Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination
posted at 9:44 pm on September 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »
That’s insane and incredibly foolish. We never get a candidate we agree with 100% of the time anyway, so ALL elections come down to a pick of which candidate agrees with the most of your positions.
We always have to ignore some belief, but that’s what happens in a community larger than one person.
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Oh, and re: “explaining yourself in the afterlife if you vote for Rudy” my fellow believer has a point. On the other hand, I’d also have some ’splaining to do if I protest voted Be’elzebub’s illegitimate child Hillary into the White House.
Dilemma, my friends, dilemma.
Misha I on September 30, 2007 at 11:05 PM
That’s good, but you need to break it down more. Won’t fit on a t-shirt yet.
TexasDan on September 30, 2007 at 11:05 PM
No one died, yet, and the wailing is on.
“They prefer progress with messy compromise, over defeat with pristine principles” . Dobson and his prefer the reverse. Google it to find out who said it. Then come back and ‘kill’ the messenger, and the one who brung it to you. Then sit back and watch the destruction of all you hold sacred because you will fully deserve it.
Besides, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet - a well-known liberal claims, in, of all places, the paper of record.
Entelechy on September 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Well, of course. But I think as a soldier of God it’s your responsible to try to better the world around you. Do you disagree? I’m just trying to do what I think is right. If you disagree then so be it.
And by the way, I’m by no means a single-issue voter. There are many, many things that I don’t like about Rudy besides the so-called social stuff.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
thanks , where is the bar.
Mojack420 on September 30, 2007 at 10:56 PM
It’s down the long hallway on your left. Be sure to stay away from the Millers beer and the pushy blond in the pink dress though.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
No, he does not. Is God incapable of understanding nuance? What, exactly, is going to be God’s zinger on this?
We’re trying to take this Hillary/Rudy choice and mash it into a sin. I think that’s ridiculous. Well, voting for Hillary would be.
TexasDan on September 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
No argument there, dorian. As a matter of fact, if Rudy *spit* Giuliani/Brady Gun Control Bunch gets the nom, I’ll probably find myself in need of a pair of industrial-grade nose clamps come election day, but I’ll have to pull.
Misha I on September 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Well, they can just undermine the Giuliani candidacy this time. I’ll remember it in 2012–if their candidate wins–and I’ll vote Democratic no matter how awful the Democrat. This game cuts both ways. I certainly don’t want to endure another Bush-like assault on the separation of the Church and State and his borderline lunatics as Supreme Court picks.
I’m sure as hell not concerned about Islamic theocracy because I want a Christian theocracy in this country.
thuja on September 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM
A protest vote isn’t exactly the way I’d describe it.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Reading this thread I think we’ve come to some sort of consensus. No one is voting for Shillary/HildaBeast/Hitlery or whatever her name is.
terryannonline on September 30, 2007 at 11:11 PM
That’s insane and incredibly foolish. We never get a candidate we agree with 100% of the time anyway, so ALL elections come down to a pick of which candidate agrees with the most of your positions.
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:05 PM
That makes sense if you are taking about 50% versus 20%, but what about if it is about 5% versus 2%?
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Heres the big picture as I see it,Since the last time I looked there is a relgion thats over the otherside of the world.They pretty much have an agenda,either submit to Allah,or die.If you do convert,you will end up a slave.
Now either way,they could care less about abortion.
So can the Christian Republicans please remember who the enemy is on the War on Terror.
canopfor on September 30, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Yep, a genuine Hobson’s choice…
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I absolutely disagree that it’s my responsibility to “better the world around me.” My responsibility as a Christian is to lead others to Christ - the state of the world has nothing to do with that. One cannot save a society - Jesus didn’t come to the world to overturn the Roman Empire, after all.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Thats why I’m voting for Duncan Hunter.
Mojack420 on September 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Sorry about the link mess-up, above.
S/B Besides, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
Entelechy on September 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Well, agree to disagree. Maybe one day you’ll see it my way when both choices are so wretched you can barely tell the difference between the two of them. And we’re getting there. That’s why I’m taking a stand now.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Is God incapable of understanding nuance? What, exactly, is going to be God’s zinger on this?
