Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination

posted at 9:44 pm on September 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

They held a “private” meeting on Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the issue, according to Salon and WND. And as with all “private” political endeavors in which “private citizen” James Dobson is involved, the details ended up in the papers as a threat to party leaders not to defy the religious base. Think of it as the evangelical equivalent of Tom Friedman’s dopey “9/11 is over” column in the Times this weekend: social cons weren’t going to subordinate their domestic priorities to the war on terror forever, and so, ironically, with Mr. 9/11 himself possibly heading up the ticket, they’re ready to declare 9/11 “over” for them too by shattering the coalition of hawks.

Shrewd move. The GOP’s already looking at near-certain defeat so evangelicals can walk away without worrying overly much about costing Republicans the election. Plus, the fact that they’re willing to make good on their threat will put the, ahem, fear of God into the rest of the party ahead of 2012 and restore some of the emphasis on “values” that’s been lost in the jumble of terrorism and Iraq. In fact, if I were Dobson, I’d almost hope Giuliani wins the nomination just so I can play my trump. That sort of power play will inevitably and irretrievably alienate a few centrist conservatives like me but the GOP can afford to shed us. They can’t afford to shed Christians. That’ll mean leftist rule for awhile but eventually the MoveOn crowd will overplay its hand and alienate some centrist Democrats and things will even out. Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long.

Exit question: Who’ll be the “Christian nominee”? Forget Newt; he’s too much of a party man to play Nader to Rudy’s Gore. The WND article mentions someone named Foster Friess, but it’d be stupid to nominate a no-name like that who can’t attract any votes that aren’t being handed to him by Dobson et al. How about Alan Keyes?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

How much of this is simply smoke blowing on Dobson’s part? I read, time and time again, from various commenters here that he simply does not represent a significant number of Christians and can’t influence the vote in any event. Looks to me like he thinks he can, and there are enough that will follow his lead.

For the love of whatever, why abortion? There’s a war going on, your borders are like sieves. So called “Compassionate Conservatism” is noting but Jesus approved socialism and the topic that will get Dobson and his ilk to run a 3rd party candidate is abortion? Not taxes, not out of control spending, not the steady centralization of government authority, but abortion.

Utterly insane.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 9:59 AM

1. She represented San Francisco……(ahem..)

2. She was elected to Speaker by libs.

What does this have to do with the Christian vote?

nottakingsides on October 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM

I thought I was being clear. Maybe I wasn’t.

My point is that if 70% of all Christians voted Republican, then with just those stats Republicans would have the majority of the country. If Republicans had the majority of the country, we’d still have power in congress and Pelosi wouldn’t.

If 70% of 76% of the population of the United States voted Republican last year in November, we’d still have the majority and the Dems wouldn’t have it now.

Esthier on October 2, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Duncan Hunter is a great man, no doubt about it. In so far as he is my congressman I know quite a bit about him. I have voted for him 5 time already and would in a heartbeat if he gets the nomination. That said I think the best we are going to get is a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

I’m not going to play spoiler and will be profoundly disappointed in Duncan if he does. You need to understand this much, no third party candidate is going to get elected.

doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 10:44 AM

I agree with you on Hunter Redhead infidel. He’s very impressive and actually is very Reagan-like (california conservative).

If he won the nom I’d be overjoyed, he’s just not well known. He needs to be on the ticket though because he is impressive.

ThackerAgency on October 2, 2007 at 10:48 AM

I want a LEADER – with brains, balls, and the will to use ‘em.

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 9:56 AM

= Rudy

tommylotto on October 2, 2007 at 11:44 AM

I have voted for him 5 time already and would in a heartbeat if he gets the nomination.

Thank God that the GOP occasionally trots a real conservative out there for you to happily vote for:)

That said I think the best we are going to get is a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

That would be really hard for me to turn down. But I don’t think that the GOP will find Thompson centrist enough that they can balance him out with raving right winger Hunter.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 11:45 AM

= Rudy

tommylotto on October 2, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Brains and balls are no good if you have no value system to stand on. It would be like giving a 2 year old a machine gun.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM

It would be like giving a 2 year old a machine gun.

I’m getting so good at this I have begun quoting myself :)

That 2 year old might take out the terrorist, but think of all the havoc and destruction they would leave in their wake in every other area of life.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Dobson and his ilk to run a 3rd party candidate is abortion? Not taxes, not out of control spending, not the steady centralization of government authority, but abortion

Whoever you are…I would like for you to lay the issue of abortion along side the issue of racism, just for a minute, and ask yourself which you find more repulsive. If you have any sense of reason then you know that a “fetus” is in fact a child. This would mean that abortion is in fact infanticide. So…which is more repulsive to you? Infanticide, or racial discrimination?

Now, if you have any sense of reason you know that my logic is sound.

Would you ever vote for someone dense enough to be a racist, even if you thought they would secure our borders and fight terrorists? If you would, then your reason is in question. If you wouldn’t then why in the name of God would you vote for someone obtuse or confused enough to think that baby killing might in some circumstances be justifiable?

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Sorry about the Whoever you are…That’s who you are.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Guys, bear with me here, OK? I’m playing catch-up. I’d like to contribute an article about this whole “electability” crap. Hunter IS electable if WE, The People, say he is. If Republicans would quit trying to compromise with the Left, then they can win. The emphasis below is mine.

The Real Conservative has stood up. His Name is Duncan Hunter

Columnist Jonah Goldberg must have not done much research for his op/ed that appeared April 4 in the USA Today, Will the Real Conservative Please Stand Up.

Goldberg is looking for a real conservative candidate in the Republican Presidential Primary, but the reason he can’t find one is very clear. He’s only looking at John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.

Maybe he, and other conservative/Republican pundits like Sean Hannity, should give more serious consideration to candidates outside the “Big 3″, more specifically, Duncan Hunter.

From his stances/record on the War on Terror and illegal immigration to abortion and preserving our American industries and trade advantages, Congressman Hunter is the no-nonsense leader that conservatives, and more importantly, our nation needs.

When I think of the way many of our “conservative” pundits and leaders are kicking a candidate like Hunter to the curb in favor of Rudy Giuliani, I get infuriated with the realization that our elections are nothing more than a popularity contest.

