It’s About the Future

Archive for the ‘elections’ Category

Rudy is NOT a Republican

Posted by Citizen on October 6, 2007

It is not true that Giuliani is the only candidate who can defeat Clinton. Heaven knows that Clinton would be a unmitigated disaster for America. Giuliani runs a close second. Rather than bore you with my own prose, I propose the following excerpt to explain my position against Giuliani’s positions:

What about America’s Mayor? After the McCain campaign went on life support, conventional wisdom converted from the belief that Republicans would anoint McCain because it was “his turn” to a new and equally irrational faith. The catechism goes something like this: Republicans are probably doomed in 2008. Their only chance lies in swallowing hard and nominating Rudy Giuliani who can, supposedly, compete with Hillary for votes in left-leaning states like New Jersey , New York, Pennsylvania and California.
This argument is a hardy perennial of conventional commentary, and it is utterly inane. You can’t win by appealing to people who won’t vote for you under any imaginable circumstances at the cost of alienating your core supporters. Trading a perfectly good cow for a handful of beans only makes sense in fairy tales.
The Democrat Party was once the dominant political force in American life. It lost that position for two reasons. First, because the electorate discovered that Democrats, beholden as they are to leftist, anti-American supporters, can’t be trusted to defend the country. Second, because voters also discovered that Democrats lacked the strength and the wisdom to defend our culture against all sorts of bizarre social experiment.
Democrats have worked very hard to draw the camouflage nets over their irresponsible attitude toward national defense. Republicans have been extremely timid about exposing it. The point of distinction between Republicans and Democrats which works most strongly in the GOP’s favor is that Republicans fight back when vandals try to deface fundamental social institutions and Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the vandals. Nominating Rudy Giuliani would neutralize this advantage.
With Rudy on the ballot millions of “values voters” would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism’s promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Giuliani’s supporters like to complain about the petulance of “single issue” voters who would ignore their man’s many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giuliani’s supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it’s natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society’s defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn’t understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can’t choose him as their nominee.
But isn’t Rudy so tough on terrorism that voters will flock to him? No, he isn’t. Giuliani has given no indication on the campaign trail that he has an especially clear understanding of our strategic situation. Nor has he given any indication that he will be particularly forceful in dealing with our enemies. Once again, the acid test is what he has to say about dealing with Iran. Rudy flunks that test even more dramatically than Romney does. At least Romney is talking about the subject, however ineptly.
When Giuliani talks about the “War on Terror” he says we need to “stay on offense,” which presupposes that we have been on offense. We haven’t. We have been trying to fight a limited proxy war in Iraq and avoid taking the fight directly to the enemy’s center of gravity. That isn’t offense. It isn’t smart either but that’s another subject for another time.
When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that, one way or another, the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says, as does George W. Bush, that Iran can’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President, he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them.
Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn’t make him a latter-day Patton, or LeMay.

While I can’t equal Mr. Mulhern’s great prose, I can comment that Giuliani is a wolf in a republican toga. Here’s what you get when the toga is misplaced:

  When a National Rifle Association member opposed a ban on assault rifles in 1994, Mr. Giuliani really got annoyed.

“Now the reason why the N.R.A. has lost all credibility is statements like that,” he said. “By definition these are attack weapons. They are used for offense. It really is absolutely astounding that the N.R.A. continues to have influence in areas in which they make no sense at all.”

In 1994, Mr. Giuliani applauded President Bill Clinton for banning assault rifles and urged Congress to enact physical and written tests and stringent background checks for prospective handgun owners. He also saluted the Clinton health care plan as “doing some pretty good things” and boasted that New York offered “universal health care,” not least for illegal immigrants.

“Isn’t it better they get some humane treatment for themselves?” Mr. Giuliani told a caller.

This is the real deal here, the condescension of Clinton bared beneath the roman repubican toga. [easy there big boy, that’s not a misspelling] Giuliani is on the same side as Clinton regarding my guns, abortions, and illegal aliens. To make matters worse, he’s essentially on the same page with Clinton regarding terrorists. Neither one has proffered a policy concept that assures me that the problem will be dealt with correctly FOR AMERICA in the next presidential cycle. Both Clinton and Giuliani are willing to offer the same lies about what they really think to get elected. What’s Republican about that? Yup, I just painted them with the same brush for this very simple reason: I don’t trust either one of them, and I don’t believe either one of them, and I won’t vote for either one of them.

Neither will millions of other right-thinking Americans. We want a real Republican and more, we want a real Conservative too. Believe it..,


Posted in elections, GOP, politics, republican | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Citizen on July 19, 2007

Well, ya gotta see this if you love America, ’cause it’s a sure bet that hclinton does not. She wants to ride ya, she means to ride ya down, she’s out to get you. Like al gore, there seems to be no controlling legal authority. WHAT THE HEY!?!

