Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination
posted at 9:44 pm on September 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Now we are arguing over degree, not candidate.
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM
That Tom Friedman article in the NY Slimes is UNBELIEVABLY STUPID.
Even for him.
Always Right on October 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM
President Of The United States…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Unlike you, I am offended when people malign the things that I believe in. Not because I expect them to change in their opinions but because I don’t want other poeple to be influenced by their stupid comments.
Those who believe in nothing will go along with anything.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Ok everyone, lets start practicing saying this now.
President Rodham
President Rodham
President Rodham
Maybe it will get less painful as time goes on.
Pulchritudinous Patriot on October 1, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Vincenzo,
Any response to my comment that Catholics should be more vocal in politics? I understand “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” but good and evil may be more in God’s purview than in Caesar’s.
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 12:11 PM
That has always been true. If Rudy could show that he was really a conservative, he doesn’t have to fit every thing I believe in.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:11 PM
You really don’t know much about Catholicism
Yeah, I think I do.
samuelrylander is right except in his definition of devout Cathoics. We are devout to God. Our “rituals,” as you call them, only are ways of expressing that devotion.
Blue state Catholics who aren’t devout will vote for Rudy. No doubt. But the rest of us won’t. ( I will, but that’s because I see the political picture, most don’t look at it that way )
To those who vote on social issues, it isn’t about politics, it’s about doing what’s right. And to them, doing what’s right is more important than Hillary or anyone else being President.
Let’s nominate someone other than Rudy and get on with it.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Two things…
1.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:06 PM
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Thanks for the POTUS thing.
2.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM
I’m a little confused. I was under the impression you were Pro-Rudy. Then you list all the reasons that conservatives don’t like Rudy. Straighten me out here.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I wouldn’t vote for Giulianni because he’s an effeminate gun-grabber who won’t secure the borders. Since Hillary is more masculine than him, but will be essentially the same on the latter two issues, it wouldn’t matter to me who won. I’ll just go drinking the night of the elections.
PRCalDude on October 1, 2007 at 12:17 PM
He’s pretty much a raza supremacist. Knock yourself out, I guess.
PRCalDude on October 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM
i’m rolling my eyes as much as I possibly can right now.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM
You said:
Then you said:
I think absent any more information, you would end up voting for Rudy against Hillary
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Good. As America advances forward it looks more and more like the world laid out in Atlas Shrugged. Big government social conservatives and as bad, dare I say worse, than socialist leaning democrats.
Thankfully there is still some sane republicans that believe in the core value of small government.
dougless on October 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The only one we have who can do that is Rudy.
Get mad, stomp your feet. Doesn’t matter. It’s just a fact.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 12:19 PM
typo: …social conservatives are as bad….
dougless on October 1, 2007 at 12:20 PM
“We” may not get that choice. What we must not forget however is that whomever is nominated is the only alternative to Hillary. Remember this also, anyone who stays home is voting for Hillary (if you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice) Anyone who votes for anyone other than the GOP nominee is voting for Hillary.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I dunno. I can only make my case so many times:
-he’ll cut taxes
-he’ll instill real economic reforms to balance budget, etc etc.
-he’ll lay off the Constitution as he’s promised
-he’ll fight the threat of terror
-he’s smart on his feet, and not afraid to address the press and volatile issues
-he’s been successful working across the political aisle when necesarry to get things done.
Rudy: Sounds good in my book.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 PM
A couple more things.
1. I’m generally a softy. I don’t know if I’ve had too much caffiene this morning or what. I’m not sure that I haven’t overstepped in some of my comments. I may, may, owe you an apology Vincenzo. Kind of a maybe apology…or something.
I shouldn’t have called you a Whinebabe. that was petty and ungracious, and definately un-Christlike.
2. My maybe apology to Vincenzo hinges on whether Rightwingsparkle can convince me I am wrong in my definition of devout catholics. Personally, I think it’s just semantics and we are talking about the same thing.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:26 PM
He also sued the U.S. government to prevent immigration law from being enforced in NYC. He’s against the private ownership of firearms.
As far as terrorism is concerned, that’s largely and immigration problem as well, but it still doesn’t affect my life anywhere near as much as this invasion from Latin America that threatens to erase what America was in a couple of decades.
PRCalDude on October 1, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Heh heh no, I’m pro GOP. I’m a Fredhead. But unlike many others around here I feel no need to attack or tear down the other GOP contenders to make Fred look good. I will vote for whomever the GOP nominates because I believe that any GOP candidate is better than a liberal/socialist democrat.