Primaries are supposed to be the time where people get behind and support the candidate that best suits their ideals. Last month, two of Louisiana’s conservative delegates came out and endorsed Rudy Giuliani, Senator David “gay marriage is the most important issue facing us today” Vitter and Representative Charles Boustany.

But if you were to compare the ideologies of Vitter and Boustany with that of both Giuliani and Hunter, you would find that Duncan Hunter is much more in line with the belief of the two Louisiana congressmen.

One brief look at Congressman Duncan Hunter’s credentials and views is all it takes to realize he is the conservative of the 2008 Election.

Member of the 75th Army Rangers
Served as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee
Voted AGAINST CAFTA (just like Boustany, one of few Republicans to vote NO)
Overall A+ Grade by the Americans for Better Immigration
Voted AGAINST giving illegals free educational benefits, welfare, and free healthcare benefits
Voted FOR banning partial birth abortions
Voted FOR deterring foreign arms transfers to China
Voted FOR restricting funding to the United Nations
Overall A+ Grade by the NRA
Voted FOR ending offshore tax havens
Co-sponsor of the Fair Tax Act of 2007 (HR 25)

Congressman Hunter is for protecting our borders and protecting American jobs and small businesses. Many Republicans call Hunter a protectionist or “dinosaur” when it comes to foreign trade. But Congressman Hunter understands that a huge trade deficit is NOT beneficial to the United States. Rather, such a deficit can likely be linked to our current national debt. The free trade crowd argues that the U.S. should take advantage of being able to import goods at a cheaper cost than producing them here.

Oh really? What happens when the production of goods is completely phased out here? Is it really smart turning our economy into one that relies solely on service and no longer manufactures goods?

Duncan Hunter realizes that our trade deficit with China is doing little but helping a suppressive, communistic nation, as the Chinese are using American dollars not to help its citizens, but to build up their military.

What has the Bush Administration done about the flood of illegal aliens? Nothing. They are bought-and-paid-for by businesses who want to continue the pool of illegal, cheap labor. What will Rudy Giuliani do? As mayor, he worked to give illegal aliens more access to free government services. What will McCain do? He is currently working with Ted Kennedy to pass an amnesty bill for 12 million illegals. What will Romney do? With campaign raising figures just released, he appears to be receiving contributions from big business, pro-illegal alien labor backers, much like President Bush.

Congressman Hunter has promised to build a barrier across the whole southern border and supports eliminating incentives for illegals by pulling out the welcome mat of free government programs and punishing those employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. [He sponsored this bill, which was passed into law, and which our government is currently ignoring! -RI]

Then there’s the issue of the War on Terror. As a former Army Ranger, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and a son who has served two tours in Iraq [and one in Afghanistan! -RI], Duncan Hunter has both personal and governmental military experience and the personal connection and understanding of having one of his very own children sent to fight in the current war.

The answer for a real conservative president is right under our noses. Right-wing pundits and politicians only have to be true to their convictions and ideology and not get caught up in the popularity contest.

Like I was saying, the only way to win against a liberal Democrat is to field a conservative Republican. Anything less WILL LOSE. And anyone who tries to put lipstick on a pig and convince the voter it’s a conservative might as well go work for Shrillary’s campaign, for all they’re worth.

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Would you ever vote for someone dense enough to be a racist, even if you thought they would secure our borders and fight terrorists?

I guess to make a better analogy, they wouldn’t even have to be a racist. The would just have to be wishy washy about it…”well, I don’t personally believe in racism, even though I have given money to the KKK in the past, but I certainly dont’t think the federal government should be paying for racism with your tax dollars, or legislating it. That should be a state’s issue.” Quietly to himself, “there, I think that does it.”

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 12:02 PM

I think you’re right.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM

“It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.” ~A.A. Hodge

raving right winger Hunter.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Really. A raving right winger? There’s nothing crazy or raving about Hunter. He’s solid as a rock. Just because you may be Left of him doesn’t mean he’s “raving”. Besides a man who is guided by his principles always looks crazy to those who aren’t.

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country…” ~Mark Twain

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Really. A raving right winger?

I guess I was a bit vague. I like Duncan Hunter. Raving is how the left and moderates (by which I mean the slighty less lunaticly left GOP) will paint him.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Sorry, Samuel. I think I completely misread your post. I think that was sarcasm I was reading and I missed it. I’m reading with more speed than comprehension. Sorry in advance for my bitter response.

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Reading your posts, I might think I could have written them. That’s how much I agree with you.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:19 PM

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country…” ~Mark Twain

That’s gold. It could be in the Bible it’s so good. And it applies directly to all the “vote for him ’cause he’s electable” crowd.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Thank you Samuel. While I’m feeling a little sheepish, I’ll go help myself to a little coffee… That always helps. ;)

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 12:32 PM

While I’m feeling a little sheepish,

What you said wasn’t bitter at all. What you gave was a very well reasoned defense of the person you thought was under assault, without any vitriol whatsoever. I didn’t get the impression you were even flustered.

Don’t worry about it.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Brains and balls are no good if you have no value system to stand on. It would be like giving a 2 year old a machine gun.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Because a two-year-old has brains?

The more correct analogy would be to give Dawkins a machine gun. He’d probably do more good than harm, but he might become so overzealous that he kills all the religious people he hates.

Esthier on October 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM

but he might become so overzealous that he kills all the religious people he hates.

Esthier on October 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Great now you got Rudy stalking evangelicals with a machine gun!!!

tommylotto on October 2, 2007 at 1:27 PM

samuelrylander,

I would like for you to lay the issue of abortion along side the issue of racism, just for a minute, and ask yourself which you find more repulsive. If you have any sense of reason then you know that a “fetus” is in fact a child. This would mean that abortion is in fact infanticide. So…which is more repulsive to you? Infanticide, or racial discrimination?

Holy non-sequitor. If your single issue is abortion, then be sure to vote for the third party candidate of Dobson’s choosing. Lord knows that Hillary won’t appease certain enemy elements within your borders. One step closer to sharia. But that’s ok. What you need is a larger, more bloated Byzantine government that accomplishes nothing, as the Democrats will make Bush look positively restrained. The issue is something that will never be overturned at any point in our lifetimes.

