March 04, 2007
Mitt Romney was the winner of the CPAC straw poll but it was Giuliani's second place showing that was the story of the day. Kathryn Jean Lopez, the biggest Mitt Romney fan anywhere, writes:
Rudy Giuliani may have been the real winner of this thing though — that he did as well as he did with a self-identified conservative crowd. His speech had both an overarching theme and great moments — that frankly surpassed anyone else at one moment in particular. No one but Giuliani can give the defense of the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance that he did — comparing it to prosecuting the mafia. But I also had the sense he didn't put a tremendous effort into his appearance — whereas Romney and Brownback had both people and signs, there were no Giuliani signs — and I even had the sense his speech was half-hearted, maybe because of fatigue. Imagine had he put in a full-fledged effort. That said, there would have been something off-putting about Rudy winning a conservative straw poll. But coming in second, without bussing anyone in — that's not nothing.
No, it's not nothing. It is, in fact, very much something. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe conservatives will indeed decide that they can live with a pro-choice presidential candidate that has Rudy's personal history and various not-so-conservative positions. In exchange they'd get a rock star, a straight-talking, decisive leader. Or, maybe, anyone that hangs out with Philip Klein for 2 days will have little choice than to be convinced that Rudy can win. Maybe.
Still, for all the "I love Rudy" coming out of CPAC, I heard an awful lot of hope that some other candidate will emerge, in this long run-up to '08, that will be both inspiring and conservative. I also heard a lot of people say they are pro-life but would vote for Rudy. When pressed if they would vote for him in the primary, many backtracked. And my personal barometer for movement conservatism, Alex, said that he would vote for Hillary, if Rudy is the Republican nominee, because he doesn't believe the pro-life movement can sustain a pro-choice Republican president.
I don't know. I was encouraged toward Rudy after this weekend, no doubt about it. But in a year, when Mitt Romney or John McCain is the nominee, I feel like I will look back at this CPAC as the weekend I started sipping that kool-aid and ultimately got my heart broken. It was hard not to get caught up in Rudy-mania. I am still trying to resist.
Posted by Karol at March 4, 2007 07:00 PM
Technorati Tags: Rudy+Giuliani Mitt+Romney John+McCain CPAC
So a group on nuts, brownshirts, and chuckies for jesus get together and proclaim a guy who supports abortion and openly kept a mistress in the mansion comes in a close second to a nitwit from a cult that believes in magic underware. Wow, that's real conservative news.
There was a clip of Romney on Meet the Press this morning, talking about all of the things that Giuliani believes in that are contrary to conservative ideas. Excuse me Mr. Romney, at least he has a spine, and won't shift his opinions based on the political winds of the day.
I recommended the former NSA boss Hayden
to the U.S. senate confirmation hearings.
First presupposition is that we know that there are Foundations and Institutions as the "Condi Rice Foundation" and second presupposition is that they have celebrations or "jubilees" to such Institutions from times to times as it was the case on the 31st december 2006. Anyway. In the Central European Time evening (CET) - it may be afternoon alsewhere as in the U.S. - during a radio transmitted "Condi Rice Foundation celebration" I was listening Condi Rice saying that the Iraqi war is illegal[ date 31st december 2006( an easy sylvestermarker and last day of that
year )]. To minimize the internal damage of such a conflicting statement of[f]\to the Foreign Affairs
Secretary Condi Rice with the overall bigPolitical directive and official position of the co-current administration it fits perfectly that Condi could
have taken as a "NASA-shuttle teflon heat shield"
shelter against external and internal critics the direct insinuations from Dick Cheney with a clear accoustic zionistic and visually jewish name like "Cohen" as a consultant.In the same sense compare
please the following article " Senator Rumsfeld Lieberman…"( Posted now on Sunday 4th March 2007 _1boringoldman_com). Concerning the Jew Lieberman I hasten to add that I was in Connecticut on the net_wires deeply involved to throw out Lieberman.
But Ned Lamont didn't made it against the zionist
Joshua Joseph Jew Lieberman. See the old snow: "Ned Lamont for Senate Official campaign website for Ned Lamont. www_nedlamont_com". Lamont=French .
No one but Giuliani can give the defense of the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance that he did — comparing it to prosecuting the mafia.
This is my problem with Rudy. The Patriot Act and NSA surveillance is in no way, shape, or form akin to prosecuting the mafia. Why?
Because when the FBI prosecuted the Mafiosos, they stayed within the law and didn't use the Valentine's Day Massacre to push through vague, poorly written legistlation that took away civil liberties of honest citizens.
Guiliani likes the idea that the federal government has power just like Bush. That scares the hell out of me, personally, because it's highly possible that he'll try to push more legislation and shenanigans which impinge on his citizen's rights.
I have stated in the past; the GWOT will be the main issue on the minds of both the conservative base and the electorate at large. A Democrat in the White House would be intolerable, especially with the Democrat Congress owning the defeat issue. The wrong conclusions are currently being drawn from last election; the voter base was sick and tired of a Republican Congress acting like Democrats - pork spending, open borders and an appalling lack of leadership (see - Gang of Seven - judges). This stuff, along with an incredible amount of arrogance and an incredible lack of communication from the White House, was the cause of the poor performance in the last election. Someone strong on the GWOT, with the ability to communicate a coherent logic for such, will garner all the support necessary. As I have stated before, a Giuliani candidacy puts new York and New Jersey in the GOP column. How about Pennsylvania? Read this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/pa_still_likes_gop_but_looks_f.html
NY, PA, NJ, TX, FL - all GOP electoral victories?
Conservatives should concentrate on getting the reddest candidates nominated for Congress. That's where the social agenda will be determined.
