Clinton/obama V. Giuliani/mccain

[Didymus]

btw, I would not want to see McCain and Giuliani on the same ticket. McCain doesnt wholeheartedly support the pro-life stance (he wants to overturn RvW, but for the wrong reasons) but he's still not near as bad as Guilinani. Rudy shouldnt even be a member of the GOP

[kujo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1228044' date='Apr 3 2007, 12:58 AM']btw, I would not want to see McCain and Giuliani on the same ticket. McCain doesnt wholeheartedly support the pro-life stance (he wants to overturn RvW, but for the wrong reasons) but he's still not near as bad as Guilinani. Rudy shouldnt even be a member of the GOP[/quote]

I don't know about you, but I'd be up for overturning Roe v. Wade for WHATEVER REASON THEY CAN FIND.

And I agree...Rudy is a RINO (Republican In Name Only)

[RezaMikhaeil]

Rudy is very weak on social issues:

[quote]Abortion
While mayor, Giuliani stated he is against banning partial-birth abortions. Guliani said that he did not see his position on that changing. Giuliani also told the Albany Times Union that he would not support a ban on late-term.[59][b]Being against abortion, this doesn't work for me. I'd like someone that would represent what I religiously and whole heartedly believe in...[/b]

Gay rights
During his mayorality, gays and lesbians in New York asked for domestic-partnership rights. Giuliani in turn pushed the city's Democratic-controlled City Council, which had avoided the issue for years, to then pass legislation providing broad protection for same-sex partners. In 1998, he codified local law by granting all city employees equal benefits for their domestic partners. Giuliani also allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in his administration.

[b]As I'm a Coptic, I'm against homosexual marriage, etc. so I'd like the governmental laws to reflect that which I believe, so this stance of Rudy's doesn't work for me.[/b]

Gun control lawsuit
On June 20, 2000, Giuliani announced that the City of New York had filed a lawsuit against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors.[60][61][62] The lawsuit was made moot when President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in October 2005 which gave gun companies protection from liability.[63]

[b]I'm also a gun owner, so Rudy's stance doesn't seem to reflect my constitutional freedom in this department.[/b][/quote]

Mccain: I just hope that the GOP gets a better pick

The Democrates are just doing the same thing as last year, giving lame choices so that nobody in their party has a choice but to pick the most liberal feminist in the bunch. I think Hillary would be better then Obama [though I don't choose either] because Hilary would probably listen to her military advisors more then arrogant and cocky Obama, that would have a young and naive mentality.

Reza

Edited April 3, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Aloysius]

Guiliani said he would appoint judges to the supreme court who were social conservatives, even if he isn't one. that's his sort of compromise with the conservative base. it's something.

but Fred Thompson is the absolute best choice. he's been the most consistently pro-life. even Mit Romney was once all for legal abortion, tellin sob stories about how glad he was that his friend could have a legal abortion instead of a back-street one and all that... so who knows how sincere he is. The only candidate I really trust as consistent and sincere on this isse is Thompson. I think if he just declared his candidacy, he would shoot up in the polls so fast! He's already tied with Romney without even announcing his campaign!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228189' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:27 AM']but Fred Thompson is the absolute best choice. he's been the most consistently pro-life. even Mit Romney was once all for legal abortion, tellin sob stories about how glad he was that his friend could have a legal abortion instead of a back-street one and all that... so who knows how sincere he is. The only candidate I really trust as consistent and sincere on this isse is Thompson. I think if he just declared his candidacy, he would shoot up in the polls so fast! He's already tied with Romney without even announcing his campaign![/quote]
Not knocking your guy, but why not Brownback?

[Aloysius]

cause I don't know anything about him. lol. Anyways, I totally like Fred Thompson.

[kujo]

Here's my forecast for the Republican party during the next 2-3 years:

Wanting to cajole the "middle ground" voters, the leadership of the party will continue to field socially-liberal Republicans such as Giuliani and McCain. This will cause a schism in the party: the "Christian Right" will refuse to cast their vote for candidates who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and will, thus, cast their support for another candidate (such as Senator Brownback). The secular conservatives will be disgusted with the compromises being made in Republicanism and will become radicalized, looking for a candidate like Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson who is consistently, historically Republican, not a neocon lame-o like Bush. Because of this dischord in the party, there will be much wrangling during the primaries with no clear winner emerging with the overall support of the Republican party, causing whomever is nominated to be a lame-duck who will struggle to get the votes of his own party. Inevitably, this schism will lead to the election of whichever liberal-lefty comes out on top of the Democratic primaries.

Any thoughts?

[Aloysius]

I think the big bad dark masterminds behind the party are smart enough not to let that happen. they will make sure their candidate is capable of getting the support of the Christian Right. If they don't think Guiliani's ruse of "well, I'll appoint socially conservative justices even though I'm not" is convincing them, he won't be nominated.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228259' date='Apr 3 2007, 08:59 AM']cause I don't know anything about him. lol. Anyways, I totally like Fred Thompson.[/quote]
He's awesome. He's a Catholic. Read up on him.

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228283' date='Apr 3 2007, 10:36 AM']I think the big bad dark masterminds behind the party are smart enough not to let that happen. they will make sure their candidate is capable of getting the support of the Christian Right. If they don't think Guiliani's ruse of "well, I'll appoint socially conservative justices even though I'm not" is convincing them, he won't be nominated.[/quote]

I'm not quite sure of that. I mean, look at the trouble that Hillary is having. She's trying too hard to be something she's simply not--a centrist. Because of this, she's misstepping all over the place--one minute she's for the Iraq War, the next she's against it; one minute she wants the troops out now, the next she says that it would be a disaster if we left now. She's trying to appease the hard-left and the centrists as well. And it's simply not working, causing Obama (who is remaining pretty squeaky clean while sticking to his guns) to enjoy an increase in support.

It could happen with the Republicans, as well.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1228259' date='Apr 3 2007, 02:59 PM']cause I don't know anything about him. lol. Anyways, I totally like Fred Thompson.[/quote]

Wasn't he a senator before joining Law & Order (a show I love, btw)? Like, a Republican senator from TN, maybe?

[Sojourner]

Yes that is correct, AC

[Didymus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1228066' date='Apr 3 2007, 12:48 AM']I don't know about you, but I'd be up for overturning Roe v. Wade for WHATEVER REASON THEY CAN FIND.

And I agree...Rudy is a RINO (Republican In Name Only)[/quote]

the problem is (statistically speaking) overturning Roe v Wade wont do any good if abortions are still allowed on the state level by law in the individual states.

McCain just wants the states to be able to decide. I dont want the feds to remain indifferent. We want them to call murder what is murder.

[Didymus]

mind you, I support McCain to the length that you mention

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kujo' post='1228457' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:19 PM']I'm not quite sure of that. I mean, look at the trouble that Hillary is having. She's trying too hard to be something she's simply not--a centrist. Because of this, she's misstepping all over the place--one minute she's for the Iraq War, the next she's against it; one minute she wants the troops out now, the next she says that it would be a disaster if we left now. She's trying to appease the hard-left and the centrists as well. And it's simply not working, causing Obama (who is remaining pretty squeaky clean while sticking to his guns) to enjoy an increase in support.

It could happen with the Republicans, as well.[/quote]
let's face it: there are bigger darker masterminds behind the republican party than behind the democratic party. the democratic party is this big umbrella full of idealogues on many sides. but the republican strategists know what they're doing to keep their base's support... they don't really have any sort of idealogy on these social issues one way or another; they'll make sure there's a guy that the Christian right believes is socially conservative enough and continue to try to ride the moral issue gravy train back to the white house.

republican strategists seem to know what they're doing politically better than democratic strategists; democratic strategists are more concerned with their idealogy... which is respectable I suppose, even though I disagree with their idealogy. the behind-the-scenes of the republican party is much less concerned with such things, they just want to convince their idealogical base that they are.

[kujo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1228852' date='Apr 3 2007, 07:51 PM']the problem is (statistically speaking) overturning Roe v Wade wont do any good if abortions are still allowed on the state level by law in the individual states.

McCain just wants the states to be able to decide. I dont want the feds to remain indifferent. We want them to call murder what is murder.[/quote]

Overturning Roe v. Wade would return this issue to the states for them to decide. This would be a major victory for pro-lifers because it would mean that advocating for our cause would be relegated to state-level politics. And it seems that it would be easier to sway a state than the stallwarts in the Supreme Court. Further, holding out for a reversal of Roe v. Wade for moral reasons (i.e.- the baby is a HUMAN BEING) is probably a waste of time. There will never ever been a justice confirmed for the highest court in our nation that would do it for those reasons. We need to rely on the fact that it is a [i]weak[/i] case decided upon [i]weaker[/i] logic. If it were overturned, it would go to the states and we can continue fighting with our elected officials.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229057' date='Apr 3 2007, 11:38 PM']let's face it: there are bigger darker masterminds behind the republican party than behind the democratic party. the democratic party is this big umbrella full of idealogues on many sides. but the republican strategists know what they're doing to keep their base's support... they don't really have any sort of idealogy on these social issues one way or another; they'll make sure there's a guy that the Christian right believes is socially conservative enough and continue to try to ride the moral issue gravy train back to the white house.

republican strategists seem to know what they're doing politically better than democratic strategists; democratic strategists are more concerned with their idealogy... which is respectable I suppose, even though I disagree with their idealogy. the behind-the-scenes of the republican party is much less concerned with such things, they just want to convince their idealogical base that they are.[/quote]

Can you substantiate any of this talk of the "darker masterminds" of the Republican party and their apparent superiority against their Democratic counterparts? Did the Republicans NOT just lose control of the Congress and the Senate? Isn't President Bush's approval rating like 29%?

I hope we wise up and nominate a [i]real[/i] Republican but I'm scared that these "masterminds" (i.e.- "MC" Karl Rove) are going to capitulate to public opinion, nominating the [b]wrong man [/b]for the [b]wrong reasons.[/b]

[Didymus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1229241' date='Apr 4 2007, 12:39 AM']Overturning Roe v. Wade would return this issue to the states for them to decide. This would be a major victory for pro-lifers because it would mean that advocating for our cause would be relegated to state-level politics. And it seems that it would be easier to sway a state than the stallwarts in the Supreme Court. Further, holding out for a reversal of Roe v. Wade for moral reasons (i.e.- the baby is a HUMAN BEING) is probably a waste of time. There will never ever been a justice confirmed for the highest court in our nation that would do it for those reasons. We need to rely on the fact that it is a [i]weak[/i] case decided upon [i]weaker[/i] logic. If it were overturned, it would go to the states and we can continue fighting with our elected officials.[/quote]

agreed

[Aloysius]

all I'm saying is that they're going to make sure they can get the vote of the Christian right; not by nominating the right guy, but by at least convincing them the guy they nominate is good enough. mark my words: the republican vote will not be split in two. it's just not going to happen; people like Karl Rove know how to keep that from happening.

there isn't any sort of strong idealogical public opinion among anyone who would even remotely consider voting republican against the illegalization of abortion. the Republican Party has nothing to gain by going over to that side; there just isn't any popular opinion in that direction that they have any remote chance of getting votes from.

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229371' date='Apr 4 2007, 04:57 AM']all I'm saying is that they're going to make sure they can get the vote of the Christian right; not by nominating the right guy, but by at least convincing them the guy they nominate is good enough. mark my words: the republican vote will not be split in two. it's just not going to happen; people like Karl Rove know how to keep that from happening.

there isn't any sort of strong idealogical public opinion among anyone who would even remotely consider voting republican against the illegalization of abortion. the Republican Party has nothing to gain by going over to that side; there just isn't any popular opinion in that direction that they have any remote chance of getting votes from.[/quote]

First off, if that fate of our party rests in the hands of Karl Rove, we're screwed! He is an idiot. I can't wait till him and Bush are GONE!!!! (mind you...I am a Republican) I will not be duped into believing that a candidate who has been wishy-washy on or downright supportive of abortion. I like Giuliani and respect him for his work after 9/11. I had relatives die in the towers so he's my guy. But I just don't think he's good enough for the Presidency and I won't vote for him based on 9/11. McCain is simply not Presidential material. Too moderate. Mitt Romney...who? Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback are the ways to go!

Secondly, while it's true that Republicans are by and large pro-life, there are varying degrees of this ideology. Some people are okay with it during the 1st trimester, some are okay in cases of rape and incest, some are diametrically opposed to any and all abortion procedures. And, unfortunately, there are some (i.e.- Giuliani) who just pro-choice Republicans. Heck, there are even [url="http://www.catholicsforchoice.org"]Roman Catholics in favor of abortion[/url]! Bottom line here is that we shouldn't accept the line of bull these guys feed us. The best way to find out what these guys believe is to check the voting records and public statements. You can't say you'll "nominate strict-constitutionalist judges" and expect me to nod my head and go along with it when everything you've said in the past points to the opposite.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Kujo, I like your post. I found it very troubling that after the Republicans [prior to the last election] had control of the house and the senate, nothing was proposed to make every abortion illegal. It's like, I'm always hearing Republicans say "we'd get rid of abortion but the democrates" and it's like after having control of the house and the senate, it wasn't the democrates holding them back, it was themselves.

Reza