Now, if you have any sense of reason you know that my logic is sound.

Erm, no it isn’t.

Would you ever vote for someone dense enough to be a racist, even if you thought they would secure our borders and fight terrorists? If you would, then your reason is in question. If you wouldn’t then why in the name of God would you vote for someone obtuse or confused enough to think that baby killing might in some circumstances be justifiable?

Is the other guy an open borders appeaser of enemies a la Neville Chamberlain and/or Jimmy Carter? At any rate, if my wife was in jeopardy during either pregnancy, and the only way to save her life was an abortion, then guess what? If either of my daughters were raped and became pregnant, then guess what? If I had foreknowledge of a crippling birth defect, then guess what? That’s right, abortion. Not even thinking twice about it.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 2:52 PM

At any rate, if my wife was in jeopardy during either pregnancy, and the only way to save her life was an abortion, then guess what? If either of my daughters were raped and became pregnant, then guess what? If I had foreknowledge of a crippling birth defect, then guess what? That’s right, abortion. Not even thinking twice about it.

I’ll make you a deal, just to point out the facade of your argument about preserving the lives of mothers or saving the victims of rape the indignance of an unwanted pregnancy, or the child with the birth defect…whatever.

I’ll give you all of those, you can abort every one of them if you want to , or you can have the freedom of choice to abort them if the mother/father/whoever sees fit. But you must agree to make it illegal to abort any other baby. It will never be ok to abort a baby outside those circumstances. Will you take my deal? What, No? Why not? Is it because you aren’t really trying to protect raped women or ill mothers?

There are only two possible explanations for your line of reasoning. 1. Someone fed you that BS in the past and you accepted it without much thought since then, in short: ignorance; or 2. You are being disingenuous in fielding such an argument as a defense of abortion and have some other reason for supporting it.

The thing I love leaving comments on blogs…people get to lay down an entire train of thought without interruption and argument.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Because a two-year-old has brains?

Good point. I’m not sure who Dawkins is, so I couldn’t have made that particular analogy. But I could have picked something better than a two year old.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Is the other guy an open borders appeaser of enemies a la Neville Chamberlain and/or Jimmy Carter?

Sure…Lets say he was. Would you vote for the racist? If you would, then it follows that you would vote for Rudy. Hey, at least you’re consistent.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM

If your single issue is abortion

It’s not. It’s just the first one they have to qualify on to earn my vote. I don’t give my vote away like a two-dollar whore to anyone willing to cough up something that sounds vaguely like some part of what I believe in, just so I can say, “Hey…at least I ain’t losin’.” There are some causes that it is justifiable to stake your life on.

Can you imagine if the founders could hear you people talk? They gave their lives, literally, for lower taxes. What do you think they would have done if King George had been killing babies?

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I’ll give you all of those, you can abort every one of them if you want to , or you can have the freedom of choice to abort them if the mother/father/whoever sees fit. But you must agree to make it illegal to abort any other baby. It will never be ok to abort a baby outside those circumstances. Will you take my deal? What, No? Why not? Is it because you aren’t really trying to protect raped women or ill mothers?

At least we’ve established that all abortion isn’t akin to infanticide.

I’ll go you one better with your odd request: sure, all other abortions are banned with the caveat that sex ed it properly taught in schools, including birth control and specifically condom use.

Now, to use the exact same non-argument you used on me: We have a deal? What no? Why not? Is that because you wish to fill the public school system with half truths about birth control because it runs counter to your religion?

It’s no less ridiculous when I do it.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Technically, a Pyhrric victory is still a victory, but one bought at too high a cost. Phyrrus of Eprius kept defeating the Romans, but his casualties were so high that he speculated that if he won another such victory he would be totally undone!

tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Sorry to reach so far back in the blog roll to pull this from, but I just had a thought on this particular post.

Isn’t that a perfect description of the Repubs move to the left, and compromise? They (no longer we) keep giving, and compromising, and ceeding just to stay viable and win, or be popular that they have in effect lost. They no longer give more than lipservice to their values.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM

I haven’t established that certain kinds of abortions don’t amount to infanticide. I’ve just pointed out that you are at least genuine in your belief that they are not. I think that rules out #2. You now have about that much (me holding my fingers really close together) more credibility than you did a moment ago. The question now is whether you will persist in your ignorance.

But to your hypothetical to me…

sex ed it properly taught in schools, including birth control and specifically condom use.

I don’t accept your caveat. It wouldn’t make my system better. That would be compromise by giving in to a bad idea to get a good one through. It’s how we got in this situation in the first place. See:

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:39 PM

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

And before you come out and point at the double standard of my compromise in allowing you to kill a few of the babies to save 99.9% of them, rest assured that I fully plan to come after the other ones too, down the road.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:54 PM

To:

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

.
You know…….[foot tapping]…….it’s funny that:

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM

didn’t include……..[drum rolls]… abstinence classes as another prevention method in the list of sex ed options:

sex ed it properly taught in schools, including birth control and specifically condom use.

.

Mysterious isn’t it………? Mysterious indeed.

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 3:55 PM

samuelrylander,

Credibility on the internets? Oh, my dream has come true…

You utterly and completely missed the point of my reciprocal strawman only to build another. What the heck is up with that, anyway? Building these false arguments based on nothing I’ve said and then masterfully knocking them down? Your ability to effectively debate is weak.

Abstinence isn’t now, and I don’t think ever was, an effective form of birth control. Teach it all you want. As long as there is an understanding that kids are having sex and will continue to do so. If they are having sex then they should have the knowledge to avoid disease and pregnancy. Yeah, I know, the only thing that will prevent pregnancy is not doing it. Kids do stupid things. When I was a kid, I did all manner of stupid things. Oddly enough, I’ve lived this long.

rest assured that I fully plan to come after the other ones too, down the road.

Don’t appreciate the thought of the fervently religious around the wombs of my wife and daughters. That’s just me, though. You seem determined to save all the babies, and I hope than when it comes time, and there is a woman who cannot afford to raise the child, or that child has serious health issues that you, personally, will open your home to as many as possible with zero compensation from the taxpayer.

