You want my opinion of the IRS threatening to revoke the tax-exempt status churches enjoy because they can’t see fit to stick to religion?

Big batches of organizations in this country that are tax-exempt, whether they stick to their stated purpose or not. And some of them have an overtly political purpose to start with.

I agree with you about Hillary. But the proper way to keep her out of office, in my opinion, is to give people someone to vote for. We got 8 years of Bill Clinton because the GOP twice relied on the anti-Dem vote.

Slublog on May 18, 2007 at 8:51 AM

In this case, he is asking us to judge him on his body of political work, which is poor at best. He’s extreme left on every social issue, has a bad track record of appointing judges, has a record of corruption, is anti-2nd Amendment, poor on immigration, and ran away from (instead of ran against) the other party’s presumptive nominee. He has no track record on the issues that matter to Hawks, namely anti-terrorism, the military and foreign diplomacy.

Let his body of work stand for itself.

And I don’t believe I used profanity either.

I didn’t mean to imply that you had. Only that it is one of the rules (and one that needs to be better enforced) on HotAir.

But if you are not going to participate in the fight, I personally don’t want to hear you complain about the consequences.

There are different ways to fight. Social cons have made an impact by staying home. In 1980 it brought about the unlikely alliance between the Religious Right and the Neocons. It forced GWB to withdraw the Harriet Miers nomination in favor of Sam Alito.

Furthermore, I got to listen to Sean Hannity push for Schwarzenegger for Governor of CA. Now all he does is complain that Schwarzenegger is a liberal. Well, no kidding. We knew that before he was elected. But the star-struck Hannity doesn’t have more of a right to complain because he actively participated. The folks who warned him have even more of a right to say, “See, I told you so” (this quote is from Rush Limbaugh).

If you don’t want to hear people complain, you can choose to tune out like I’ve done with Hannity. You can’t expect others to be silent because you don’t like what they say.

Honestly, though, no one can say for sure because this is an odd and speculative line of criticism.

By ‘06, I’m sure he’d already decided to run for president, so what would have been the point of running for what would essentially be a one-year term?

Slublog on May 18, 2007 at 8:34 AM

He’s never been elected to anything above mayor and he hasn’t run for anything sine 2000.

He could have established a track record in the Senate of being strong on crime, the War on Terror, Iraq, taxes, etc.

Most importantly, he could have built up a lot of good will within the party by beating the Hildebeast. He would have proven that he could beat any Democrat because he could deliver NY in a general election. He polled poorly against Hillary and he sat this one out. Someone who can’t deliver their home state (like Gore in 2000) is going to have a lot of trouble in a general election.

He also had the chance to run for Governor against Spitzer, a race in which Giuliani was favored. He passed.

First of all, I don’t believe I said I was speaking for HotAir. These are my opinions. And I don’t believe I used profanity either. If you are referring to my “check out” comment, perhaps I should have used a different term. What I meant by that is that if you are going to go fishing on election day, why not just make it a permanent trip, because you’ve contributed nothing.

And Rush is right, not making a choice is still making a choice. But if you are not going to participate in the fight, I personally don’t want to hear you complain about the consequences. I understand the desire to stay home. I’m not exactly a fan of Rudy. But what does that accomplish? Send a message to the Republican party? That was tried, and now we’re stuck with Pelosi and Reed. What was gained?

In ‘06 (cancer-free) he had a chance to go beat Hillary Clinton in his home state. He took a pass. If he was serious about proving his electability he would have run against her.

By ‘06, I’m sure he’d already decided to run for president, so what would have been the point of running for what would essentially be a one-year term?

In fairness to Rudy, I think he had cancer at the time.

Slublog on May 18, 2007 at 8:12 AM

That is true, but it was only after he was sinking in the polls against her that he dropped out. He was facing serious corruption allegations (like his good buddy Bernard Kerik) and a really ugly divorce. The divorce thing is behind him (unless Judy comes up with some weird stuff), but the corruption still lingers (once again, see his business relationship with Kerik).

In ‘06 (cancer-free) he had a chance to go beat Hillary Clinton in his home state. He took a pass. If he was serious about proving his electability he would have run against her.

Hey, didn’t Rudy run from Hillary when she was carpet-bagging in his home state? That’s right, he did.

In fairness to Rudy, I think he had cancer at the time.

You have to go with the lesser of two evils.

