Why Hillary stands the best chance against Rudy

[Yankee_Doodle]

Rudy & Hillary's views on social issues are virtually indistinguishable. While Americans want a President strong on defense, opposition to Iraq trumps that right now. In fact, one of the few areas Rudy & Hillary disagree in is Iraq. Republicans have made huge strides with the Catholic vote over the years, primarily due to the republican pro-life position & conservative stances on social issues. With those differences gone the focus will shift to Iraq. Hillary has promised to get us out & Rudy supports Bush on Iraq. With no reason to remain republican religious conservatives will shift their attention to the next biggest issue....that is Iraq, a big loser for Rudy. If Rudy wins the primary I can see another President Clinton. Slick Willy is back in the white house, unbelievable. Is it any coincidence that Hillary chose New York as her new home (Rudy's home base) when her & slick left the white house?

I will be supporting John McCain (like I did in 2000). It's almost sureal that we can have 20 years of either a Bush or Clinton running this country?

[Ryokan]

Rudy & Hillary's views on social issues are virtually indistinguishable. Kinda. The catch is Rudy is unlikely to compaign on or push for those social issues while in office. It gives him an edge. Especially with abortion, where he has taken the opposite tac of the dems, he personally approves but will work against its legality. While Americans want a President strong on defense, opposition to Iraq trumps that right now. In fact, one of the few areas Rudy & Hillary disagree in is Iraq. Republicans have made huge strides with the Catholic vote over the years, primarily due to the republican pro-life position & conservative stances on social issues. With those differences gone the focus will shift to Iraq. Hillary has promised to get us out & Rudy supports Bush on Iraq. With no reason to remain republican religious conservatives will shift their attention to the next biggest issue....that is Iraq, a big loser for Rudy. If Rudy wins the primary I can see another President Clinton. Slick Willy is back in the white house, unbelievable. Is it any coincidence that Hillary chose New York as her new home (Rudy's home base) when her & slick left the white house? Alot does depend on what is happening in Iraq, but since Rudy was never in office I think he can more easily seperate himself from iraq than Hillary. I don't think, regardless of the nominee, social issues are going to be an important factor in this election. Evangelical power has reached it pinnacle. I think things will go back to normal, where moral issues are only a part of the election, not the dominant force.

I will be supporting John McCain (like I did in 2000). It's almost sureal that we can have 20 years of either a Bush or Clinton running this country?
I support Rudy. I like McCain, but he is getting far too conservative on social issues, especially freedom of speech ones. I think we'll get further on abortion with Rudy. He has to prove his legitimacy in that area.

[decoski]

I don't like Rudy or McCain. Both are not conservatives. We need a real conservative to get the conservative base excited about voting for a candidate. I originally liked Tancredo, but I don't think he has enough "star power" to even get noticed. We'll have to see if a new candidate arises soon. I sure hope so. Clinton, Guiliani, McCain would be much of the same.

[Yankee_Doodle]

I don't like Rudy or McCain. Both are not conservatives. We need a real conservative to get the conservative base excited about voting for a candidate. I originally liked Tancredo, but I don't think he has enough "star power" to even get noticed. We'll have to see if a new candidate arises soon. I sure hope so. Clinton, Guiliani, McCain would be much of the same.

I would agree with you here (though I'm no huge fan of Tancredo...his only claim to fame seems to be his immigration stance & I have no inclination that he's prepared to command our nation or armed forces), but McCain is the more conservative choice & therefore I'll support him. Plus, he's a guy who has given his country almost 6 gut wrenching years getting the you know what beat out him daily by the Viet Cong. That means a lot to me......he's a man who we know is willing to fight to his last nail for this country

[Yankee_Doodle]

Kinda. The catch is Rudy is unlikely to compaign on or push for those social issues while in office. It gives him an edge. Especially with abortion, where he has taken the opposite tac of the dems, he personally approves but will work against its legality. Alot does depend on what is happening in Iraq, but since Rudy was never in office I think he can more easily seperate himself from iraq than Hillary. I don't think, regardless of the nominee, social issues are going to be an important factor in this election. Evangelical power has reached it pinnacle. I think things will go back to normal, where moral issues are only a part of the election, not the dominant force.