As a small favor, how about one post covering multiple points? As much fun as 1,000 post topics are it’s not so much fun when 80% are one person who hasn’t mastered the copy and paste function.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Abstinence isn’t now, and I don’t think ever was, an effective form of birth control.
Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Right.

Watch for those flying tadpoles!

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 6:26 PM

As a small favor, how about one post covering multiple points? As much fun as 1,000 post topics are it’s not so much fun when 80% are one person who hasn’t mastered the copy and paste function.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Not quite sure I follow what you are getting at here.

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM

I don’t want a Truther (Paul), a Manager (Giuliani), an Adminstrator (Romney), or a Celebrity (Thompson). I want a LEADER – with brains, balls, and the will to use ‘em.

Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 9:56 AM

How about someone with a remote chance of winning? Hunter is a solid conservative, but he’s not campaigned well or effectively. Electability certainly shouldn’t be the only consideration when choosing a candidate, but it’s foolish not to take it into account.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM

samuelrylander on October 2, 2007 at 7:03 PM

I’d imagine he’s referencing your tendency to post 2, 3, 4 and sometimes 5 times in a row.

MikeZero on October 2, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Right.

Watch for those flying tadpoles!

Mcguyver

Which is why I’m totally sure that everyone in this forum did not engage in any sort of premarital relations with a member of the opposite (or same?) sex prior to reaching the age of majority.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Which is why I’m totally sure that everyone in this forum did not engage in any sort of premarital relations with a member of the opposite sex prior to reaching the age of majority, because the social/State mandated responsibility of each parent having to take care of the child/children born as a result of conception, served as a deterrent in the sexually heated moment.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Are you saying you saved yourself for marriage? Good on you.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Are you saying you saved yourself for marriage? Good on you.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 9:12 PM

How about we exchange personal sex life stories… and then we can move on to the topic?

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 9:21 PM

That’s not my point. You cannot expect the youth of today to behave differently than we did. It’s really lame to pretend they should do so.

People have been doing it outside of marriage since forever, and getting pregnant to boot. If the pregnancies can be avoided because of due dilligence, then so can abortions.

Rudy wants abortion to be a states rights issue. That’s where it should be. That Dobson would support a 3rd party candidate because Rudy would put the issue where it belongs and possibly give the Democrats the White House speaks volumes about Dobson.

Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 11:23 PM

If the pregnancies can be avoided because of due dilligence, then so can abortions.

You Rudy shills are so transparent when you don’t mention abstinence, and, the responsibility of raising the child – if it happens – as a deterrent with good results if it was taught/supported/and given incentive.

The amount of abortions performed are about the same numbers of illegal aliens in our country, who supposedly are needed to do the jobs Americans don’t want to do. Do the math, if abortions were not legal – and the deterrents were the norms as listed above – that number would be a lot lower.

Rudy wants abortion to be a states rights issue?

That is just an attempt at avoiding the issue and passing the buck.

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Rudy wants abortion to be a states rights issue. That’s where it should be.
Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Is that why he said in one of the debates that it would be alright if Roe v Wade was or wasn’t upheld? Excuse me if I don’t find him credible on the whole states rights federalism thing that’s rather important to me.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 12:13 AM

How about someone with a remote chance of winning? Hunter is a solid conservative, but he’s not campaigned well or effectively.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM

You’re right. He’s not a very slick and polished politician. He’s totally grassroots. I like that, but I can see why the sophisticates sneer at him. They sneered at Lincoln, too – for the exact same reasons.

Electability certainly shouldn’t be the only consideration when choosing a candidate, but it’s foolish not to take it into account.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 7:39 PM

He certainly WOULD be electable if he wins the Republican primary. He would be impossible to deliberately ignore – as everyone is doing now. The only thing standing between Hunter and the White House is a Republican bloc that is more willing to compromise than do what’s right.

I’ve seen Hunter in action. When people hear him, meet him – they are SOLD. They WANT that strength and vision in a leader – something that is conspicuously absent in the other candidates.

I wish people wouldn’t just brush him off. I wish they’d at least perfunctorily perform their duty as a voting citizen and inform themselves as to Hunter’s positions. Once they do, if they’re conservative at all, then they won’t want to settle for anyone less. Guaranteed.

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 1:24 AM

He certainly WOULD be electable if he wins the Republican primary. He would be impossible to deliberately ignore – as everyone is doing now. The only thing standing between Hunter and the White House is a Republican bloc that is more willing to compromise than do what’s right.

I’ve seen Hunter in action. When people hear him, meet him – they are SOLD. They WANT that strength and vision in a leader – something that is conspicuously absent in the other candidates.

He’s had how many debates and how many months now to make an impression? If he can’t get more than 2% of Republican support, what makes you think he’d win over a majority of the general voting population? I watched the debates, and even though his message was pretty good, he just wasn’t very inspiring. Apparently the vast majority of primary voters agree.

A candidate who’s right 100% of the time (Hunter isn’t) is still useless if he can’t perform in a campaign, and Hunter simply hasn’t performed. Given his poor numbers, blaming conservatives, name recognition, the media, pundits or anyone else instead of Duncan Hunter and his campaign is a dodge.

He simply can’t win the primary, no matter how unfair that might be. It’s time for him (and his supporters) to come to terms with that.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Apparently the vast majority of primary voters agree.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 1:36 AM

I guess that just doesn’t square with what I’m seeing at the grassroots level. The pundits are rather droll about Hunter, but the people sure aren’t. I’m in Texas and he simply SWEPT away the competition here in our Straw Poll. Trounced Thompson 2-1, and the rest barely registered a blip. In Texas, only delegates were allowed to vote in the Straw Poll, and they were excited to have “discovered” Hunter as a true conservative.

If people want more flash and glitz in a President, then you’re right, Hunter is probably not their man. But I think (or at least I HOPE) that people are getting sick and tired of style over substance. If we want a solid conservative with Presidential gravitas and capabilities, then Hunter certainly qualifies.

Of course he’s not right 100% of the time – he’s not perfect, and I wouldn’t trust him if he was. I just want to encourage people to vote their conscience, rather than for someone they are told is “electable”.

It’s time for him (and his supporters) to come to terms with that.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Do you mean it’s time for us to compromise our principles? Time to settle for a lesser man?

