Update: Ah, what does it matter?

Something at the site to which that text link leads tried to load the Downloader trojan horse onto my PC from a third-party web site. I recommend you remove the link, notify the site’s administrator, and make a note to avoid linking to that site.

Rudy might still be able to win me over, maybe.

If that were the case they would have long ago gone that route and we all know it.

The border is about illegal mexicans and let’s not pretend it’s about anything else. Please.

Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM

At least one person here knows with certainty who is coming accross our border. I will welcome any race that comes here legally.

He was asked about his policies towards illegal aliens during a debate and what I got out of his answer was a practical matter: Since the federal government wouldn’t take the illegals, and Rudy didn’t want to spend city revenue incarcerating large numbers of illegal aliens, he decided on a general basis to ignore arresting illegal aliens except for the violent ones. He gave a reasonable answer.

LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 4:46 AM

I’m with ya on Rudy. McCain’s position on water boarding drives me crazy, and his desire to close Gitmo is of great concern, as do the other issues you cited. I do think McCain would have remained a stalwart on the war, despite the surrender lobby. This is where the PaulNuts can give McCain some trouble, but it’s probably the only thing that saves him for conservatives.

I diverge completely from you with Romney though and like his executive/leadership abilities. Granted he is untested in a National Security crisis, but I trust his decision-making abilities, and unlike McCain he wouldn’t be worried about our image in the world if we were under threat of a nuclear attack. I also don’t think he’s sell our economy down the river to appease the climate change loons, and he’s have an effective energy policy.

But we really have no idea how any of them would react to a national crisis or attack. Except McCain. I think we know.

I respect your opinion, but the only one who we know (from experience) will react to a national crisis or attack with decisive, effective leadership is Rudy Giuliani. Because he’s been there and done that.

McCain doesn’t really trouble me so much in that scenario (and he is the only one besides Rudy I can say that about). But in spite of his service, which I totally respect, I think McCain is too much of a compromiser and too fond of media worship to make the tough choices and stay on offense in the terrorists’ War on Us.

I am very skeptical that when the chips were down in Iraq, and the politically easy thing to do would have been to strike a deal of some kind with the surrender lobby, McCain would have stood alone against the storm and done the right thing like GWB did.

I am very, very confident Rudy would have, and not only that, he would have fought back against Democrats’ slanders and lies far more effectively than GWB. Rudy is a fighter, and in a time of war, that’s what we need in our Commander-in-Chief.

McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his leading role in the most egregious assault on the First Amendment in my lifetime also trouble me greatly.

If he is the nominee, I will support him. If he is the only alternative to Huckabee or Romney, I will support him. Otherwise, I’m with Rudy because I think he is more electable, has a better, more positive message and a proven track record of effective executive leadership.

You’re right that Huckabee didn’t win Iowa via a plethora od cash but you’re wrong that he didn’t have plenty of currency. Huckabee was able to milk his Christian identify for everything it was worth, and it’s value was comparable to a lot of cold hard cash in Iowa.

FloatingRock on January 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Correctomundo.

KelliD on January 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM

It’s late and my brain is not functioning at an optimal level, so perhaps that explains why I don’t understand the analysis here from the page you linked to at Palmetto Press:

Although Mitt Romney denied that last night’s disastrous showing in Iowa would slow down his bid for the White House, it appears that his South Carolina campaign is preparing for the worst. Sources tell me that for the last week, Luke Byars, Sen. Jim DeMint’s state director, has been working full time out of the Romney campaign’s SC headquarters.
Is this a sign that Romney’s state operation is in trouble? Absolutely.

This is a clear sign that DeMint, who really went out on a limb to support Romney, is concerned about how the campaign is being run in the Palmetto State. Either that, or he just has a lot of free time on his hands.

Huh? So the people who are running the SC campaign are working full time to get Romney elected? Is that supposed to be a shocking sign of doom, or is that what’s expected of them as we get closer to SC primary day?

csdeven on January 4, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Yep, there’s indisputable proof that Allah is a sellout for the Romney campaign because he declared that Romney’s an “awful candidate”.

This is our impasse. Thanks for your time and energy. I appreciated the conversation, as I always wondered why you supported him so stalwartly.

Spirit of 1776 on January 4, 2008 at 10:40 PM

I’ll ditto what he said, RWS. I admire you sticking to your guns, but they just are not the same guns I could or even would want to stick to.

I don’t believe in perfect. I don’t even believe in trust. Give me leadership. Give me strength. Give me bravery.

Ah. I believe in trust because I believe in things bigger than self. I believe strength should be used to help others. I believe bravery should be used to inspire others. I do not think strength and bravery should be used to advance one’s own goals at the cost of those who believe and/or trust in [you].

This is our impasse. Thanks for your time and energy. I appreciated the conversation, as I always wondered why you supported him so stalwartly.

I don’t believe in perfect. I don’t even believe in trust. Give me leadership. Give me strength. Give me bravery.

I’ll take just that.

You don’t have to convince me of border enforcement. But we are fooling ourselves here if we think McCain, Thompson, Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee will do much on this issue. It goes far beyond the issue of a border. It goes to economics, Mexico relations, small and big business. Why do you think nothing has been done for decades???? This isn’t a recent problem you know? Be mad at McCain about it, but Bush and the rest of the candidates are no better. So if that is your issue then you are out of luck my friend.

Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 PM

All that telling me “nothing has been done for decades” is doing is reminding me that our federal government is failing at one of it’s most fundamental duties – and inexcusably so.

