Audio: Laura Ingraham on the Robertson endorsement
posted at 12:14 pm on November 7, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I think this is gonna leave a mark.
LAURA INGRAHAM: I like all the Republicans running, I really do, I think all of them will be better than Hillary, but get out! I mean, Pat Robertson is endorsing Giuliani, because what, he thinks that…I get it, here it is: you’re standing up for social conservatism because you, Pat Robertson, believe that if Giuliani gets the nomination, you see the train going down the track, the pro-Giuliani train, you want to hop on board because you think you’re going to be riding on that train until what? The glory days? Here’s my view: get ready to be thrown off that train at 65 miles an hour because that’s what’s going to happen to Pat Robertson. That’s my view.
There are certainly grounds to see opportunism in Robertson’s endorsement. And there are definitely grounds to expect it to backfire. Thus, the social cons’ ambivalence about Giuliani.
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
Just got an email from the MCCain Campaign. It was from Sam Brownback saying he is endorcing McCain. But I guess it got trumped
William Amos on November 7, 2007 at 12:18 PM
ouch your right that will leave a mark
Mojack420 on November 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM
is that another youtube video? cant get to it from here
offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Giuliani? I’m ambivalent about Robertson!
Pat Robertson isn’t just a phony, he’s a stupid phony. And now that he’s up there in years, he’s a senile stupid phony.
I take this as a sign — a sign that God is angry at America, and wants to inflict his wrath on us via President Hillary Clinton.
Ali-Bubba on November 7, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Well, yeah, I’m at best ambivalent about him too.
Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 12:23 PM
This whole rant of hers sounds like social con sour grapes. Maybe Robertson simply thinks Giuliani will be better on the war than any other candidate and has chosen to endorse accordingly. Why the accusation of bad faith?
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Robertson represents the kook-right-fringe and I don’t consider his endorsement anything other than ammunition for the left to use Robertsons nuttyness to attack Giuliani.
Kiss of death in my view.
Kini on November 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Throw Poppa from the train.
infidel4life on November 7, 2007 at 12:28 PM
I don’t think Duncan Hunter would throw anyone from the train.
Nethicus on November 7, 2007 at 12:30 PM
I have to agree. Robertson has over the past few years managed to paint himself into the “kook-right-fringe” corner. IMO his endorsement won’t count for a lot with most social conservatives.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I like Laura.. I really do.
But when push comes to shove, Laura is a one-issue radio host. If you dont hew the line on abortion…PERIOD.. you have no place in Laura’s world.
And that is why I no longer listen to Laura and find her increasingly tedious. She is one smart and one tough lady, but her worldview is way too limited for me.
Always Right on November 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM
She is 100% correct. Look at the way the Dems court their interest groups and then look at the way the GOP is dumping the religious right. The GOP is CLEARLY distancing itself as much as it can. Why? Who knows.
GogglesPisano on November 7, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Yep.
offroadaz on November 7, 2007 at 12:37 PM
No clue. Giuliani and Robertson were always friends, and that was apparently cemented on a flight while talking about Israel, among other issues.
amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM
he loves us so much even on holiday he speaks with us. Truly allah u akbar ;)
zane on November 7, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Agree. I went to the graduate school Robertson founded and it won’t count too much in my own opinion :) But I would like to let some of ya know I’m not a “right wing kook”.
terryannonline on November 7, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Laura thinks that Rudy is better than Hillary but that Robertson made the mistake of backing Rudy too early? Maybe Robertson’s play is to elevate his influence within a potential Rudy administration relative to other social cons like Dobson.
Robertson won’t be thrown off a train since Rudy would need social cons for mid-term elections and re-election. With the endorsement he won’t get all that he wants just more than he would have.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Robertson is looking for relevancy in his quixotic way.
Do you really think he agrees with all of Giuliani’s views?