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 8:49 AM

You Rudy shills are so transparent when you don’t mention abstinence, and, the responsibility of raising the child – if it happens – as a deterrent with good results if it was taught/supported/and given incentive.

Mentioned abstinence a couple of times, but don’t let that stop your argument. Straw men are fun. Anyway, seeing as how you brought up the success of abstinence programs, you want to name a couple?

The amount of abortions performed are about the same numbers of illegal aliens in our country, who supposedly are needed to do the jobs Americans don’t want to do. Do the math, if abortions were not legal – and the deterrents were the norms as listed above – that number would be a lot lower.

Um, ok. If not for all those abortions, Americans would be nannies to New York socialities, Gardeners, and basic labourers for about half the minimum wage? See, I just don’t buy into that. You’ve take two distinct topics and smooshed them together for some point that makes no sense.
——–
That is just an attempt at avoiding the issue and passing the buck.

Mcguyver

No, it isn’t. Strict constitutionalist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of the states.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM

With permission, I’m pasting some comments from friends who also support Hunter:

The statement “Hunter can’t win” is an indictment against the Republican party in general and principled conservatism in particular. If everyone that called themselves a conservative, would stand on their principles, Hunter would be the leading candidate. Hunter, as a conservative, is the best candidate to defeat Clinton, a liberal. It takes a conservative Republican to defeat a liberal Democrat. The GOP is insanely suicidal to run a liberal to moderate Republican such as Giuliani, Thompson, Romney or McCain against a liberal Democrat. If I had the time I could write an essay on how the Republican party could ensure that the Democrats win the White House in ’08. The GOP is setting the liberals up for a win by ignoring their conservative base.

Every time the GOP abandons their conservative base, the GOP loses.

Case in point: George H.W. Bush lost re-election and caused the party to split via Ross Perot when he abandoned conservatism. The GOP’s abandonment of conservatism [NOT Perot! -RI] gave Clinton the white house.

The GOP lost the house and senate in November 2006 by abandoning their conservative base via big government, increased spending, an attempt to provide amnesty
to illegals, etc, etc, etc. The GOP’s abandonment of conservatism gave the senate to Reid and the House to
Pelosi.

Hunter rightfully called Giuliani, Romney and McCain the “Kennedy wing of the Republican party”. If the GOP nominates
anyone from the Kennedy wing – Clinton can take the White House. It is more than a coincidence that, given the GOP’s top tier candidates, we have so many GOP pundits stating that Clinton has a chance to win.

Thompson has been on the wrong side of conservatives on some major issues and they are not the type to compromise on their principles to support him. Here is another quote from a fellow conservative on Thompson:

“I absolutely loved Reagan. He was the finest man to enter politics in my lifetime. Just as I was offended when, early in his first term, people said W was Reaganesque, I am so when people try to pretend Thompson is as well.

Reagan would never have compromised his pro-life principles by taking money from a pro-abortion group as did Thompson; Reagan would never have supported limits on free speech (McCain-Feingold) as did Thompson. If you’d heard Thompson on Laura Ingraham, you’d know he’s not fit to lick Reagan’s boots. He [Thompson] fumbled all over the place and demonstrated that he doesn’t even know his own positions.

Sadly, spineless Republicans support him because they think
he’s safe–look where that got us in 2000, George “sell out America to Mexico” W. Bush. I truly wish Republicans had the spines to support the best candidate, someone like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, rather than wimp out with someone like Thompson, who is Bushesque.”

Maybe now you’re rolling your eyes because I keep hammering away at conservatism and principles. But we have until the primaries to at least TRY for the best candidate – and not just roll over for squishy RINOs. If we don’t, then we’re not MEN (or in my case WOMAN), to quote Twain again: “Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country.”

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 11:11 AM

With permission, I’m pasting some comments from friends who also support Hunter:

I admire what doing here, If comments registration opens up again let your friends know.
.

The statement “Hunter can’t win” is an indictment against the Republican party in general and principled conservatism in particular. If everyone that called themselves a conservative, would stand on their principles, Hunter would be the leading candidate. Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 11:11 AM

I agree with you.

But, I need to reiterate and expand on my comments earlier..
James Dobson and et al, need a stern talking to for even thinking about running a third candidate, which is the definition of a lunatic by exposing the fact they haven’t learned anything from the Ross Perot train wreck.

Let me expand further on this by quoting (highlights mine)

Farris, who has joined members of the Arlington Group in their interviews of Republican presidential hopefuls, said that Giuliani in the White House would be more damaging to social conservatives’ policy objectives than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Farris said that Giuliani and Clinton are similarly liberal on social issues. The difference is that Republicans in Congress would oppose Clinton’s agenda while they would feel obliged to support Giuliani, he said. Farris has endorsed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) for president.

I am not shilling for Rudy as you know by my earlier post…. but this reasoning is absolute lunacy!

Hillary has promised to nominate liberal judges… Rudy has promised to nominate constructionist judges, and, if he doesn’t we/congress can oppose him just like we can Hillary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………….oh wait, what, your phone is broken????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Whatever happened to understanding that progress in life is a process……

perfection is fleeting…………………

people are not perfect…………………….

every leader, even Gibber himself had faults……………

that’s why we HAVE A REPUBLIC……..

SO THAT WE CAN CALL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND REMIND THEM…

of why we elected them in the first place…………

There is an element of fatalism in this kind of lunacy thinking……..that has reached INTOLERABLE LEVELS for me.

Take it from Ronald Reagan himself who stated that it is a known fact among out congress that if they receive a 100 phone calls per congressman it’s a majority opinion, here at about 9:00 minutes.

Yeah….you heard that right…..
……….remember how we shut down the Senate phone system during the immigration train wreck? ….and they listened to us because they were truly afraid of losing their jobs?

If everyone that called themselves a conservative, would stand on their principles, Hunter would be the leading candidate. Hunter, as a conservative, is the best candidate to defeat Clinton got involved and made phone calls whenever there is imperfection going on, our history of the past 20 years WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE LEXICON OF “DEPENDS ON WHAT THE WORD “IS” IS.
AND ROSS PEROT WOULD BE A LITTLE UNKNOWN MAN IN TEXAS.

BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE WAY TO PUNISH AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IS NOT TO VOTE FOR THE WORSER PARTY, BY DEFAULT OR OTHERWISE, BUT GET INVOLVED AS REAGAN SO CLEARLY OUTLINES IN THE LINK ABOVE.

I’m really getting impatient with this lunacy thinking as mentioned above.

I’m having to take a break from this debate,
BECAUSE
I
CAN’T
TAKE
IT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 12:35 PM

P.S. Ever since the printing press has been invented – over 500 hundred years ago – our civilization has made more progress than at other similar time frame.

It looks something like this:

TWO STEPS FORWARD..

ONE STEP BACK..

TWO STEPS FORWARD..

ONE STEP BACK..

TWO STEPS FORWARD..

ONE STEP BACK..

BUT THE LAST TIME I CHECKED MY MATH… THAT IS STILL GOING FORWARD…WHICH IS NOT “FUZZY” MATH.

THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT?…AND TO WHAT EXTEND ARE THE REVERSALS GOING TO BE………….THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 12:44 PM

I’m……. outta HERE!

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 12:45 PM

I’m in Texas and he simply SWEPT away the competition here in our Straw Poll. Trounced Thompson 2-1, and the rest barely registered a blip. In Texas, only delegates were allowed to vote in the Straw Poll, and they were excited to have “discovered” Hunter as a true conservative.
Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Yeah, and Ron Paul does pretty well in the absurd straw polls too- does that mean he’s electable too?

It may be too early to take the polls as gospel, but they all show Hunter with somewhere between .5% and 2% support amongst Republicans and leaning independants.

Also your cut and paste posts were ridiculously uninformed- Reagan wouldn’t compromise on abortion? Might want to check your history books again there honey.

While Hillary is beatable, it would be a mistake to underestimate her. She has a formidable machine on her side, lots of money, unquestioning MSM support, a weak Republican party and the notion among many that she represents a 3rd term for Bill. Again it’s early, but matchup polls pitting Hillary against Rudy or Fred show a close race, with Hillary on top and Hunter getting slaughtered. While she has high negative approval ratings, she also has relatively high positives. Hunter doesn’t, and he’s only himself to blame.

If you don’t believe that electability should be a factor at all, by all means stick with Hunter. Just don’t expect us to believe that after such a dismal performance in the primary race he’d do so much better in a general election.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Whew!

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Sorry, Hollowpoint, that was after reading Mcguyver’s impassioned posts above. ;)

I certainly didn’t mean to post for my friends and subject them to ridicule. I’m sorry I did now. I was just trying to show that there are some very staunch conservatives who are being completely ignored by the press and the Big Party Republicans.

I guess we’ll agree to disagree. The difference between us is that you will only vote against someone (Hillary) and I will only vote for someone I believe in. I can live with that.

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Sorry, Hollowpoint, that was after reading Mcguyver’s impassioned posts above. ;)

I certainly didn’t mean to post for my friends and subject them to ridicule. I’m sorry I did now. I was just trying to show that there are some very staunch conservatives who are being completely ignored by the press and the Big Party Republicans.

I guess we’ll agree to disagree. The difference between us is that you will only vote against someone (Hillary) and I will only vote for someone I believe in. I can live with that.

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM

While Fred Thompson isn’t as solid a conservative as Duncan Hunter, he is just the same a solid conservative. Fred has name and face recognition that Duncan just cannot approach. The very best hope for America in my opinion is a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

Thompson will protect and advance conservative American values and as his Vice President for 2 terms provide Duncan the face and name recognition he needs to successfully win the WH.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM

The difference between us is that you will only vote against someone (Hillary) and I will only vote for someone I believe in. I can live with that.

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Not true at all. As I’ve said many times (to the consternation of some), I’ll likely just sit this one out if a conservative isn’t nominated.

I’m backing the most conservative electable candidate- and that’s turned out to be Thompson.

In some respects it could be argued that Thompson is more conservative than Hunter, since he’s held to the core conservative principle of federalism, even when it conflicted with specific issues that conservatives typically favor- the federal government imposing tort reform on state courts being one example.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Ha ha ha, yea what ever, 10 hours of work over a 2 year period 20 years ago. His response, not his campaign manager who screwed the pooch was, Hmmm you know I really don’t remember, let me look into this.

Really not a big issue to me, I played a lot of gigs 20 years ago, I couldn’t begin to tell you where all of them were, or who I talked to at those gigs. I’m pretty damn sure there were some very unsavory characters at a lot of my gigs, I probably even played quite a few gigs for rather unsavory characters.

I sure would hate to be painted as supporting their personal political of criminal points of view just because I did a few hours of work for them though.

doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:33 PM

That only takes you so far. HE LOBBIED FOR AN ABORTION GROUP. Everyone and their sister knows that abortion is the political third rail. If that does not confirm the questionaire wherein he said he was pro-choice, what does? Oh that’s right, he blames that on his staff too.

HE PROVIDED LEGAL ADVICE TO TERRORISTS. His law firm earned $800,000 in fees providing legal advice to Libyan terrorists. I know he was not the main lawyer on the case, but he made money off the case through his association with the firm, and he provided consultations on jurisdictional issues. He worked on the case!!!

If he is such a solid social conservative, then when the abortion group or the terrorists come through his door looking for legal services, he should politely turn down their business, or not so politely with the terrorists.

tommylotto on October 3, 2007 at 4:54 PM

tommylotto on October 3, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Only a lawyer can be that dishonest, and yes tommylotto I mean you, not Fred.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

OK, let’s play the “tommylotto dishonest guilt-by-association game”.

RUDY DONATED TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SO HE LOVES ABORTION!

RUDY DEFENDED A MURDERER SO HE’S SOFT ON CRIME!

RUDY LOBBIED FOR THE SAUDIS SO HE’S IN THE POCKET OF THE ISLAMICISTS!

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Read above…when you make fun of my religion and my God by making fun of his death and the method of his death! I have a big problem! You may engage in a political debate. All is fair! You may not make fun of the death of Jesus Christ and expect me to sit and not object! I will not and should not! You are an ignorant prick!

sabbott on October 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM

You mean like, did Christ’s plan get messed up when he was crucified and he really intended to run the church here himself?

