Redstate

Roberston is not going to endorse Huckabee, because Robertson is a non hypenated conservative

Robertson is not going to endorse Thompson because he is not a good candidate

Robertson is not going to endorse McCain because of campaign finance and the 2000 election battles

Robertson is not going to endorse Romney, well you can figure that one out

So that leaves Rudy. Also, it would make sense for Robertson to endorse someone that "needs" him.

Molon Labe!

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I don't think Pat Robertson ever had marbles.

I'm telling you: Rudy Giuliani is the one thing standing in the way of a President Hillary. I know you don't believe that -- a lot of people don't believe it.

But I'm sure that's what Robertson came to conclude and it's what I've concluded, too. Even if you disagree with our conclusion, it's not hard to see the sense in endorsing him if you do, in fact, conclude this.

On social issues, I disagree more with Giuliani than I agree with him. And that's not unimportant to me. But we just cannot afford a Hillary presidency. If I thought Romney or McCain or even Thompson had a prayer of winning a national election in this climate, I'd support them.

But I don't think that.

Giuliani vs. Clinton
RCP Average: 44.1 48.5
CNN: 45 51
USA TODAY/Gallup: 45 51

McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average: 42.0 47.0
ABC/Wash Post 43 52
Quinnipiac 44 44
Rasmussen 43 44

McCain is AT LEAST as competitive as Rudy vs. Hilary.

National head-to-head polls are virtually meaningless at this stage if you ask me. If you try to nominate a candidate for president based on some kind of perceived "electability", you're playing with fire in my opinion. In 1980, everyone said that the Republicans were comitting political suicide by nominating Ronald Reagan, and that Jimmy Carter would kill him in the general election. Granted, I'm not comparing any of our guys this time around to Reagan, but "electability" is a dangerous reason to nominate someone.

In my view, I want someone who is energetic, telegenic, charismatic, and intelligent. I want someone who has a first-class organization, ability to raise money, and ability to bring all three factions of the conservative movement together.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I agree the polls are meaningless at this juncture, but I also believe McCain is all of those things you listed (except for the ability to raise money, which is troubling). I'm not supporting McCain based on perceived electability of but because I think he is a great leader as well as the other things you list.

Why is "electability" a dangerous reason to nominate somebody? That's a commonly held belief. But I fail to see the reason in it.

Usually, people will point to John Kerry when I ask them this...because it was widely perceived that Iowa Democrats settled on Kerry as the most electable of the bunch.

Kerry goes on to lose and, ergo, nominating somebody because of electability is ill-advised.

But, the thing is, Kerry probably was the most electable of the Dems running for president in '04. And that's a sad reflection on that field of candidates (Bush was vulnerable). But it doesn't necessarily speak ill of the strategy.

Kerry gave them a fighting chance. Dean or Clark or Edwards would've gotten smoked.

Moreover, there isn't a candidate in the GOP field that can unify all the conservative subsets. McCain's spent the better part of the last decade burning as many bridges as he could find with the conservative movement -- to the point of becoming a frequent spoof victim on Rush Limbaugh's show. Few people are buying all of Romney's transformations. Thompson's campaign has just been a mess since the day it was learned it may happen.

There is no unity candidate there. And, moreover, we're going to have to be able to successfully reach beyond the Republican base in this election if we're to have a shot. It's been said time and again: the Republican brand is in tatters nationally. We need somebody who can transcend our party, while also holding on to the party.

Can Rudy do the latter? I don't know. I hope so -- I hope we conservatives aren't so fatally stupid as to abandon the party because of a few policy differences.

Look, I'll support whomever the Republican nominee is. But I still stand by my contention that there really are only two people out there who have a realistic shot at the Oval Office. Frankly, I wish it weren't the case. But I think it is.

I can already picture DNC ads making a mockery of Rudy's very public and bitter divorce. Then they will have their surrogates out there trashing his family and touting how his daughter supports Obama and how his son won't even talk to him. With that kind of stuff out there, you can kiss the female-vote and a large part of the social conservative vote goodbye (Pat Robertsons' endorsement notwithstanding).

I think that will be a disgustingly negative ad campaign, and I disagree with it, but it will happen and the chips will fall where they will.

Although I am not supporting Rudy in the primary, I will gladly pull the lever for him in the general.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...not end up being much of an issue.

It might in any other cycle. But, in this cycle, he'd be running against Hillary Clinton. And the last thing the Clintons would want out of the '08 campaign is to make it into a contest to see who has the most skeletons in their closet.

I don't doubt that they'd try to get that stuff out there subtly. They'd be stupid not to. But it can't be made a major issue of -- because the Clintons would be the emperors without any clothes (almost literally) living in a glass White House.

No, the problem with Rudy's candidacy is and always has been his social stances. There are a lot of voters out there who just don't go much beyond abortion or gun control to determine their vote (or lack thereof).

He would have to make up what he loses there in other voting demographics. I don't know if he could that -- but I suspect he could...because I think there are a lot of people out there, not in the conservative movement, who really don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton and would be happy to find an alternative they could live with.

your pessimism, which you haven't done a lot to justify. Yes, Republicans have lost a lot of the foreign policy credentials that made the White House easy. But have you seen what the Democrats are stuck with?

Fred, Romney, Hunter, and even McCain are all unity candidates. Not everybody likes all of them, but they all offer every faction in the party something substantial. That's all you need to get a vote against Hillary. And I think they're all electable, though some are admittedly more difficult than others. Hillary is vastly overrated, as her most recent troubles show.

A good chunk of the support I see for Rudy is the triumph of hope over record: the expectation that for some reason, Rudy's going to govern much more conservatively than he did in NYC. I don't think Pat Robertson is immune to that; I've never had much confidence in his political judgement.

You said what I've been trying to say lately, only much more eloquently than I could have.

I know she's a problematic candidate for the Dems. I've never said anything but. Anybody as widely and well known as she is coming in with disapproval numbers in the 50% range is going to have difficulty.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the problem the Republican candidate, whoever he may be, will have is that little "R" by his name. Michael Steele was right when he said that it was a scarlet letter in '06. And the generic numbers, between the parties, hasn't improved for us (in fact, it's gotten worse) since last November.

The problem the Democrats have is that they have to name their candidate -- that it can't just be "Democratic Candidate" on the ballot. And that problem is compounded by the fact that the candidate will likely be somebody with sky-high negatives.

So, it's not so much her that we're fighting. It's other things: the generic gap between the parties, Bush's unpopularity, the fact that we've had the WH for 8 years, a Congress and Governorship matrix that's trending away from us, etc.

We have to have somebody who can overcome all those things, which are very real problems for Republicans this cycle. And I just don't think any of those other guys are up to the task. I think they'd be surefire losers.

I'm also not surprised by the Brownback endorsement. In addition to the reasons you cite, there's always the chance that personal ties play a role. McCain and Brownback have served a long time together in the Senate and I expect Brownback has a lot more confidence in McCain's character than any of the others.

As for Robertson, I'm with you. He's never been one of the religious right leaders that I've been impressed with.

I'm suspicious of Rudy, even on judges--but he has reassured me enough that I think we'll get no worse than an even split on judges (as under Bush I)--like one Souter-type balanced by one Thomas-type.

But with a new President Clinton, she'll replace Scalia with a radical--who'll deny the Constitution protects conservatives' freedom of association and impose a radical definition of marriage across the nation.

And if we have to endure two terms of a President Clinton--the new Roe v. Wade decision on marriage is VERY likely.

So I've changed my mind. A few months ago I said I wouldn't vote for Rudy in the general election. I will now (but I'll still have a hard time convincing my pro-life, fiscally-liberal friends and family to do the same).

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Who are the justices who will probably be replaced in the next few years?

The two most likely candidates are Stevens and RB Ginsburg. Barring something unforeseen (such as the Roberts health scare earlier this year), it's probably limited to them. Scalia's getting up there in age, too. So there's a chance he could be a third.

Assuming Scalia can hold out through the next four years, then I think this very next pick (ostensibly for Stevens) can be the one which tips the scales on Roe.

Now, we're not going to be getting a Roberts/Scalia/Alito type on the court in the next Congressional term. We probably wouldn't be able to get one on there in this term, if the opportunity arose. And chances are almost certain that the Senate will be more blue next term than it is this term.

Do you realize how impactful even another swing vote type judge would be on the court? Right now, basically every contentious decision comes down to Anthony Kennedy. There are 4 solid conservatives (for lack of a better term) and 4 solid liberals (for same) on the court. If it went to 4 solid conservatives, 3 solid liberals, and 2 wildcards, I think that would be a huge step in the right direction.

I know we all dream of replacing one of those solid liberals with a solid conservative. But it's probably not in the cards, anyway. And, unless you think a President Giuliani would go up there and nominate Stevens and Souter types (I don't), then the reality is that we'd probably get roughly the same judges through with him than we would with any other Republican President.

If Ted Olson has faith in Giuliani's judgment on judges, I see no reason why I shouldn't. Olson's as good as they come.

of our immigration laws ans the silencing of political speech become conservative principals?

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

I also supported Brownback. McCain is definitely under consideration for my vote, along with Thompson and Huckabee.

Two Senate seats we'd lose, depending on those state's replacement laws. Not sure we can afford that.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

1) Use reply to this.

2) What do you mean we'd be losing Brownback in 2010 anyway? Yes, McCain and Brownback are both up in 2010, but there's a big difference from a seat being up, and Democratic governors getting to name a replacement, no?

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

Brownback is up and has decided not to see relection he is term limited. We have shown in the past in KS is is possible to regain a seat appointed by a Dem. so it should be easier to win there. Brownback won an election against someone who was appointed by a Dem.

But the Democrats currently have 51 senators. If they pick up a few more this cycle, which seems somewhat probable, then we give them two years where they have Democrats in the McCain and Brownback seats (assuming we win). How are McCain and Brownback going to accomplish anything with perhaps 56 or 57 Democrats aligned against them?

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

is officially nuts and in the "Fred Phelps" wing of crazies. Remember his statements about how the US deserved 9/11 because we are soft on gay rights?

If I was Rudy I wouldn't want this endorsement. It won't take long for the media to start replaying all Robertson's greatest hits and asking Rudy if he agrees.

his first marraige was annulled by the CATHOLIC Church I had one annulled also back in the 19080's i know what i'm talking about,

Way too many Democrats in Virginia to ever take the man seriously again.

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

"I like all the Republicans running, I really do, I think all of them will be better than Hillary, but get out! I mean, Pat Robertson is endorsing Giuliani, because what, he thinks that…I get it, here it is: you’re standing up for social conservatism because you, Pat Robertson, believe that if Giuliani gets the nomination, you see the train going down the track, the pro-Giuliani train, you want to hop on board because you think you’re going to be riding on that train until what? The glory days? Here’s my view: get ready to be thrown off that train at 65 miles an hour because that’s what’s going to happen to Pat Robertson. That’s my view."

Yah, either that, or, like he said, he believes Giuliani on Judges, and thinks that the fight against Islamofacism is the most important item on the agenda and that Rudy is the best to deal with it, and that he's best situated to win.

Good greif, Laura needs to grow up. Even if she disagrees, that's a perfectly rational reason for endorsing him, even from a pro-life point of view.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

But who favors denying equal rights to homosexuals?

HTML Help for Red Staters

but it does seem as though his advocacy (see his denial of a parade permit to a Catholic organization that would not allow homosexuals to participate in their parade) is out of step with the traditional conservative stance. (Which has been a "live and let live just don't let me know about" approach at best.)

Not that I endorse this, I could care less about one's sexual orientation.

I mean, seeing as how you don't care and everything, it's downright odd at the way that you tried to make sure that "traditional conservatives" were aware. It's almost as if you were willing to use perceived anti-gay bigotry to push a particular political agenda.

But you wouldn't be doing that, would you? We ban people who try to incite bigotry, whether it be directly or indirectly. So why don't you clarify - and, not incidentally, retract your clumsy misstatements?

Next post, please.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I just didn't want to leave anyone with the impression that I, as a conservative, was a bigot.

The point I was trying to get across is that I don't see a lot of difference between Rudy and insert generic democrats name here on a lot of issues. If you notice, I only defended that point in response to Neil, not because of any hidden agenda. Had Neil not posted his response, I wouldn't have felt the need to clarify!

Perhaps you should put down the bong, and your paranoia will subside.

I'm sure, based on your threat to ban me, that the above statement will get me banned.

The anger in your reply is disturbing. I found this site yesterday when searching Google about Robertson's endorsement, and it's probably the last time I'll visit if every post I make will be scrutinized for hidden messages.

You and the rest of the conspiracy theorists should get together and figure out how GWB is responsible for 9/11.

I'm sure I can find camaraderie with less reactionary/paranoid conservatives elsewhere.

I've already requested that my account be deleted. It's people with attitudes like Moe's that perpetuate the myth that you have to be a jerk to be conservative.

Molon Labe!

Maybe you should do a little less "reading into things." And if you don't see any difference between Rudy and Democrats, even on the issues you listed, you clearly have bought the lies the Democrats push trying to make themselves look more "moderate" when in reality they are far-left.

I don't approve of Rudy's positions on a number of those social issues, but I can confidently state that even on those issues he would be better than anybody in the Democrat field.

As for other issues - Rudy is with the GOP on size of government issues, defense issues, tax issues, the importance of fiscal restraint, law & order, social program (welfare, MEdicaid, etc.) reform and efficiency. Rudy is a "Republican" on everything EXCEPT the 4 issues that everyone always seem to think are the be-all and end-all of the Republican platform (gays, guns, and abortion). And, I don't see any reason to call Rudy more liberal on immigration than a number of Republican elected officials who also believed in a "comprehensive plan." You seem to define Republicanism too narrowly.

When you sited the fact Rudy is not more liberal than any of the other candidates on immigration. It's as if the whole party is moving to the left. I dont' mean to oversimplify, I'm just starting to see less and less of a difference between "us and them". Whether it's the massive spending that we had when we had control, or the fact that none of them will take a hard line on immigration, I don't want to hold my nose while I vote, or skip the presidential election altogether because both candidates are so far askew from my beliefs that I couldn't in good conscience vote for either one.

Incidentally, I had the opportunity to sit in on a conference call town meeting with my congressional rep recently, and 80%+ of the questions were on immigration. This is probably skewed because I am in TX.

I'll consider this post my swan song on redstate...

that is what good trolls do. they say outlandish things to hurt people here, then they come back by being "reasonable". I read your book you magnificent bastard!

Molon Labe!

He's asking for it in word, deed and attitude. Therefore, don't let him have it!

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

...but if you're trying to find less paranoid "conservatives," why in the heck were you pimping for Ron Paul?

Oh, don't worry: we subscribe to Online Integrity, so your real identity's perfectly safe. Unless you do something really trollish, like come back after you've been tossed for gay-baiting. OI doesn't apply then, Sparky.

Now scram.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!