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 | 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: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »
Dude, if everyone is so gung ho about Rudy, compare him to McCain and you’ll see that McCain has all of Rudy’s positives and excludes a lot of Rudy’s negatives. McCain is very popular in the early primary states. He’ll appeal to the moderate democrats more than Rudy will.
I’m saying I like McCain because I don’t like any of them. . . but McCain is the least bad.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
You’re preaching to the choir here, I certainly do not want to be put in a position of having to support Rudy, I much prefer Fred but my sole goal in this thread is to convince others in the party to not abandon the party over Rudy.
Although I have implied otherwise with my snarkish replies I don’t not want anyone to vote in a manner that offends their conscience. It is my hope that I may educate those considering either a 3rd party or sitting the election out that voting for a candidate who isn’t perfect
for youdoesn’t have to offend ones conscience.doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Dude you just don’t get it. It isn’t about Rudy, its about party unity, without which Hillary win hands down.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I’ve been thinking about this. Many of us tend to forget that this is really about electoral votes, not popular votes. So the question is really about whether or not Rudy can still carry the reliable red states, even if the evangelicals and other moral purists sit it out. I think the answer is yes. I don’t think any of the reddest states will tip blue because of an evangelical revolt. The purple states are another matter. But again, the states that are usually “purple” are not heavy Bible-thumping states and have a lot of moderates who might easily tip to Rudy as a more acceptable “centrist” candidate than Hillary. I think there are more moderates in purple states than evangelicals, in other words. So I think Rudy picks up a couple of purple states as well. If he can swing even one blue state, such as New Jersey, he’s home free.
So since the evangelicals who are threatening to stay home or vote third party are concentrated already-heavily-red states that are likely to stay red even without the evangelicals, I don’t think they change the electoral vote count by refusing to vote for Rudy.
I’m no professional analyst, so I may very well be waaaaayyy off base, but that’s my amateur analysis for what it’s worth.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Hi Samuel,
I was raised in a religious household, read the Bible and attended church. I studied philosophy as part of my undergrad and graduate programs. In the 20 or so years since school most of my reading has been in European and American history–lately most of Niall Ferguson.
I think a person’s religious beliefs are personal and I respect the way that Christian beliefs can make you a kinder person. I’m skeptical when people use religion as a basis for public policy, but enjoy the questions it raises. When people use religion as a means of aggregating power, I find that dangerous.
I do enjoy reading your well-reasoned posts, and look forward to reading more.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 5:57 PM
But he can’t get the nomination, so it’s a moot point. He may not even be able to financially survive until the primaries.
I have often wished I could support McCain. There’s a lot to respect and like about the guy. He’s just burned way too many bridges for most people to take him seriously anymore as a presidential candidate.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Look, here’s the difference between us. You look at it out of fear of Hillary. I look at it as putting up the best candidate. Put up the best candidate, you’ll have party unity. The problem we have here is that Rudy is famous because of 9/11. Thompson is famous because of ‘Law and Order’. People equate ‘fame’ with values.
It isn’t about evangelicals (which is still a mythical group of people who don’t vote in a block anyway). Now you are talking about politics and winning states. That’s the wrong way to look at it. Put up the best candidate you have and play ball.
I don’t think Rudy will win the South as a Republican. . . NOT BECAUSE OF THE EVANGELICALS, but because 40% of the south is BLACK and votes Democrat. I don’t think Rudy will win the Northeast because it is Democrat. I know Rudy won’t win California.
Why are these people so up on this guy who is only a good candidate because he is famous? If he weren’t from NY (media center of the world) he’d be ridiculed for his positions as a ‘Republican’ candidate. It is a shame that I have to explain it like this to intelligent conservatives.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Very true, in fact had GW not gotten the nomination 2000 I would have happily voted for him then. But after the amnesty debacle it would be difficult.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Black ‘evangelicals’ VOTE DEMOCRAT typically
assuming that you believe all Baptists are ‘evangelicals’
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 6:04 PM
AGAIN, Rudy CREATED A SANCTUARY CITY. How is that worse than McCain authoring a bill that was supposed to build a wall (though it did a lot of bad things).
