Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hellrider, Mar 5, 2007.
he is finished.
his son turned on him on good morning america.
good, there's an article highlighting the disturbing idea that a terror attack would help him win the presidency.
He is a plick!
Did Gennifer Flowers derail Clinton's campaign?
Reagan was one of America's best known divorced men. The "moral majority" was solidly behind him.
McCain also has marital skeletons.
For all the bullshit about politicians being held to the fire because of personal issues, I've seen very little empirical correlation between morality and the voters perception of suitability.
If you conducted a poll for "best" President you'd see names like Clinton, Reagan, JFK, FDR and Lincoln. With the exception of Reagan's second try at matrimony there isn't a non-adulterous marriage on that list.
America could give a rats ass about Rudi's kid.
Rudy is out of step with the conservative base on just about every major issue. Abortion, gun control, gay agenda, you name it. It will be interesting to see if they overlook this if he begins to look like a possible nominee. Romney at least claims to have seen the light and basically claims he was lying before to fool Massachusetts voters.
I can't see Rudy getting the nomination, but the one thing he can do is knock McCain out. McCain had a dreadful week and went from the presumptive nominee to someone in big trouble.
yeah, I think Rudy and McCain are both going to have probs. Romney could rise fast. The guy is a total stud (Bain Capital founder, fixed the SLC olympic mess, gov of very leftist Mass), and he speaks really well. Looks like a prez too. The Mormon thing might bury him though.
exactly this guy is after your guns and pro-police state. anything but conservative....but hey, also the neocons are far from being conservatives....that's why i dont understand how many of u that call yourselves conservative republicans can support a party that represent nothing of the sort.
Rudy could just as easy be a Dem.
The Democrat's are the true neo-cons. Edwards, Hillary and Obama were all in the Israel suckfest the past couple of weeks.
Has the Democratic Congress shown any willingness to abandon a military presence in the Middle East? Limp wristed stuff like reducing troop numbers in Iraq is NOT a de facto condemnation of the Admin's macro policy in the region. What did Edwards just say about Iran?
The neocon's infiltrated the Republican Party from the Left. However don't make the mistake of associating neoconservatives as the sole political force with desires of squashing fundamentalist Islam. Even isolationists are waking up that Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Africa are more than mere annoyances on the future landscape.
Short of genocide it'll be interesting to see how the West can successfully protect Israel.
It's an interesting question that has plagued movement conservatives for a long time, at least since Reagan left office. The most obvious answer is that, as flawed as the Republicans are, they are a far better alternative than the Democrats. The Republicans have fallen down on execution, but the Democrats are instinctively wrong in principle.
Conservatives are actively reexamining their loyalty to the Republican Party. It is quite clear that the Republican Party establishment is in denial about the last election. They don't seem to recognize voters' deep disgust with what they have allowed their party to turn into. Add in a President who has betrayed those who put him in office, and you have some very unhappy people who have been the core base of the party.
The Republicans have held onto conservative support in the past with lip service to conservative values, even as they betrayed them in practice, plus the very real threat of what a Democrat takeover would mean. Conservatives now see us bogged down in a hideously expensive and poorly executed nation-building exercise in Iraq, immigration out of control, a President who wants amnesty for illegals, a weak and vacillating congressional leadership and the prospect of a liberal like Guiliani or a statist like McCain being the party's nominee. That is not a recipe for generating a lot of enthusiasm. Could a Hillary or Obama do much worse?
It may well be that the Republican Party needs a couple more shellackings to get the message, or better yet, conservatives form their own party.
Rudy performed well in 9/11, but he had nothing to lose, politically, since he was on his way out. For the presidential race, if he plays it safe and caters to âthe middle,â heâs finished.
Americans want leaders with brass balls; people who donât follow the rear view mirror of political consultants and media polls.
Besides, Republicans cannot afford to play it safe because they will never get the media treatment Barack (formally Berry) Hussein Obama gets and expects. Thatâs why Republican candidates have no choice but to take the political risks Democrats have the luxury of avoiding.
Separate names with a comma.