As I noted earlier, here is the choice you’ll have on election day:
1) Help the Republican win
or
2) Help Hillary win

There is no other choice. If your conscience allows you to choose #2 as you are threatening, I say pack it up and sell it on ebay, because it’s obviously defective.

Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM

You forgot one:

3) Help neither of them win.

If your conscience would allow you to vote for someone you disapprove of simply because they have an “R” next to their name (R being short for RINO in Rudy’s case), then perhaps you should consider the health of your own.

I’m not the only one opposed to Rudy becoming the nominee, but I’m not going to try and convince them one way or the other if they should vote for him or stay home. I’ll let their own conscience decide.

As for me, mine tells me that in a choice between Rudy and Hillary, since I oppose both and support neither I shouldn’t vote at all. I’d take the short term pain of a Hillary presidency instead of contributing to the long slow death of what the Republican party is supposed to stand for.

Bush has not governed as a conservative. No Child Left Behind is not a conservative initiative. The prescription drug bill and a whole range of other spending issues haven’t broken the conservative way, and part of the reason for that is that we as conservatives gave Bush a pass for too long. We gave him a pass because we tended to assume that he was one of us, so whatever he was doing would end up reflecting our values at some point even if it didn’t appear to from the get-go.

I’ve been pointing out since 1999 that “compassionate conservatism” is the worst possible mistake. Conservatives should try to sensibly reduce the size of government and not be compassionate spenders. Yes, there is definitely a place for conservative input into liberal social spending. We can make it work better, and in fact I hold we are morally obliged to make it work as best it can. However, after meeting that obligation we should be hacking away at government to the fullest extent we can in democracy.

This does mean we’ll play bad cop to the liberal’s good cop, but we can win many elections that way. After all, the “good cop” is on the take from the taxpayer.

I worry that it’s high enough that it will get done (or at least attempted).

The shockwaves back and forth from that would (possibly) end up with some good coming out of them (the thinning of the elitist herd) but the bad that will result is just such a high price to pay.

I’m really in favor of political solutions to internal problems even if the ‘pragmatic’ ones are quicker.

I just want our next POTUS to be someone who at least does minimal harm – i.e., doesn’t screw up foreign policy items beyond repair and also doesn’t inspire armed insurrection. Be nice if the leading contenders met that standard.

Sorry, but I have a conscience. I’d rather go out knowing I made the right choice rather than the expedient one.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Unfortunately, you’re not the only one who takes a singularly illogical approach to voting, but thankfully there aren’t many. And I’m betting you’ll change your mind come 11/07.

Using the “conscience” argument, I voted for Perot in ’92, knowing he couldn’t win. Well golly, that sure worked out well, didn’t it? And I sure taught those squishy, moderate Republicans a lesson, because they nominated an ultra-conservative in ’96. Wait . . .

As I noted earlier, here is the choice you’ll have on election day:
1) Help the Republican win
or
2) Help Hillary win

There is no other choice. If your conscience allows you to choose #2 as you are threatening, I say pack it up and sell it on ebay, because it’s obviously defective.

The arguements in here are so muddled. We are in the primary but I keep seeing people argue as if we are in the general already. We are not. I will not cast my vote for a pro-abortion candidate, in the primary. There is a difference that vote and my vote in the general.

Clean it up people.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM

How about paying attention? It should have been completely obvious I was talking about the general, not the primary, and responding to someone who was also talking about the general. The subject at hand is Giuliani, and since I’m not voting for him in the primary, the only thing left to discuss is what’s going to happen in the general if Giuliani is the nominee. As I’ve said several times, I’m pulling for Romney, but if Giuliani is the nominee, I’ll vote for him rather than hand the presidency to Hillary.

Okay lets say we do. Conservatives back the Hyde Amendment, it prevents federal monies going toward abortions. Rudy backed the exact opposite position.

Rudy says he wants to reduce abortions by changing the hearts and minds of the people… by federally funding abortion? C’mon man?!?!

Rudy’s other arguement for funding abortion? It is a right and if a woman cannot afford to exercise that right, she should be subsidized by the federal government. Get it, a right that a person cannot afford to exercise, the government should. I cannot afford a Heckler Koch USP .40 cal either. Can I get that federally funded? I’m thinking not. See the difference? I know I know as a mayor he was trying to clean up crime… by taking away the rights of legal gun owners. There is not a statistic in America that supports a gun ban, not one, see Washington D.C.. But he needed the gun ban. He did not. He cleaned up New York by cleaning up New York. If the assault weapons ban was all that effective Washington D.C..

He can be for this right, but against another, as long as he has a good explanation. I’m sure he’ll have a really good reason to fund abortions, because they’ll help “lower the number of abortions” I suppose…

You can trust his picking and choosing which rights are important, good for you. I cannot. Oh and by the way Strict Constructionists aren’t my choice for SCOTUS, Originalists are.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Fair enough, but not everybody will do that.

