Will Republicans vote with their wallets?

[Goofball]

Or with their Bibles?

Good article about Giuliani's prospective candidacy:

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

But first he has to capture the GOP nomination - and the big question is whether he can win over enough Republicans in states like Iowa and South Carolina, among the first nominating contests where voters are solid conservatives and could be turned off by his stance on social issues.
"Giuliani is going to have to convince people that he's more conservative than his record otherwise would suggest," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.
The former mayor's support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control conflict with the hard-line positions of the GOP's right. His supporters say he's not as liberal on those issues as he's made out to be. Still, he's from New York - and that alone rankles the party's conservative wing.
Despite that, Giuliani's backers contend - and some Republican strategists agree - that he could get support from fiscal conservatives because of his record of cutting taxes, curbing spending and promoting small government, particularly now when the base is smarting over the soaring federal deficit under Republicans.

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?

[Crazed Rabbit]

but falls flat only on the superficial issues that the Republicans have recently embraced in order to win over the religious right.

The right to be armed to resist tyranny is not a superficial issue.

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Unborn children are children too.

[Goofball]

The right to be armed to resist tyranny is not a superficial issue.

Crazed Rabbit

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy, I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

[Strike For The South]

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy, I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

If any president made owning a gun illegal I wouldnt vote for him. As of right now I want three issuses taken care of the Iconomy the Illegals and the Iraq show me a man who has good soulutions and I will vote for siad induvudial. I agree that no one gets elected by taking far left or right stances on most social issuses. I think we are losing sight of what the president is supposed to do IMO the pres is supposed to give the people what they want we aernt supposed to give him what he wants.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy,

Really? It does not seem that way to me.

I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Bush said he would vote to renew the abysmally ineffective, stupid, assault weapons ban, which banned weapons because they looked scary and caused certain people to wet their panties. Had the dems controlled Congress, this bill could have been made permanent. The dems control congress now, and Guiliani would probably sign something like that.

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

Several states have banned semi-automatic rifles, who's main difference from some deer rifles is looks. The dems want to ban semi-automatic weapons, they want to prevent people from defending themselves. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

On abortion: the stupid precedent we have now, Roe v Wade, was set by a bunch of idiot justices. The president appoints SCOTUS justices.

Crazed Rabbit

[KukriKhan]

I think we are losing sight of what the president is supposed to do IMO the pres is supposed to give the people what they want we aernt supposed to give him what he wants.

Right there, Ladies and Gentlemen, lies the heart, mind, and soul, of America. Just hurry up and turn 35, son... (and don't do anything you don't want to see displayed on the front page of the New York Times, between now and then) you'll be in.

[BigTex]

Right there, Ladies and Gentlemen, lies the heart, mind, and soul, of America. Just hurry up and turn 35, son... (and don't do anything you don't want to see displayed on the front page of the New York Times, between now and then) you'll be in.

No that is what ruins the presidential canidates. The shaming tactics used by opposing sides destroy's any good presidential canidates that may arrise. Live your life, let those embarrasing things happen. When it's all said and done they've helped shape you. Just be secure enough in the end result to not care what others twist those incidents into.

Bush said he would vote to renew the abysmally ineffective, stupid, assault weapons ban, which banned weapons because they looked scary and caused certain people to wet their panties. Had the dems controlled Congress, this bill could have been made permanent. The dems control congress now, and Guiliani would probably sign something like that.

Some of the most idiotic laws on the books. Banning guns based on looks is ubsurdity. Last I checked even with that law you could still own fully operating M-82's and M-92's.

Several states have banned semi-automatic rifles, who's main difference from some deer rifles is looks. The dems want to ban semi-automatic weapons, they want to prevent people from defending themselves. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

The dem's want to ban hunting in general. Last I checked they managed to ban Atl-Atl hunting. Something that doesnt even involved rifles. Dem members are also trying to prevent any type of bow hunting, calling it cruelty to animals becuase it doesnt kill near instantly.....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Dem members are also trying to prevent any type of bow hunting, calling it cruelty to animals becuase it doesnt kill near instantly.....

It doesn't kill instantly...I wonder if these Democrats have ever even been hunting.



That's the problem with the two-party system.

[Ice]

Yes, I noticed after I posted that I didn't comment on gun control. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the whole "we need guns to resist the government" argument is an utter fallacy, I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue. It was a non-issue during the Bush Presidency. Do you think Giuliani would really make it a key platform of his Presidency?

Are you really that paranoid about masked government agents confiscating your deer rifle that you would let that single issue completely disqualify a candidate?

Good logic there Goofball. Although I agree completely, most Americans won't unforunately.

I'm going to vote for him in the primaries.