TexasDan on September 30, 2007 at 11:09 PM
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
- Voltaire
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 11:14 PM
This makes no sense though. Given that both “guys” are going to abuse you, your choices are to a) pick the guy who won’t beat you as much, b) allow the guy who might beat you to death to win because you dislike voting for either, or c) move out of the house.
Seriously, if your problem is that you’ll get beaten either way, and you can’t take voting for the lesser evil, then you may as well leave. You aren’t doing the rest of us any favors by helping the worst candidate win.
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:15 PM
And that’s why I’m voting Tancredo. Though Hunter is a fine choice as well.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I never said that He was incapable of understanding, I just said that He might want to hear my closing statement justifying my choice.
Then again, if I were to argue against myself, I might say that since He is omniscient, He’d already know why I did what I did and thus not need an explanation. But even so I’d still have to defend it to myself, just as I’d have to do if I voted Hillary in by voting against Rudy.
I wouldn’t call it a sin since those are pretty well defined already. But what is the status of enabling/supporting a sinner?
Misha I on September 30, 2007 at 11:18 PM
If that 3% is comprised of issues about the war and terrorism, I think it’s still significant enough, and of course we’re not even getting into HillaryCare, which could ruin this country.
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Sigh. I think we’re talking past each other here. Of course you’re number one responsibility as a Christian is to lead others to Christ. But we’ve seen 40,000,000 million unborn babies slaughtered in this country since Roe v. Wade — surely you feel it is your Christian duty to put an end to this evil?
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Sorry but its been that way for a very long time, and the stand you are taking, its called the Sampson complex.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:22 PM
And how are you doing that by allowing Hillary to win?
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM
We’re all screwed anyway, consigned to a near-decade under the reign of the Lizard Queen.
If we gotta go down, let’s go down with FLAIR.
RON PAUL for the WIN!
(ducks!)
Harpazo on September 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Sure, but I don’t see politics as the sole means to that end, which is why my wife and I donate to crisis pregnancy centers. Politics is not the end-all, be-all of the debate over the evil that is abortion. I believe a Clinton administration will be much more hostile to such centers than a Giuliani administration.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Er, OK.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
We have to still have a country in order to do something about abortion. Priorities are essential, under Hillary we are pretty much assured of losing our country to socialism. There will be no question of halting abortion in a socialistic United States. At least with Rudy at worst the abortion issue doesn’t get decided for a few more years.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
It’s obvious to me that Dobson desperately wants the Democrats to rule for 1,000 years. It has to be the case…no one can be this stupid!
Jim-Rose on September 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Honestly, I’m convinced that if they really do this, they’ll finally see just how out of touch they are since I don’t see Christians as sheep who follow these men into their own demise.
If beating Hillary isn’t enough to bring Christians out to vote, then Christians just don’t care about politics anymore.
Besides, Christians aren’t the block voters many assume them to be. It’s 60-40 Republican to Democrat. I fail to see how that’s morphed into some controlling interest on the Republican party.
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:28 PM
You don’t know what the Sampson complex is do you?
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Bring on a Hillary presidency. Let those in the Jackass generation find out what true economic malaise is all about. Remember the Misery Index? After obtaining Universal Healthcare, granting citizenship to 30 million illegals, and losing the war against radicals maybe, just maybe, some people might wake up when they have to compete for jobs with illegals working below minimum wage on a cash basis.
Ah, to heck with it. Bring on a liberal - regardless of party.
BowHuntingTexas on September 30, 2007 at 11:33 PM
I’ve got a comment in moderation that was a bit immoderate. I hit submit when I meant to hit preview. I’ll stand by the sentiment behind it but the tone was more obnoxious than I’d intended.
see-dubya on September 30, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Given that both “guys” are going to abuse you, your choices are to
d) “Castrate” them both.
You aren’t doing the rest of us any favors by helping the worst candidate win.
I am not helping either HildaBeast™ or Rudolph “Sanctuary City Mayor” Giuliani win. I did give $25 bucks to Mitt.