McCain’s bad points are equal to Rudy’s, and McCain has a much better ‘War on Terror’ record than Rudy’s 9/11 clean up job for TV consumption.
McCain might win.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 6:06 PM
I think that’s the core of everyone’s problem, really. There is no “best” candidate of the type we all want: someone who is both genuinely conservative and has the name-recognition and popularity to beat Hillary in the general. Our arguments today boil down to the fact that we’re all a little desperate and scared, whether we want to admit it or not. Reagan didn’t rise from the dead to save us all. No uber-conservative appeared on his or her white horse to deliver us from socialism. We’re angry and afraid. That’s why we’re sniping at each other–it’s a natural reaction to this feeling of impotence many of us have right now. We’re going to lose either way this goes, and that sucks.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 6:07 PM
No, you are wrong, I do not look at it out of fear of Hillary, but out of the pragmatic understanding that without unity the party will lose to the Democrats. The democrats will walk lock-step with very few defections. There are more democrats than there are republicans. End of story.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Parenthetical notation added for contextless quotation.
Hey look everyone. There goes doriangrey, happily voting for whoever the GOP trots out in front of him/her.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:12 PM
No, McCain has about as much a chance of winning as Ron Paul does, in other words none at all. The sooner you accept reality the sooner you can begin to plan a viable strategy to deal with the democrats.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Sorry, are you a him or a her?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:14 PM
I wouldn’t know. I never am.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Try following the link on my nic, that might give you a clue… :p
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Bang, zow. What a zinger!
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I did. It links to a guitar soloist but I didn’t know if that was you or you just liked his music.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I once knew a man who thought he was perfect, then that man met Jesus Christ, that cured him of that foolish notion… :p
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:16 PM
McCain is only conservative in the fiscal sense, and even then he voted against the Bush tax cut. He’s proven weak on judges (gang of 14), weak on guns, horrible on illegal immigration… the list goes on and on. He’s nowhere near the lead in the early states and battling with Romney for 3rd place nationally with around 12% support.
He’s done, and it’s not exactly because he’s been too conservative. At this point he’s around either to get the federal matching funds or out of sheer stubbornness. Winning isn’t an option for him anymore.
I’m not sure if McCain is any better or worse than Rudy or Romney but I know I don’t support any of them, which pretty much leaves me with one remaining choice.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM
oof.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Heh heh yea, that would be me….. :p
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM
My feelings exactly…….one choice…everyone else can FEAR THE FRED…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:19 PM
And monkeys might fly out of my butt, collide with a flying cow, then have their souls go to a frozen hell.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 6:22 PM
FEAR THE FRED…
I used to be giggly over Fred. Then the damn LA Times did their little hit job about his abortion lobbying stint. Then rather than just say something straight forward and Freddy, he got all Rudy Giuliani-y on me and started waffling.
Fred doesn’t have nearly the ground to cover with me that Rudy does if he wants my vote, but he isn’t there yet.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 6:24 PM
And monkeys might fly out of my butt, collide with a flying cow, then have their souls go to a frozen hell.
That may be the strangest thing you’ve ever written.
I don’t happen to think dying was a loss – it was part of the plan all the time.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 6:31 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 was not a sneaky attempt to start a religious discussion, by the way. Don’t want to get the Catholics and Protestants in this thread at each other again. :-)
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Well thats the way Jesus tells it anyway. Which BTW is more than good enough for me.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Heh heh heh yea, but it sure is funny……..
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:36 PM
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
At what point do we stop accepting the less of the 2 evils?
Personally speaking I figured the less evil in the 2004 election was GWB so I unwillingly voted for him.
If Rudy gets the nomination, you can bet the UN is going to re-convene the gun-grabbing ban that they tried to do last year. Which Bush/Bolton stopped (one thing GWB did right this term), Hillary would do the same so, it really does not matter whom I vote for.
Do you really trust pro-choice Rudy to appoint constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court when he ignored the 2nd amendment as mayor of NYC?
Personally I am sick and tired of holding my nose when I walk into an election booth.
From my inner major core-beliefs I don’t see a difference between Rudy and Hilary. Either of them will mess up the country perhaps one less then the other but either will mess it up.