The cucifixion was a problem, but with the resurrection he had the opportunity to run it himself for a long time, presumably to get the Gospels in order and develop the core dogma. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

The contention of the Catholics is that Christ did intend to found a church and did that by appointing Peter as the rock upon which he would build his church. Through that church the believers are able to receive the sacraments from God through an anointed priest.

I’ve read somewhat about the corruption of the Catholic Church and think there were good reasons for the Protestant Reformation. To accept it though, it would seem that Christ’s mission was more narrowly scoped (though still praise-worthy) than the Catholics believe and that we are left a little more on our own to sift through historical documents and make sense of what Christ taught.

To be more succinct and more on the Rudy/Dobson topic (since this isn’t a religion site). For someone like James Dobson to claim a special insight into the word of God, he may be right but he is also presupposing that God allowed it to get off to a bumpy start for 1500 years after he was incarnated as Christ.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at

IDIOT! This was the PLAN from the fall of man forward! Read the Scriptures before you make a fool out of yourself! You don’t understand what you are talking about and know nothing about the doctrines of Law and Gospel!

sabbott on October 3, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Only a lawyer can be that dishonest, and yes tommylotto I mean you, not Fred.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

If you are going to call me a liar you need to do your homework and tell me how I’m wrong. Then of course you need to show that I knew I was wrong when I said it to make it a lie. I wasn’t wrong, so you cannot even get past step one.

tommylotto on October 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM

RUDY DONATED TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD SO HE LOVES ABORTION!

Rudy admits that he ultimately supports a woman’s right to choose. So this is no suprise. It is a suprise to many social conservatives that contributions such as those were paid to Fred so that Fred would throw his political weight around to help an abortion group get legislation passed!!! Fred actually lobbied for people to be able to commit what he claims to think is murder. Fred is not being honest about his position. Now or then.

RUDY DEFENDED A MURDERER SO HE’S SOFT ON CRIME!

I was not aware that Rudy was ever a criminal defense lawyer, but even if he was we know that he has a very long and proven track record of being the greatest crime fighter of the 20th century. He broke the back of the Five Families for petesake. Everyone knows that charge is false and whether he defended someone accused of murder would not change that perception

RUDY LOBBIED FOR THE SAUDIS SO HE’S IN THE POCKET OF THE ISLAMICISTS!

A firm that he is associated with may have helpped the Saudis, but he has never lobbied for anyone. Rudy has never been a lobbyist. Fred is the lobbyist. Anyway, the Saudis are are friends, aren’t they?

tommylotto on October 3, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Fred actually lobbied for people to be able to commit what he claims to think is murder.

Still dishonest I see. He briefly lobbied on funding issue for clinics that provide abortion, not to expand or legalize abortion… partially because it already was legal. I’m also unaware where he stated that abortion is murder, though (unlike Rudy) he’s always said that he’d like to see Roe v Wade overturned.

A firm that he is associated with may have helpped the Saudis, but he has never lobbied for anyone. Rudy has never been a lobbyist. Fred is the lobbyist. Anyway, the Saudis are are friends, aren’t they?

tommylotto on October 3, 2007 at 8:16 PM

A firm that he is “associated with”??? You mean the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm, a well known and powerful lobbying firm?

Are you that dishonest, or are you just that ignorant about the candidate you support so fervently?

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Are you that dishonest, or are you just that ignorant about the candidate you support so fervently?

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 8:46 PM

He’s that dishonest, we have been over all of this before, he just keeps repeating the same lies.

doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 8:53 PM

I will only vote for someone I believe in, that is as, or more perfect than Ronald Reagan.

If Hillary gets elected as a result, I can live with that.

Redhead Infidel on October 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Anyway, seeing as how you brought up the success of abstinence programs, you want to name a couple?

There has been success documented after Bush’s program was enacted……you’re the one disputing it, therefore it is your job to disprove it…
Which I’m suspect that you could do, even with the cold hard facts in front of your nose. How long of a time period would it take, of cold hard facts to prove to you that abstinence works?
.

Um, ok. If not for all those abortions, Americans would be nannies to New York socialities, Gardeners, and basic labourers for about half the minimum wage?

Isn’t that what the minimum wage laws are for?
.

See, I just don’t buy into that. You’ve take two distinct topics and smooshed them together for some point that makes no sense.

It does makes sense if the laws (immigration, etc.) of this country had been enforced and not hijacked by Roe v. Wade/liberal judges.
You knew that, unless of course you really don’t care about the rule of law.
.
.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of any elected governing body.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM

.
.

Exit question: Are you happy with your life, Krydor? Are you glad that you were born and able to enjoy the life that you are living?

Because if pro-choice was the law around your birthday, there is a good chance that you wouldn’t have been born.

Mcguyver on October 3, 2007 at 9:52 PM

There has been success documented after Bush’s program was enacted……you’re the one disputing it, therefore it is your job to disprove it

Um, where can I find this documentation? There’s a successful “abstinence only” sex ed program funded by the federal government? I know there’s the ABC plan, but beyond that I’m drawing a blank. You named this phantom program, provide some documentation, because I have no idea where to start looking.

Isn’t that what the minimum wage laws are for?

Wow, did you ever miss the point. The people that cross the border illegally work for less than minimum wage, and that wouldn’t stop regardless of the abortion rate.

Exit question: Are you happy with your life, Krydor? Are you glad that you were born and able to enjoy the life that you are living?

Why, yes I am. Thank you for asking! I have two wonderful parents, a rotten older brother, a wife who I would kill for and children I would die for. My car is new, my Hi Def TV is a Samsung, and I work in an industry I love.

Because if pro-choice was the law around your birthday, there is a good chance that you wouldn’t have been born.

Really? Were you talking to Mom and Dad? How did you get their phone number? Perhaps you have secret mind reading powers? Do these powers extend into foretelling the future, and if so, what are the Powerball numbers?

I was what you might like to call a PLANNED kid. By that, I mean, my parents used birth control and waited until they wanted children, had two and that was that. Strangely, my wife and I did exactly the same thing.