Esthier on September 30, 2007 at 11:15 PM
If one is willing to settle for so very little, then very little is what one will continue to get.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 11:37 PM
In all honesty — and mean this with all sincerity — when exactly do we, as conservatives, take a stand? I keep hearing about how if only we can keep Kerry out of office, or if only we can keep Hillary out of office we’ll be able to fight another day. OK, that’s all well and good, but how much longer do you plan on voting for the “lesser of two evils” before you say to yourself, You know what, I’ve had enough?
As long as the conservative base continues to vote for RINOS like Giuliani, Romney, McCain, etc. that’s all the Republican party is ever going to give us. In my mind, we have to take a stand behind a true conservative at the voting booth or all we’re ever going to get is the lesser of the two evils.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Disappointing. Very disappointing.
petefrt on September 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Can’t you just mod your comment yourself See-Dub?
Bad Candy on September 30, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Ric Flair?
Now thats not bad idea.
That my friends would be the most entertaining debate ever.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Mojack420 on September 30, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Dear God No.
Bad Candy on September 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM
I’ve heard of the Samson complex, if that’s what you mean.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM
I agree. That is what happens when George W (aside from the “war on terror”) and the RNC push Republican-In-Name-Only type of policies.
Right now there is a Grand Canyon size divide between the base and the leadership of the GOP. The leadership are clueless right now…
ColtsFan on September 30, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I wish I thought that things would even out too. But what I think is that Hil will find ways to cast her changes in concrete, such that her major socio-economic transformations will be irreversible.
petefrt on September 30, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Not on Allah’s post, no.
see-dubya on September 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM
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.
When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don’t adjust the goals, adjust the action steps.
- Confucius
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 11:50 PM
I fight the good fight, I run the race until its completion. Before you can take a stand you have to stand for something. I know what I stand for, my politics reflect that stand but they are not that stand. I am a Christian first and foremost, a conservative and then a Republican. Some of my Christian values are liberal, most are conservative.
Because I am a Christian first mt entire political life has been faced with a choice of the lessor of two evils. Just as the Apostle Paul warned that it would be. I am in this world, but not of this world.
I voted for GW twice, because in spite of the fact that he is not my ideal conservative I do believe that he is a genuine committed Christian.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I am not thrilled with any of the candidates at this point. I do not feel that I should give up my values in order to find a candidate that will beat Hillary, nor do I need a “leader” to tell me how to vote according to my faith and/or conscience. Also, I find many of your comments here offensive.
katieanne on September 30, 2007 at 11:54 PM
OK, look, RUDY IS NOT A VERY GOOD NOR CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE NO MATTER WHAT DOBSON SAYS (whoever he is).
Rudy is an awful candidate. Is he better than Hilary? NO. He is not tough on terror. He has done NOTHING other than clean up ground zero with regard to the war on terror.
I STILL HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THINK RUDY IS SO FREAKING GREAT! He’s NOT. I personally can’t stomach the idea of having two presidential choices from NEW YORK CITY! How about some representation for the entire country please?!
Hilary won’t win if we get someone with some sense against her. ACTUALLY I don’t think Hilary CAN win no matter WHO is the nomination. All she wants to do is raise taxes and give the government more control. ANYBODY is better than that. Rudy is a terrible candidate and won’t win. I don’t care what Dobson says or does. Funny how it seems like the atheists care more about what the evangelical leader says than the Christians.
It isn’t single issue. It’s CHARACTER! Rudy has ZERO CHARACTER! Does he have more than Hilary? It would be impossible to have less character than Hilary. Rudy is a terrible choice for President. (PERIOD)
ThackerAgency on September 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
The Sampson complex means destroying everything to destroy your enemies. Unfortunately in its modern form it also means taking as many innocents as those deserving of destruction. In American politics for the Christian community to exercise that option would be a futile gesture that assures victory to the enemy.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
oh come on you know you want to see that 3 way
dancedebate.The wicked witch hilldabeast vs rhino rudy and the natureboy
Mojack420 on September 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Well theres one vote for Hillary…..
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:58 PM
why do you think Rudy is so great dorian?
Is it just because ‘he can beat Hillary’?
Do you think he’s great because ‘he’s not Hillary’? Please tell me why you think he’d make the greatest president ever?
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Hope you have lots of orajel AP.
Welcome back.
Rudy’s a mediocre choice, even if he talks tough, but I’d vote for anything but Hillary (Obama/Edwards, ad nauseam).
