Was that Ralph Reed I just heard telling me to be accommodating with my principles?

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Now that RR cannot suck from the financial teats of Pat Robertson, he is vying for Rudy’s money. He has now become a tinkling symbol in the realm of political influence.

Then you aren’t paying attention if you don’t understand why people don’t like Rudy. Most of the social conservatives didn’t say anything initially because we thought it was ‘cute’ but would never happen. Now Rudy is being preached as ‘inevitable’ and most conservatives are scratching their heads and saying ‘how’ and ‘why’.

Rudy is not going to be the card on the top of the deck after this whole Judith Regan – Bernard Kerik mess – with News Corporation thrown in – that broke this evening. If all of it is true, as Americans we should all be concerned.

Conservatives claim to be for small government and individual responsibility. Except when it comes to abortion. Then they are more than happy to butt in to the private lives of strangers for no other reason than to save the “innocent babies”.

I have a lot more respect for conservatives than I do for liberals, but every time a Michelle or Laura laments the supposedly “pro choice” Rudy I want to gag. Rudy has come right out and said point blank that he will do everything in his power to appoint judges who will over turn Roe v Wade but that’s not good enough for meddling busy bodies like Laura.

The private medical decisions of others are none of my business and I find any “conservative” who doesn’t think that same way to be the worst hypocrite going.

Was that Ralph Reed I just heard telling me to be accommodating with my principles?

see-dubya on November 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Yeah, Ralph Reed. Easy for him to say, seeing as how nobody ever accused Ralph of actually having any principles — unless you count “buy low, sell high” and “caveat emptor” as principles.

Maybe dadalus can pinpoint the stage of pregnancy where a fetus does not look like a baby… There is a reason Planned (non)Parenthood refuses to show pregnant women photos of a fetus as part of their so-called informational process. The reason is self evident: a FETUS looks like a BABY, and left to mother nature 99% of aborted fetuses would in fact become human beings.

How about 4 weeks? That’s my subjective shot at it, though I don’t subscribe to the “looks like” therefore “is like” logic.

The majority of America does not approve of killing babies. Judicial activism made it happen

I haven’t met anyone who approves of killing babies. Is there a point before birth that a fetus gains individual rights? You probably have a majority of Americans on your side. Take it back to fertilization and you don’t have a majority.

Maybe it was a good idea, maybe it wasn’t not, but it doesn’t matter, because it’s never gonna happen.

tommylotto on November 13, 2007 at 4:35 PM

That’s funny tommy. . . I’d say the same thing about Rudy being President even if he gets the R nomination.

The majority of America does not approve of killing babies. Judicial activism made it happen and I have little doubt that faced with a tough appointment process Rudy would put as liberal a judge on the Supreme Court as he could because it is not an issue he cares about.

I really don’t get all the Rudy skepticism. He seems to me to be the candidate most likely to govern as a real conservative, and I base that on what he’s saying, his record, and the great people he’s chosen as his advisors (like Norman Podhoretz).

Then you aren’t paying attention if you don’t understand why people don’t like Rudy. Most of the social conservatives didn’t say anything initially because we thought it was ‘cute’ but would never happen. Now Rudy is being preached as ‘inevitable’ and most conservatives are scratching their heads and saying ‘how’ and ‘why’.

The Kerik choice was flat out awful (mob connected). Rudy’s choice of giving a Catholic priest who was accused of child molestation a post in his law firm (this year) after the priest was removed from his priestly duties might not be ‘good for the children’ (I can’t believe O’Reilly hasn’t blown a gasket because of it. . . but it’s favoritism because of the R I guess).

There is NO WAY I will believe that Rudy will govern as a conservative when he believes that taking guns away from citizens and suing gun manufacturers for making a legal product is THE REASON that crime was reduced in NYC. This ignores the FACT that DC is known as the ‘murder capital of the world’ in spite of its handgun ban.

On top of his pro-choice personal position.

I DO NOT SEE WHY YOU THINK HE IS CONSERVATIVE AT ALL.

If he had a D next to his name, people would be railing him for his positions. THIS is where the skepticism comes from.

Laura did a good interview there. Ralph Reid is just looking out for himself now and doesn’t stand on principle. Rudy is flat out unacceptable as an alternative to Hillary. His positions are identical to hers. He EVEN increased government spending on the government health care program by 3 times as Mayor in NYC just like we (especially he as he ‘boogy man’s’ universal health care) rail the Democrats for doing.

There isn’t just ONE issue that disqualifies Rudy. His entire life’s work disqualifies him as a conservative alternative that has any chance of winning states in the South against Hillary.

What is Laura smoking? Since when does 15% to 20% represent a majority. These zealots need to pull their head out of the sand and realize, America does not want to criminalize abortion. They want restrictions, but they ultimately believe in a woman’s right to choose. Rudy’s position (and apparently Fred’s real hidden position) is consistent with the vast majority of voting Americans. Fighting for the fringe anti-abortion position is like fighting for the gold standard. Maybe it was a good idea, maybe it wasn’t not, but it doesn’t matter, because it’s never gonna happen.

Didn’t George and Hillary have a falling out, or weren’t there rumors to that effect?

rightwingprof on November 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM

I think that she wasn’t too happy about his book, but he still seems to want to cozy up as much as he possibly can.

devloves? wtf? _devolves_ ;-)

Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM

It’s delightful, it’s delicious, it’s devlovely!
:-)

When ‘conservatives’ debate, the equivalent situation is when it devloves into a shoutfest slinging terms like “liberal”, “commie”, “pinko”, “traitor” etc…

Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 3:44 PM

I don’t doubt that it happens. I’ve just never heard it. The last time I heard “conservative epithets” bandied about like that was on TV Land’s All In the Family weekend marathon.

Seems like a lot of you liberals out there have persecution complexes. LOL

devloves? wtf? _devolves_ ;-)

Ochlan on November 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM

What? Haven’t you ever been devlove before?

I hope some day, hearts and minds will allow life to be seen as sacred, and we can debate other issues in Presidential cycles.

When ‘conservatives’ debate, the equivalent situation is when it devloves into a shoutfest slinging terms like “liberal”, “commie”, “pinko”, “traitor” etc…

“Liberal,” perhaps. But the rest simply don’t come up (though the left ceratinly gets a lot of mileage out of pretending the “traitor” one does).

gryphon202 on November 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM

When ‘conservatives’ debate, the equivalent situation is when it devloves into a shoutfest slinging terms like “liberal”, “commie”, “pinko”, “traitor” etc…

On the left, a debate like this one probably wouldn’t go five minutes before one of the participants either gave in or the participants decided to paper over their differences by calling Republicans “Nazis” or “fascists.”

I hadn’t thought of it thatway, but you’re absolutely correct, Bryan. I’m always worried about that when conservatives debate (formally or otherwise), but I have yet to actually witness it happen.