Guess you’ll have to make up some other imaginary things about my life and build some more straw men.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 10:39 PM

because I have no idea where to start looking for (abstinence only program).

Bush’s program hasn’t shown real results. So of course you wouldn’t be willing to try something like an accidental-pregnancy-responsibility program, or anything of the sort, since of course you are biased in your opinion.

That just proves my point about you Rudy shill’s being so transparent.
.

I was what you might like to call a PLANNED kid.

Imagine not having this opportunity to live X 40 million conceptions.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of any elected governing body.

And having so much better birth control as an option these days, makes it all the more ludricous to legalize abortion.

Mcguyver on October 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM

This is really a no-brainer choice. Hitlery or Rudy? A Fascist with a monster hiding inside her head ready to turn loose her brownshirt minions on all who appose her, or a half liberal Republican. Is it really that much of a stretch, either, that some people who make posts against Rudy are really just Hitlery supporters. No, no,, that could never happen. Hitlery supporters would never stoop so low. As for these Christian leaders,, they are just misguided on this issue. Too much is being made of this.

JellyToast on October 4, 2007 at 7:34 AM

Bush’s program hasn’t shown real results. So of course you wouldn’t be willing to try something like an accidental-pregnancy-responsibility program, or anything of the sort, since of course you are biased in your opinion.

That just proves my point about you Rudy shill’s being so transparent.

Once again, what is the name of this “abstinence only” program you are raving about? I know about the 3 step ABC program, which most educators have changed around to CBA, but I don’t know of any other government initiative. So, name the program. The amount of sexual activity hasn’t dropped by any significant level, as far as I’m aware.

Imagine not having this opportunity to live X 40 million conceptions.

This argument is essentially the same one used by the people who didn’t want condoms sold in the USA around the turn of the century. It isn’t like women are sitting around, having a nice cup of tea or whatever and musing to themselves, “you know what would be a fun time? An abortion! I’ll make a day of it and buy a hat afterwards! I’ll get Sue-Anne and the girls over, and we’ll all get abortions!”

And having so much better birth control as an option these days, makes it all the more ludricous to legalize abortion.

I don’t see abortion as birth control per se, I see it as an avenue of last resort.

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Once again, what is the name of this “abstinence only” program you are raving about?
So, name the program. The amount of sexual activity hasn’t dropped by any significant level, as far as I’m aware.

I didn’t say there is a successful program at the moment….
What I said, is that, you wouldn’t support it, if there was one, as per your attitude and biased opinion.
.

I don’t see abortion as birth control per se, I see it as an avenue of last resort.

And this last resort is not necessary as birth control.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of such judges.

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Mcguyver on October 4, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Wait a second, man…

There has been success documented after Bush’s program was enacted……you’re the one disputing it, therefore it is your job to disprove it…

What program? Seriously, I only know of the “ABC” program. If this is the case, then perhaps you can provide a link backing your assertion that it is working. Burden of proof and all that. I’ve done some looking, and can’t find any rave reviews.

What I said, is that, you wouldn’t support it, if there was one, as per your attitude and biased opinion.

See above… Is this a concession that there is no program? And no, I wouldn’t support such a program. It flies in the face of reality.

Also, a quick question: Why are you intentionally misquoting me?

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the pervue of such judges.

Never wrote this, so please stop pretending I did.

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 12:38 PM

To:

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 12:38 PM

What program? Seriously, I only know of the “ABC” program….. Burden of proof and all that. I’ve done some looking, and can’t find any rave reviews.

I never said how successful any program was.

My implication was, is that, you wouldn’t support it, if there was one, as per your attitude and bias. And you haven’t refuted this charge.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the power of such judges.

.

Mcguyver on October 4, 2007 at 9:16 PM

There has been success documented after Bush’s program was enacted

Seeing as how you made the claim of documented success, provide said documentation.

Also, cease misquoting me, as it is in poor form.

Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 10:32 PM

To:
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Seeing as how you made the claim of documented success, provide said documentation.

I never said how successful any program was.
You haven’t refuted my charge, as per your attitude and bias.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the power of such judges.

Mcguyver on October 4, 2007 at 10:42 PM

No, I actually said

See above… Is this a concession that there is no program? And no, I wouldn’t support such a program. It flies in the face of reality.

What argument do you think you are winning, here? Are you even reading responses or just finding “witty” ways of altering quotes? Abstinence only programs fail constantly.

So, there is a program that may or may not be successful and you refuse to name it. Well, based on your conduct, it wouldn’t surprised if you just made something up.

Yeesh. What an utter waste of time you’ve been.

Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Krydor,

See above……And no, I wouldn’t support such a program. It flies in the face of reality.

Thanks for confirming that twice. You leave no doubt that I was right as to your biased attitude, which is the only thing I was trying to prove.

No, it isn’t. Strict constructionist judges would see that there is no “right to abortion” laid out in the Constitution, which means that such things are in the power of such judges.

Krydor on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM (revised)

Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 10:37 AM

What? You were trying to prove something I openly stated twice? Look out, Perry Mason, there’s a hotshot young lawyer ready to usurp you! He’s hungry, Perry, HEAVYWEIGHT HUNGRY! Is there some book of “how not to argue” on sale somewhere? I swear, the Eternal September theory is accurate.

Now, if you’ll you’ll only post some kind of information regarding the LEVEL of success of the ABC program. If that is the program which you are talking about, because you have yet to confirm that is the case.

Just post something that is not an intentional misquote.

Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 11:11 AM

I swear, the Eternal September theory is accurate.

It takes two to tango.
.
.

Just post something that is not an intentional misquote.
Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Are you trying to tell me what to say…..

Good luck with that…….

Congress shall make no law respecting ……………….
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Sigh. You are pathetic. You can’t can’t hide behind the First Amendment with regards making stuff up. Hell man, you can’t even hide behind the Terms of Use for HotAir.

You have spent possibly 100 posts trying to get me to admit to something I already agreed with, made claims you refuse to back with any documentation and have used writing practices that would make Mary Mapes and Dan Rather extremely proud.

Way to scrape the bottom of the barrel, Eternally September.

Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Way to scrape the bottom of the barrel, Eternally September.

Krydor on October 5, 2007 at 11:36 AM

You are welcome.

Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7