Kini on November 7, 2007 at 12:40 PM
No, but he may actually prioritize. Besides the fact he’s been friends with Giuliani for a while.
amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:42 PM
You might be right. What it does do is keep the media from creating a frenzy over Mitt solidifying the social cons around him and thus making Rudy look less electable. Now every article that wants to portray Rudy as anathema to the social cons has to qualify it with Robertson’s endorsement.
I think this is big for Rudy in terms of perception. His biggest issue now is doing better in Iowa or New Hampshire. Big wins by Mitt there, and possibly SC could clobber Rudy’s momentum going into the Super Duper.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Exactly. All she’s doing here is throwing a tantrum because the social liberal just became (very marginally) more viable.
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Because the christian conservative/social con viewpoint comprises more than tough on terror, easy on taxes.
TexasDan on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Robertson doesn’t strike me as someone that would be endorsing a friend. He’s no more different than any of these high-profile-egos.
I wouldn’t expect Giuliani to show up at any 700 Club shows anytime soon.
Kini on November 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Right, but Robertson couldn’t get that in one package (or at least, not as much toughness on terror as he’d like). So he prioritized and went with the guy who’d give him the most important thing.
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I like Rudy and he would be my tird or 4th pick overall.
But After some of Rudy’s cronies that have made their way to the Bush adminstration I see that rudy leaves a lot to be desired in who he backs. A lot of craziness that is going on in the Bush admin right now has rudy roots.
William Amos on November 7, 2007 at 12:52 PM
But AP, we’re still weeks away from the first primary. For Robertson to throw all the rest of the social con wish list away at this point in the time table is beyond odd. It looks more like kingmaking to stroke Roberson’s ego than a good faith effort to lead based on the values he’s presumed to hold.
TexasDan on November 7, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Tantum…..yes.
More viable……….not so much.
omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Laura Ingraham would rather see Hillary Clinton as president instead of Rudy Guiliani because Rudy will not take the right to life position on abortion. It is incredibly foolish to entrust Hillary Clinton to be Commander in Chief instead of Rudy over one issue. Just as left wing loonies were willing to lose election after election rather than have a candidate who favored a ban on partial birth abortion, Laura Ingraham is insisting on making Rudy take every one of her positions. She has never won an election. Rudy has been elected mayor of NYC twice in a Democrat town. Would Laura Ingraham rather have had David Dinkins or Mark Green (two 1960s leftwing fossils) as the leader of NYC and the defacto leader of America on that awful day of 9/11/2001? I mean we are getting into the silly season here. Rudy is the one force that can stop Hillary, like it or not. It is time to get on board or else get used to seeing our men and women in uniform being forced to salute the Clintons.
Larraby on November 7, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Why on earth would it be better for Pat Robertson to be acting as an armchair general than as a political opportunist? I see either tack as equally, well, tacky.
Pat Robertson is famous for his evangelism; when he bases opinions upon that realm, then is acting in “good faith” toward people who trust him based on his public persona. But when he tries to use his fame as a springboard for unrelated enterprises, then he is simply cashing in on his status as a celebrity.
In other words, Pat Robertson is exactly as qualified to make endorsements based on military acumen and/or prospective political fortunes as is Paris Hilton. And their opinions deserve exactly equal respect.
logis on November 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Sorry guys, I like Laura, don’t really like Robertson, but Laura’s wrong in advocating a Balkanization of the religious Right. The only one here getting marginalized is Dobson, and maybe even Laura.
Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Allah, I’ve seen this Republican bandwagon effect before. This is a near-perfect replay of how the GOP lined up behind Bob Dole in 1996. And the general-election result will also be a near-perfect replay: Clinton gets elected.
Rudy Giuliani will never be president. He’s got too much baggage, and he won’t even carry his home state (which should tell you something). So if Giuliani gets the nomination, Republicans lose.
Ali-Bubba on November 7, 2007 at 1:04 PM
I don’t care for Robertson. I don’t care for Giuliani. I don’t care for Ingraham.
Damn, I have no horse in this race. That being said, I could’ve sworn that Robertson had the right to support/endorse anybody he damn well pleased to support/endorse.
