bye, Rudy. Nice knowing ya

It's because he use to dress in drag.

 

You WISH!

Don, it just goes to show you might read what I write but you never READ IT! As of now, and since the beginning, I been a 'Rudy guy', waiting to hear from Fred!
In fact my LAST comment on the race was that Fred had lost me. Not that he 'doesnt 'believe in anything' but that he really isnt that enthusiastic about running.

That is from
http://www.pensitoreview.com/

That 'widely read blogger' {check the comment count!} who, judging from my scan, pretty much channels HuffPo views. Or Pat Buchanan, whatever suits his agenda.
But HIS article is based on a NY Times article which isnt exactly in tune with what he says.

I'm sorry, but whatever filters out of the Catholic League and the Southern Baptist Convention has much more sway on the Christian Conservative movement than those guys, anymore.

As always Liberals WANT the election issues to rotate around the right to kill your kids before they take a breath. Never mind that's pretty much moot in the Executive.

But here's the bottom of the source article:
NY Times article

Note that the voters affected KNOW who trumpets the Conservative opposition to Rudy... and it aint anybody on the right, always seems to be mentioned by the lefty loons.
Mr Pensito had to choose between two 'Good Things', bashing the guy who makes Hillary look like Ms ChumpChange and the fracture of the 'VRWCC'.

Not that anyone read his opinion before Al-Reuters posted it.

My question is why did Don go to the trouble of posting that when he obviously sees it wont affect much.

 

How are you so sure? The Repulicans have lived and died by that base and until now. Its obviously going to affect him in alot of states. I'm not talking about the Presidential election either. We still have to get through the primaries and that isn't just two choices.

I think dressing in drag will confuse and repel some people as well as his several marriages. I think the abortion thing is hovering over him, but its a hinge issue, with all the other isses listed it might not even matter. But the out right vocal detachment is a pretty big hit. Church people are followers by definition, so it will be interesting to see if this creates some sort of domino affect.

I'm excited about this... WHY? Because I'm a huge proponent of ANY third party bid.

If the republicans wish to beat hillary, they need to pick someone else IMO... this guy is a pro war candidate, who has no clue about foriegn policy except cleaning up a huge mess of our currently disasterous idea.

I was a Rudy fan by proxy, until of course he dropped the ball on Blowback and why terrorism and hate for the united states exists.

Remember, they hate us because our women have freedom, not because we bomb civilian territories and sanction third world muslim nations.

I think Thompson is going to bomb... I think he's going to dillute the conservative base, basically because he's a movie star and old ladies will vote for him. The GOP is mess. Not the Democrat mess.... but a leaning pile of Jenga blocks ready to be a mess.

 

Smokin' ..

A fair number of those old relic Christian Conservatives remember Milton Berle... and they know a mummer outfit from a drag queen.

Church people are 'followers by definition'... hmmm you evidently DONT know any Southern Baptists! Esp those NORTHERN ONES!


I really DONT know how you think, but it's fun to make fun of it, anyway!

Read my Titanic post.

 

I reserve the right not to have a consistent thought process especially when I am picking people who run from true beliefs and play parts just to get elected. Thats aside:

When was Milton Berle and his supposed large man parts ever leader of the "free world". Just because you watched him and was wasnt offended doesnt mean you speak for all right wing relics.

Did you just negate my "church followers" comments with a tidbit on how I MUST not know any NORTHERN SOUTHERN BAPTISTS?

You can make fun of me all you want in the conspiracy posts, but when I have actually content that is exceptable by your standards, could you address it?

I dont know how you think either... even though it would be nice to throw a joke your way every so often, I try to keep my posts on topic.

 

Until the Iraq war situation is resolved, the GOP won't be able to use their conservative base to win the election; i.e., there are sufficient conservatives who are displeased with Iraq that there won't be the huge outpouring of voter participation that occured 4 years ago.

Given that, to have any chance against the Hilary/Obama ticket (and yes, I think it will be a combined ticket), they need something far more dynamic than just appealing to their socially conservative base. IMO, Rudy is their best chance of winning the election as he appeals to some of the same voters who would be looking at the Dems; most of the conservatives won't vote for Hillary anyway, so their non-votes won't count, either way.

I'm a social conservative, currently registered Democrat (because, in Maryland, the Democratic Party Primary is the election), and as much as I dislike Hillary's social agenda, I view the primary role of the President as Foreign Policy and we need to go in a completely different direction than we have gone the last six years. Do I wish there were a better choice? sure, but as Captain Aubrey said, you have to choose the lesser of two weevils.

 

Neither base will abandon its party. Sure they get there feathers ruffled now on both sides but when it comes down to it and were in the general election both bases will get all drummed up and get behind their candidate.

 

Spencer. Like they did in the last mid-term election?

Ruffled voters will likely not vote for the opposition, but will be more likely to just stay home.

During the last Presidential election, there were sufficient Social Coservative Hot Topics up for discussion that voters who normally didn't vote, came out and voted. Without a similar "important to them" major topic, they won't be back this election. At current state, some of those who usually vote will stay home as well (people are statistically less likely to vote if they are voting AGAINST someone rather than voting FOR someone).

 

They didn't lose their base they lost the swing voters. In most cases Republicans lost around 60-40, 55-45,ect. Which says that that 40%, their base still voted for them. If they were losing 70-30, 80-20 in historically 50-50 districts then they'd have lost the base but thats not what happened.

The general election is long and HOT, it will take little to get both sides over their primary blues and fired up.

 

HatterDon. I'm getting mixed signals on #1. Some evangelicals recognize the shared social values and others are just knee-jerking negatively. I'm honestly not sure what they'll do in that case.

 

I was going to say that the American public isn't stupid enough to care that Obama's middle name is Hussein, but then I realized that I was giving a lot of the voting public too much credit.

 

I believe this in the general election, but not the Primary... thats the big issue here. The primary is full of alternatives, I just dont think Rudy fits the bases' mold.

Religions act religiously... in other words, it doesnt make any sense for a party who were rallied with religious rhetoric, to vote anything but for their religious beliefs.... with the standard american deviation of course.

Oh... and this may not be a factor, but the religious leaders that used to trumpet for the republican party are either dead or have solicited sex with gay men.

 

As long as there are no Conservative Democrats running, those members of the "Religious Right" who feel that social issues are the priority, will continue to vote for Conservative Republican candidates.

 

Is the base fleeing?

Maybe I'm wrong perhaps the Republican base is pulling up stakes and moving out, but according to this really good WSJ story from yesterday it aint the social conservatives who are through its the business community, so called "country club republicans".

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... 45595.html

I can relate. I agree with Republicans on many many issues, in fact when I first started following politics I was sure I was a Republican. But their instance on bible thumping and worse this anti-immigration crusade, and constant incompetence mainly New Orleans and Iraq(though would dems do better??) make them real tough to vote for.

 

RE: Is the base fleeing?

Spencer.. If you EVER were a Republican, you were a Rockefeller Republican. "Anti-Immigration" is the tip-off.

New Orleans??????!!!!!!!!! Incompetent Dem MAyor, Waffling Incompetent Dem Governor, and BLAME it on the SAME INCOMPETENT federal bureaucracy as would likely have been in place in a Dem admionistration... Jeez, I cannot figure out how some people think.


Closet Hillary is more like it.

- do I need to comment?

However... I see from perusing the other other heads that Rupert is making his presence felt, already. So I guess I'm not surprised ...

 

RE: Is the base fleeing?

Immigration is one of those issues that doesn't follow Party lines; it's almost entirely a regional thing. i.e., you won't catch any California representative with a rural constituency voting to clamp down more than we already do.

re: New Orleans. Bush appointed the incompetant who ran FIMA during the crisis and didn't step in when obviously enough wasn't being done. FIMA is supposed to be the experts; they didn't act like it during Katrina.

re: What kind of Republican are you. People vote with parties for many different reasons. I'm a Social Conservative, Economic/Foreign Policy Moderate. I was a registered Republican for a long time, but between being in a State that ALWAYS votes Democrat in the Presidential elections and the GOP swing from Moderate to Stupid in the Foreign Policy Arena, I've switched my Registration. Because of the social issues (and because Maryland Republicans tend more toward Moderate than Conservative), I do vote for many local GOP candidates, but at the National Level, the GOP needs to get its act together, despite their social conservative roots.

 

RE: Is the base fleeing?

Bush DID appoint that incompetent. But it was the FEMA infrastructure bureacracy that did the real damage.

Any organization has to rely on its middle managers and ground troops to carry out the tactical part. They screwed up as many times as they did right, blocking supplies to some areas, putting supplies and trailers where they werent needed. A HUGE pile of crap.

But that wasnt news... this happened after Hurricane Andrew and several other times in Florida.... instead of blaming it on Bush, why not recognize Federal programs for what they are?

I hate to bring it up but there was a simulation of exactly the situation that Katrina caused. Federal and Locals were in on the plan.

1. Nagin TOTALLY blew his part. He had no control over evac, the police or anything else but his own sound bites. Remember the school buses?

2. Blanco based her decisions on action on how it would look politically... thus 24 crucial hours before FEMA was even allowed to get started .. and IIRC NAtional Guard mobilization.

THAT was critical because it affected evac and evac routes...remember the towns who wouldnt let anyone pass?

3. FEMA is NOT and never has been considered a 'first responder' ALL disaster plans call for locals to plan and execute for the first three days.

See how just tossing off 'Bush's Katrina Debacle' as a glib talking point is dumb?

I have to waste time reacquainting you with inconvenient facts.

 

RE: Is the base fleeing?

If the FEMA middle management and infrastructure is not getting the job done, it is up to their boss to set them straight, just as it is for any organization.

Yes, I do place blame on the Mayor and Governor, but they were elected to their offices, and not on a platform of Emergency Preparedness. FEMA, OTOH, is composed of hired and appointed workers and officials, and has a far narrower scope than a Governor or Mayor, and as such should be held to a higher standard of competance. If Bush would have appointed someone competant, things might now have been much better, but we would have at least seen honest concerted effort and informative communication.

Sorry, but you appoint your cronies to the under-secretary of transportation, NOT as the director of FEMA. For that post, you should ignore politics and just appoint the best person for the job.