I find plenty to like about all the GOP candidates and more than I care to dislike about all of them, but in the end I find any GOP candidate preferable to any Democrat.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM
areo,
How is that possible? Since we all agree a great deal of Christian voters will stay home because they don’t care if Hillary is President if they don’t see a difference on the issues that matter to them between her and Rudy?
How many gun rights, anti-illegal immigration, anti gay marriage issue voters who aren’t necessarily “evangelical” will stay home as well? Come on.
We lose without them. That’s it. This isn’t about you or me liking Rudy. It’s about reality.
Hillary will not make one mis-step in this campaign. Rudy’s messy past will come up again and again. And not just his personal life.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Look, I don’t want to continue this fight with you. You have your opinions and values and I have mine. I’m not being arrogant, I just have certain core beliefs that I’m not going to fudge on. If you want to take that and lump me into the same crowd as those who’ll actually pull the lever for Hillary next November, then go right ahead. But know that that kind of rhetoric isn’t going to get us anywhere.
Let’s find some common ground here. Instead of pimping Rudy, who’s really nothing more than a hawkish liberal, let’s get behind someone like Fred Thompson. Like I said earlier, I’m not a big fan of Fred Thompson, but at least the man has a few solid, conservative credentials. And he’ll certainly be easier to work with once he’s in office than the leftist Giuliani.
Samuelrylander brought up a good point earlier: We should be concentrating on combating liberalism, not simply a face (even if Hillary’s is quite ugly). Rudy is, whether you want to admit it or not, a part of the liberal movement, and continuing to put people like him in office simply because they’re the “lesser of two evils” isn’t going to get us anywhere in the long run.
The “War on Terror” is certainly important, but it’s not so important that every other conservative value can or should be be ignored just to win it. After all, what good is defeating Islamic fascism if after all is said and done we’ve lost the war at home? And make no mistake: if you take Rudy’s overblown strength on the “War on Terror” away, he’s absolutely no different than half the Democrats in Congress.
The GOP can do better that. It has to do better — for the country’s sake. And if not then maybe it’s time we conservatives find another party to get behind.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:30 PM
For those of you who can’t bring yourselves to vote for Rudy because of his abortion stance in particular:
What do you think will happen on the abortion issue under Hillary? Not only will it remain legal and entrenched, but it will become FREE and UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE. And YOU AND I will be FORCED TO PAY FOR IT under Hillary’s “universal healthcare” plan (i.e. socialized medicine subsidized by the taxpayers)!!!
There is a “worse.” If you think God will be angry at you for voting for a guy who won’t oppose abortion, what do you think your punishment will be for allowing yourself to be forced to pay for free and unlimited abortions?
aero on October 1, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Better than any Democrat that for sure, and yes in spite of being a Fredhead, should Rudy get the nomination I will vote for him, but I would prefer Fred Thompson.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Assuming more info will be available by election time…I’m not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but given a 3rd or 4th or 5th party candidate that I agree with, unless Rudy does some real hardcore explaining, in some pretty clear terms, he has no chance of getting my vote.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:32 PM
As I have said I am a Fredhead, don’t mistake my preference for a GOP candidate as a unequivocal support for Rudy. As I also said I feel no need to try to destroy Rudy to make Fred look better. I have plenty of problems with Rudy, but far less problems with him than any of the democrat candidates.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:35 PM
As long as we’re bringing the ramifications of our actions on our relationship with God into this, wouldn’t the best decision in this particular scenario you’ve laid out be:
To vote for the person you ought to vote for who will do the right thing, then if the government starts seizing my money to pay for abortions, stop paying taxes and get thrown in jail. It seems that that would get me the most points with God.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Then Rush, Newt, and AllahP are right and there is no chance that we can win. I said it earlier in the thread—we’re doomed. Rudy’s the only one who has the remotest chance of swinging a blue state or two our way. But you say Evangelicals simply won’t vote for him, so the advantage he gives us with swinging some moderate voters to the right is nullified by a revolt within the Christian base. From what you’re saying then, when we lose, it will squarely be the fault of stubborn Christian Evangelicals when Hillary walks into the Oval Office in January of 2009. Own it.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 12:40 PM
OK, my apologies then. I didn’t see your post pronouncing your backing of Fred Thompson until after I had submitted my 12:30 entry.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:40 PM
As someone who has grown up in the “Christian right”, I know well that there are many, many people in “the base” of the GOP who will not vote for a pro-choice candidate.