I don’t get it when people choose not to vote to “teach them a lesson” – the only thing that does is cause us to go back to square one and start fighting for our issues from scratch. Any and all progress made on issues is lost, and that seems pointless. We are better off voting, and putting the pressure on the one that gets elected.

Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM

The arguements in here are so muddled. We are in the primary but I keep seeing people argue as if we are in the general already. We are not. I will not cast my vote for a pro-abortion candidate, in the primary. There is a difference that vote and my vote in the general.

Clean it up people.

Anyone else just see Shep burn that Democrat talker type person? good stuff!!!

Democrat talking type person lead off by calling Rudy a drag queen. Shep burned him.

Sorry, but I have a conscience. I’d rather go out knowing I made the right choice rather than the expedient one.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM

the ‘right choice’, is beating Hillary. a defacto Vote for hillary is the wrong choice, that includes staying home or voting 3rd party.

TheBigOldDog on November 7, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Dude, it’s the Primary. It’s not Hillary vs. Rudy. Why is the conclusion Rudy or I’m packing up my toys and going home. You want Rudy advocate for him. But don’t threat all or nothing.

At least 4-5 of the Rep candidates average anywhere between 15-30% and it changes from week to week. What for the final result before you start issuing ultimatums. If Rudy gets nominated I’ll vote for him. But that’s a BIG IF.

As the country goes down the crapper and al Qaeda triumphs.

Hilts on November 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Oh ye of little faith.

Sorry, but I have a conscience. I’d rather go out knowing I made the right choice rather than the expedient one.

As the country goes down the crapper and al Qaeda triumphs.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM

OK, and you and those like you will hand the keys to the Clinton-Borg.

If a protest vote falls in the woods does anyone hear it? Well, no they don’t, but we all pay in the end.

Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Sorry, but I have a conscience. I’d rather go out knowing I made the right choice rather than the expedient one.

i used to give him a fair shake because he was one of the few talkers to go around with melanie morgan and deborah johns. but then i realized that he tagged allong in a tourbus with his huge stupid face decaled on both sides.

he is a fool and an embarrassmnent to the salem network.

one time i was listening and i couldn’t believe it. he was telling some story about getting a massage at a spa and was shocked – shocked! – that the male massuse disrobed. i couldn’t believe what i was hearing. it was like that onion schtick. since then i’ve always been half-suspicious that he’s just a highly-placed sabateur.

if not, the best that can be said of him is that his ibecility is a liability.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM

OK, and you and those like you will hand the keys to the Clinton-Borg.

If a protest vote falls in the woods does anyone hear it? Well, no they don’t, but we all pay in the end.

Giuliani has had to spend quite a bit of time courting the social con vote and drawing out where there might be common ground. – Bryan

Which is exactly why we have such a hard time trusting him.

I am not relishing electing a guy I know will back a myriad of policies that I am against. Our only hedge against Rudy is congress and who wants to spend 4 years going through that?
Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 2:39 PM

No matter who is the Republican nominee, we will have a binary solution set come November 4, 2008:
1) Hillary as president
2) Hillary as an ex-nominee

I’d much rather Romney be president than Giuliani, but in the solution set above, there is ZERO choice for me or anyone else who cares about America. Yes, it will be a pain dealing with some of Giuliani’s positions, but (a) that will be true to some degree with any of the candidates, and (b) take a look at those two choices again. If you and I have to hold our noses when we vote Republican, so be it.

He succeeded in making it livable again. He went against ENTRENCHED, CALCIFIED, SET-IN-STONE crap and WON. He lowered taxes. He got people off welfare. He lowered crime. The economy BOOMED. How much more “conservative” can you get? His policies on welfare caused the abortion rate to go . . . are you ready for this? . . . DOWN.

He cares very little for opinion once he knows what’s right. He just does it. His finger is NOT in the air, testing the winds. It is conducting the march of true government and progress.

Imagine if he was in Washington, DC where the entrenchment and calcification is even worse. Not only would he not care about the entrenched opinion makers, he would be up in their faces, NYC style, telling them what they can do with their opinions.

Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

I would say the same thing we did to get rid of *shudder* Harriet Myers.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM

But aren’t his supporters always reminding us what a “fighter” Rudy is? Given his record of crony appointments and sticking by cronies even after they’ve been convicted of corruption, why should we believe that Rudy would’ve backed down in response to conservative uproar where Bush only reluctantly did so?

He wants to do employer sanctions, but we can’t do it now because our system of employee verification is a farce. It’s not fair to employers. First you stop them at the border. Then you get a real ID. Then you can crack down on employers that knowingly hire illegals.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:16 PM

He’s already come out against employer sanctions and in favor of amnesty. The “it’s not fair to employers” line even further gives away his opposition to workplace enforcement.

Much of it is very simple- compile a list of duplicate Social Security numbers, notify employers who’ve hired (knowingly or not) those fraudulently using those numbers, and require employers to fire those who can’t demonstrate legal residency.

Simple- but Rudy would rather just give them amnesty instead of identifying those here illegally, just like he protected illegals from deportation in NYC.