Principles that get your country overwhelmed even further by Islamic infiltration in the name of “purity” of motive prove the saying:
“The best is the enemy of the good“.
First, survive, or all of the concern about the unborn, etc. is wasted on hair-splitting niceties that leave you too dead to effect any further change.
Anything but Hillary.
profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 12:04 AM
would you be OK then with somebody a ‘tad’ more conservative than Rudy?
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Yeah, you mean the Samson complex. No P. If you’re going to label me with something ridiculous like that, at least get the name right.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM
I don’t think he’s great. But Hillary will be elected if the GOP doesn’t stick together. Rudy is better than Hillary, the lessor of two evils. Your way is the way of victory for Hillary, not that you care.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM
See-Dub, maybe better off just posting a cleaner version?
Bad Candy on October 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM
That is the truth…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:08 AM
I see Hillary as less electable than Newt.
Why doesn’t the Republican party counter this 12 year old stumping for the Democrats with a family of smokers currently on the SCHIP program and explain to them that they’ll have to pay 222.65/year more in taxes (pack a day habit) to pay for the health insurance for someone making 80,000/year and already has health insurance for their children?
Why don’t they hammer it in that they are taxing the poor and middle class to get this legislation done?
WHERE IS THE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE VOICE? Is our voice relegated now to responding to what the Democrats say? In other words, when they say it’s taking money from a sick 12 year old, we can only say ‘no it doesn’t?’
Nobody has leadership. There are no Conservatives left because they are afraid of Democrats for some UNKNOWN AND UNDESERVED reason.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Don’t worry, TA, Rudy has leadership. He’ll show the Dems who’s boss!
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:15 AM
/sarcasm off
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Regarding the whole “Standing for your beliefs vs. voting the lesser of two evils” I don’t know what the eff to think because I’ve struggled like crazy with that dilemma and people on both sides of the issue are both right.
The “Purists” are absolutely right when they say that you get more of what you subsidize. Reward bad behavior, and you’ll get more of it. It never fails. If you’re in doubt, just look at recent history. We enabled RINO Dubya in ‘04 because the alternative was too horrible to fathom, and we got more of the same. As we will continue to get if we continue to always settle for the lesser of two evils. We’ll get to the same destination, the only difference will be that we’ll get there slower.
The “Pragmatists”, on the other hand, are also absolutely right when they say that stamping our feet and refusing to vote for cholera rather than plague will get us to the Hell none of us want to get to even faster. It’s a simple fact of life: Refusing to hit the brakes because they won’t stop the car before it hits the wall will accomplish nothing but making you hit the wall faster. They’re also right, if a bit naive, when they say that perhaps, by delaying the impact, there’ll be more time for something that will turn it all around to happen.
Frankly, but perhaps that’s just pessimism born by the fact that I’ve seen it all before, having been born and raised in EUroweeniestan, I don’t see any way out. Sure, I do believe that we’ll eventually turn around, even the EUnuchs are turning slowly to the right now, but I’m more and more convinced that we’re going to have to descend as deeply into the pit as they are now for it to happen. Which means that the turnaround won’t happen in my lifetime. Democracy is self-destructive, and the death spiral begins when the voting populace realize that they can vote themselves money from other people’s pockets, as somebody far smarter than me realized ages ago. Call me elitist if you like, but when you let the majority rule, you end up with mediocrity because the majority of people are idiots when it comes to running a country. The thing is, I can’t think of an alternative that I’d like to live under.
So we’re caught in a natural cycle, I’m afraid. We’re headed downwards, and the only choice left to us is the speed before we hit the wall. It really doesn’t matter what we do, which leaves me with the only conclusion I could come to that is even remotely acceptable to me personally:
I’ll vote my conscience in the primaries and then I’ll end up just having to pull the lever for whomever the GOP comes up with. Hopefully it will be my guy, but at least I can maybe slow down the process a bit even if it isn’t.
Either way, we’ll hit rock bottom sooner or later and then we’ll have to deal with that. The only thing making me consider speeding up the process is that it might make the inevitable chaos and bloody fight happen in my lifetime rather than my children’s, and that is an appealing argument.
