I’d have gone even further myself, but decided on a shot across the bow first.
Even if an ever expanding social agenda were not antithetical to traditional conservatism, pushing legislative solutions at the federal, rather than state and local, levels is a fundamentally liberal approach.

lblis

What you call a RINO is what I call a Republican from the Republican wing of the Republican party. Social conservatives are the real RINO’s here, IMO, with a political/legislative agenda that does not, in fact, issue naturally from Reagen conservatism, or political conservatism generally, at all. The Republican party is simply the vehicle they’ve been driving.

JM Hanes on November 16, 2006 at 3:55 AM

I would go further than that–the notion of the govt being pro or con on the social issues that are the usual suspects in this discussion is at odds with classic conservatism. So the question becomes: who has been fooling whom?

I just hope that the liberals are so full of themselves that they give Hitlarycare a try again. That will be when I shall be LMAO!

DannoJyd on November 15, 2006 at 7:29 PM

We will see some version of national health care in the next 15 or so years. Count on it. Know why? Two big, big constituencies are slowly embracing it: business (what do you think the big 3 domestic auto guys were talking to Bush about earlier this week?) and the medical establishment.

Before you start going nuts on how the government cannot be involved in delivering quality, affordable health care, do a little research on the Vets hospital situation.

What you call a RINO is what I call a Republican from the Republican wing of the Republican party. Social conservatives are the real RINO’s here, IMO, with a political/legislative agenda that does not, in fact, issue naturally from Reagen conservatism, or political conservatism generally, at all. The Republican party is simply the vehicle they’ve been driving.

Hitlary energizes Republicans to vote for anyone except for her, and if Hitlarycare makes the scene again I believe we could see a repeat of the 94 election cycle.

DannoJyd on November 15, 2006 at 7:21 PM

You’re right Danno- if people were upset at the Medicare spending, wait until the numbers on her version come out- it’s in the $trillions!

Hitlary energizes Republicans to vote for anyone except for her, and if Hitlarycare makes the scene again I believe we could see a repeat of the 94 election cycle.

…so can I. …

And Rudy will take a lot of GOP down with him.

BigOrangeAxe on November 15, 2006 at 5:46 PM

LOL You a funny man!

Or, if you prefer, balls.

Or, maybe we could call them “Malkins”. As in “those Dhimmicrats don’t have the Malkins to do what needs to be done!!”

Devil’s Advocate (hey, I realize AP won’t like this take)

If the nitwits in NYC, and they control the NY state electorate, don’t care if they get hit by another terrorist attack, then why should we?

Hey I don’t want to see Wall Street take another dive, and I don’t want to see more American casualties.

However, New York City voters evidently don’t get it. The terrorists aren’t planning their next strike by attacking the hinterlands.

So, if you live in the city and you’re not a HRC sycophant, MOVE.

Otherwise, the rest of us don’t give a shit.

@Gregor

Dead on. McCain will never win the republican nomination. He is a traitor to the base with his border & terror detainee crap. I will never vote for him.

Very good point. However, I was addressing all those who like him based solely on his 9/11 performance. That is just silly in my opinion.

I’m glad he cleaned up crime in NYC. I just don’t know… from mayor straight to President might be a bit of a stretch. I don’t dislike the guy though, I just think he is a Democrat.

When push comes to shove, if that is what this is, then YES I would vote for Guiliani if he will engage our enemies as though we are actually at war. I will vote for any candidate that takes Islamo-fascists seriously and acts on it accordingly. By “seriously” I mean kill as many of them as he can as fast as he can regardless of politics. Win the war.

Know what else would make me vote for Guiliani? McCain.

The Dems are unlikely to field a candidate with a good 2A record either so 2008 would be a great time for a third party to pick up several million votes. Add in a tough stance on the borders and a couple of other issues and it gets interesting…

What happens when he is afforded the opportunity; that is the real question. Will he choose to be a great leader even when it is not popular?

Well, his approval was at 30% when 9/11 happened, though New York had flourished under his leadership.

Does that answer the question? If it doesn’t, ask the Mafia what they think.

I guarantee that. He would be more qualified to win the DEMOCRATIC nomination.

On to the rest of the post:

- The only way the Pubbies would come close to carrying New York is if Rudy were to take on, say, David Clarke (Milwaukee County, Wisconsin sheriff who, realizing that the parties in Wisconsin have no direct ability to ensure those who run under their banner actually belong to the party, and realizing that there is a LOT of straight-Dem-ticket voting here, ran as a “Dem”). I’ll leave it to the rest of you to decide whether it’s Clarke’s relative conservatism on most issues (he rather-vocally supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, the latter while serving as the “Dem” sheriff), his geography, or how much of a tan he has that would cost him New York against a New Yorker.

- That Rudy and John S. McShame (RINO-Media) are the frontrunners for the Pubbie nomination shows that there are no conservatives near the top of power in the Republican Party.

People should not support Guiliani just because he was a good leader when he was forced to be. Bottom line.

Well, as has been mentioned several times here, Guiliani cleaned up NYC. It needed it badly, but I wouldn’t call that “forced” and I would call it leadership.

Nevertheless, he’s kind of liberal for my tastes.