops -for the pro-life vote- by claiming he couldn't support those bans because pro-lifers refused to rule out killing mothers, which was utter and complete bullshit, then no team players for me, thanks.  Never mind how psychotically extremist one has to be to be okay with PBAs, that's Mengele level barbarity right there, but then to slander the whole pro-life movement -in order to pander for our vote- is so contemptuous and slimy that, no, I won't ever vote for him. 

Qwinn

144

"There is also no possible way that either we or this country will be better off with certain of the Republican candidates winning the presidency than we are under President Bush. There isn't even However, there is a "vote for the lesser evil!" argument for someof these even the assclowns; they're just a different flavor of  still less horrendous than a Democrat would be."

There - fixed it for you.

Suicide is not painless - can anyone say Speaker Pelosi?

145 ;">It's 19th century Scientology from a snake oil salesman.

By that same token, Lutheranism is 16th Century Scientology from a Snake Oil Salesman. Roman Catholicism is 4th Century Scientology from a Snake-Oil salesman...

146 World of Warcraft power leveling wow power leveling,wow power levelingisan online role-playing experience set in the award-winninguniverse.wow gold,wow power leveling Players assume the roles of wow power leveling heroes as they explore, wow gold,wow gold,WoW Goldadventure,and quest across a vast world. is a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" WoW Gold,wow gold,wow power leveling.wow power levelingwhich allows thousands of players to interact within the same world.World Of Warcraft Power Leveling Whether adventuring together or fighting against each other in epic battlesplayers will form friendships, wow power leveling,wow power leveling,wow power leveling,wow power levelingwow powerlevelingforge alliances,and compete with enemies for power leveling and glory.wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,wow gold,buy wow gold As a wow power leveling online game, enables thousands ofworld of warcraft power leveling players to come together online and battle against theand each other. Cheap WoW Gold,Cheap WoW Gold,cheap wow gold,cheap wow gold,World Of Warcraft gold,Players from across the globe can leave the real world behind and undertake grand quests and heroic exploits in a land of fantastic adventure. world of warcraft gold,world of warcraft gold,world of warcraft gold,Unlike other cheap opponents. Below are some features found in wow powerleveling

147 セックスセフレアダルトエロSEX風俗オナニー出会いエロセックスセフレエッチ出会い出会いセックス素人エッチ巨乳熟女熟女SEX熟女

148 links of london
london links jewellery
links jewellers
london links
links necklaces
links bracelet
links charms
links rings
links earrings

149 Air force 1 shoes
Nike air force one
Nike air force
Air force 1 mens
Air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Lebron Shoes
Cheap UGG
UGG Boots
UGG Shoes
Discount UGG
UGG Australia
UGG Sale
UGG Online

150 Buy discountnba shoes
cheap basketball shoes
mens basketball shoes
kobe shoes
kobe bryant shoes
lebron james shoes
free shipping!

151 Buy Discount ugg shoes
ugg boots
boot ugg
mbt shoes
nike running shoes
cheap nike shoes
nike footwear
cheap nike footwear
nike air max shoes
FREE SHIPPING!

152 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

153 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

154 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg bootsfrom usa

155 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

156 Replica Watches | Fake Watches | soccer jersey supplier | Replica watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Chanel Fake Watches | Replica Louis Vuitton Watch | Omega Replica Watch | Replica Japan Rolex | Replica IWC Watch | Audemars Piguet Watches Replica | Vacheron Watch Replica | Glashutte Fake Watches | Christian Dior Fake Watches | Patek Philippe Replica Watch

157 Replica Cartier | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Omega | Replica Cartier | replica soccer jersey | Zenith Watch | Movado Wristwatch | Girard Watches | Hublot Fake Watches | Blancpain Watches | Replica Breguet Watch | Corum Wristwatch | Replica Baume & Mercier Watch | Replica Alain Silberstein Watch | Chopard Replica Watches