Because I’m sure that no natural law-defying miracle is going to happen that will make 51% of the population move far enough to the right on the normal distribution of IQ that they’ll know what the f*ck they’re voting for.
Misha I on October 1, 2007 at 12:28 AM
The Christians might as well just vote for Hillary and cut out the middle man.
That said, if they DO this…..while the GOP will get beaten into the ground in 08, it’ll be a net plus for the party, as the evangelicals have become an albatross around their neck. A Republican party that doesn’t have to pander to evangelicals on ridiculous social issues like gay marriage (which every rational person OTHER than evangelicals knows is never going to be constitutionally banned) can make some forward progress, and likely win back the important independent vote in years to come.
Of course, we’d all have to suffer through god knows how many years of Hillary in charge, with a liberal-dominated legislature willing to grant her every quasi-socialist whim. But hey, whatever, those evangelicals are VOTING THEIR INTEREST. It’s not helping the nation as a whole one damn bit, but hey, they’re VOTING THEIR INTERESTS, by god.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Thats the only sane or reasonable thing to do, the question however is this. Even though slamming on the brakes will not stop us from hitting a wall, it could be the difference between hitting the wall being fatal or survivable.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM
I STILL HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THINK RUDY IS SO FREAKING GREAT!
ThackerAgency on September 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM
As I said before, because he looks and sounds tough, when he is not wearing a dress anyway. Profound fear of the HildaBeast™ as the anti-Christ presumable plays a secondary role. That’s ’bout all she wrote. If Sigmund Freud is in the house and has a differing diagnosis please speak up or I will just go with mine.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM
I wonder the same thing about Hillary. I think it is sympathy votes because of the man she is married to. If she can stay with a man that selfish and crooked (and stupid), I have to wonder what kind of people she has working for her.
As for the religious right supporting a 3rd party: I have a good friend who is very religious and he said the same thing. I believe actions like this, and sitting out elections because you don’t like a candidate’s stance on a single issue like abortion or gun rights, are reasons why Democrats win when less than 50% of our country votes (plus voter fraud is still too easy).
My theory: Sitting out elections or voting for some no-name who you know for a fact will not win leads to liberal takeovers because it devides the Republican/Conservative ticket. Then the elected liberal ends up being worse than the guy/girl you did not want to vote for because of one issue. That one issue splits the ticket and always gets someone worse into office.
El Guapo on October 1, 2007 at 12:35 AM
And that is a damn good question too. I suppose that we could, once again, look to Europe. Even though they’re in a place that I don’t ever want to see again right now, at least the jury is still out on whether or not they’ll have to deal with complete collapse before the turnaround.
Misha I on October 1, 2007 at 12:38 AM
It’s way more than just one issue with me.
Frankly, I don’t even think Rudy’s even that impressive when it comes to the “War on Terror” (or whatever the Bush administration is calling it these days).
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:42 AM
News Flash to my “minister” friends:
You can support anyone you want, but without Rudy, you’ll never win the Presidency. EOT.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Oh, and by the way, I’ll never let some Southern “evangelical” run my life or choose my next President. And I’m saying that as a devout Catholic who attends Church every week, prays to God, and believes Jesus is my savior.
I’m throughly disgusted with this evangelical mumbo jumbo. My priest doesn’t get into politics. And my politics shouldn’t be getting into my church.
Sorry, South, I’ll switch to Democrat before I follow another eight years of crap again.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Frankly, I don’t even think Rudy’s even that impressive when it comes to the “War on Terror” (or whatever the Bush administration is calling it these days).
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Yes, “War on Terror” is so ridiculous. Imagine FDR during WWII saying that we were having a “War on Bullets” or a “War on Dive Bombers” or a “War on Blitzkriegs”.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Well I’d be happy with this turn of events if I actually thought they’d urge people to vote for someone that genuinely wants to represent conservative christians. Remember we’re the people that the powers that be in the GOP hate dealing with because *gasp* we actually expect them to have some sort of morality.
I’d love to see a permanent split really.