[ajaxfetish]

Gay rights I'm in favor of. Gun control I'm not. The jury's out on abortion. Overall, I'd probably be willing to support Giuliani. I'll have to see what the other options are, though.

Ajax

[Ice]

I'm against abortion and favor some gun control. I'm in the middle for gay marriage, apthetic really.

Tax Cuts> Gun Control/Abortion/Gay Marriage

[Lemur]

I checked out Xiahou's link in another thread, that (in addition to providing lots of quotes) showed where the candidates fell on two axes: libertarian vs. authoritarian, and liberal social vs. conservative social. Giuliani came closest to being my dream date. Very libertarian, dead centrist on social issues. My kinda guy.

He was in favor of gun control in New York City, certainly, but has he extended the issue to cover all 50 states? I guess I should read up on the man ...

[Strike For The South]

Thanks Kurki!

[IrishArmenian]

Giuliani would be a great U.S. president. The ideal situation would be
Giuliani
Obama
Sadly, the centrists have no party. Giuliani is massiveley popular with the centrists and people in that general area, that is why he would make a great president, he is very gray on the political spectrum. That is the flaw in the American primaries. Those who run have to cater to the crazy extremists to get nominated.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama is nowhere near the center - he's a socialist.

CR

[Xiahou]

I believe that my comments about abortion would also apply to the gun control issue.

Your comments were wrong on both issues- as has been pointed out.

Guliani seems to have a good track record on the fiscal side, but he'd have to do some persuasive talking before I could get on board with his social ideas.

[AntiochusIII]

Obama is nowhere near the center - he's a socialist.

You always keep saying that.

Jeez, let me guess, every Democratic party member is an America-hating socialist, not mentioning the fact that they make up half of America and by all accounts control one of the three branches of its federal government...

I'm pessimistic about this upcoming election (a loooong two years away anyway). It's always the partisans with their blind extremism on non-issues I couldn't care less about that get to choose who could compete for President. Oh noes! Gays must marry (or, must not, either way), I'll vote for this corrupted, incompetent scum who'll suck the country dry because he/she thinks gays should/should not marry!

Also, CR, don't you think Giuliani's policies in New York is actually most reasonable? Considering it's the Big Apple with its dark alleys, crime rates (pre-Rudy), overcrowding, and its large population of misfits, gun control there is actually quite a necessity. It's a whole different perspective with some other rural regions where the population hunts game all the time or whatever, and I should think a decent potential President would be able to recognize that, and act accordingly. If Rudy can't, Rudy ain't good 'nuff.

Also, Presidents are only a part of the picture. It's usually the Legislature or the Judiciary anyway that gives "official" answers (aka the government's position) on social issues. The Prez can only use his influence, his veto power, or his allies in Congress to push those issues. He has better things to do, you know. Like running the country competently and not constantly trumping on its citizens' rights.

If you value your moral issues that much (hey, no sweat, one's opinion is one's own), choose the right Congress representative on the ballot, then. After all, they are the ones who make the law.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You always keep saying that.

Jeez, let me guess, every Democratic party member is an America-hating socialist, not mentioning the fact that they make up half of America and by all accounts control one of the three branches of its federal government...

Um, no. He's more socialist than the average democrat voter - he wants socialist health care and a ban on most guns.

Also, CR, don't you think Giuliani's policies in New York is actually most reasonable? Considering it's the Big Apple with its dark alleys, crime rates (pre-Rudy), overcrowding, and its large population of misfits, gun control there is actually quite a necessity. It's a whole different perspective with some other rural regions where the population hunts game all the time or whatever, and I should think a decent potential President would be able to recognize that, and act accordingly. If Rudy can't, Rudy ain't good 'nuff.

You mention all the things that make gun control so stupid - removing people's ability to defend themselves. The attitude that crime - committed by criminals who don't follow the law - will go down by taking away lawful people's guns is absurd. You think criminals care about laws? I guess you think its better woman are relatively defenseless against rapists.

The cities with the highest crime have the most gun control, you know - DC, New York, Chicago, etc. I'd rather be in Seattle, with state pre-emption over that gun-grabbing idiot Nickels.

If you value your moral issues that much (hey, no sweat, one's opinion is one's own), choose the right Congress representative on the ballot, then. After all, they are the ones who make the law.

I'm guessing you missed the part where I said the pres picks SCOTUS appointees.

CR

[AntiochusIII]

Um, no. He's more socialist than the average democrat voter - he wants socialist health care and a ban on most guns.

Where did the guy say so, anyway?

As far as I know, Obama's political stance is essentially unknown beyond his voting record, which is average Democrat, yet you kept repeating he's a Pelosi x 10 and Karl Marx in disguise for some time now.

And I didn't know "a ban on most guns" constitutes a natural definition of "socialist."

You mention all the things that make gun control so stupid - removing people's ability to defend themselves. The attitude that crime - committed by criminals who don't follow the law - will go down by taking away lawful people's guns is absurd. You think criminals care about laws? I guess you think its better woman are relatively defenseless against rapists.

The cities with the highest crime have the most gun control, you know - DC, New York, Chicago, etc. I'd rather be in Seattle, with state pre-emption over that gun-grabbing idiot Nickels.

I have no intention to start yet another gun control debate here, but would like to point out that your argument has been disputed constantly every time it was raised, that the defenseless woman against rapist example is simply emotional appeal, and that one of Giuliani's key successes in his mayoralty is actually reducing crime in NYC. You can dispute his methods -- which I do, his police force apparently is a lil' heavy-handed from what I've read, not exactly reassuring -- but it's not like Rudy bans guns and bam! previously peaceful NYC is a crime-fest or anything like that.

I'm guessing you missed the part where I said the pres picks SCOTUS appointees.

Or the part where the Senate has to consent for the Prez's favorite to be appointed?

[Tribesman]

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.

Well whodathnkit

The right to be armed to resist tyranny is not a superficial issue.

For some people guns is like a religeon

[Fisherking]

Can someone please explain to me why we need to give up individual rights in order to have decent government?

What is it about government that would require them to tell us what is good and what is bad that we can't deter man for our selves?

Should we just give up old outdated liberties for the good of government? And who determines which liberties those are?

Canada & the UK strictly speaking do not have freedom of speech….so we can obviously do without that. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution and Magnacarta only outlines some rights for the Barons and even that is a bit vague…so lets just leave it to government to tell us what is fare. Isn't that what the left has been telling us for years now?

After all if you don't think that you can trust government and that they don't have your best interests at heart, then you must be a subversive, and they should have the right to lock you up before you do real damage, right?

[AntiochusIII]

Can someone please explain to me why we need to give up individual rights in order to have decent government?

Would screwing over gays, hating on Muslims, trying to fuse Church with State (of course, even without a central church) count?

Just sayin'. Stereotypes make the world go 'round.

Canada & the UK strictly speaking do not have freedom of speech

Err, yes they do. Strictly speaking also.

Ever heard of the European Convention of Human Rights? I know, damn socialist EU; go to hell EU, etc. Oh, and something about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom might ring a bell.

[Fisherking]

Would screwing over gays, hating on Muslims, trying to fuse Church with State (of course, even without a central church) count?

Because some people dislike others is a reason to allow government to remove rights and tell us what to think?

That is very interesting. Really!

That is excellent logic. Now that government has the right to tell us what to think I know I feel much better.

Err, yes they do. Strictly speaking also.

Oh, Well I suppose that Canadian and UK Courts not allowing newspapers to publish certain articles or stories just didn't happen and those Hate Speech Laws are simply guarantees, and not really placing any limits on people… I must just be looking at things all wrong.

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me! I really feel much better now.

Yes the government really does have our best interests at heart and if they tell us that some right or other doesn't exist or doesn't apply to everyone then that's okay.

[Goofball]

Your comments were wrong on both issues- as has been pointed out.

Actually, they weren't.

On abortion, the situation you face now is that it's the law of the land. Giuliani can certainly (from the pro-life perspective) not make the situation any worse. And even if you elected Pat Robertson President, and he made banning abortion his key political platform, he would still not be able to have any impact in the current political environment. So as I said, it really is a non-issue.

Yes, I understand that the President appoints SC Justices, but I would submit that this also is non-issue. If you look at past Supreme Courts held a majority of Republican appointees, they still ruled on the other side of issues that are near and dear to Republican hearts when the chips were down, so electing a social conservative is no guarantee you'll get what you want. Besides which, in a Democrat controlled Congress your chances of having social conservatives appointed to SCOTUS are nil to start with.

But I think CR's comments sum up a key problem with American politics: you guys seem to confuse voting for a President with voting for a Supreme Court.

As to guns, after social security they tend to be the fourth rail of American politics. I don't think it would be an issue that Giuliani would really want to stick his nose too far into. Yes, he was anti gun in NYC, but let's face it: this situation was a little different there than it was in the U.S. in general. Guns were a virtual pandemic.

Guliani seems to have a good track record on the fiscal side, but he'd have to do some persuasive talking before I could get on board with his social ideas.

Well, you and CR have pretty much answered my opening question:

Guns, gays, and abortion apparently are more important than good government and sound fiscal policy to some voters.

[Goofball]

Because some people dislike others is a reason to allow government to remove rights and tell us what to think?

That is very interesting. Really!

That is excellent logic. Now that government has the right to tell us what to think I know I feel much better.



Oh, Well I suppose that Canadian and UK Courts not allowing newspapers to publish certain articles or stories just didn't happen and those Hate Speech Laws are simply guarantees, and not really placing any limits on people… I must just be looking at things all wrong.

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me! I really feel much better now.

Yes the government really does have our best interests at heart and if they tell us that some right or other doesn't exist or doesn't apply to everyone then that's okay.

Much like your freedom-loving, social conservative AG, appointed by your freedom-loving, social conservative President, saying that the right to habeus corpus doesn't exist?

But you're right. We in Canada and the UK are living in totalitarian states.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guns, gays, and abortion apparently are more important than good government and sound fiscal policy to some voters.

I'm confused on how Guliani is somehow better than all other candidates on small gov't and fiscal policy. There are other candidates who I agree with more, and who would be just as good, or better, small gov't wise.

But I think CR's comments sum up a key problem with American politics: you guys seem to confuse voting for a President with voting for a Supreme Court.

It's not confusion - due to the increasing power the court has siezed, and Congress meekly granted, they determine what the consitution is.

Yes, I understand that the President appoints SC Justices, but I would submit that this also is non-issue.

You'd be wrong.

If you look at past Supreme Courts held a majority of Republican appointees, they still ruled on the other side of issues that are near and dear to Republican hearts when the chips were down, so electing a social conservative is no guarantee you'll get what you want.

No guarantee, but a much better chance than otherwise.

Where did the guy say so, anyway?

As far as I know, Obama's political stance is essentially unknown beyond his voting record, which is average Democrat,

O Rly?

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

I'm confused on how Guliani is somehow better than all other candidates on small gov't and fiscal policy. There are other candidates who I agree with more, and who would be just as good, or better, small gov't wise.

Okay, that's an argument I can live with. From what I have read about the candidates, Giuliana seems to have the best record when it comes to managing the chequebook and cutting bureaucracy. Who would you propose as better in these areas?

But I think CR's comments sum up a key problem with American politics: you guys seem to confuse voting for a President with voting for a Supreme Court.

It's not confusion - due to the increasing power the court has siezed, and Congress meekly granted, they determine what the consitution is.

It is confusion, because as you are demonstrating right now, the mere possibility that a President might get to appoint a SC Justice or two often becomes the overriding concern of the electorate.

Yes, I understand that the President appoints SC Justices, but I would submit that this also is non-issue.

You'd be wrong.

Obviously, in your mind. 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.

If you look at past Supreme Courts held a majority of Republican appointees, they still ruled on the other side of issues that are near and dear to Republican hearts when the chips were down, so electing a social conservative is no guarantee you'll get what you want.

No guarantee, but a much better chance than otherwise.

Again, demonstrating my earlier point. Voting for a possible SC appointee is en exercise in futility. Vote for a President.

Where did the guy say so, anyway?

As far as I know, Obama's political stance is essentially unknown beyond his voting record, which is average Democrat,

O Rly?

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."

[Fisherking]

Much like your freedom-loving, social conservative AG, appointed by your freedom-loving, social conservative President, saying that the right to habeus corpus doesn't exist?

But you're right. We in Canada and the UK are living in totalitarian states.

What makes you think I am conservative? I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

I was once a Democrat and I have voted for both parties though I have usually had to hold my nose while doing so.

Perhaps I am libertarian but I am a member of no organized political association or party.

Don't paint me with that R brush. I will be as hard on freedom grabbing Republicans as on freedom grabbing Democrats, Liberals, Tories, Labour, and anyone else.

I would no more call my self conservative than call you liberal.

Foremost a good government is composed of neither Robbers nor Bullies…..and at present I know of no good governments.

If freedoms and liberties are the price for (in the eyes of some) good government, then I will have to pass.

I have never seen the sacrifice in liberty as bringing about more freedom. I have not even seen it result in better government, just more regulation and payments. Someone always foots the bill. At some point in time that will also be you.

Martin Niemöller

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

Translation: When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

It really doesn't matter which government commits abuses or wheither they were on the left or right. A death squad is still a deathe squad and the secret police are still secret police.

Most all of the English speaking world is relitively free. I would not care to debate which country is most free, it is entirely relitive and subjective.

Good government requires thought and thurough examination and not just a knee-jerk reaction to what is said. Laws should not be passed just in an attempt to do something about a problem that is only half examaned, particularly by a bunch of half-witts (US Congress…nothing new in that opinion).

One thing I am confident of however is this: Whom ever the Uninted States elects presedent will be, as usual, the wrong person for the job by the time they leave office.

[Redleg]

One thing I am confident of however is this: Whom ever the Uninted States elects presedent will be, as usual, the wrong person for the job by the time they leave office.

Amen brother Amen.

It seems that in our history only one or two men have actually left office without being considered the wrong person for the job.

And one of them was such a hero that they probably ignore his failures. Got to love George Washington.