I have feared for some time that the combination of Rudy’s name ID and popularity + the lack of many people’s knowledge of his positions + the splitting of the social con vote would lead to his nomination and a subsequent splitting of the party.
I think there will absolutely be a call for a third-party candidate if he is nominated no matter how unlikely it is that they would win. It has potential to be disastrous.
This is exactly why the GOP must nominate a solid conservative who can unite the party and the country and win. Rudy is not that man.
CP on October 1, 2007 at 12:42 PM
and on a completely side note…It’s kind of amazing. Probably the majority of people that post on this blog would agree with each other on like 95% of everything they believe in. If it’s not that high, it’s pretty stinkin’ high. Way above 75%. But we can find that little sliver, that one thing to fight about, and run with it.
I guess it’s ok though. In the end we’re still family.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
aero,
Not true. I think Thompson and McCain can absolutely swing moderate voters. I’m not sure about Romney yet. I just see so much anti-Mormon sentiment out here. But I like Mitt.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Heh. Touche. More power to you, my friend. We’ll start printing up the “Free samuelrylander” T-shirts soon. ;-)
aero on October 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I’m getting tired of the passive voice by social cons on this one. If Rudy is nominated, and social cons refuse to vote for him and elect Hillary, it’s not the fault of the majority who nominated him.
As aero says above, own it.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Fred Thompson’s got just as much of a chance as Rudy does, IMO. I really don’t understand why some of you subscribe so dearly to the Rudy or bust line of thinking.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:44 PM
That’s how I like to look at it.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:47 PM
A word to the religious conservatives: if Rudy wins the nomination and you feel you must “punish” the GOP, spare us the smug “Don’t blame me, I voted for Ross Perot” bullsh*t of going 3rd party, which is effectively voting for Hillary. Punish them properly and actually VOTE HILLARY.
FWIW, my preferred candidate is Duncan Hunter, but he has no national name recognition, therefore no chance. Fred Thompson is a much more viable candidate and had a solid conservative voting record in the Senate, but if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination, I WILL vote for him, despite plenty of misgivings.
Spiny Norman on October 1, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Mostly because this is a thread about Rudy, not Fred. As
correctly pointed out Rudy has many good points, however his negative points prevent him from being my first choice.
That said his negative points are far outweighed by those of the democrat candidates.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:48 PM
And I think we most resemble the Simpsons.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Funny that you wouldn’t lay decay of the country at the feet of those with the decayed liberal ideology, but at the feet of those who most vehemently fight against it.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
My feeling exactly, and I add for reasons of disclaimer, Duncan Hunter is my congressman whom I have voted for some 5 times. I would be quite happy with a Thompson/Hunter ticket.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM
If Rudy’s the GOP nominee, and a good chunk of conservatives refuse to vote for him, who really abandoned whom? Will the base have abandoned its party, or will the party have abandoned its base? I think it’s the latter.
Your problem is you want to place all the blame on the voters.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM
There fix’t that for you…… :p
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Vincenzo says:
“I leave my politics at the door when I pray, though.”
I wish I was online when that arrogant dufus said that. After slamming non-Catholics, he gives us the gem above.
I’m a catholic too. I don’t consider myself superior to any other Christian. But Vincenzo, you befuddled twit, I BET YOU ALSO LEAVE YOUR RELIGION AT THE CHURCH DOOR ON YOUR WAY OUT. I’ve seen your kind of Catholic before. You forget the teachings the second your outside. I don’t call that Christianity. If I was a better Catholic, I probably wouldn’t tell you up which oriface you head appears to be.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
QFT.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
If Rudy’s the GOP nominee, and a good chunk of conservatives refuse to vote for him, who really abandoned whom? Will the base have abandoned its party, or will the party have abandoned its base? I think it’s the latter.
Since a majority of GOP voters would have nominated Rudy in that example, it seems your claim of being “the base” is a bit exaggerated.
Well, if the voters are acting in a way that puts bad people in power because they didn’t get their way, then they deserve it.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
My advise to all american patriots: find a most hawkish,
antijihadist, non-socialist, down-to-earth candidate and vote for him, even if he’s a gay atheist “antichrist”.
Syndic Nuruodo on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Dang it. That’s who I thought of first, but couldn’t remember the last name.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Re-post of 12:54, with proper formatting:
Since a majority of GOP voters would have nominated Rudy in that example, it seems your claim of being “the base” is a bit exaggerated.
Well, if the voters are acting in a way that puts bad people in power because they didn’t get their way, then they deserve it.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Then provide some evidence to support this “fact”.