Putting aside whether you’re right or not, past elections have shown that voters do not vote for poor candidates (see Dole/Kemp ‘96). You may believe this (and it is a very logical and consistent position) but voters don’t behave this way.

You have to make a choice.

“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice” – Rush (the music group, not the talkshow host).

If you don’t, then you have no business voicing your disgust and outrage on this site. You may as well just check out!

I must have missed that rule. I thought we were supposed to avoid using profanity, etc. Believe it or not, you have not been appointed dictator in charge of HotAir or election rules.

Enough is enough. I am sick and tired of watching James Dobson act like a thugresort to threats every time he feels as though he’s not getting his way. In his latest intemperate screed against the Republican party, Dobson has……

He would win in a huge landslide doing better than the more conservative Republicans given a Hillary/Giuliani fight.

Mojave Mark on May 18, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Hey, didn’t Rudy run from Hillary when she was carpet-bagging in his home state? That’s right, he did. And didn’t Rudy have a chance to prove he is the anti-Hillary last year and he chose to pass? That’s right, he ran from Hillary instead of running against her. So now I’m supposed to believe (against reason and the proof of his history) that Giuliani will be a small government, constructionist judges appointing, gun rights defending, Reaganesque leader who will beat the presumptive nominee from the other major party?

The prospectus in mutual funds always state the “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” But it is one heckuva indicator in politics.

Rudy fails every social test, especially if you’re really a libertarian and he hasn’t delivered against Hillary.

And what makes you think he’ll be great in the WoT? Is it his lack of military and diplomatic experience or his lack of any plan that is more compelling?

Don’t let the same moral equivalence that let us give a pass to The Clenis (because he made us feel better for our OWN shortcomings)lead us down the road to say, “Anybody but Hillary”.

The PRIMARIES are where we voice our opinions and if the Conservative Base of our party is constantly sidelined or worse, acquiesces, we will get a parade of ever increasingly VANILLA candidates with polls UP their @$$es, as well as on their minds.

GET A SPINE MOJAVEMARK….and all the rest of you, too.

SarahK says she’ll stay home

frankj

I never said I would stay home. I’ve never stayed home on election day, and I get irrationally angry at people who do such. But given the choice between Hillary and Rudy, I would write in Fred. Yeah, I get that it does as much good as staying home on election day, but I will not NOT participate in the election process, plus there are other offices besides president to vote for on election day.

When it comes down to it, between Hillary and Rudy, I see very little difference. Rudy is a complete social liberal, like Hillary. And Rudy talks big about war and recognizing the global jihad, but I have a hard time buying into the notion that he does actually recognize it given his stance on illegal immigration and amnesty. They go hand in hand. I don’t know how anyone can think that hard working Mexican criminals (yes, they’re all criminals when they don’t knock before they come in) are the only ones crossing the borders. Neither of these candidates will give a flip about border security.

Furthermore, if Hillary wins, she, as the first woman president (God rest our souls), will have something to prove: that her balls are just as big as whatever male contender she just beat in the general election. Not only that, she will also want to prove that she is running the Exec Branch and getting the blow jobs, not Bill. She won’t want to look weak on terror like him. Also, when we are attacked again, she is going to need to prove that she has what it takes to fight terrorism just like the men. And she’s power hungry, and she will know that there is no way she’ll get re-elected if she doesn’t retaliate quickly and forcefully.

So yeah. Little difference. I don’t believe Rudy on judges (he is simply not believable — he’s going to, in principle, appoint judges that will uphold laws that he doesn’t morally believe in?). He doesn’t even come across as believable when he states his pre-rehearsed speech about judges. He can say it all he wants, but he also says that he’s personally against abortion while giving money to PP.

Dang. I was going to rant about Rudy and guns, but it’s time for bowchickabowwow. Not that I’m complaining.

Rudy won’t get my vote.

If Fred! doesn’t run, I will be fishing during the next election.

Killing unborn children is right out the 3rd Riech playbook. Going after guns is wrong and going to start a fire fight. Amnesty stops now.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mark Steyn wouldn’t adopt something as irrational as what Dobson is talking about, there is a time for pragmaticism and 2008 may be it!

Look, from where I sit in CA, another 4-8 years is enough to irreversible damage the nation. Just look at the 6 years Bush has been in office. I see pragmatism getting us exactly nowhere. It got us nowhere with Bush. Giulianni is even more liberal. I am interested in Steyn’s take however.