Benaiah on October 1, 2007 at 1:05 AM
MB4
So what do we call it? War on Islam? War on Islamic Extremism? WW3? “World War against those who blame others for their woes and failures, brainwash their kids with things like U.S. troops and Israelis drink Muslim babies’ blood to keep us young, and wonder why their countries suck when 90% of their graduates have degrees in religious studies (usually Islam Extremism) instead of Marketing, Engineering, etc, things that are actually productive and useful to a business and could get you a job”?
El Guapo on October 1, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Well enjoy that Pyrrhic victory of yours….
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:07 AM
I always liked the “War on Aviation” nomenclature.
Yeah, it is ridiculous. You can’t defeat an enemy that you don’t properly identify.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:08 AM
That is so dead on scary accurate! Scary because our PC police (ACLU) will never let us come out and say “these are Muslim Extremists we are fighting”.
World War against Islam Extremism?
El Guapo on October 1, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Thacker Agency-
I’m for
TANCREDO-HUNTER 2008
but may have to put up with
ANYTHING BUT HILLARY
rather than see the B.J. Team return to screwing us sideways.
profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Man why didn’t I see that before……you guys are sooo right. I guess the only thing to do now is call all of our troops home quit fighting and welcome our new Muslim/socialist overlords……/s
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Why would I allow you to determine my vote? You don’t seem interested in having me determine yours.
Besides, AP is right. In 2008, the GOP faces near-certain defeat anyway . So by all means, huff and puff.
paul006 on October 1, 2007 at 1:25 AM
What are talking about now?
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:28 AM
paul006-
I see just the opposite.
The Dems are so weak, mealy-mouthed, unrealistic and flipfloppy on every issue but their own grasping for power that a simple, focused, mature Republican campaign will easily beat these juvenile, security-of-America-gambling goofballs.
In fact, I sense a fairly easy R win for president in ‘08.
Control of Congress is iffy, though, since they are a squalid bunch on both sides of the aisle, at the moment.
profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Good. Then I don’t have to feel guilty about voting my conscience.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Yea…………what ever dude……
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Lol. I think it’s past your bedtime.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Oh for goodness sake!!!! They are starting to sound like the Imams. As long as many think we’re going to lose anyway, I don’t care what they do. That kind of coercion will force some(possibly a lot) of moderates out of the party. “Can afford to shed us..” Not so!! They can’t win without the moderates either. I see that their values don’t extend to blackmail(or at least the semblance of same). Pshaw!!!
jeanie on October 1, 2007 at 1:40 AM
So what do we call it?
El Guapo on October 1, 2007 at 1:07 AM
War with Islam would be the most accurate, but War with Islamic Extremism would probably be more “tactful”.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 1:40 AM
Are you at all familiar with what NYC was like in the 70s and 80s? Even a little bit? I can’t believe this question even gets asked! Don’t be a player hater!
Jim-Rose on October 1, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Oh gee mommy cant I please stay up till 11:00 /s
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:41 AM
I always liked the “War on Aviation” nomenclature.
Yeah, it is ridiculous. You can’t defeat an enemy that you don’t properly identify.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:08 AM
I don’t think that most Americans view the “War on Terrorism” as that much of a burning issue anymore for a number of reasons, not necessarily in order of importance:
1) There has not been a major attack on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001, more than 6 years now. Out of sight, out of mind.
2) Bush has concentrated on Iraq so much now as being the be all and end all that when a lot of Americans hear “War on Terrorism” they just think, “Oh, that means staying in Iraq and I don’t want that!”.
3) Bush has left our borders basically wide open. Kind of hard to take things seriously when he does that.
4) Bush and his people seem to pay homage to Islam. Kind of hard to take things seriously when he does that.
5) Under Bush an awful lot of visas have been issued to those from the Middle East. Kind of hard to take things seriously when he does that.
5) “War on Terrorism” makes about as much sense as if during WWII, FDR had talked about a “War on Blitkreigerism” or a “War on Divebomberism” rather than a war against Germany and Japan.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Don’t agree with AP about Republican defeat. Hillary is very beatable, though the Senate and probably the House look bad for Republicans.
Dobson made the smart move. If Rudy doesn’t make it out of the primary then Dobson looks like an king maker. If Rudy does get the nod, then Dobson can use the threat of a 3rd party to win concessions from Rudy.
