Will Republicans vote with their wallets?

[Crazed Rabbit]

See CR, that's what makes you such a good debater. Your ability to flow seemingly effortlessly from such astounding rejoinders as "You'd be wrong" to "O Rly."

I do what I can.

Oh, and as to people better than Guliani: Ron Paul, House Rep from someplace.

But as I said, this is a problem with American politics. You're so worried about the Supreme Court that you elect guys President just because they don't like gays and they say they love Jesus.

No, one who recognizes Roe V Wade is an unconstitutional, load of crap decision and will appoint a constitutionalist judge.

Crazed Rabbit

[Vuk]

Or with their Bibles?

Good article about Giuliani's prospective candidacy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16814054/



Seems to me that Rudy embodies traditional (and worthwhile) Republican values such as small government and low taxes, but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

Now, I know that many on the right would say that abortion is hardly a superficial issue, but I ask you: Do you really think that the next Republican President will somehow be able to abolish abortion?

The answer can only be a resounding "No."

So why not nominate a guy that's good on everything else, when the abortion issue is something he won't be able to change no matter what his views are?

So, which way will it go when it comes nomination time?

Hopefully they'll vote with their morals and a good sense of what's best for the country. Did you ever consider that?

[doc_bean]

Hopefully they'll vote with their morals and a good sense of what's best for the country. Did you ever consider that?

Like Dubya ? Sending kids to war and cutting veterans payments. Paying absolutely no attention to the national debt. Wiping his arse with the constitution, and God knows what else.

But hey, at least he's got morals, and the gays can't get married

[Goofball]

Or with their Bibles?

Good article about Giuliani's prospective candidacy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16814054/



Seems to me that Rudy embodies traditional (and worthwhile) Republican values such as small government and low taxes, but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

Now, I know that many on the right would say that abortion is hardly a superficial issue, but I ask you: Do you really think that the next Republican President will somehow be able to abolish abortion?

The answer can only be a resounding "No."

So why not nominate a guy that's good on everything else, when the abortion issue is something he won't be able to change no matter what his views are?

So, which way will it go when it comes nomination time?

Hopefully they'll vote with their morals and a good sense of what's best for the country. Did you ever consider that?

Okay, so, one more for "Bible" then?

[Scurvy]

Okay, so, one more for "Bible" then?

[drone]

As someone who used to consider himself Republican, I'm just hoping someone competent gets the nomination.

[Xiahou]

Okay, so, one more for "Bible" then?

It's interesting that you try to paint morality as a "bad" choice and voting for purely financial reasons as the "good" choice. People should ignore the importance of what they consider to be thousands of dead babies every year and vote for someone because they'll balance the budget. And then you even lump guns into the "bible" category.

I place significant importance on fiscal responsibility in government, but yes, it will take a back seat if someone wants to strip away our constitutional freedoms and supports the discarding, on demand of unwanted babies. I suppose that makes me a wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth, bible thumper though.

[Watchman]

So why do you hate the freedom of women to decide on their own bodies ?

[Goofball]

It's interesting that you try to paint morality as a "bad" choice and voting for purely financial reasons as the "good" choice. People should ignore the importance of what they consider to be thousands of dead babies every year and vote for someone because they'll balance the budget. And then you even lump guns into the "bible" category.

I place significant importance on fiscal responsibility in government, but yes, it will take a back seat if someone wants to strip away our constitutional freedoms and supports the discarding, on demand of unwanted babies. I suppose that makes me a wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth, bible thumper though.

Not at all.

I'm pointing out that it's probably better to elect a president who is likely to be a strong administrator, leader, and governor, as that is the role of a president: to govern.

For all of your morality needs, I would recommend a priest, pastor, Imam or Rabbi (forgive me, I'm sure I missed a couple of choices), as that is their role: to provide moral and spiritual guidance.

My high level point here is that America has seen for itself the result of voting for a President who stood for "important" social issues, but couldn't balance a chequebook. You now have the opportunity to try a different path. What will it be?

What I find funny is that conservatives put Bush in the White House and for 6 years have watched him demonstrate possibly the worst human rights record of any president this century, but now are worried about how Giuliani is a devil who wants to strip away your constitutional freedoms.

That's pure magic, that...

[Xiahou]

Not at all.

I'm pointing out that it's probably better to elect a president who is likely to be a strong administrator, leader, and governor, as that is the role of a president: to govern.

For all of your morality needs, I would recommend a priest, pastor, Imam or Rabbi (forgive me, I'm sure I missed a couple of choices), as that is their role: to provide moral and spiritual guidance.

The nazis were pretty good administrators... of course I would've disagreed with them morally- but I could have just talked to my priest about that, right?

My high level point here is that America has seen for itself the result of voting for a President who stood for "important" social issues, but couldn't balance a chequebook. You now have the opportunity to try a different path. What will it be?

What I find funny is that conservatives put Bush in the White House and for 6 years have watched him demonstrate possibly the worst human rights record of any president this century, but now are worried about how Giuliani is a devil who wants to strip away your constitutional freedoms.

That's pure magic, that...

Bush did few things right- one of those things has been judicial appointments. He hasn't been a great friend of many conservative issues like gun control or illegal immigration, but we had a congress which was much more amiable on these issues, so he wouldn't get the opportunity to sign any bills into law that ran contrary to our views. Now, however, there's a Democrat led congress that does agree with him on some of these issues.

watched him demonstrate possibly the worst human rights record of any president this century

He was pretty much the only president of this century. Clinton presided over just a few days of it.

[Watchman]

The nazis were pretty good administrators...

You're kidding, right ? They spent most of the war shooting themselves in the leg.

If you really believe that you're clueless- unless you're talking about only Bush or Clinton.

Well, Bush would be the worst pretty much by default really. Clinton's term ended in what, 2001, and I don't think human rights violations were ever on the list of bad things he did. After that the exact only US president during this century has been Bush Jr....

Edit: dang edits.

[Xiahou]

Well, Bush would be the worst pretty much by default really. Clinton's term ended in what, 2001, and I don't think human rights violations were ever on the list of bad things he did. After that the exact only US president during this century has been Bush Jr....

Edit: dang edits.

Yes, I realized that the nit-pickers would be coming for me after I posted that, so I quickly edited.

[Watchman]

Ye dastardly git ! Mr. Christian, punish this man !

[AntiochusIII]

The nazis were pretty good administrators... of course I would've disagreed with them morally- but I could have just talked to my priest about that, right?

Godwin's Law, cha-ching!

Bush did few things right- one of those things has been judicial appointments.

You mean by first trying to put his crony in, then end up putting a guy who for virtually all his votes cast it like a partisan conservative would have?

[Lemur]

Godwin's Law, cha-ching!

I was thinking it, but I didn't want to say it. You're braver than I am.

[doc_bean]

The nazis were pretty good administrators...

They also strongly believed in their own morality. This is one of the reason I prefer a leader with less outspoken morals. They're a double edge sword at best, people will always do immoral things, be it abortions, drug use, violent crime or whatever, you need someone who can correctly make an assement of the impact of policy and then decide whether or not it's worth it.

[Fisherking]

I'm just hoping someone competent gets the nomination.

I am not inclined to believe that either party has a high priority on this one……..