I am at the point that I think “let them mess up the country for 4 years” (like Carter did), perhaps then people will start to wake up and next time vote for a candidate they like rather then the less of two evils.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 6:45 PM
I don’t care for all the condescending “you’re voting to win, not on principles” crap.
I like Rudy because, of all the candidates, his views come closest to mine. So, kindly take that argument and stuff it.
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Okay, the “stuff it” was a little uncalled for.
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 6:48 PM
That’s quite a long time to allow the Democrats free reign over the levers of government.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 6:52 PM
If Rudy reflects your values the closest than good for you. Voting for Rudy shouldn’t be a problem for you then. Personally I find any republican candidate (except for Ron Paul) preferable to any democrat candidate. However I am pragmatic, unless I want a democrat elected, which obviously I do not, then regardless of my own personal preferences I will vote party line. If you cant do that, thats on you. If you cant and the nominee isn’t Rudy, you might as well just vote for Hillary.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:54 PM
When and only when you are actually offered a genuine bona fide option that isn’t the lessor of two evils. Until then refusing to vote for the lessor of two evils is voting for the greater of two evils.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I’m pretty sure I’ve topped that over at AoS, but thanks!
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 6:59 PM
True, but we went thru it before and recovered (Carter).
Whats better?
1. Voting your principles
2. Voting for the candidate that will “mess” up the country less?
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I don’t know…the imagery alone was…
There are no words!
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I’m down with that. If Fred or Mitt is the nominee, I’ll gladly vote for them. I just take offense at the assumption that the only reason one would vote for Rudy is because he can beat Hillary.
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Glad I clicked on the link. I enjoyed the tracks. I hear a little bit of Cream in the music, though maybe that’s just me.
Must be fun to be able to play as well as you do.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM
For me, it’s option 2, because I don’t believe the Rudy is the same as Hillary stuff. There are significant differences between the two.
I guess I find it difficult to accept the argument that allowing the election of someone who is hostile to your principles is the best way to protect them.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM
There is no question of it, I am a fan of the slowhand……Glad you enjoyed it…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Care to elaborate?
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
I see your point but I have to disagree. The 2004 election I would have agreed with you.
The guy I voted for was amnesty
Hillary and Rudy have not shown my any actions (not words mind you) that they would be any different. (and securing the borders is something that they take as an oath of office). Do we really want another fight against our elected officials over a repeat ammensty bill?
In 2008 we are going to have one.
2nd admendment sorry both fail as well.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
It is not protecting them. It is saying that I will not vote for a candidate that is hostile to my principals period no matter who/what party they represent.
Assuming Rudy and Hillary are the nominated, both are hostile to my principles therefore I will not vote for either of them.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:18 PM
So show me that bona fide option that isn’t the lessor of two evils and I will be right there with you. Until then I continue to fight the good fight and run the race that is before me. I refuse to surrender to despair or accept defeat. Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death…If you get my meaning here…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Ah, but thats the Hobsons choice, by refusing to vote for one, you are in fact voting for the other. Why? Because you are in the minority. Since the democrats statistically outnumber Republicans the failure of a republican to vote GOP is the exact same as their voting democrat.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Problem with that is that once a new entitlement/socialist program goes into place, it’s almost impossible to take it back. It will impact the nation–indeed, the world–for generations to come.
Think about it. It will have taken almost exactly 100 years for FDR’s socialist initiatives to get to the point that they will crash our economy. But they will crash the U.S. economy within a couple of decades, when the retiring Boomers tip the balance so far that we can’t recover. Hillary can push through socialized medicine and God knows what else in four years’ time with the help of a Democrat-controlled Congress. Scary sh*t. It’s incredibly irresponsible to not at least try to stop that from happening.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Not really. But thanks for your interest. I’m sure you’ll be able to discern my beliefs over time when I decide to pipe up.
I’m not going to let you read my manifesto, though.
Unless you ask really, really nicely. ;)
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 7:25 PM
MikeZero is… The Internet Man of Mystery
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Hey! I like that!
I’m going to put that on a t-shirt.