Rudy isn’t going to win the blue states, and risks generating enough Republican apathy that he loses some red states. The MSM will mostly give Hillary a pass on her checkered history, but they’d eat Rudy alive if he gets the nomination, which is far from certain at this point.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Sorry but that is where the blame belongs. The party is the people. The religious right is not the party, they are but a part of the whole. The sum of the parts are not greater than the whole. If the religious right isn’t getting represented enough its because to many of them sit at home and do not take an active part in the process.
You cannot sit on the sideline and complain about the outcome when it is in fact your failure to participate that rendered the outcome you are complaining about. Yes indeed as aero says above, own it.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Heh. Touche. More power to you, my friend. We’ll start printing up the “Free samuelrylander” T-shirts soon. ;-)
aero on October 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Thanks for the sentiment. I’m using this as a(somewhat) ridiculous example of the logical extension of your “God would get mad at you” parody of how you think “religious” voters make their decisions. The point being that your argument was a straw man.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I’ve heard a lot of things said about Rudy, but “down to earth” ain’t one of ‘em.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Touche. But there used to be a time when people like myself were the base. And I’m not talking exclusively about those who are opposed to killing unborn babies either, but also those who oppose big government and believe in the Constitution (2nd Amendment included).
If “the base” thinks it’s a good idea to nominate a liberal like Giuliani, then it just goes to show how far the GOP has fallen.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:02 PM
That’s a good point. And also why I don’t consider myself a part of the GOP base. I would consider myself a part of the Conservative base.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:03 PM
And my statement bothered you how? To say that any other offspring of Catholicism is nothing more than a cult, is, well, true. That’s not saying anything bad of their congregation, but if you are a true Catholic you do not belive that any other sect of Christianity is well, real Christian.
I challenge you to show me where I’m wrong.
By the way, I don’t find myself superior to anyone. I’m simply stating the truth as it is to a true Catholic. I didn’t make history or the rules, I just listen and follow them.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:06 PM
I have nothing against Rudy, as long as he isn’t elected in my state/district. He did okay on 9/11, but one good day doesn’t erase a lifetime of bad policy.
I don’t think Rudy is electable. If you listen to him speak, its about what a wonderful mayor he was. The candidate we elect will be moving us forward, and Rudy spends all his time looking in the rearview window.
We need vision. we need answers to future problems. Newt was my best hope, and he’s bowed out. Rudy entirely lacks “the vision thing.” That’s as bad as the lack of true conservative values.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 1:07 PM
If saying that makes you feel better, then by all means continue declaring it. But it doesn’t mean anything to me.
You’re mad at me because I refuse to compromise on Rudy, but what you should really be mad about is the GOP political culture we live in today that thinks nominating Rudy in the first place is a good idea.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Can you back that up with some actual data, or do you just believe that in your mind?
I bet you two donuts that Rudy takes New Jersey and New York. Now they don’t get much bluer than NJ and NY. He’ll win both.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:08 PM
No, it just goes to show how many from the religious right have stopped participating in the political process. Were not even getting a 50% eligible voter turnout, why? Because so many on the right have become apathetic and just cant be bothered any more.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Eight years of Bush didn’t help either. Phony religious rightousness…
I supported Bush all this time, but I can see why so many would have fallen off the apple cart.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:10 PM
The point isn’t whether Christians will vote for a politician’s declared faith/denomination, it is their stance on a few important issues. Almost every dem has declared a faith of some sort lately, but that’s not the point anyway since many voters see most politicians as corrupt con artists.
If an athiest was pro-life, he may have a better chance at the religious vote than Rudy. Rudy is a poor candidate on so many levels it is ridiculous.
nottakingsides on October 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM
and a right hook…square to the jaw…leave’s them cold. No wait, what’s that, it didn’t even phase them. They continue to babble on and on about how social cons are the death of the country, like some mind numbed machine that you can’t reason with.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Well, I agree. And I have my theories as to why this is the case, but I think I’ll keep them to myself lest I get into any more trouble.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Actually, no one has said that at all.
Interesting way you have of respecting fellow members of the “family,” there.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Vincenzo: What got me cranked up was the superior Catholic attitude. If you know anything about history, you know that the various Protestant faiths split from Catholicism for a good reason.