hmmm, haven't really hear much about Rudy's abortion stance, except that he supports it. Frankly, personally approves but will work against its legality is sort of a weird stance? Moreover, sounds like he's backsliding on his earlier stances, which makes his credibility problematic. I agree social issues will be less pronounced an issue in the "general election" than perhaps in past elections, but not in the republican primaries. Frankly, the biggest problem I have with Rudy is his pro-gay stance. He wants to extend tax benefits to gay couples, that is a deal breaker with me. Maybe I'm too dogmatic here....I don't know. However, I just don't see gay rights as the next bastion of civil rights.

I support Rudy. I like McCain, but he is getting far too conservative on social issues, especially freedom of speech ones. I think we'll get further on abortion with Rudy. He has to prove his legitimacy in that area.

Overall you do definitely bring up good points, but I would have to depart on you with regard to supporting Rudy. I also can't see where McCain has been anything except a champion for our Constitutional rights? It's certainly possible there's something I missed, so I'm curious, how do you think McCain has illustrated contempt for our First Amendment?

[Ryokan]

hmmm, haven't really hear much about Rudy's abortion stance, except that he supports it.[/QUOTE} But he has also pledged to appoint ultraconservative judges. [QUOTE] Frankly, personally approves but will work against its legality is sort of a weird stance? It is if you say it but not so much if it is a guiding political philosophy. Moreover, sounds like he's backsliding on his earlier stances, which makes his credibility problematic. All politicians do this. I agree social issues will be less pronounced an issue in the "general election" than perhaps in past elections, but not in the republican primaries. Frankly, the biggest problem I have with Rudy is his pro-gay stance. He wants to extend tax benefits to gay couples, that is a deal breaker with me. I support that move on his part. Abortion is the only thing about him that bothers me. Well that and he has a little bit of a nepotism problem. Maybe I'm too dogmatic here....I don't know. However, I just don't see gay rights as the next bastion of civil rights. I don't really see it as a huge political issue at all. Gay marriage, pro or con, really ought to be low on our priority list as a nation.



Overall you do definitely bring up good points, but I would have to depart on you with regard to supporting Rudy. I also can't see where McCain has been anything except a champion for our Constitutional rights? McCain consistently supports scaling back speach rights on television, film, radio and the internet. Oh, and videogames.

[decoski]

I would agree with you here (though I'm no huge fan of Tancredo...his only claim to fame seems to be his immigration stance & I have no inclination that he's prepared to command our nation or armed forces), but McCain is the more conservative choice & therefore I'll support him. Plus, he's a guy who has given his country almost 6 gut wrenching years getting the you know what beat out him daily by the Viet Cong. That means a lot to me......he's a man who we know is willing to fight to his last nail for this country

I'll give you that, however, I disagree with his loose stance on illegal immigration and border security.

[Yankee_Doodle]

I'll give you that, however, I disagree with his loose stance on illegal immigration and border security.

hmm, I guess I do agree. There's no candidate out there (with a chance of winning) who is proposing real border security. Frankly, I'm not one who cares very much if we offer those here now some sort of legal status. However, real border security must come first. I mean we probably need an additional division worth of Guard troops down there with arrest authority (of course I would say MP's rather that 11 bang bangs....they have better training for policing & the Army does more intensive background checks on MP's than they do on infrantry soldiers). Frankly, I think if any candidate came out and said they would really secure our border in such a way (I'm talking one of the candidates with a chance) then they would probably win by a landslide. Good Americans are fairly concerned about this issue. However, I do not support kicking out those here now out, I just think we're all sick of the con jobs we keep getting & want a completely secure border (which make no mistake with adequate resources we can do) before we even start talking about guest worker plans or amnesty. After a secure border though I'm not willing to blame immigrants for there illegal entry. Look, we all know that our policies invited them here. God says to welcome the immigrant (but I don't God wants us to be stupid & allow in the drug smuggler or terrorist). Anyway, I hope we get this thing worked out but I am ye with little faith on this issue.