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 7:32 PM
What I’m trying to say, in case it’s not clear, is that it’s not just a matter of “surviving four years” of a Dem president. If even a single large-scale socialist program–such as universal healthcare–makes it into law, the impact goes literally generations beyond one president’s four-year term. A program like that can literally destroy our economy. I’m not being melodramatic here–Social Security and Medicare are already going to do it if we don’t act now. One more large-scale socialist program, and the greatest economy in the history of the world sinks like a rock. Issues like gay marriage and even abortion pale in comparison to losing our entire civilization and way of life, don’t you think?
aero on October 1, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Not to mention this. (Beware: Hewitt lovin’ Mitt link). Here’s the important part, though:
Just a reminder:
Justice John Paul Stevens is 87.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 71.
Justice Antonin Scalia is 71.
Justice Stephen Breyer is 69.
Justice David Souter is 68.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 7:35 PM
That is my point…. both Rudy and Hillary are “evil” IMO Rudy the lessor of them (assuming we does get the nod of course).
I have come to the conclusion the either of them still places me walking thru the “valley of the shadow of death” (to steal your quote).
Who would you rather walk thru with?
Beelzebub
or
Mephistopheles
Personally I don’t want to walk with either of them.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Very true for this election cycle.
Thats why I say we need someone to screw it up for 4 years and hope this country can recover.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Hmmm…I’d walk through with neither, but given the choice of having lunch with one of the two, I’d have to go with the former. If the Rolling Stones song is correct, he’d at least have better stories.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 7:47 PM
If we continue down the path this country is currently going in the long run, it wont matter who we elect. This country will fail, it is a question of when.
Rudy, likes to ignore the constitution, Hilliary has no idea what it is.
In the end they both reach the same end-point.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Yes. Supreme Court justices are another factor whose impact can linger loooooong past the four years of the president who appointed them.
The stakes are just too high to turn away and simply let a Dem take over, even if it’s just for four years. Try prying “free” healthcare out of the hands of the masses once they have it. Try getting abortion outlawed with a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS for the next several decades. I’m so upset with people’s shortsightedness, I can’t even express it.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Hey f15 mech, are you really an f15 mechanic? man that’s my favorite plane (or should I say ‘rocket’). It’s still the best after what 40 years? it’s just not stealth. it’s cool if you are an f15 mechanic.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Areo
OK maybe I am to cynical to vote, however anybody Rudy would appoint will be the next Sutter IMO.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Believe me when i tell you that I feel your pain……..
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 8:02 PM
He is the real deal and mad props to him for it…….
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 8:03 PM
I was…am no longer
For 4 years I did F-15 avonics (Flight controls and engine instrumentation AF code was 2A3×1B).
And yes I will show Bryan/Michelle my original DD214 if anyone calls me a “phony solider”. :)
Course any Army,Navy,Marine vets are free to call me a “phony solider”/REMF etc, as long as I can insult them as well.
:)
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 8:11 PM
gee you would think I could type avionics correctly.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 8:13 PM
My grandfather was a full bird colonel in the USAF, retired in 1959 as the commandant of the 94th Aero Squadron, if any of the above mention have anything negative to say about your service I will take personal insult right along with you…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Sweet I was in the 27th, stationed right next door to the 94th.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 8:20 PM
We Jarheads had names for everyone, Doggies, Squids, Flyboys.
You’re all okay in my book.
Semper fi,
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Sadly I was born in 1961, 2 years after he died, all I know about him I either learned from my grandmother, my father or from his cemetery certificate. What little I do know however is pretty damn cool. He joined the Army air corps in WWI and flew with Eddie Rickenbacker he then re-enlisted again with them in WWII, when I was a kid my dad showed my granpa’s most famous trophy. It was the seat out of Il duce (Mussolini’s) own fighter airplane. Cool stuff when you are just a kid with no real connection to the world.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 8:42 PM
With apologies to HA/the hijacked thread…
doriangrey,
Each base has an historian assigned to it.
Since your grandfather was a commander of the 94th, you may want to contact Langley AFB in VA, if you want more info.
The 94th is the 2nd oldest fighter squadron (27th is the oldest) Both squadrons are rich with history, the base historian should have some details about your grandfather.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Whats better?
1. Voting your principles
2. Voting for the candidate that will “mess” up the country less?
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM
If the candidate were to be President for life then play checkers and go with number 2.