Lastly, I stopped listening to Ingraham a long time ago. I think that there’s something wrong with her.
OhEssYouCowboys on November 7, 2007 at 1:04 PM
No he cannot. Not because he can’t beat Hillary, but because he cannot inspire conservatives to vote for him. And ‘like it or not’, the Repubs need the conservatives to win any election - as proven in ‘06. If the media hands the nomination to Giuliani, he will lose in ‘08. Guaranteed. For all the reasons I mentioned in the other thread.
Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I was surprised! I agree about the sour grapes. Abortion is a very important issue, but I don’t understand why Laura is accusing Robertson of being an opportunist. I think Robertson has decided that the war on terror trumps other very important issues. It’s just that simple IMHO.
Ordinary1 on November 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Uh, I think ‘06 stands for the proposition that if you’re backing an unpopular war, independents are more inclined to vote against you. Otherwise every election is about getting conservatives for the GOP, not just ‘06… hearkening back to that particular election is just an attempted threat.
Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Looks like Laura wants us to lose in ‘08. Does she have an ulterior motive? Does she get more listeners when Dems are in charge and the only place conservatives can go to hear their point of view being stated strongly is on talk radio? Hmmmm.
aero on November 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Here’s another Christian conservative who thinks Robertson is a fringe kook whose endorsement will hurt Giuliani more than help. The guy is, to many Christians, an embarrassment, and should be dismissed by anyone with more than two functioning brain cells.
It’s hard to believe Giuliani would seek or accept Robertson’s endorsement. Who’s he going to go after next? David Duke? Al Sharpton? Friggin’ Fred Phelps?
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 1:14 PM
It might say something if New York were a purple state, but no Republican could possibly carry New York in 2008. Mitt won’t carry MA if he gets the nomination.
Rudy is running ahead of Hillary in NJ, PA and CT and would make Hillary spend resources in an expensive media market for those 43 electoral votes.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Puh-lease. Are you seriously equating Robertson to David Duke and Fred Phelps? With all due respect, if Robertson was endorsing Fred Thompson, I don’t think we’d be hearing much of this at all; it’s that Robertson’s endorsement makes a Giuliani candidacy that much more likely, else there would be no reason to try to drag him or Giuliani down. You know, as non-threatening and imminently backfiring as this all apparently is.
Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 1:18 PM
I agree that it will be more difficult for Giuliani to get conservatives (including me) to vote for him, but do you seriously think a significant percentage of conservatives will stay home and let Hillary be elected? Not me, certainly, and when the chips are down, I think most will do the right thing, even if they have to hold their nose to do it. I’d rather see Mitt on the ballot, but I’ll be satisfied with Giuliani.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Who agrees with 100% of anyone’s views? That is an impossibly unrealistic goal.
Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Exactly; damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I agree that Robertson is simply doing what we all do on multiple choice tests — pick the answer that is most correct. Although I can’t completely understand why Rudy and not McCain, when their strengths and weaknesses (to conservatives) are almost identical, but McCain is and has always been staunchly pro-life.
Gotta be a little nod to viability in here.
Jaibones on November 7, 2007 at 1:22 PM
That is not her position - she explicitly said on the same show that any of the leading Republican candidates would be better than Hillary, including Rudy. But she is a social con, and Rudy troubles her. I listened to most of this show - her main point was that she is not ready to accept that Rudy is the only Republican who can beat Hillary, and that primary time (now) is the time to discuss all the issues and all the candidate’s strengths/flaws - not anoint one the victor.
That being said, all the callers on the show seemed to be Christian pro-lifers whining that they’d rather see Hillary win than vote for Rudy. Which leads me to absolute agreement with you - cut off your nose to spite your face, and your end up looking both ugly and stupid.
peski on November 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM
No, I’m not. That’s called hyperbole. My point is that Giuliani should not have sought this endorsement. If he gets the nomination, he needs every vote he can get. He has a built-in handicap (however small) with the conservatives, and a Robertson endorsement will be used against him with independents and moderate Dems. Do you disagree?
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM
The MSM is treating Giuliani alot like it’s treating Hillary. Like he’s on this indestructable train that can’t be stopped. But what happens when something critical fails and the train is off the tracks tumbling off the side?
I don’t know much about Pat Robertson except that he’s some big shot religious guy with some Political clout and influence. Then if that’s the case then you have to wonder why he chose Giuliani and not another candidate who is more socially Conservative and is closer to his religious views. Someone like Huckabee who has less baggage or Duncan Hunter or even Fred Thompson.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the private discussions between Robertson and Giuliani people. I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist here…but this stinks of something foul. Something just isn’t right here. Either Robertson has lost his mind in his old age, or he just doesn’t care if he alienates the social conservatives and evangelicals who share his religious views.
Scorched_Earth on November 7, 2007 at 1:26 PM
**that’s indestructible….gah my spelling sucks today
Scorched_Earth on November 7, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Ingraham annoys me. I listen to her semi-regularly and it’s readily apparent that she doesn’t like Rudy. That’s fine. That’s not what annoys me.
What annoys me is the whole “I like all the Republicans running” lie. She’s just hedging her bets so that if Rudy gets the nod, she can support him.
You don’t like him, Laura. Own it.
MikeZero on November 7, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Enough conservatives stayed home in ‘06 to turn both he House and the Senate over to the Democrats, so yeah, I do think it’s more than possible…I think it’s LIKELY.
The Repubs have alienated the conservatives for far too long and can’t count on their votes anymore.
Does no one here at all see the resemblance between the losing Democratic strategy in ‘04 (Anyone but Bush!!!) and what you all are saying we conservatives MUST settle for today (Anyone but Hillary!!!)? It’s a losing proposition, people.
Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM
McCain would be as tough as Guiliani on terrorism, and he’s pro-life. Too bad he’s shown more disain toward the religious right than Guiliani–seems like he could have had this endorsement.
NellE on November 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Ha, no, because Robertson would only endorse a Republican, and whenever that endorsement came, that person would get the Democrats’ ire. Nothing new under the sun. And why in the world wouldn’t he seek out Robertson’s endorsement? His weakness has been the religious Right. Robertson has a fairly popular national TV program that caters to the religious Right. The better question would be, what Republican presidential candidate in their right mind wouldn’t accept an endorsement from Robertson?
I agree with Allah on his assessment. This is sour grapes talking.
Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Laura today also had Lou Dobbs on her show, hawking his book. She tossed this faux populist (Dobbs likes to rant about the “elites”, as though a multimillionaire anchor/host on the world’s most significant cable news network is not one of the “elites”) a few softballs and in general slobbered all over him.
rokemronnie on November 7, 2007 at 1:35 PM
You have reached the apex of absurdity.
The Race Card on November 7, 2007 at 1:35 PM
With everyone’s permission, let me offfer this quick lesson in spelling/pronunciation:
“Guiliani” = gwee-lee-ah-nee
“Giuliani” = jee-oo-lee-ah-nee
Please take it in the spirit it is intended and that is without arrogance or disdain. Just an FYI.
MikeZero on November 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Astute observation.
Uh, I do recall that the “anyone but Bush” movement got 59 million people to vote for Kerry, the most ever to vote for a single candidate in a single election… next to Bush’s take, which was one part Voter Vault and two parts gay marriage.
Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Well, I don’t know why Robertson endorsed him, but I know it’s good for the rep primary. This will effectively vet out everyone except Rudy and Mitt. In the general, I don’t know if Mitt’s evangelical support will automatically go to nominee Rudy, but I am very confident that Rudy’s evangelical support will switch over to nominee Mitt.
Can any see a reason why Mitt’s evangelical support would support Rudy if he gets the nomination?
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM
That’s not what she said. She said she liked all of them better than Hillary. I hardly think that’s a lie.
This has turned into a bash Laura Ingraham thread instead of a discussion of the very real and absurd problem of anointing nominees months before any primaries! Which is what the entire Ingraham show was about today anyway.
Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Because Rudy has a chance of actually getting the nomination?
student on November 7, 2007 at 1:51 PM
As was my intention. Just playing the ulterior motives game, like Laura did. It leads to absurdity.
aero on November 7, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Sure, and Alex Jones endorsed Ron Paul because he really admired his constitutional scholarship.
Why the accusation of good faith from you? Robertson is the guy who said the Twin Towers came down to punish America because of the lesbians.
Like a week after it happened, too.
see-dubya on November 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Rudy is no Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a perpetual train wreck as a candidate.
Bob Dole was the GOP sacrificial lamb tossed into the Clinton lion cage.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Robertson is a kook, but I’ll give you the answer from my perspective as a far-right Christian conservative.
We are not electing a priest. We are not electing someone responsible for editing the Bible. We are electing a leader who has limited power to affect domestic agendas and international policies, and defend our country. Giuliani is guaranteed to make decisions I don’t agree with. So is Romney, who’s my current pick, but either one. Huckabee’s not even on my radar — he’s an unabashed nanny-stater, and will likely have more negative effect on America and The American Way than Giuliani possibly could. That fact that he appears to be a sincere Christian doesn’t make his politics any less distasteful.
There are those for whom the abortion issue trumps all; I’m not one of them. It’s important, but not a trump.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Because the bad faith accusation makes no sense. Robertson doesn’t need to endorse Rudy now. He could wait to see if he wins the nomination and then endorse him, when Rudy will need some evangelicals in his corner to mitigate the third-party factor. Frankly, given Mitt’s strong standing in Iowa and New Hampshire, Robertson is taking a risk here; if Romney shocks everyone and runs the table, he’ll be able to snub the evangelicals who turned up his nose at him early on and favor the ones who didn’t.
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Whoops — I didn’t finish one of those sentences. Should read:
So is Romney, who’s my current pick, but either one will be much better for our country than Hillary.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Ah contrair It makes sense for Robertson to do it now as it would mean much less later. Its more of a coup for robertson than Rudy who is already frontrunner
William Amos on November 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Is that rhetorical? If the only other choice is Hillary, that’s a no-brainer. Unless you think they’ll stay home in droves, of course.
As noted earlier, I’m one of those scary evangelicals, and I like Romney, but if Giuliani is the nominee, I’ll vote for him without much reservation. Yes, some evangelicals have said they’ll never vote for a pro-choice candidate, but I believe that number is small, and will shrink even further when they’re slapped in the face with the impending reality of Hillary as president. *shudder*
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Yeah, why is Robertson gutsy for endorsing the front-runner?
see-dubya on November 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I didn’t and wouldn’t call him gutsy, but endorsing the pro-choice candidate when most leading evangelicals would sooner vote third-party shows a certain independence.
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Also, we need to stop this nonsense of thinking of Rudy as a front-runner. Hillary’s a front-runner. Rudy’s a guy with 30-35% of the vote who trails badly in the first two primaries and needs to win Florida at all costs to stand a chance on Big Tuesday.
Allahpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I listen to Laura Ingraham every morning on the way to work, and I generally love her show. But I am getting a little tired of her nonstop Bash-Rudy schtick, and goading other campaigns to really go after Rudy. Does she think conservatives will forget all this if Rudy wins the nomination?
I’m not even going to vote for Rudy in the primary, but this intense focus on Pro-Life and Gay Marriage seems a bit misplaced. What exactly has Bush done regarding abortion and gay marriage? Name one bill passed, one program enacted that had any real impact on either of these issues. Beyond nominating SCOTUS members, the president has exactly zero input into these things.
Clark1 on November 7, 2007 at 2:29 PM
If you are throwing Pat Roberston of the train at 65mph you aren’t going fast enough.
liberrocky on November 7, 2007 at 2:46 PM
This is really an interesting discussion. Does Pat Robertson’s endorsement make Rudy more conservative on social issues? No. This is the Primary. He’s not going to change any true conservatives minds. The decision in the Primary is merely: 1. Do you go with someone who you agree with over 70% of the issues? 2. or someone you agree with less but you think has a better chance to win against Hillary?
Pat’s endorsement only helps the MSM portray to Lefties that Rudy is a nut right-winger social con for the General. And if Rudy were to get nominated they’ll use it to constantly tell us how much of a fascist neo-con he is.
What I want to know is why someone who rants about teh ghey would endorse someone who’d probably sign a law or two cementing teh ghey weddings.
Sultry Beauty on November 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Robertson will not endorse Mitt based on his faith. To Evangelists it’s a cult. It also started to use the name Jesus Christ recently in its history to draw the confused.
I guess an Italian, ghey wedding, Menu Catholic beats a Mormon.
Rudy, can I get an Amen?
Hening on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Why would Rudy be “better on the war”? Because he has a big “brave” mouth? He has no military experience. He has no foreign policy experience.The way he choose cronies in NYC, my God what would he do in his selection of Generals? If he wanted someone who was “better on the war”, not to even go into abortion here, he would have endorsed McCain.
MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
This is as much a slam on Giuliani as it is a slam on Robertson.
What Robertson believes is one thing. But the real issue is all the republican/evangelical voters worried about Giuliani will throwing us off the train.
I’m sorry, but Giuliani isn’t doing much to gain my trust.
Lawrence on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again, some Republicans seem to have drank more kool-aid than a lot of democrats have. Maybe some 190 proof Everclear. Can anyone even imagine democrats nominating Zell Miller. That would be the equivalent of Republicans nominating Rudolfo.
Oh is there ever going to be a hangover in the Republican party in the morning if he gets the nomination.
MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Robertson probably knows that Rudy won’t push gay marriage. Even Hillary wouldn’t. My guess is that Robertson thinks highly of Rudy personally and agrees with him on many but not all issues. I do think Team Rudy was willing to pay a premium for an evangelical endorsement this early on and that Robertson will be compensated with “access” if there is ever a Rudy administration.
Rudy is following the Nixon axiom of “run to the right in the primaries and run as hard as you can to the center in the general election”.
I think the evangelical endorsements this week are really bad omens for Fred and Huck.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM
I see a Rudy-Romney versus Obama-Edwards fight, after Hillary implodes, and an R win.
And Robertson having zero effect.
I’ll wager a few bucks donated toward a favorite charity on it.
profitsbeard on November 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Robertson is a loon but I am very glad that Rudy will be the nominee. That Fred Thompson campaign really took off didn’t it?
Hilts on November 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I admire someone who goes out on a limb. That said, I think the odds are long on that scenario, and I’d happily wager a couple of bucks for charity against it.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Yes. An omen that Laura Ingraham gets. Which is why I agree with her. This isn’t something new for her to say. She’s been saying it. Like the poll that says Rudy’s the most influential conservative? Based on what?
As for not having an impact on teh ghey: how many liberal appealate or state supreme courts are there? I live in California so I know the stupidity of thinking everything starts and ends at SCOTUS. If some liberal court decides it wants to shove its policies down our throat, don’t be surprised when you go to the White House and they have an Out To Lunch sign on the door. He won’t be advocating for any of us either.
Sultry Beauty on November 7, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Yeah, kind of spun its tires off the line didn’t it. Oh well I hope he gets it together because I like him. I even donated to the guy. I wrote letter yesterday asking if I am wasting my time and money, no answer as of yet.
As for Laura, yes it is so-con sour grapes, one issue voters seem to be that way though. I said it before I’ll say it again.
The war.
Our borders.
The SCOTUS.
These are my main issues.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM
dedelus-
Tell me your favorite good cause and I’ll send $100 toward it on November 5, 2008 if any Dem for POTUS wins.
