Rudy and the Hard Right

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think Rudy is the only Republican who can beat Clinton head-to-head this time around. It’s triangulation - as long as the base doesn’t stay home, Rudy can play to the center better than Hillary can.

If the base doesn’t stay home? That’s quite an if there isn’t it?

Ah don’t worry I’m sure that the Southern Baptists and the entire religious right will turn out in droves for Rudy…oh wait…no they won’t.

Now that wouldn’t be so bad if the far right didn’t turn out for Hillary. But, they’ll be lined up when the polls open. They would have just endured 8 years of George Bush.

See what’s happening?

Rudy can’t win, not sure anyone can beat her.

Hmm…

They don’t have to turn out FOR anyone. They will turn out AGAINST Hillary.

That’s exactly the problem. I vote Republican 90% of the time. I won’t vote for Rudy. It may well be the circle I run in, but I know several people here in Idaho that won’t vote for the guy. My old boss who is a pretty fundy Christian and a Huck fan can talk for hours about the evil of Hillary, but even he confesses he doesn’t know if he can vote for Rudy in good conscience. I still think the nod is going to Rudy though because I’ll bet good money the democrats are playing the same game with Hilldog.

mike

Mike,

I’ll bet you vote for Rudy. If your freedoms are as sacred as you state they are, please read every post under “hillary busted.”

Now, you tell me if: planting questions, inability to answer simple questions, and trying to influence the freedom of the press, is more or less frightening to you than Rudy.

Again, if the democrats are foolish enough to send her up, JUST WAIT AND SEE HOW MANY VALUES VOTERS PULL THE LEVER FOR RUDY.

JeffR

[/quote]

The endgame is the same no matter which of those two yuckos we pick. Would you vote for Hitler if the dems nominated Stalin? Neither of them are obviously that evil, but the point remains.

If I vote Rudy now, and he wins then I have sent a message that in four more years I won’t demand a better candidate. Thus the cycle continues. Look JeffR, if there is to be trouble, let it be in my day while my back is strong and my aim is sharp. I won’t leave it for my children to fend off the wolves.

This means I have two options. I’m either going to have to vote for improvement or vote to accelerate decline so that I can be around when we hit the reset button. Now I’m no Claire Wolfe, so I don’t think “It’s too late to stop them, but too early to shoot the bastards.” So I can’t just vote in good conscience to speed up our decline. That leaves me only to vote to improve things, and the sad fact is that even if he isn’t as bad as Hillary (which is questionable) he isn’t going to improve the nation.

I think that even you know that deep down JeffR. Hillary is kind of like the fat chick in a group of girls. All the girls hang out with her because she makes them all look good. So you get all bonered out over Rudy because he looks alot better than the fat chick he brought with him.

mike

62

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think Rudy is the only Republican who can beat Clinton head-to-head this time around. It’s triangulation - as long as the base doesn’t stay home, Rudy can play to the center better than Hillary can.

If the base doesn’t stay home? That’s quite an if there isn’t it?

Ah don’t worry I’m sure that the Southern Baptists and the entire religious right will turn out in droves for Rudy…oh wait…no they won’t.

Now that wouldn’t be so bad if the far right didn’t turn out for Hillary. But, they’ll be lined up when the polls open. They would have just endured 8 years of George Bush.

See what’s happening?

Rudy can’t win, not sure anyone can beat her.

Hmm…

They don’t have to turn out FOR anyone. They will turn out AGAINST Hillary.

That’s exactly the problem. I vote Republican 90% of the time. I won’t vote for Rudy. It may well be the circle I run in, but I know several people here in Idaho that won’t vote for the guy. My old boss who is a pretty fundy Christian and a Huck fan can talk for hours about the evil of Hillary, but even he confesses he doesn’t know if he can vote for Rudy in good conscience. I still think the nod is going to Rudy though because I’ll bet good money the democrats are playing the same game with Hilldog.

mike

Mike,

I’ll bet you vote for Rudy. If your freedoms are as sacred as you state they are, please read every post under “hillary busted.”

Now, you tell me if: planting questions, inability to answer simple questions, and trying to influence the freedom of the press, is more or less frightening to you than Rudy.