[Yankee_Doodle]

But he has also pledged to appoint ultraconservative judges. It is if you say it but not so much if it is a guiding political philosophy. All politicians do this. I support that move on his part. Abortion is the only thing about him that bothers me. Well that and he has a little bit of a nepotism problem. I don't really see it as a huge political issue at all. Gay marriage, pro or con, really ought to be low on our priority list as a nation.

While I wouldn't describe myself as a fundamentalist, I think gay marriage is a critical issue. More importantly, Rudy I think supports getting rid of the law that provides states don't have to recognize another states gay marriage license (so he backdoors this issue). Therefore, under Rudy & a democratic congress, we could very well have gay marriage nationwide. Enough of a reason for me & I am confident most republicans come primary time (when they actually learn who this guy is)


[McCain consistently supports scaling back speach rights on television, film, radio and the internet. Oh, and videogames.

so did Al Gore? All he can do is ask congress to order the FCC to impliment further restrictions on broadcasters & the Supreme Court will end up striking it down if it goes to far. The FCC already regulates speech (profanity). Frankly, while I'm usually no fan of limiting speech rights (slippery slope problem), I'm not so sure I disagree with the FCC tightening up a little bit (and see where the Court goes with it). Moreover, I like the proposed ale carte cable programming legislation (I don't know McCains stance on this). I think parents deserve the power to keep MTV out of their homes, which they really don't have now (unless they want to live like a cave man with no cable....LOL). I also wouldn't mind seeing ratings on video games. Frankly, who really wants their pre-teen child playing games with killing, car jackings, and sex with hookers? It has gotten out of control. You know, I'm no democrat, but I wish Gore would run (that is if he simply realized the second amendment is actually part of our constitution....not that I'm a back woods gun guy, but you know....they first thing they do is take the guns, then they burn the books...LOL)

:lol:

[Ryokan]

While I wouldn't describe myself as a fundamentalist, I think gay marriage is a critical issue. More importantly, Rudy I think supports getting rid of the law that provides states don't have to recognize another states gay marriage license (so he backdoors this issue). Therefore, under Rudy & a democratic congress, we could very well have gay marriage nationwide. Enough of a reason for me & I am confident most republicans come primary time (when they actually learn who this guy is) Clearly we just have a very different idea of what is important for america.For me, if we have gay marriage nationwide, so what I say. It neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket.




so did Al Gore? I hate Al Gore. All he can do is ask congress to order the FCC to impliment further restrictions on broadcasters & the Supreme Court will end up striking it down if it goes to far. The FCC already regulates speech (profanity). Frankly, while I'm usually no fan of limiting speech rights (slippery slope problem), I'm not so sure I disagree with the FCC tightening up a little bit (and see where the Court goes with it). Moreover, I like the proposed ale carte cable programming legislation (I don't know McCains stance on this). I think parents deserve the power to keep MTV out of their homes, which they really don't have now (unless they want to live like a cave man with no cable....LOL). I also wouldn't mind seeing ratings on video games. Frankly, who really wants their pre-teen child playing games with killing, car jackings, and sex with hookers? It has gotten out of control. You know, I'm no democrat, but I wish Gore would run (that is if he simply realized the second amendment is actually part of our constitution....not that I'm a back woods gun guy, but you know....they first thing they do is take the guns, then they burn the books...LOL)

:lol:See I just think we have to agree to disagree. I think they should dismantle the FCC and allow cable companies the freedom to choose the products they sell. I eam a supporter of the presidents plan on immigration as well.:tongue: At least we agree on gun control:lol:

[Yankee_Doodle]

Clearly we just have a very different idea of what is important for america.For me, if we have gay marriage nationwide, so what I say. It neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket.



I hate Al Gore.See I just think we have to agree to disagree. I think they should dismantle the FCC and allow cable companies the freedom to choose the products they sell. I eam a supporter of the presidents plan on immigration as well.:tongue: At least we agree on gun control:lol:

We do indeed disagree here, but that's what we're all about......

I think ultimately gay marriage would be harmful to our country (I wrote kind of a sloppy essay as to why in another post, I was in a rush so excuse the spelling mistakes....but it's a good essay in substance):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1895256&postcount=43

Regarding the FCC, our constitution allows congress to regulate interstate commerce, which telephone, television, internet, and radio communications clearly are. I guess rather that a libertarian I would define myself as a constitutionalist. For example take the Department of Education. I believe it ought to be abolished since education is clearly enumerated as a state function by our constitution. IMO perhaps the only way we could find constitutional consistency with educational mandates is in the area of science (and perhaps as an extension math), under the provision to promote science (which is enumerated to congress in the constitution). Moreover, HUD & Healh and Human Services also perform what was intended to be state functions. The government has backdoored the constitution by giving states a ficticious choice whether or not they want to accept the money from Washington that accompanies these mandates. If the choice were real the federal gov't should be required to return to taxpayers in states that refused the money their portion of what is spent on these programs. After all, if a state refuses the money they (or their localities) will have to increase their own taxes to make up for it (or else their schools would have a big problem). Thus, a state really can't refuse the money or else they risk becoming a high tax state & thus less able to attract companies (and in fact many companies in that state now would leave out of competative necessity).

[Pilgrim]

Rudi's stance on abortion has changed? In the 80's and 90's he loudly proclaimed that not only was abortion a woman's right but that tax payers money should support abortion for the poor since they should not be denied the right to choose simply because they didn't have the money.

[Ryokan]

Rudi's stance on abortion has changed? In the 80's and 90's he loudly proclaimed that not only was abortion a woman's right but that tax payers money should support abortion for the poor since they should not be denied the right to choose simply because they didn't have the money.

Not changed as much as waffled. Rudi does not think abortion is as important a issue as the other ones he is campaigning on, and is willing to sacrifice the issue for them.

[Ryokan]

We do indeed disagree here, but that's what we're all about......

I think ultimately gay marriage would be harmful to our country (I wrote kind of a sloppy essay as to why in another post, I was in a rush so excuse the spelling mistakes....but it's a good essay in substance):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1895256&postcount=43 We just have to disagree. I don't think it is the states role to promote family structures in general, I don't think their is anything "traditional" about the nuclear family as it existed at the middle of our century and see no benefit to freeze it culturally, and I don't see the end of Roman civilization the same way you do (Christianity became the state religion before the collapse you know). Also I don't see our nation's morals as in a state of decline. In alot of ways we are more moral than we have been in the past.

Regarding the FCC, our constitution allows congress to regulate interstate commerce, which telephone, television, internet, and radio communications clearly are. I doubt they saw it being used as an excuse for censorship. And remember I said I would dismantle the FCC. Its constitutionality doesn't matter to me. if if it can be regulated it is still a infringement on liberty. I guess rather that a libertarian I would define myself as a constitutionalist. For example take the Department of Education. I believe it ought to be abolished since education is clearly enumerated as a state function by our constitution. IMO perhaps the only way we could find constitutional consistency with educational mandates is in the area of science (and perhaps as an extension math), under the provision to promote science (which is enumerated to congress in the constitution). Moreover, HUD & Healh and Human Services also perform what was intended to be state functions. The government has backdoored the constitution by giving states a ficticious choice whether or not they want to accept the money from Washington that accompanies these mandates. If the choice were real the federal gov't should be required to return to taxpayers in states that refused the money their portion of what is spent on these programs. After all, if a state refuses the money they (or their localities) will have to increase their own taxes to make up for it (or else their schools would have a big problem). Thus, a state really can't refuse the money or else they risk becoming a high tax state & thus less able to attract companies (and in fact many companies in that state now would leave out of competative necessity).These are all things I don't care about. Honestly if health care and schools were left up to the states I bet they would suffer because they'd be designed to pander to local constitutients. It would make America less globally competitive.