If you’re expecting me to support the biggest apologist in the race for said failure, well, this time, you’re the one out of luck.

You compare him to Ceasar or Napolean. But what of Churchill or even George Washington? A man who fills the room can also be a man who leads a great country.

RWS: Ironically, I had referenced Washington in there because that was the comparision I was asking you to make: more Washington or more Napolean. I must have cut him out in editing for space.

I have no problems whatsoever with men who fill the room, with men whose presence is bigger then themselves. Washington said he would give his last drop of blood to see the system of government created succeed even though he personally was pessimistic that it would be effective enough. Compare that to McCain, who has sought, at least twice, to modify the government for purposes not of principle but of efficacy. The whole purpose of extra power, such as taken by Napolean and Ceasar are that in some extremes efficacy overrides principle. But what do we make a man who does it in situations that are not extremes?

“Great men rise to our expectations of them.”

I disagree. Great men elevate the people around them. And time sifts these men by their motives. History is unkind to those who fool people into believing they have common cause and betray that trust, though in the height of their power they had all the acclaim imaginable.

We all have our problems with the border, but we all know that isn’t where our fear lies when it comes to terrorists. If that were the case they would have long ago gone that route and we all know it.

The border is about illegal mexicans and let’s not pretend it’s about anything else. Please.

Rightwingsparkle on January 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM

Give you a break?? HA!! You got your break when I gave you an ‘A’ for effort.

Your arguments can basically be summed up as this:

1) Nobody else will enforce the borders either, so why should McVain; and
2) Since no terrorist attackers have come from across our southern borders so far, none will.

Color me uninspired.

You yourself cited a failure of imagination of our leaders to anticipate 9/11 and airplanes flying into buildings, and now you want to us to suspend our imaginations by contending that we can continue to leave the backdoor wide open with a welcome sign. And after all of his open hostility to border enforcement, rewarding McVain with the presidency will only encourage him to continue leaving the borders unenforced. If you expect that response to be a reason to support his candidacy, or a defense of one of his biggest weakness, you aren’t doing him any favors at all.

Nobody on the Republican side, NOBODY, has been more openly hostile to border enforcement than McVain (Go f*** yourself, Sen. Cornyn!!!! – McVain during the last amnesty battle), nobody.

BTW, you do know that, while they didn’t come across the southern border, the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, thanks to the unenforced immigration laws that McVain has shown so much hostility to, don’t you?

Great men rise to our expectations of them. None of these men are perfect. We all agree on that.

But we really have no idea how any of them would react to a national crisis or attack. Except McCain. I think we know.

You compare him to Ceasar or Napolean. But what of Churchill or even George Washington? A man who fills the room can also be a man who leads a great country.

That’s the difference my friend. That’s the difference.

RWS, thanks for the answer. Please consider this response:

Adams once said our Constitution could be torn by ambitious men, just as a whale tears a net. Lincoln once said that all governments has less power than a single man and are malleable to a man with ambition. He continued to say that it is the responsibility of the citizenry to maintain the fabric of the proverbial net.

McCain is an extremely impressive man. He has done great service to his country. So did Caesar. So did Napolean. However, he has disregard for the laws of the nation when he thinks he knows better. So did Caesar. So did Napolean. I don’t put those names there to hyperbolize, but to ask you to consider personality…in the field of great men to whom is he most comparable? And in the end who left not only a legacy in history, but their country stronger as well?

We all have our problems with the border, but we all know that isn’t where our fear lies when it comes to terrorists. If that were the case they would have long ago gone that route and we all know it.

The border is about illegal mexicans and let’s not pretend it’s about anything else. Please.

Would you want a small time Governor from Arkansas with no experience, but a really great guy?

Would you want a Congressman turned actor?

Would you want a pretty rich boy who knows how to run a business and a state, but not our military?

Would you want a liberal woman with no military experience or an inspiring black man with even less?

Would you want a “maverick” who left the southern border wide open over which the jihadists brought the dirty bomb into the country – justified by his fear of $50/hour lettuce pickers?

Because of the 2100 mile wide hole in McVain’s national security plan (and believe me, despite what he says, he as absolutely no intention of securing our southern border), we are just as vulnerable under him (if not more) as we are under any of those you listed, RWS.

But like Spirit of 1776, I’ll give you an A for effort. Unfortunately, it won’t count for much when McVain’s beloved open border leaves a US city in a smoldering, radioactive waste.

Years ago,long before McCain ran for President or was even that well known, National Review ran a story about him. I was amazed at his story and his past. I remember one line in the article and it has never left me. It said “God, do we even make men like this anymore?”

Rudy may be a good leader, but he never faced what McCain did. He never lived through that. He never came back from something like that to serve his country.

That’s the difference my friend. That’s the difference.

Ok. If this won’t convince you NOTHING WILL.

A for effort. I read that and thought of Rudy. So let me flip this around on you. You said if something like that happened I would forget CFR or Amnesty. Why do you prefer McCain over Rudy? Is it about abortion? If so, if we got hit with another terror attack wouldn’t you similarly “forget” about that?

Sorry, nuclear weapons and explosive vests are not rights afforded in the constitution. Guns are. Big distinction.

infidel on January 4, 2008 at 5:40 PM

What about a gatling gun?

What about a rail gun?

American Spectatorʼs AmSpec Blog: McCain Blogger Call

The constitution say there is not religious test. These people applied a religious test. Conservatives are for the most part adhere to the constitution. Now I realize that part of the constitution is probably referring to the government not having a religious test for allowing candidates to run, but isn’t the spirit of the concept true for voters to? Especially conservatives?