Again, if the democrats are foolish enough to send her up, JUST WAIT AND SEE HOW MANY VALUES VOTERS PULL THE LEVER FOR RUDY.

JeffR

The endgame is the same no matter which of those two yuckos we pick. Would you vote for Hitler if the dems nominated Stalin? Neither of them are obviously that evil, but the point remains.

If I vote Rudy now, and he wins then I have sent a message that in four more years I won’t demand a better candidate. Thus the cycle continues. Look JeffR, if there is to be trouble, let it be in my day while my back is strong and my aim is sharp. I won’t leave it for my children to fend off the wolves.

This means I have two options. I’m either going to have to vote for improvement or vote to accelerate decline so that I can be around when we hit the reset button. Now I’m no Claire Wolfe, so I don’t think “It’s too late to stop them, but too early to shoot the bastards.” So I can’t just vote in good conscience to speed up our decline. That leaves me only to vote to improve things, and the sad fact is that even if he isn’t as bad as Hillary (which is questionable) he isn’t going to improve the nation.

I think that even you know that deep down JeffR. Hillary is kind of like the fat chick in a group of girls. All the girls hang out with her because she makes them all look good. So you get all bonered out over Rudy because he looks alot better than the fat chick he brought with him.

mike[/quote]

Mike,

I know what you are saying. But, I actually like Rudy. I don’t think he’s the “lesser of two evils.” I will be voting FOR him.

Remember what a joke New York City used to be? For a Republican mayor to get in there, take his lumps, and get the job done is most impressive.

Add to that the fact that the man provides an antidote to George Bush’s weakness: public speaking (especially with hard facts on demand).

Finally, many of us feel he is EXACTLY the type of hardass to accelerate the destruction of lixy’s pals. This isn’t the time to let them up off the floor. They’ll morph into something more dangerous as they will have learned from their failures.

I want this violent movement ended before they acquire much more dangerous tools.

JeffR

65

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Jeff,

Interesting points Jeff- NYC is larger than most states in terms of its economy and population. And Rudy was one of the best Mayors that NYC ever had. And we all know that he’s not soft on criminals, and would at least attempt to take al quida apart.

But it’s that second part that worries me. I’m not sure that we yet have the answer to terrorism.

More troops?

A draft?

More middle eastern country’s occupied?

I just don’t know Jeff…

[/quote]

Mick,

I feel like a hardass would have a much better chance of making peace without encouraging attacks.

Think T. R. winning the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War.

As I know you are aware, diplomacy with dictators/fanatics is much more effective if backed by credible force.

You really couldn’t put many of these candidates in a room with a tyrant and expect him to do anything but laugh at weakness.

However, you put a balding, lisping, cross-dressing, thrice married, laugh at mafia death threat NEW YORKER, in that room, and the tyrant takes notice.

JeffR

66

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think Rudy is the only Republican who can beat Clinton head-to-head this time around. It’s triangulation - as long as the base doesn’t stay home, Rudy can play to the center better than Hillary can.

If the base doesn’t stay home? That’s quite an if there isn’t it?

Ah don’t worry I’m sure that the Southern Baptists and the entire religious right will turn out in droves for Rudy…oh wait…no they won’t.

Now that wouldn’t be so bad if the far right didn’t turn out for Hillary. But, they’ll be lined up when the polls open. They would have just endured 8 years of George Bush.

See what’s happening?

Rudy can’t win, not sure anyone can beat her.

Hmm…

They don’t have to turn out FOR anyone. They will turn out AGAINST Hillary.

I hope you’re correct. But, unlike the slimy Pat Robertson the average voter on the Christian right will actually hold to their principals…I think.

[/quote]

Mike,

Remember their principals also include the protection of the United States.

Also, there is a fundamental hatred of all things clinton.

Four weeks ago, I would have predicted Rudy versus clinton.

Now, I’m not so sure.

JeffR

68

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

What’s changed your mind?

[/quote]

Mick,

The knock on obama has been his inexperience. I think he jumped one election cycle too soon. However, if he manages to stand up to clinton and beats her early, I believe the dem base will seriously consider him.