[Yankee_Doodle]

Not changed as much as waffled. Rudi does not think abortion is as important a issue as the other ones he is campaigning on, and is willing to sacrifice the issue for them.

To me what makes abortion the least important issue is that a President cannot really effect change that much (unless he has the opportunity to select a SC justice), unlike the case with say gay marriage. Moreover, given the current composition of the SC (and that it's unlikely any of the conservative justices will need to be replaced for the next 2-4 presidential terms) means the abortion issue is little more than a lightening rod.

[Yankee_Doodle]

We just have to disagree. I don't think it is the states role to promote family structures in general, I don't think their is anything "traditional" about the nuclear family as it existed at the middle of our century and see no benefit to freeze it culturally, and I don't see the end of Roman civilization the same way you do (Christianity became the state religion before the collapse you know). Also I don't see our nation's morals as in a state of decline. In alot of ways we are more moral than we have been in the past.

Indeed Christianity did take root in Rome roughly a century before their decline, however, it took much longer before it really changed their way of life. There are certainly many arguments on the decline of Rome. Certainly it can be traced to the Goth defeat of its legion (and the killing of their emperor) in northern Turkey, and the subsequent sack of Rome. Then of course the Goth leader who united his different tribes and eventually dealt the Romans a harsh blow in return for all the hell they put the Goths through. However, by the time this happened Romans theirself were virtually uninvolved in civic activities like the military. To spite their Christianity they had devolved into a heathen culture unlike perhaps any seen in human history. That is what set the stage for their decline. Had they remained strong, if they were the Romans of even a century prior, the Goths would have never been able to advance into Italy. Certainly they were overextended & thus less able to defend Italy; however, again this wouldn't had been the case if the Romans didn't stop being Romans (in fact their legions stationed overseas weren't even very Roman, they were mostly a composition of different tribes from the provinces the Romans suckered into doing their dirty work, while the Roman stayed home with his boyfriend enjoying life in their public baths & brothels).


I doubt they saw it being used as an excuse for censorship. And remember I said I would dismantle the FCC. Its constitutionality doesn't matter to me. if if it can be regulated it is still a infringement on liberty.These are all things I don't care about. Honestly if health care and schools were left up to the states I bet they would suffer because they'd be designed to pander to local constitutients. It would make America less globally competitive.


You cannot scream fire in a crowded theater. There are limits on speech. Pornography, vulgarity, etc. has its time & place (and as such the FCC can impose reasonable restrictions, for example regulating that filth only be aired late night). With regard to education, I do think the federal government can have block grants with accompanying mandates for science (and math). These are really the only topics allowed to the federal government by the constitution; and they are the only topics important for our global competativeness (for example, I doubt gay rights tolerace classes will help Ford build a better car). Frankly, it's a socialist program, as is HHS & HUD. I will give you with HHS (which by the way is mostly our welfare programs.....the only area of healthcare they control is medicare/medicaid) it's a harder question. I don't want to see us eliminate our social safety net all together. However, I think it could be cut in half & the mandates significantly reduced (again this is a more complex issue.....I would like to see us privatize medicare & social security, but that topic is for another day).

When you say our founders didn't see the commerce clause as being used as an excuse for censorship, I'm not sure that accurately describes our founders (well....depending on which founder you're talking about), remember the sedition act? Perhaps you think our SC is unfriendly to free speech, but believe it or not Scalia has been one of our biggest proponents of free speech; so I really think you're blowing this issue out of proportion.

[Puddleglum]

I think all conservatives should ditch Giuliani, Romney, Mccain etc and support Congressman Ron Paul. He has a good record on internet freedom, is pro life, and believes in restricting immigration. He also has a harder core base than most of the other candidates, as evidenced by his beating Rudy in the poll after the second debate (taking 25 percent of the phone poll as compared to Romney's 29) and consistently winning online polls. He also oppossed the Iraq war from the beginning (predicting many of our current problems) instead of changing his position later when it got tough.

If you really want constitutional principles, fiscal responsibility and free speech, give up on the "Rudy McRomney" trio and fight for this darkhorse.