And if my pick is on the money, do the same toward my favorite AIEF.
I’m good for it.
(And it’ll motivate me to campaign against the Hillbot brigades!)
profitsbeard on November 7, 2007 at 3:52 PM
The reason Dole was “a perpetual trainwreck as a candidate” is because Dole is not a conservative. He’s a hawk and a Republican, but he’s never been a conservative.
And the same is true of Giuliani, who is even less conservative than Dole. Mark my words: November 2008 will be a disaster for the GOP.
Ali-Bubba on November 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Would you have rather had Bob Dole or 4 more years of the Clinton-borg? Besides, the Clinton-borg had the backing and money from China.
Do you want 4-8 more years of the Clinton-borg? Fine, stay home or vote 3rd party. In the end we all pay and pay we will.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 4:32 PM
I agree that Dole wasn’t a conservative. I don’t think that was his problem though. He was too old, too inside-the-beltway, and too clumsy initially in getting on message. Also, Senators seldom win (Hear that Hillary?).
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Good point. Probably most of the SCOTUS talk has revolved around Roe. I thought Laura had adjusted her position regarding gays after her brother came out. The last thing I read of hers related to the topic of gay marriage was focused on judicial restraint. Maybe she and Rudy aren’t too far off on that issue. I haven’t listened to her for a few months so I may not be up on the latest Laura.
My personal opinion on the topic is that the New Jersey court decision that told the legislature to figure it out was probably reasonable.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Thanks, I’ll do the same if Rudy or Mitt defeat Obama or Edwards. I like your charity and look forward to contributing. Here is one that I’ve given to.
dedalus on November 7, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Laura’s smart, passionate, and frequently right. However, I agree with others here who say that she’s turning more and more into a one-trick pony: all abortion all the time. She;s a born again Catholic, and tries to hard to prove how knowledgeable of and adherent to Catholic theology she is. She’s the annoying smart kid in catechism class.
My mother, a die-hard conservative, but also not very religious, can’t stand listening to Laura. She thinks Laura more and more frequently sounds as fanatical as the fanatics we’re fighting. I wouldn’t go that far, but I just do not want the Clintons back in the White House. I fear for my country should that happen. If Rudy gets the nomination, he’s my guy, and I think he can kick Hillary’s butt.
Rational Thought on November 7, 2007 at 5:38 PM
You forget: Ross Perot elected Billy Jeff both times.
silverfox on November 7, 2007 at 10:29 PM
We’re all going to vote against Hitlary no matter what but I’d rather not see a pro-abortion, anti-gun “conservative” in the White House.
Mojave Mark on November 8, 2007 at 12:50 AM
God help us….(pun fully intended)
unamused on November 8, 2007 at 1:28 AM
We can bitch and moan throughout the next year, but any Conservative who doesn’t vote can consider themselves the REASON Clinton or one of the other Lib-Dems gets into the White House AND any increase in the Dem majority in Congress.
Even the Republican candidates are politicians first and Republicans second… Conservatism MIGHT be third, but unless we use that to our advantage, the Dems will use it to our detriment.
I think Pat Robertson just saw a gap created by James Dobson and decided to fill it while the fillin’ / feelin’ was good.
Rugged Individual on November 8, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Nah. Ya gotta quit blaming the symptoms and look at the disease.
Bush lost the first time because he was squishy on taxes, after his tough talk. He ran as a fiscal conservative and didn’t stick with it. He let us down just like his son has. KEY: Bush wasn’t conservative enough.
The Repubs lost the second time against a cozily incumbent Clinton because the god-awful “best” we could come up with was an elderly, bumbling RINO. KEY: Dole wasn’t a conservative.
Only a conservative Republican can defeat a liberal Democrat. Every time the Party elites try and smoosh closer to the Left with “moderate” cadidates, a la Dole and Giuliani - they LOSE.
Redhead Infidel on November 8, 2007 at 7:45 AM