Remember that in dem/kook land, they will remember that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning.

Personally, I think his politics are disgusting and nonsensical. However, to the far left, his politics are like mother’s milk.

Finally, it is well known that the more people hear hillary, the less they like her.

Her only chance is to be seen as the generic “democrat,” “woman” with the “clinton” last name.
If there aren’t a legion of shallow voters who only care about these surface features, she’s done before she gets started.

If enough people say, “It’s not that I won’t vote for a woman, I just won’t vote for THAT woman,” it’s over for her.

If people actually get to know her, they’ll find an inexperienced, petty, controlling, cackling, vindictive, waffling, achievement-less, sleazebucket who exemplifies the worst in politicians.

If enough people look past her gender, party, and last name, they’ll find something quite disturbing.

JeffR

69

Mick,

Read this: Off and running? | Salon.com

This is from a registered democrat. She’s also, incidentally, a woman.

I’m sorry, I just refuse to believe that women, in general, will vote for rodham simply because she’s a woman.

I give them more credit than that.

Will rodham’s recent meltdown, it’s rapidly becoming her only “selling” point.

JeffR

70

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m sorry, I just refuse to believe that women, in general, will vote for rodham simply because she’s a woman.

I give them more credit than that.[/quote]

I don’t.

And Camille Paglia is a well-known feminist. Educated women don’t support Hillary as much as uneducated women. But they are too few in number to make a difference at the polls.

72

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’m sorry, I just refuse to believe that women, in general, will vote for rodham simply because she’s a woman.

I give them more credit than that.

I don’t.

And Camille Paglia is a well-known feminist. Educated women don’t support Hillary as much as uneducated women. But they are too few in number to make a difference at the polls.

[/quote]

Please be wrong.

JeffR

73

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick,

Read this: Off and running? | Salon.com

This is from a registered democrat. She’s also, incidentally, a woman.

I’m sorry, I just refuse to believe that women, in general, will vote for rodham simply because she’s a woman.

I give them more credit than that.

Will rodham’s recent meltdown, it’s rapidly becoming her only “selling” point.

JeffR

You’re going to be very disappointed in women. They’ll turn out for her in droves.

[/quote]

Mick,

I will be very disappointed in American women if they are this shallow.

I suppose all we can do is point out that hillary is a BAD example for anyone, including women.

I hope you are wrong.

JeffR

75

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

She came in from Arkansas and ran for Senator in NY. She beat a young good looking candidate by the name of Lazio by 12 pts.

And do you know why?

It was because women turned out for her in droves.

Sorry Jeff…It makes me sick too, but those are the facts.
[/quote]

Mick,

I see your point. However, Lazio didn’t have much time to work. Further, New York is heavily democratic.

Again, I hope women aren’t this shallow.

Watched the debate last night. How dreadful.

JeffR

76

Great article on Rudy’s strategy to secure the nomination:

I would probably cede Iowa and go after Michigan, N.H., and South Carolina if I were Rudy.

Make Iowa irrelevant.

I don’t look forward to 7000 stories about Romney’s religion and his abortion stance.

Both SHOULD be irrelevant to this race.

I DO look forward to Rudy versus dems.

JeffR

78

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

She came in from Arkansas and ran for Senator in NY. She beat a young good looking candidate by the name of Lazio by 12 pts.

And do you know why?

It was because women turned out for her in droves.

Sorry Jeff…It makes me sick too, but those are the facts.

Mick,

I see your point. However, Lazio didn’t have much time to work. Further, New York is heavily democratic.

Again, I hope women aren’t this shallow.

Watched the debate last night. How dreadful.

JeffR

I have to correct you on one fact Jeff. While NYC and downstate NY are heavily democratic, upstate NY is republican. And she won in both downstate and upstate NY.

It’s star power and the whole female thing working for her.

Are you surprised that people are so shallow?

Come on…
[/quote]

Doesn’t New York have 2-3 million more registered bradley’s/100 meters/lumpy’s? How Republican are the upstaters?

I acknowledge what you say. Maybe people are that shallow.

JeffR