Congress is responsible for declaring war. Had congress not abdicated their Constitutional authority in favoring of a disgusting piece of work giving the President authority to carry out military actions as he sees fit, every single one of them would be 100% behind the WoT. Because they sidestepped accountability by handing it off to President Bush, they gave themselves cart blanche to begin opposing it. They did the same thing recently with their “non-binding resolution” opposing the surge. They can grab credit if we do well by riding the President’s coattails, but they can distance themselves from him if it goes bad.

Cowards all, and need to be held accountable for it withint their own states.

Also, our current action in Iraq is NOT WAR, except in the sense of being part and parcel of the WoT. We are not AT WAR with Iraq, we are an occupying nation helping to defend the indigenous people against an internal/external insurgency. That is how it should be spoken of by politicians and media alike.

All that said, if we were doing things the correct way, the conduct of the WoT would be a slightly less flammable issue in regards to selecting a presidential candidate.

I find myself in agreement with cmay at this point. Rudy answered direct questions from Sean Hannity about abortion, guns, and gays, and I was displeased by every answer.

He said he was fully in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but local authority should have the power to restrict gun ownership. He favored the Brady Bill, said it gave him better tools as mayor.

He said he despises the very thought of abortion, but believes in a woman’s right to choose how to treat her own body. Then he threw a bone at the pro-lifers by saying he’d appoint justices of the likes of Scalia, Alito and Roberts. (It would have been better had he said Rehnquist and Thomas) Those words to me carried the same sense of misdirection as President Bush signing the McCain-Feingold abortion while saying the Supreme Court would overturn it as unconstitutional.

I think Rudy is an extremely good administrator, and he does respect the law of the land. Attorney General Giuliani sounds good to me.

Let me restate: Defense is important. But Rudy Giuliani has no record on defense and a horrible record on nearly every social issue. How worried would I be about social issues? It seems to me that you’re not very discerning about defense. Again, Rudy has no record and no experience on defense. He was a prosecutor and mayor. But you expect values voters to hold their noses and vote for him and then hope for the best. And this includes on issues regarding DoD , foreign policy, the war, etc., which, let me restate, he has no experience or track record to judge.

Also, you miss another point so let me reword it: If you believe in defense, you will not follow the same path as the Republican party did in 92, 96, and 06. This well-worn path is: Nominate someone who will not unite and inspire the party; just rely on the voters’ antipathy for the Democratic candidate. Once again, it hasn’t worked in the past. I don’t expect it will work in the future. Therefore, nominate someone who will clearly delineate the differences between the two parties, like Reagan in 80 and 84; someone to unite the party, to inspire it; someone who can rekindle “Morning in America.”

And you miss the point.

Cmay,

I don’t hate the messenger, I have not advocated for any candidate and I certainly never told anyone how to vote unless you consider “A vote is a very important,and very personal thing. Please, vote your values.” telling someone who to vote for.

Back up and take a look at my comments. I did not miss your point,your point just had nothing to do with my question.

Which, by the way, still stands.

How worried would you be about abortion, or taxes or a thousand other things if this war was being fought on our shores?

It could be that Mitt ends up being the best of the bunch, but be fair to President Bush–he’s done quite a bit, considering the obstacles he’s faced. . . .

By obstacles do you mean that his party controlled the House and Senate until last month?

Sorry, Jen. The list of his accomplishments is greatly exagerated.

Right now, this party has my vote for one reason over all- National Defense!

And you miss the point. Rudy G is not the only candidate who will have a strong record on national defense. Let me put it this way: Rudy may get a 10 on defense, 8 on taxes, 0 on abortion, 0 on gay marriage, 0 on gun laws etc. Or we can get someone who gets 10s on defense, taxes and social issues. Why keep pulling out the old canard that defense is the only issue. It’s not. It’s important. Furthermore, Giuliani has no record on defense. How am I supposed to say he will do well?

BTW, I’m in the military myself, so I know how important defense is. But it’s foolish to think that Giuliani, who ran from Clinton when she ran in his home state, who has no military experience, no defense credentials, high negatives to significant parts of the conservative base, who is unethical, who hasn’t held a political office since 2001 will unite a now fallen party.

Again, if you liked the results of 2006′s election, please run with Giuliani in 2008. Then in 2009, you can complain on this blog what a bunch of ignorant people conservatives are. Maybe, it’s time Republicans gave conservatives a candidate to vote for instead of relying on them to vote against the Dems. Let me reiterate this point: This is what has happened. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just that’s what has happened. Stop telling people how they should vote and give them a candidate who can inspire the whole party. Someone who is good on defense and social issues. Someone who we’re not worried about flip-flopping.

Once again, hate the messenger all you like, but those who don’t learn from history (1992, 1996, 2006) are doomed to repeat it.

Favored in the polls and still carrying the charisma of the 9/11 aftermath, Rudy Giuliani has announced that he’s running as a Republican for President. I like Giuliani. He’s one of the few GOP hopefuls that seems to have the…

The Left didn’t win in Nov. The Right lost. Also, the Left didn’t win a mandate or what they conceive to be a total change of all directions.

Uh, don’t shoot the messenger. And the tactic of “Yeah, we have a lot of crappy Republicans, but the Dems are worse” didn’t work in 2006. So why bring it back in 2008? If winning is the purpose in both Iraq and the presidential election, why are the conservatives so willing to throw in with a candidate with very high negatives and a track record of running from Hillary?

Uh – yet you do exactly that – and put quite a few words in my mouth while doing it.

I addressed one specific part of your post. IF Guiliani wins the primary, expect people to stay home or vote third party.

I’m not a conservative nor a liberal. I’m an American who doesn’t identify with either party. I have social and fiscal beliefs that fall on both sides of the aisle.

I also believe we’re fighting for our lives here and believe that takes precedence over my social or fiscal values, whatever they may be.

Right now, this party has my vote for one reason over all- National Defense.

Here’s the thing, I’m a grunts wife, he’s deployed once, and will deploy again. I take the war about as seriously as one can take it.

I took people at their word when they said they believed as I do, that we are fighting for our lives, that we are fighting for our way of life – yet in the 2006 elections I saw some of those same people, the ones who said they felt the WoT was all important, a matter of life and death, stay home or vote for a 3rd party candidate to “teach the Republicans a lesson”

Well, it may or may not have sent Republican politicians a message, but you sure did send me a message. The war, to some, no matter how much they talk up the importance of the WoT, it isn’t quite as important as “the party”.

Politics as usual.

It also showed me that they are willing to gamble with my husbands life. They gamble that no matter what, he’ll fight his butt off to keep the war from the shores so they could teach someone a lesson.

A vote is a very important,and very personal thing. Please, vote your values.

Just don’t fool yourself that when you are presented with three choices on election day – a Republican nominee, a Democratic nominee and numerous third party candidates that have almost zero chance of winning the election – that your vote has no consequences outside of teaching a politician or a party a lesson.

I said it in my previous comment, and I’ll say it again now – How worried would you be about abortion, or taxes or a thousand other things if this war was being fought on our shores?

Yes, it’s sometimes a Shakespearean tragi-comedy but always interesting. Having overcome much, it’s actually pretty serence at this stage. Some day we’ll talk about it over good wine/cheese – yes, us independents and righties also like good things (not only Martha :)

Oh, and quit living such an interesting life!

Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Would it were so Entelechy, would it were so…..
;^)
I believe you are the one with that covered!

What’s SP? Oh come, you can take a joke.

You want to know Rudy’s real problem? I would seriously consider voting for him because he and I have a lot of the same values–pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. What’s not to like….

honora on February 6, 2007 at 9:40 AM

honora, my sincere regret over my typo – meant to type SB, from Sunday, of course…

Fixed the ‘what’s not to like’, as I like to go to the range (though, I dodn’t think he’d touch that one) – and, yes, I love to laugh and I can take a joke, mostly about myself :)

Oh, and quit living such an interesting life!

He filed his “Statement of Candidacy” today as a Republican candidate for President in 2008.

……

GWB was criticized in 2000 for being a big spending pseudo-conservative who wouldn’t fight the culture war against liberalism. He promised that he was something different. Lo and behold, regardless of your stance on Iraq/the War on Terror, Bush proved his critics right. If there was any surprise it’s only that he is spending a heckuva lot more than we thought he could. And his response to domestic liberalism has been tepid, at best.
…
cmay on February 6, 2007 at 7:12 AM

I disagree, cmay and pretty strongly, too.
Now, President Bush has spent a little too much on Medicare prescription drugs and education and he did sign campaign finance reform (which has served to expose the evil machinations and modus operandi of Liberal activists), but his NCLB program is an effort to rein in the teachers’ unions’ hold on our schools by throttling their funding and he’s been trying to move toward private school vouchers, too.
In terms of leading the fight in the culture war, he’s been pretty terrific, particularly in regards to gun control, abortion “rights,” and “gay” “marriage” and the Right have made significant strides in taking our country back to its fundamental Conservative battles in his 6 years in office.
Also, the Bush Administration has made a concerted effort to put more strict constructionist judges on the bench and has steered welfare reform in a better direction with faith-based charities’ support.
There are many, many fronts to man in the war on cultural liberalism to take our country back and we’ve made significant strides since the Clintons left the presidency, but there’s a lot more left to do and I agree with you that whomever we elect in 2008 will be very important to continue to roll back Liberalism, but I have a feeling that all of us will put Rudy through a considerable ordeal to sound out his position on all these issues.
It could be that you are right and the Guiliani will continue to embrace his liberal stances, but it could cost him…but if it comes down to voting for him or Hillary (or any Democrat), I’m going with Rudy every time.
It could be that Mitt ends up being the best of the bunch, but be fair to President Bush–he’s done quite a bit, considering the obstacles he’s faced, and everytime we’ve made progress for Conservatism, he’s had to take his case straight to the American people (which is only right, I think) and over the heads of the loudly braying Leftist MSM and their enablers in the Dem Party, K street lobbyists, Hollyweird and the Leftist teachers & professors in our schools.