The church of the middle ages was crooked and part of the political establishment. It sold indulgences. It was corrupt. People like Martin Luther were the better Christians at that time, and while the Catholic church has reformed itself fairly well, there still is too much pomp and not enough Jesus. I’m not a practicing Catholic now. I got fed up with the priest-sexual abuse issue, and wherte I live near Albany NY, we have a bishop that is less totally clueless. I didn’t so much leave the church as the church left me. I still have my personal faith, but I practice it alone.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Heh heh I doubt you would get into much trouble. Probably find that we agree more than you suspect.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM
People start to disagree with you and suddenly it’s a crisis of political culture?
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Where do you come up with this stuff? You dare call me a moron?
You don’t want Rudy running on his experience, right? Becuase well, that would be productive of him to run on his experience. So I guess candidates should ignore their entire history in government and just tell us what we want to hear?
And where do you get the idea of a lifetime of bad policy? This man brought down the New York mafia, cleaned up NYC, cut taxes, spurred economic growth, and made his city the best in the country, in crime stats and economic growth.
Yeah, that’s a real embarassment to run on I guess.
Throw the gun stuff out there, I guess. The man was running the most populous area in the country. People rub shoulders wherever you go. He had a job to clean up the streets where people were killing each other every day. He did his job as he was supposed to. Now that he’s going for a national position, he’s changed his platform appropriately for the position.
I guess for you though you’d rather just have fancy rhetoric from a candidated filled with “hot air.” Either that or an “aww shucks” mannerism that reminds you of the Grandpa or Uncle Tommy or something.
I’ll take substance over icing any day.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:15 PM
You’re worse than the pedophiles. When things got bad, you cut and ran. Instead of working to try to fix the problems that plagued the church in the latter part of the 20th century, you abandoned your faith.
By the way, we go to Church to pray to God, not to the priests. So you shouldn’t be swayed by the sins of Man, when right there in that Church is the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps you should reflect on your own actions, and how that has hurt your faith more than any pedophile has.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Boy if the editorial board at the NYT could see how you guys describe Rudy as a liberal — they would have a hoot!!! They think Rudy is to the right of Benito Mussolini
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Oh, how I wish I had access to hotair’s archived blogrolls. In fact it was an exchange a couple of weeks ago. I was arguing with you and a few others. Someone said something to the effect of…”samuelrylander and voters like him will be the death of the country.”
And what? You don’t talk to your family that way when their wrong and keep saying the same things over and over?
I actually thought that was about the most humor filled and innocuous thing I’ve said all day.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:19 PM
This vile attitude of your is what drives people away from Catholicism. What you just said is truly and utterly despicable.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Heh. I prefer not to have a fork stuck into my forehead, which is exactly what would happen if I said something like that to my wife.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:21 PM
You are going to lose credibility very quickly if you start marginalizing real issues. This entire discussion is about a crisis of political culture. That’s the cause, not the effect of people being mad at him.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Maybe. But I don’t want to drag the thread off into a contentious religious debate. Although it looks like Vincenzo is taking us into that direction anyway.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Granted. Good point. But I was talking more like sibling type of family than spouse type of family. I don’t know you that well.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I suspect you have that backwards, but meh…needs more details to flesh it out.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Oh, give me a break. I’m simply saying that it’s a bit self-centered of the social conservatives to think something is wrong with the party simply because a majority of its members happen to disagree with you and your views.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM
By the way, thank you Vincenzo. I’ve posted here about 6 times, usually late in the threads. Yours is the first response I ever received.
I’ll give Rudy credit for doing a good job in NYC. he was a great prosecutor and a damn good mayor. He was what NYC needed at a time NYS needed it. I never said otherwise.
But Rudy will probably not make a good President, even if he could get elected (which I doubt). The US is not NYC, and his skills are not what we need. Not everyone is perfect for every role. He could surprise me pleasantly, but I haven’t seen any sign of vision. I think Rudy is a reacter, not an innovator. He’s a counterpuncher, he needs something to react to. That’s my impression. I’m looking for vision more than I am conservative orthodoxy. It would be nice to find a candidate with both (Newt, Newt, re-consider.)
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM
It may be hard to swallow, but its hardly dispicable. Your faith is to guide you through your life. You are not supposed to be guided by Priests(wehter honest or shams who hid in the church to take advantage of children).
My point is, when the Church’s human aspect failed, it was up to those that knew better to fix it. Leaving the Church serves no purpose. You are just getting out of the way. Any person of true faith in their religion will not run away when a part of it fails. They will try to fix the problem, and restore its good graces.
Why is that dispicable to say?
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I’m kind of on thin ice here, in that I haven’t ironed this idea out all the way in my own head. Maybe y’all can help me. But isn’t Rudy to the right of Mussolini? Doesn’t true liberalism lend itself to fascism while true conservatism defies both fully?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:28 PM
:o Okay I’ll stop.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM
I am a conservative atheist … and I don’t like Rudy. The fastest way for the GOP to lose is to nominate another NE urban gun-grabbing RINO.
I could just barely bring myself to vote for him over Hitlery.
Step away from the cliff please. You might think of the other candidates as “rednecks” … but that describes the majority of us Republicans … so just deal with it. Try to do something other than lose … Bush is unpopular now with his own base because he has shown his true colors … far more Kennebunkport than Texas, in my opinion.
Kristopher on October 1, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Rudy is wrong on a whole lot more than just the so-called social issues. Do you honestly not see this?
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:31 PM
It’s like a hammer that keeps hitting you on the head but it just isn’t sinking in. The party is not a party unless it is built on people and their views. That is the essential thing. Otherwise its just folks, who call themselves republicans and vote for whatever they want.
So yes. Something is wrong with the party when they disagree with me and my views, which are incedentally the views that the party used to agree with.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:32 PM
My vision is fine, thanks.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Yes. The notion that Nazism and fascism are right-wing ideals is nothing but a liberal distortion.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Honestly, have I been uncivil to you in some way? Is that sort of thing really necessary?
If the party nominates Giuliani, then it’s still a party built on people and their views. That they happen to be views you disagree with personally doesn’t make it any less a party.
Emphasis mine. As many here are so quick to tell Rudy, you can’t live in the past.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:35 PM
You have got to be joking.
Mustafa Hemmroid didn’t abandon his faith, he abandoned an organization that was perverting that faith. Just as Martin Luther and Calvin before him had done. Your arrogant assertions are not winning any argument either here or with God.
Jesus Christ had no use what so ever for religious organization run by men. He made it very clear he could care less what went into a mans mouth but cared only about what came out of his heart. Anyone who claims that only Catholics are true Christians obviously doesn’t know diddly squat about about true Christianity.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Kristopher on October 1, 2007 at 1:31 PM
There…I think I fixed that for you, unless you were saying something else.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Vincenzo: I’m worse than a pedophile priest?
That’s the sort of attitude that kept people like you looking the other way while these vile perverts continued to practice their favorite hobby.
Had you lived in 1930s Germany, you would probably have stuck with National Socialism, even after Hitler began killing the Jews. When an organization goes bad, I go elsewhere. I vote with my feet. And I’m still looking for the passages in the New Testament that state that Catholicism is the only true faith. You heard that from the priests, not Jesus.
Sorry, all others, for the religious tangent. I probably shouldn’t respond to religious supremacists.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Please, Slublog, cut the crap. You can’t legitimately play that card after you practically lumped samuelrylander and myself into the Hillary supporter crowd with your “own it” comments. Talk about uncivil…
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Asking someone to take personal responsibility for their actions (or inactions, as it were) and calling someone a “mind numbed machine” who needs to have a “hammer” applied to its head are hardly comparable.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Sorry. My snarky comments are obviously not being understood with the goodnatured ribbing that was intendend. You have been entirely civil. My apologies.
But to your points:
That’s true, but it won’t be my party anymore. Which is the whole point. I won’t be a part of it.
This is a misrepresentation of what is occuring. What is actually factual is that myself and others like me are holding true to values that have been solid since the creation of man, and are still true today, rather than chasing some fad ideology just so we can stay at the top of the pile.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Sarcasm doesn’t come across well on this forum, it seems. Apologies for being so jittery.
Good point. I think, though, that modern social conservatism has tipped the balance too far away from the small-government conservatism that I’m more comfortable with. Unfortunately, I think Dobson is a big-government conservative who is perfectly comfortable with government power if it does what he wants it to do. I’m more of a classical liberal/libertarian – fiscal conservatism and personal freedom are important to me.
My major problem with Dobson is that nothing seems to make him happy at all – he’s dismissed not only moderate candidates, but also conservative ones, and for the most specious reasons (i.e. – doesn’t go to church enough).
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 1:52 PM
After listening to lefty crap all day, every day, it’s depressing to read all this backbiting BS in my own “party”. Maybe it is time for a third party.
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Bingo. Not only that but unlike the Republicans they didn’t blow their load too soon. By the time the election is around people are gonna forget all the Hillary scandals and that’s when the “leaked memos” start coming out.
Darth Executor on October 1, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »