Rudy One and Done

[RunInRed 16,488]

Looks like it's McCain for the Repubs. Can JM beat Hil or BO?

My favorite Rudy moment of the entire campaign...who can forget this classic:

[AURaptor 1,126]

gop voters just handed the nation over to the Libs.

Way to go.

[GalensGhost 0]

People are idiots. Nothing more needs to be said.

Sad day for America. This country gets dumber and dumber by the day.

[otterinbham 0]

Looks like it's McCain for the Repubs. Can JM beat Hil or BO?

I think McCain can take either. Hillary is seriously damaged goods at this point, and she's looking forward to a bruising fight for the nomination. If Bill has to rescue her too many more times, the public is going to look at Hillary and say, "What the heck do we need her for?"

Obama is a harder nut to crack. That being said, McCain is the mirror image of Obama in a lot of ways. He appears the soul of reason, not a hard-bitten demagogue, and not apparently in anybody's pocket. At the same time, McCain has had several Senate terms under his belt as compared to Obama's four years. I think the issue of inexperience will come into sharp focus later on.

So McCain is probably the worst-case scenario for Obama. If the GOP had nominated Huckabee or Giuliani, Obama would have wiped the floor with both. Romney is basically John Kerry Redux.

And, Raptor, I would argue that the Republican Party destroyed itself, and it actually handed the nation over to the Libs when Bush took the oath of office in 2001 without even knowing it, given his big government predilictions. Stupid, stupid, stupid, short-sighted thinking in its legislative thinking, and a willingness to rob the future with huge new entitlement programs that exceeded even the Democrat's wildest dreams. With more losses in Congress probable (but not a sure thing at this point, given the Democrat's current incompetence in both the House and the Senate) McCain's the GOP's best shot at 2008 not being a total loss.

[RunInRed 16,488]

People are idiots. Nothing more needs to be said.

Sad day for America. This country gets dumber and dumber by the day.

If Rudy was so smart, why did he employ such a dumb campaign strategy? He made his bed.

[otterinbham 0]

People are idiots. Nothing more needs to be said.

Sad day for America. This country gets dumber and dumber by the day.

If Rudy was so smart, why did he employ such a dumb campaign strategy? He made his bed.

No kidding. He was front runner back in the fall and just utterly squandered it. So blame Giuliani for blowing his first class opportunity.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Rudy's big mistakes:

1. Thumbing his nose at social conservatives by not adhering to the GOP platform on issues like abortion. The message that came through was: social conservatives will take whoever we throw at them. After all, where else do they have to go? Well, I'll tell you: we can vote for other candidates or not show up at all to remind you that our votes shouldn't be taken for granted. File this lesson away for future use.

2. Putting all his eggs in the Florida basket, allowing alternately Huckabee, Romney and McCain to have all the free media coverage early on. Is this the kind of keen strategery and superior wisdom we'd be getting from President Giuliani?

No thanks.

[GalensGhost 0]

People are idiots. Nothing more needs to be said.

Sad day for America. This country gets dumber and dumber by the day.

If Rudy was so smart, why did he employ such a dumb campaign strategy? He made his bed.

Agree totally.

Critical tactical error. But I HAAAATE that politics is like a war now. Rudy looked at the numbers, believed his support was strong and decided he could afford to wait out the early primaries without eroding that base. Miscalculation.

But that's what pisses me off. It isn't that people rejected Rudy's message. It isn't that his stances -- the stances that vaulted him well to the front of the pack -- changed. It wasn't that people decided he wouldn't be a good president or disagreed with his values. No, what happened was that people are dumb ass sheep. They are bandwagon jumpers. Rudy -- by virtue of ignoring the early primaries -- had no rolling bandwagon. And the idiot sheep started running around in circles. If he'd won Florida as he assumed he would, the bandwagon would have cranked back up and the sheep would have piled back on.

The primary system sucks. Absolutely sucks. Sucks beyond human comprehension.

I cannot vote for McCain, a democrat in republican's clothing. I cannot vote for either Clinton or Obama, neither of whom have done anything of consequence in their shallow lives. I guess I will move to Australia.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

See, I don't think his stances, outside of the War on Terror, vaulted him to the front. I think his was just the name with the most star power, people liked his leadership on 9/11 and the aftermath and felt that running a city like NY and reducing crime rates probably was good preparation for the presidency. Couple that with an utter lack of star power outside of him in the early days of this campaign season and he more or less got the frontrunner status by default.

Hell, star power alone catapulted Thompson to the front even though he had yet to officially enter the race. But once he got to actually campaigning and participating and people examined him more closely, they weren't overwhelmed. I think a similar thing happened to Giuliani. He vaulted to the front on name and reputation, but once people really started examining his positions and listened to him, they realized that perhaps they didn't agree with him as much as much as they thought they might. And he wasn't adding anything new beyond his experience in NY and 9/11 that made them think he had bold ideas on pressing issues.

So as the primaries got going, there was some bandwagon stuff to be sure, but also I knew a lot of people who had no idea about his stance on social issues early on. As they started examining him vs the other candidates on things that mattered to them in that regard, Rudy became much less of a viable option unless he somehow made it to the general election against Hillary. And even then it would have been tough for them.

[autigeremt 6,714]

I can vote for McCain because I see him having the ability to reach out and get some things done in many areas. Yes, he concerns me a little on some of the issues, but he will make an honorable commander in chief. I like his fire that he brings, and he seems steadfast in what he believes. I'm a moderate conservative, and John remsembles a more moderate approach. I do not like Romnney, and Huck is too far behind to be a true contender. I would rather have McCain win the presidency than Obama or Billary.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I think my choices now, in order, would probably be:

1. McCain

2. Obama

3. Romney

I can't even stomach to list Hillary as an option. She would just be what we got stuck/afflicted with if the others somehow fell through.

[RunInRed 16,488]

I think my choices now, in order, would probably be:

1. McCain

2. Obama

3. Romney

I can't even stomach to list Hillary as an option. She would just be what we got stuck/afflicted with if the others somehow fell through.

Titan - I'm curious, what's your disagreements with Obama? Is it just philosophy, ideology or something he's done personally?

FWIW my list:

1) Obama

2) McCain

3) Please don't let it come to this choice

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'm more fiscally conservative regarding taxes and social programs than Obama is. But I could get past that. My main issue is on social and moral issues. Abortion is a big deal to me and tends to be a deal breaker. It doesn't have to be a top-down legislative approach, but if not, you need to have detailed plans to severely reduce abortions in other ways.

And you need to be talking about abolishing them at least at the point of viability.

And you cannot be against a measure banning sticking scissors in a viable baby's brain.

Basically, I see Obama as a decent, likeable, principled person who has embraced some very evil principles along with a number of good ones. The "decent, likeable and principled" part puts him over Romney because though Romney espoused positions closer to my own, I don't trust that he's being honest about his change of heart and see him similar to Hillary: he'll say anything to win.

[RunInRed 16,488]

I'm more fiscally conservative regarding taxes and social programs than Obama is. But I could get past that. My main issue is on social and moral issues. Abortion is a big deal to me and tends to be a deal breaker. It doesn't have to be a top-down legislative approach, but if not, you need to have detailed plans to severely reduce abortions in other ways.

And you need to be talking about abolishing them at least at the point of viability.

And you cannot be against a measure banning sticking scissors in a viable baby's brain.

Basically, I see Obama as a decent, likeable, principled person who has embraced some very evil principles I disagree with along with a number of good ones. The "decent, likeable and principled" part puts him over Romney because though Romney espoused positions closer to my own, I don't trust that he's being honest about his change of heart and see him similar to Hillary: he'll say anything to win.

Interesting.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'm more fiscally conservative regarding taxes and social programs than Obama is. But I could get past that. My main issue is on social and moral issues. Abortion is a big deal to me and tends to be a deal breaker. It doesn't have to be a top-down legislative approach, but if not, you need to have detailed plans to severely reduce abortions in other ways.

And you need to be talking about abolishing them at least at the point of viability.

And you cannot be against a measure banning sticking scissors in a viable baby's brain.

Basically, I see Obama as a decent, likeable, principled person who has embraced some very evil principles I disagree with along with a number of good ones. The "decent, likeable and principled" part puts him over Romney because though Romney espoused positions closer to my own, I don't trust that he's being honest about his change of heart and see him similar to Hillary: he'll say anything to win.

Interesting.

Look, I like you rir, but don't restate my words. You asked me what keeps me from supporting Obama and I told you my perspective. Had I meant "things I disagree with" I would have phrased it that way. I disagree with him on fiscal policy. I don't regard his fiscal positions as evil, just different than mine.

Abortion is another issue and if you're going to tell me that supporting the legality of a procedure as brutal and needless as partial birth abortion is merely is not evil, then we're going to fight for a long time. My statement stands.

[RunInRed 16,488]

Fair. But your sensitivity is unwarranted. You are passionate about abortion - interesting and fine with me. And no, I don't really care to have this debate with you because honestly, for me, abortion is just not that big of a voting issue and certainly not a litmus test. I find it to be a political wedge that is usually used by the evangelicals to rally the base.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Fair. But your sensitivity is unwarranted. You are passionate about abortion - interesting and fine with me. And no, I don't really care to have this debate with you because honestly, for me, abortion is just not that big of a voting issue and certainly not a litmus test. I find it to be a political wedge that is usually used by the evangelicals to rally the base.

Well obviously I disagree. I think "wedge issue" is how liberals like to frame it to marginalize the deep, heartfelt importance that life and human rights issues of this sort have in evangelicals and other social conservatives. That makes it easy to sideline the issue as a side concern that's not on the same level as fiscal or foreign policy, which is nothing more than rhetorical sleight of hand in my view.

I also dislike the "litmus test" wording...as if those who believe that traveling 9 inches down a vagina shouldn't be the magical formula for determining whether or not you're a person deserving of basic human rights are being unreasonable or not giving other important issues any consideration at all. Or as if other groups don't have their litmus tests. For instance, many if not the vast majority of Democrats would not vote for someone who opposed Roe. That's their litmus test. For others, their litmus test is support for the war in Iraq. I could name a dozen or more different key issues that will essentially strike a candidate from various groups' lists and they fall on both sides of the Republican/Democrat line. Why my particular key issue should be marginalized while others are ignored or even affirmed is puzzling.

I see it as indicative of someone's overall philosophy of standing up for the weakest and most powerless. I don't look at it as a wedge issue, just something that I rank rather highly when deciding who has the overall worldview and philosophy of life that I want to support. I don't view it in isolation from other issues and I don't necessarily view it only as "striking down Roe v. Wade."

I think being pro-life is more than just your take on legislative approaches to abortion, so if someone said that they didn't support striking it down altogether but they demonstrated several concrete plans to severely restrict it after viability (currently around 20-24 weeks), make choosing adoption much easier for both the pregnant woman and adoptive parents, help women that make a mistake and get pregnant not have to choose between having the child and dropping out of school or being consigned to low paying jobs forever or aborting it and "freeing themselves" up to have a more prosperous existence and other such measures, I'd take that into consideration.

But to vote 100% lockstep with the NOW/Planned Parenthood wing of the debate troubles me greatly.

[autigeremt 6,714]

"I find it to be a political wedge that is usually used by the evangelicals to rally the base."

I think it's more than political! That's why it persists today. Through all the bickering and name calling and ect. over the years, it continues to endure a "right or wrong" approach by most Americans. I think, in most cases it's wrong. However, as a conservative (moderate on most issues) I think it's hard to deter the rights of the individual. The government has an obligation to step in once a child has reached the mid point of the second trimester, in my opinion. But it's hard to deny the right of the individual prior to that. If rape or incest is involved, then ALL BETS ARE OFF. A woman should have the right to abort something that she did not consent to!

My opinion. Worthless as it may be.

[AU alum 2]

People are idiots. Nothing more needs to be said.

Sad day for America. This country gets dumber and dumber by the day.

If Rudy was so smart, why did he employ such a dumb campaign strategy? He made his bed.

Agree totally.

Critical tactical error. But I HAAAATE that politics is like a war now. Rudy looked at the numbers, believed his support was strong and decided he could afford to wait out the early primaries without eroding that base. Miscalculation.

But that's what pisses me off. It isn't that people rejected Rudy's message. It isn't that his stances -- the stances that vaulted him well to the front of the pack -- changed. It wasn't that people decided he wouldn't be a good president or disagreed with his values. No, what happened was that people are dumb ass sheep. They are bandwagon jumpers. Rudy -- by virtue of ignoring the early primaries -- had no rolling bandwagon. And the idiot sheep started running around in circles. If he'd won Florida as he assumed he would, the bandwagon would have cranked back up and the sheep would have piled back on.

The primary system sucks. Absolutely sucks. Sucks beyond human comprehension.

I cannot vote for McCain, a democrat in republican's clothing. I cannot vote for either Clinton or Obama, neither of whom have done anything of consequence in their shallow lives. I guess I will move to Australia.

I can't vote for McCain, either. If it comes down to McCain and either of the dems, I won't vote. I don't understand something, and hope that somebody on here can enlighten me. Why in the world is Rudy endorsing McCain? Did I miss something here? I thought they were very different, or possibly is McCain promising him something (like the vice-presidency?)?

[Tiger Al 0]

Fair. But your sensitivity is unwarranted. You are passionate about abortion - interesting and fine with me. And no, I don't really care to have this debate with you because honestly, for me, abortion is just not that big of a voting issue and certainly not a litmus test. I find it to be a political wedge that is usually used by the evangelicals to rally the base.

Well obviously I disagree. I think "wedge issue" is how liberals like to frame it to marginalize the deep, heartfelt importance that life and human rights issues of this sort have in evangelicals and other social conservatives. That makes it easy to sideline the issue as a side concern that's not on the same level as fiscal or foreign policy, which is nothing more than rhetorical sleight of hand in my view.

I see it as indicative of someone's overall philosophy of standing up for the weakest and most powerless. I don't look at it as a wedge issue, just something that I rank rather highly when deciding who has the overall worldview and philosophy of life that I want to support. I don't view it in isolation from other issues and I don't necessarily view it only as "striking down Roe v. Wade."

I think being pro-life is more than just your take on legislative approaches to abortion, so if someone said that they didn't support striking it down altogether but they demonstrated several concrete plans to restrict it after viability (currently around 20-24 weeks), make choosing adoption much easier for both the pregnant woman and adoptive parents, help women that make a mistake and get pregnant not have to choose between having the child and dropping out of school or being consigned to low paying jobs forever or aborting it and "freeing themselves" up to have a more prosperous existence and other such measures, I'd take that into consideration.

But to vote 100% lockstep with the NOW/Planned Parenthood wing of the debate troubles me greatly.

Where does your ideal candidate stand on family planning issues? Is sex-ed in junior high or high school allowed? Would they only be taught 'abstinence-only' curriculum? Should they have access to birth control as well as instruction on how to use it?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that most 'pro-life' supporters ignore, by and large, any meaningful pre-pregnancy conversation beyond abstinence-only and once a pregnancy occurs it seems to be, "It's your mistake, now live with it."

Is there any middle ground?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Where does your ideal candidate stand on family planning issues? Is sex-ed in junior high or high school allowed? Would they only be taught 'abstinence-only' curriculum? Should they have access to birth control as well as instruction on how to use it?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that most 'pro-life' supporters ignore, by and large, any meaningful pre-pregnancy conversation beyond abstinence-only and once a pregnancy occurs it seems to be, "It's your mistake, now live with it."

Is there any middle ground?

I honestly struggle with this. I could allow some kind of basic sex-ed in junior high or high school. But I'd be reluctant to allow them to pass out birth control pills or condoms at school. Perhaps instead of offering one or the other they could offer two courses. Parents could decide which one their kid goes to: one that emphasizes abstinence-only and encourages kids to wait until marriage to have sex and one that discusses all the options and such.

And of course, as I mentioned above, I'm definitely not in the "your mistake now live with it" camp. I think pro-life has to extend beyond the singular issue of abortion. Most women get abortions for reasons of support, both emotional and financial and if you're going to get them to stop aborting children, you need to show them some hope that having a baby isn't going to permanently derail any hope of them having a decent life. You've just got to acknowledge that and ask yourself what's most important to you: winning a legislative battle on Roe or saving kids?

[Tiger Al 0]

Where does your ideal candidate stand on family planning issues? Is sex-ed in junior high or high school allowed? Would they only be taught 'abstinence-only' curriculum? Should they have access to birth control as well as instruction on how to use it?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that most 'pro-life' supporters ignore, by and large, any meaningful pre-pregnancy conversation beyond abstinence-only and once a pregnancy occurs it seems to be, "It's your mistake, now live with it."

Is there any middle ground?

I honestly struggle with this. I could allow some kind of basic sex-ed in junior high or high school. But I'd be reluctant to allow them to pass out birth control pills or condoms at school. Perhaps instead of offering one or the other they could offer two courses. Parents could decide which one their kid goes to: one that emphasizes abstinence-only and encourages kids to wait until marriage to have sex and one that discusses all the options and such.

And of course, as I mentioned above, I'm definitely not in the "your mistake now live with it" camp. I think pro-life has to extend beyond the singular issue of abortion. Most women get abortions for reasons of support, both emotional and financial and if you're going to get them to stop aborting children, you need to show them some hope that having a baby isn't going to permanently derail any hope of them having a decent life. You've just got to acknowledge that and ask yourself what's most important to you: winning a legislative battle on Roe or saving kids?

I don't think it has to be, or should be, an either/or proposition. Abstinence is guaranteed to not produce a baby and pretty good at keeping STD's minimized. It's great to start every conversation with kids from that position. However, if you're going to be realistic with yourself and the kids, you must also acknowledge that pre-marital sex happens and prepare/equip them for that possibility, too. I don't think that by doing that you're giving a wink and a nod to having sex any more than wearing seatbelts is an excuse to drive recklessly and the knowledge gleened will probably prevent many unwanted pregnancies and their associated problems. Maybe?

[mowegl 4]

Rudy's big mistakes:

1. Thumbing his nose at social conservatives by not adhering to the GOP platform on issues like abortion. The message that came through was: social conservatives will take whoever we throw at them. After all, where else do they have to go? Well, I'll tell you: we can vote for other candidates or not show up at all to remind you that our votes shouldn't be taken for granted. File this lesson away for future use.

2. Putting all his eggs in the Florida basket, allowing alternately Huckabee, Romney and McCain to have all the free media coverage early on. Is this the kind of keen strategery and superior wisdom we'd be getting from President Giuliani?

No thanks.

Seriously, I didnt even know Giuliani was running until about a week ago. He had no publicity, and the little he got in the last week seemed to be negative. I consider myself a fairly educated guy, and I can guarantee I watch the news, etc. a lot more than the majority of college students. I still didnt know anything about it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Rudy's big mistakes:

1. Thumbing his nose at social conservatives by not adhering to the GOP platform on issues like abortion. The message that came through was: social conservatives will take whoever we throw at them. After all, where else do they have to go? Well, I'll tell you: we can vote for other candidates or not show up at all to remind you that our votes shouldn't be taken for granted. File this lesson away for future use.

2. Putting all his eggs in the Florida basket, allowing alternately Huckabee, Romney and McCain to have all the free media coverage early on. Is this the kind of keen strategery and superior wisdom we'd be getting from President Giuliani?

No thanks.

Seriously, I didnt even know Giuliani was running until about a week ago. He had no publicity, and the little he got in the last week seemed to be negative. I consider myself a fairly educated guy, and I can guarantee I watch the news, etc. a lot more than the majority of college students. I still didnt know anything about it.

Ah, you must watch FoxNews then, huh?

[Tigermike 3,054]

Where does your ideal candidate stand on family planning issues? Is sex-ed in junior high or high school allowed? Would they only be taught 'abstinence-only' curriculum? Should they have access to birth control as well as instruction on how to use it?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that most 'pro-life' supporters ignore, by and large, any meaningful pre-pregnancy conversation beyond abstinence-only and once a pregnancy occurs it seems to be, "It's your mistake, now live with it."

Is there any middle ground?

I honestly struggle with this. I could allow some kind of basic sex-ed in junior high or high school. But I'd be reluctant to allow them to pass out birth control pills or condoms at school. Perhaps instead of offering one or the other they could offer two courses. Parents could decide which one their kid goes to: one that emphasizes abstinence-only and encourages kids to wait until marriage to have sex and one that discusses all the options and such.

And of course, as I mentioned above, I'm definitely not in the "your mistake now live with it" camp. I think pro-life has to extend beyond the singular issue of abortion. Most women get abortions for reasons of support, both emotional and financial and if you're going to get them to stop aborting children, you need to show them some hope that having a baby isn't going to permanently derail any hope of them having a decent life. You've just got to acknowledge that and ask yourself what's most important to you: winning a legislative battle on Roe or saving kids?

So when Barrack Obama says, FactCheck: 'Sex Ed for Kindergarten' means 'age-appropriate'. (Jul 2007), does it raise any red flags?