I think he’s right on the money where the right wing religious types are concerned.

Gay couple with a Lhasa Apso? Well that narrows it down to just about everyone south of 14th St. As for gay Lhasa Apsos, they should go back to where they came from.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

LOL. Gotta love New York!

honora, do you have something against gay people or Lhasa Apsos?

DaveS on February 5, 2007 at 9:44 PM

I intensely dislike Lhasa Apsos. And don’t get me started on gay Lhasa Apsos….stupid gay dogs…

I thought the post from Jen and I last week tore you apart and embarrassed you to the point that you were leaving. I guess liberals have short memories, and no honor(a). But it was nice for awhile not reading your foolish posts.

right2bright on February 5, 2007 at 6:44 PM

You mean the one where you indicated you had saved ever post I ever made in a real stalker-like fashion? The one where you were gape-mouthed that someone could have been married twice and once to a Jew? And have a kid in medical school?

Wheee, was a spectacularly unbelievable life I must lead…sounds the basis of a mini-series don’t you think? What sort of drone-like existence makes my very pedestrian one look so wildly dramatic and hence hard to believe, I wonder.

LOL. Why don’t you find someone else to stalk?

That is such oooooold news – girl, today you’re not sharpening that knife – did your side lose the SP?

Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM

What’s SP? Oh come, you can take a joke.

You want to know Rudy’s real problem? I would seriously consider voting for him because he and I have a lot of the same values–pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. What’s not to like….

And you hand it to the Democrats – while we are at war.

Uh, don’t shoot the messenger. And the tactic of “Yeah, we have a lot of crappy Republicans, but the Dems are worse” didn’t work in 2006. So why bring it back in 2008? If winning is the purpose in both Iraq and the presidential election, why are the conservatives so willing to throw in with a candidate with very high negatives and a track record of running from Hillary?

I’m sorry, but if he wins, conservatism loses. If conservatism loses, so will the Republican party. Instead of griping at me and telling me how important winning in Iraq is, find a candidate that can unite the party on social, economic, military and political issues. Reagan did it. Bush squandered it by pandering to only specific parts of the Republican base.

Also, don’t give me the garbage that Rudy G. is the only guy who can win the war on terror. He’s not. Maybe the absence of comments on the war is indicative that folks here think that Newt, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, et al. will all do a heckuva job on the war.

If Rudy wins the primary, expect a strong third party push with a real conservative taking at least 15% of the vote away from the Republicans and another 10% just staying home as a protest.

And you hand it to the Democrats – while we are at war.

You know what really bothers me? How few of the comments actually address that fact – we’re at war.

How worried would you be about abortion, or taxes or a thousand other things if this war was being fought on our shores?

With respect, to believe that Rudy G will all of a sudden capture conservative hearts by declaring a “states rights” stance on abortion and gun control is to miss the point. He has shown that he is proudly pro-abortion and anti-gun rights. His actions speak volumes.

GWB was criticized in 2000 for being a big spending pseudo-conservative who wouldn’t fight the culture war against liberalism. He promised that he was something different. Lo and behold, regardless of your stance on Iraq/the War on Terror, Bush proved his critics right. If there was any surprise it’s only that he is spending a heckuva lot more than we thought he could. And his response to domestic liberalism has been tepid, at best.

Now we are expected to believe that another big spending, social liberal who backed out of a Senate race against his presumptive adversary (when she was carpet-bagging in his home state) is going to be a small government, 10th amendment, Reagan-esque party uniter.

Sorry, that’s a bridge too far. If Rudy wants to help the party, he accepts the position of Sec Homeland Security during the election. Former SecState Powell let it be known that if Bush were elected in 2000 that he would accept that position.

If Rudy wins the primary, expect a strong third party push with a real conservative taking at least 15% of the vote away from the Republicans and another 10% just staying home as a protest. You know, like in 1992 when Perot tapped into the economic angst within the conservative movement when GHWB caved and raised taxes and Clinton won with 42% of the vote.

I can’t wait to see the reaction of the hard core RW when they first hear about how Rudy moved out of G Mansion when leaving wife #2 and moved into an apt with a homosexual couple and their Lhasa Apso doggy.

Oh I hope I remember the popcorn…..

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM

This says so much about the conservatives’ tolerance toward gays and your intolerance and destorted assessment of conservatives and independents.

You’re smart all right but on this one, you’re wrong.