An actual 3rd party run organized by Dobson would turn him into a Nader-like figure for Republicans. He could do it, but it would be very costly to him and the party.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 1:47 AM
2Brave2Bscared
but I’m not going to throw my beliefs and principles out the window just to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not anymore”
Gee, I’m trying to remember the last time I got everything I wanted in a candidate, presidential or otherwise. In fact, I’m trying to remember ever getting everything I wanted — or even all of the most important things. Your perrrrfect candidate would be virtually unelectable because you’re a minority constituency, so you can join a coalition within one party or the other — just like all the rest of us — or content yourself with the purity of your intentions.
Back in my pre-internet days I remember seeing a survey/poll of some kind designed around a list of top ten issues. On a statistical basis, any candidate who took an explicit pro or con stand on all ten issues, would alienate a substantial majority of voters — regardless of which combination of pro and con positions the putative candidtate took. That’s the reality. If compromise is against your principles, bon voyage.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 1:49 AM
There is a very simple answer for Republicans for this. Don’t nominate Giuliani.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Why would I allow you to determine my vote? You don’t seem interested in having me determine yours.
Besides, AP is right. In 2008, the GOP faces near-certain defeat anyway . So by all means, huff and puff.
“Why would I allow you to determine my vote?” you ask.
No reason at all. I presented a “very simple answer for Republicans”. I’m not holding a gun to your head or anyone elses. Honestly.
paul006 on October 1, 2007 at 1:25 AM
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 1:51 AM
But you certainly would if you could.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:56 AM
there is nothing that scares me more than President Hillary. All these so-called Christian leaders need to decide what they want. They will rather throw him away because they don’t agree with him on one thing, for somebody they don’t agree with on a million things.
This logic beats me…
Chudi on October 1, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Good post, MB4. I agree.
You know, right after 9/11 would have been the perfect time to really educate the American people of the dangers that Islamic Jihad posed to our nation and the rest of the west. Instead Bush failed to properly educate himself, came up with some silly, mischaracterized slogan, and then rushed off to “spread democracy throughout the middle east.” To this day I still think the Bush Administration fully grasps the scope and full intent of our Islamic enemies.
Sadly, I think it’s going to take another big attack before we can get people to wake up again.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:57 AM
I’ve read most of the comments, and as far as the “if you vote with your conscious for a 3rd party on ONE issue, or sit out the election, then you have lost out altogether, so at least vote for a Rep cand that might win” philosophy — We got it! You’ve said it a million different ways.
The problem is that the “religious vote” AND “true” conservatives have become “weak” with this philosophy over time, lost their power, and politicians know it. The Republican politicians know they don’t have to worry much about Christians and the far Right anymore because they will vote for anyone other than liberal dems. And now with the GOP being weak on immigration/border enforcement, and won’t do a thing about eventual Sharia “creep”, etc.. everyone has lost faith in them.
Republicans will be taught a hard lesson this election and it is about time. I hope they enjoy that cackle!
The only outcome of the “vote for the lesser of 2 evils” philosophy will be having 2 “moderate” candidates that are basically the same, with only subtle differences in what they “say” as far as taxes and war. Which is basically what we have now with Guiliani and Hil.
Just put Malkin or Levin up as the 3rd party candidate and make a statement.
nottakingsides on October 1, 2007 at 2:01 AM
And why would Dobson be uncomfortable with Romney?
Why would a conservative, political organization, established by evangelicals, meet in Salt Lake City, home of the Mormon church and reddest of the red states, when the agenda wasn’t conversion of the cult? It’s not ski season.
Why was Romney, the Mormon, the only publicly known presidential candidate to address the meeting? Cheney also addressed the meeting. Maybe they want him to run for president.
Why is Thompson tanking and Mitt Romney now leading in South Carolina, according to americanresearchgroup.com? Maybe Dobson’s email had more effect than given credit for.
Sebastian on October 1, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Gee, I don’t remember ever saying I wouldn’t settle for anything less than perfection. But you clearly know more about me than I do.
The thing is, Giuliani isn’t anywhere close to perfection. Heck, I don’t think he’s even close to 30% perfection. Seriously, if he’s the best the GOP can do then we’re in big, big trouble.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 2:03 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 »