Trust me, SHE IS OUT TO GET YOU. And the entire corrupt judiciary is aiding and abetting. Pssst, she is a commie, pass it on.

Someone should raise a huge stink over this. This should be thoroughly invested by the controlling legal authority, eh? Be sure to watch the whole flic before joogle pulls it, to aid and abett her crimes..,

Posted in blood-sucking parasites, clinton, commies, communists, elections, hillary, politics, scandals | Leave a Comment »

power to the voters: boycott

Posted by Citizen on June 9, 2007

There IS a way to effect the death of the horrible sham-amnesty bill that is coming back like a bad penny.


Boycott the GOP: set up an escrow account to accept gop donations that we withheld from the politicians. Then disburse those funds directly to the candidates who support the bills we want and defeat the ones we hate.

The clincher? The donors vote for the candidates to support, and the support is given in the proportions voted on. Only donors vote. Only politicians who serve the constituents honestly, as opposed to say, Trust-me Trent, get those funds for their campaign. If we dry up their election funds, we can get rid of them. We could be really magnanimous and do the same favor for the Democrats who help defeat rotten bills. It would be like a tax-payer rebellion, but with more teeth and less dangerous side effects. If we all boycott together we can actually fire the bums and rotate in some less smelly replacements.

What do you think, can you catch a vision of how much fun it will be to actually get into the decision cycle of the scoundrels? This won’t be a PAC or anything other than an escrow account that will drain money out of the election campaigns of the scuzzy politicians and divert it to the few who actually uphold the Constitution and defend Americans against her enemies within and without.

Will you join the fun? Will you use your law degree to set up the boycott and your website design skills to set up the front end and your accounting degree to keep the entire thing above board? It’s the equivalent of a third party candidate, but the third party is WE the PEOPLE.


Think of it as an unfunded mandate, the voters mandate by defunding the overclass. This is rich; finally there’s a way to be heard, the silence will be deafening. Most people take the view that they will just stay home and punish the bleepers, but that just punishes us. The way to punish the bleepers is to defund them AND vote. Just wait for the right candidate and fund that one. Next cycle, if that one has joined the bleepers, defund and fund another. It’s a filtering system..,


Posted in boycott, elections, funding, GOP, politics | Leave a Comment »

something about Rudy

Posted by Citizen on June 1, 2007

There is a ton of palaver on the radio from self proclaimed conservatives who don’t really seem all that conservative to me. Try to follow me on this.

Rudy is running as a Republican for the party presidential nomination. Talkers like Hewitt, Miller, and Hannity are all saying ‘Rudy is my guy’, or words to that effect. At least two of those guys think they are conservatives. But I’ve got questions about that.

He is divorced. And he likes abortions. My question is this: if he is able to blow off two of the catholic church’s biggest no-no’s, then how conservative is that? Conservative means at least abiding by the original set of rules, not modifying them willy-nilly, right?

To get a little further down this road, Rudy wants to steal my guns by violating my second amendment constitutional rights, he wants to steal my money to pay for abortions, and he wants to give his blessings to same-sex relationships, something coincidently also forbidden by church doctrine. What’s my question?

What’s conservative about that? Which plank of the republican party says republicans stand for repudiating my constitutional rights, my human rights, and my moral rights? How is Rudy conserving the republican party platform? The short answer?

He isn’t. He is not a republican. He is a wolf in a republican toga. The really disgusting thing is that three smart guys have never even considered this, much less noticed their own decidedly un-conservative cheering for Giuliani. Not that he is all bad. He says the right words about killing the cold blooded killers ‘over there’.

So what? That does not make him a republican. There are lots of democrat talkers with the same line. That certainly does not make him a conservative.

If Hannity, Miller, & Hewitt think Rudy’s gonna get my vote, and the vote of other actual conservatives, I am very disappointed with them.

That’s what I would say if I could email them without giving up my first born, or get through on the blab line. Rudy’s not a republican, by his own words, and those three talkers aren’t conservative if they think Rudy is a republican. He fits the democrat party platform to a tee, he should be running on his side rather than stinking up ours.

The whole point is, if Rudy can not be trusted to play by the church playbook, or the party platform play book, how on earth can ANYONE trust him with the constitution/bill of rights playbook?

Not me and not my family. I bet there are millions of silent ‘amens’ from the silent majority come election day. Ya think?

I found this great map:


This is how an actual conservative polls. Does anybody seriously think that Guiliani can produce this result? No way, it’s not gonna happen.

Posted in conservatives, elections, GOP, government, politics, republican | 1 Comment »