"March 4, 2007 08:40 PM" and "March 5, 2007 12:53 AM" are written proof that you're making a difference, Karol; when the idjuts and nutjobs start airdropping in, you know you're doing something right.
Back (maybe) on topic, Kathryn Jean Lopez isn't a Romney fan, she's a Romney stalker.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the conventional wisdom really shortchanges the tolerance of the Republican Base. Or maybe to put it another way, it mistakes the Base's concern for character and conviction as some kind of doctrinaire litmus test.
John F. Kennedy won in the south. Ronald Reagan (ex-Democrat, divorced) won in the south. The south will forgive a lot of sins, if it thinks you're the kind of person who will do the right thing when the fecal matter hits the air circulation device.
Rudy has feet of clay that go all the way up to his hips. But his biggest asset (I think) is that he comes across as genuine, and as someone who will take proper care of the Office of President.
Would hard-core Republicans abandon Rudy in a second if the second coming of Ronald Reagan decided to run. Yep. But unless that turns out to be Fred Thompson laying low for a late announcement, it's going to be Rudy.
And if it's not, I'll give you $50 on that bet I never heard back from you on.
I'll have to disagree with Alex's argument that President Rudy would be a blow to the pro-life movement. As Rudy has stated himself, all a president can do is nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court. If he wins and does nominate (and receive confirmation on) conservative justices, that is a victory for the pro-life movement.
We simply cannot afford to be single-issue voters this cycle. We must look at the big picture and the long-term, and grab our electoral victories when we can. Every victory is a chance. Every defeat is, well, defeat.
One thing is absolutely guaranteed - if Hillary or Obama wins, there will be no conservative justices nominated to the USSC for 4 or maybe 8 years. It's that simple. Protest votes are victories for the enemy.
To be blunt Matt, I think conservatives are wary of Rudy for more than just his pro-choice (and, yes, pro-partial birth abortion) record. They are also turned off by backing Mario Cuomo in 94; his record on gun control; his rather sordid personal life; and his coninued campaign in favor of same sex relations. I don't think conservative grumbling about Rudy is single issue.
One of the reasons that Rudy is doing so well right now in the polls is that he is the chief alternative to John McCain. We'll see if that can be maintained for a year (for what it's worth, I think he has a chance since Romney is a flip flopper, Newt is...well Newt, and Brownback is too much an unknown). Rudy is also going to take a few hits. Despite his heroic record, he can't ride to the nomination unscathed (ala ole Rough and Ready over Clay in 1848, Grant over Wade and the Radicals in 1868 and Ike over Bob Taft in '52). We'll see how he does.
You wrote; "To be blunt Matt, I think conservatives are wary of Rudy for more than just his pro-choice (and, yes, pro-partial birth abortion) record."
Von Bek, while your statement may be true, it suggests you misunderstood the impetus for Matt's post.
Matt is responding to Alex's declaration that he will vote for Hillary, rather than Rudy, explicitly because Alex believes a pro-choice Republican would somehow do damage to the pro-life movement.
It's a little unfair of you to criticize Matt for not acknowledging opposition to Rudy regarding issues other than abortion, since it is clear that Matt was specifically addressing Alex Brunt's opposition to Rudy explicitly over abortion.
reply to:"This is my problem with Rudy. The Patriot Act and NSA surveillance is in no way, shape, or form akin to prosecuting the mafia. Why?"( Pokerwolf at March 5, 2007 09:23 AM).
Since Italian fascism and my liaison officers to the descendants of count Ciano and General Kesselring we are in the fight against mafia and the Jewish standing-violonist "Rudy"[Venetia Guilia[ni]] of Adolphe Hitler and Eva Braun.
> Sur "Si c’est un juif" d’Adrien Barrot
par re :BBC reporter Jane Standley (IP:xxx.x3.113.30) le 2 mars 2007 à 14H24
"« d’incident » du 11 Septembre 2001"("Sur "Si c’est un juif"(..)" par Louis Adrien, vendredi 2 mars 2007, Tribune Libre )\WTC7:Deux bureaux avec des lampes brûlantes et l’agent immobilier Silverstein approuve:"Détruisez le Salomon Building"(WTC7) "avec des matières explosives".
par Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sárközy (IP:xxx.x3.113.30) le 5 mars 2007 à 12H15
L’EADS se déplace par l’espace en suivant un ordre calculé de ma mère juive Andrée Mallah.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: Jewish biased BBC & Gangster Larry Silverstein Reply with quote
Jewish biased BBC Video reports WTC7 crash holly 12+x minutes too early.
Jewish biased BBC Morgan & Stanley\Video:Gangster Larry Silverstein "owner" of WTC7: "Blow the Salomon building up".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: WTC7 office(fire) light CUI BONO? reply:THE JEWS Reply with quote
Two offices with burning lamps and the Jewish Real Estate Dealer and Vampire Larry Silverstein agrees to the Fire Brigade:"Pull the implosion trigger and destroy the Salomon Brother building(WTC7) with explosives".
Mat Mil's IP address is out of Austria, and goes to a site that is supposedly a .MIL site (which IIRC is the root domain for U.S. military-related sites). There's almost certainly hidden nastiness there, so have your bug zappers set to "shake and bake" if you want to go digging.
so pro lifers: you're a fireman. you enter the burning bldg. on one end of the burning structure is a petrie dish with four embryos. on the other end, a two year old little girl. there isn't time to save the petrie dish with four embryos and the little girl. you must choose. who do you save? i know, the embryos; right?
that's your answer, "what an idiot" with an exclamination point. ha ha. answer the question dummy. i mean obviously you're one of the, we need a fetus to lead us crowd. seems like the answer would be obvious to you.
Good Day!!! www.alarmingnews.com is one of the best informational websites of its kind. I enjoy reading it every day. I will be back.