If it’s for four years then play chess and go with number 1.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Nice comparison, that is pretty much where I am at.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Sorry…
“the only way to win is not to play”
Is where I am at.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Nice comparison, that is pretty much where I am at.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Me too.
I recall seeing something on TV some time ago. It was kind of similar. It was for pre-school kids and it used cookies. Not computer cookies, but real cookies. It went something like:
Whats better? Or which do you choose?
1. Getting two cookies, but having to wait 30 minutes.
2. Getting one cookie, but not having to wait.
I guess when you and I were pre-school we would both have gone for option one.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 9:49 PM
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Yup. I have never bought a lotto ticket in my life, not even one.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 9:55 PM
LOL
In all honesty in pre-school I would have gone for option two.
In middle school I arrived at the conclusion that option one would be benefit me the most.
In High-school I realized that (given the choices presented to me) what difference does it make in the big scheme of things?
Either way I am going to get at least one cookie.
Since I don’t like cookies (or bones for that matter) The extra cookie does not mean much.
Regardless that is a great test for me to try on my 3 year old nephew.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Langley AFB might, but when I contacted the AF they said all his recored burned up in a fire in the 80’s I think.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 10:12 PM
If his records were part of the St. Louis fire that destroyed the paperwork back then, then yes that is true. (I am sorry to hear that BTW).
However the base historian (think of him as a 94th squadron historian) may be able to provide you more “personal” insight about your grandfather.
Much history is known about “the hat in the ring gang”, while you may not get your grandfathers records you still may be able to learn about him.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Cool thanks for the heads up.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 10:24 PM
If the base historian does not help then you may also want to check out/read this
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 10:33 PM
thank you again…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 11:03 PM
NP anytime, except for the one newbie pilot, assigned to the 94th, that crashed a 27th F-15 into the ocean (CG helo dropped him off approx 1 hour later with no injuries), I have nothing but respect for the 94th.
Mad props to your grandfather, and to you as well for “keeping him alive”.
F15Mech on October 1, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Sure do wish he had lived to see the bad boys they are flying today……
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Back in 1999, if I had re-enlisted, there was supposed to be a good chance the I would see a “bad boy” on the 27th flight line in the next 4 years.
That did not work out so well either.
F15Mech on October 2, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Warning, incoming splatter from Mcguyver he’s going to rock my (and others) world…
doriangrey on October 2, 2007 at 12:45 AM
To Rightwingsparkle and et al,
I just came back from the Laura Ingraham, Power To The People tour, awhile ago and I’ve got an important update for your discussion here:
A question from the audience to Laura was: What do you think will be Guiliani’s likelihood – if POTUS – of nominating strictly constructionist judges?
Now before I give you the answer, let me remind you, of who Laura is and of what viewpoint/authority she speaks from…..
Laura clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas – a very principled man – for two years (’92 -’93)
In other words she has been around this block more than once, with an intimate view, as a journalist, author, radio show host, etc. etc.
Her answer, as God – and the hundreds of people in the auditorium – are my witness, was: “I’m very worried about that, I have been very worried about that for some time, I am very worried about it. I believe we need to nominate someone who is much more conservative, in order to beat Hillary, I do not believe that Guiliani can beat Hillary. We need someone who true conservatives can, with their conscience, vote for.
While campaigning/running for office, candidates can and do promise a lot of things, even George H. W. Bush promised that…. and while he did nominate Clarence Thomas, he also nominated David Souter, a liberal judge. So you cannot judge candidates by what they say, you have to judge them by their past actions.
Hillary is not as easy to beat as we would hope. The Hillary machine, really knows how to run a campaign, which is not something, we can so easily say of our side.”
And she absolutely mentioned no names of any other candidates. That was her answer as much as I can recall, some non-technical words may be missing or added, but that’s the essence of her answer.
And any others that were there can chime in and confirm what I quote here. AJ, her producer can jump in here and confirm this, too.
.
.
Now a couple notes here before I go on with my pontifications.
What indications were there that Bush 41 was not the true conservative he pledged to be?
I mean, he raised taxes, nominated a liberal judge – I’ll let someone else chime in here and provide that information – my point being, they were there.
.
.
And now to my pontifications, which is really, more of a dire and urgent warning…..
To all of you out there who read this, or comment here, who fall into any of these following categories:
a) The James Dobsons of the world, et al, who even think of SUGGESTING a third party candidate. (Even Matt Drudge said Sunday night, that this news made him SICK!)
b) Any, Rudy Guiliani shill, who absolutely DOES NOT WANT HILLARY IN OFFICE.
c) Anybody who chooses to sit out the primaries or the general election, who absolutely DOES NOT WANT HILLARY IN OFFICE.
To a), b, and c) YOU, HAVE ABSOLUTELY, LOST YOUR GOD-BLESSED MIND!
I mean, even tonight’s attendees, who admitted to not even listening to Laura’s radio show that much and before she answered the above question said, “ABSOLUTELY NOT HILLARY!”
And, may I add, to Rightwingsparkle’s post – go stomp your feet, be mad – stick your fingers in your ears, stick your tongue out, make nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh noices, be sad, curse, insult me, throw stones, call me names, never talk to me again, hate me, sue me, slander me, pour green goo all over me, smash a 1000 pies into my face, moon me, make fun of me, step on my toes, cause a traffic jam, and anything else you can dream up…if you don’t agree with Laura Ingraham, Rightwingsparkle, me and et al, YOU, are certifiably CRAZY!
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 2:27 AM
AFTER YOU’RE DONE WITH YOUR TEMPER TANTRUM, go do the right thing and nominate the candidate who is the most conservative, runs the best campaign, is the most qualified, and, of whom Hillary cannot say SMACK about, without looking like a complete fool, right out of the gate.
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Well said my friend, well said…. I bet you didn’t realize you and I could be good friends, did you?
Greater mysteries have been known, my friend.
.
.
Oh.. and thanks for warning the others of my earth-shaking splatter… perfect timing, my friend, perfect timing…
Did I wake you up?
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 2:34 AM
And here ends my splatter….
P.S. My “handle” throws a lot of people off, it’s meant to.
P.P.S. I do make sense sometimes. My post on October 2, 2007 at 2:27 AM, is one of those times.
P.P.P.S. If you don’t agree with me, YOU ARE CRAZY!
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 2:39 AM
Car 54, Where are You?
FeralCat on October 2, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Oh, and one more thing……
The questions for Laura were written down on cue cards and randomly selected by the host radio station manager.
Only a total of 6-8 questions actually got answered.
The one about Rudy, being the most significant, besides, the one about her experience with Justice Clarence Thomas and a couple related to the challenges raising a family.
My main point being that it was randomly selected.
Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 3:24 AM
Anyone “a bettin’ man” ?
http://www.gambling911.com/Fred-Thompson-Rudy-Giuliani-100107.html
Texas Nick 77 on October 2, 2007 at 7:00 AM
The stock market is a better place for your money.
tommylotto on October 2, 2007 at 7:19 AM
Beautifully (and creatively) said.
That pretty much sums up a lot of opinions on this site for people who are sick and tired of being told which RINO they MUST vote for in order to defeat Hillary. I’m an INDEPENDENT for a reason, and like Mojack, I refuse to settle for a Giuliani.
My vote is going to Duncan Hunter.
For those of you who are blind to anyone not in the so-called Top Tier: if you haven’t looked into Hunter yet, then you’re wasting your time – and your vote – looking for a true conservative anywhere in that damnable Top Tier. A RINO is no better than a weak Democrat (as if THAT has ever inspired anyone), and everyone here knows it.
This election is going to be different. If you guys play by the rules the Dems have laid out – you WILL lose. Settling for someone the Establishment Elite deems “electable” is a sure-fire way to lose. The conservative base has been abused and alienated for far too long. You can revive and inspire them with a Hunter candidacy – there is no doubt about it. He’s our Reagan.
http://www.gohunter08.com
Redhead Infidel on October 2, 2007 at 9:42 AM
I left this comment at Townhall when they were busy ignoring anyone but Ron Paul, Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani. Sifting…sifting…sifting…for anyone with a true conservative backbone and the brains to know how to use it. Now there’s an exercise in futility in today’s GOP.
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
Hey anything that will divide this country further is a good thing. We need more division, my class warfare, and just plain hate for the “rest” of them.
Let 2008 equal 1858.
Wuptdo on October 2, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »