[paradox]

The Rudy spin team has gotten out in front of the social conservative issues and that is a GREAT sign. Finally someone PROactive!! It may be spin but it does make sense. Here is a summary:
Can a President overturn Roe V Wade (Only Boheim in 87 but I digress). NO they can not. They may have the authority to veto a bill, but RvW will go through the courts. So you have to ask yourself "What types of judges would he chose to be on the courts?" His answer = Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (or Alieoto if you are Ted K) How can social conservatives NOT love that answer?
Gun Control - He inforced the laws that were in place in NYC when he got there. He has also said that it would not be a good idea/practical to have the same type of law across America.
Gay Marriage - See abortion.
Personal Life - So social conservatives are going to discount a QUALIFIED presidential contender because they have been divorced? If Jerry tries to hang his hat on THAT one, it would be the height of hypocracy. Plus, who among us does not know a divorced person? Does that make you disqualified for anything? Was he cheating on her? Probably, but who cares. Was she cheating on him? Probably but who cares. How does this affect their ability to govern? At least he isn't lying about it like a former Arkansas favorite sun.

Needless to say, he is getting my vote. If he can turn a crap whole like NYC back into one of the worlds greatest cities (Whose population is greater than a majority of states and small countries) than that bodes well for the mess in Iraq, on the environement, etc. He gets things done. Can any other candidate from EITHER side say that?

(I will hedge my bets and say if Newt runs, I will have to think long and hard about that)

Divorce cannot be an issue here because conservative icon of Ronald Reagan was divorced.

I was not aware of his position on judges. If he is indeed as conservative as you say, then he would be the clear and logical choice for religous conservatives. And don't discount the many Catholic voters out there who tend to be swing voters, but are very capable of building a concensous around Rudy.

It's still kinda early. We'll have to wait and see who emerges within the next 14 months.

[Ed Dantes]

Two words: Mitt Romney

-----

Go to mittromney.com, watch the introduction under Mitt TV. This guy is dead-on, what we need in a President. Maybe Newt Gingrich as Veep, and America is back on track folks. Can you imagine the Conservative Renassance that would take place. Romney's fiscal conservatism and bold approach to economics coupled with his strong support for Judeo-Christian values. Then add Newt's brilliant mind and national experience....wow.

Are you Mitt Romney himself?

Such a glowing endorsement...

Except for the fact that by Romney's "fiscal conservatism" I think you mean "disastrously mandated that everyone in his state have health care, including ones who didn't want to have it because it was too expensive". And by "Judeo-Christian values" I suppose you mean "allowed judicial fiat to permit gay civil unions" and "changed position on abortion around the time he was mulling a presidential run"

and he's a Mormon. Not that that matters or anything, but it does to some people.

[Purple Haize]

OX - He went on Hannity/Colmes to "make his announcement" and that was one of the first questions that was asked. He has gone on to repeat that over and over again.
Good point on the Catholic voters, but let's not leave out the Jewish vote either. Large Jewish population in New York (and Florida) and Rudy has a GREAT track record. Remember he turned down a huge check (10 million?) from a sheik b/c he had anti Jewish remarks all over his past? He has a TON of cred b/c of that.
Forgot about RR being divorced, but that was SOOO long before he ran for Prez that it was sort of moot. Rudy's is more recent, and atad messier. Not that it bothers me at all. Also, Newt has that skeleton in his closet as well, and his was REALLY messy

[dwhite]

Ed,

First of all, because "change" is at the heart of everything I believe, I can accept the fact that a man changes his mind on an issue. In 2002 Romney describes a thought-altering experience in which he met with Harvard staff who were dealing with stem-cells. He describes this as the turning-point in his stance on abortion. Also note that Romney was pro-choice because of an incident that happened within his family, and that it's a very personal issue to him. This hasn't been a recent flip (due to Presidential aspirations as you suggest), rather an evolving view based on real-life experiences.

Secondly, Mitt Romney firmly opposed gay marriage while Governor of Massachusetts. When the Supreme Court of Massachusetts decided in favor of homosexual couples, Romney denounced the decision and fought long on hard prior to the decision in an effort to keep it from happening.

Third, I am sure you understand the premise that all policies will not always benefit all people, and that regardless of age, race, gender, or religion that there will always be a cross-section of individuals who do not like the policies of government. While I agree that healthcare should NOT be mandatory, to provide healthcare to all citizens without raising taxes, and without a complete governement take over speak volumes about Romney's ability to think outside the box and make things happen.

I would also be curious to know why you used quotes to emphasize certain portions of your post...are you pulling them from a McCain talking points memo? (J/K)

No, I am not obsessed with Mitt, nor do I agree with everything that he's done (or said). But I do think that America needs a President who reflects hope and inspires greatness in America again. I was only 4 years old when Ronald Reagan left office, but after immense reading and continual research, reflection and listening to his speeches(Reagan's), I am convinced that Mitt Romney is our best chance to restore the bright hope and future that Ronald Reagan worked so hard for. I would encourage you and everyone else to simply check out his website, and watch his introduction. If while you're watching Ronald Reagan doesn't come to mind, then I dare not say another word about it on these boards. I am confident, however, that if you'll watch the 5 minute video with an open-mind, you'll see what I saw, and though you may not support him for other reasons, you'll see what allure he has to voters.

Thanks.

[paradox]

Haize:

I'm not sure if divorce itself would be made an issue as much as the fact that he is currently on his third marriage. But this too may turn out to be a non-issue in the public eye.

If Rudy maintains his position on conservative judges, he should garner more than enough support from social conservatives.

As far as Newt goes, he may very well be the most profound politician of our time, but the media over-reaction to him borders on acute paranoia. Virtually everything that he says gets sliced, diced, and heavily distorted in the media, and in the same manner as JF. And since the public tends not to be inclined to critical thinking, they'll remain confined to something closer to staus quo.

[Purple Haize]

OX I am so glad you posted that statement about Newt and JF, otherwise I would have to check with my therapist as to why we are areeing so much. I would not put NEWT anywhere NEAR JF. I agree that Newt is one of the most astute political thinkers of our time and he gets skewered for it. I would NOT however say that of JF. Although he does get skewered, he usually does something to deserve it (Gays caused 9/11 etc)

[Ed Dantes]

I agree that Newt is one of the most astute political thinkers of our time and he gets skewered for it. I would NOT however say that of JF. Although he does get skewered, he usually does something to deserve it (Gays caused 9/11 etc)

I agree.

[paradox]

I agree that Newt is one of the most astute political thinkers of our time and he gets skewered for it. I would NOT however say that of JF. Although he does get skewered, he usually does something to deserve it (Gays caused 9/11 etc)

I agree.

What the media did with JF's statement after 9-11 is a prime example.

JF took a somewhat Calvinistic-Kuypernian view when he said that God may have removed his hand of protection from the US because we have drifted too far into moral degregation and he named the politcal groups that were agressively pushing this country closer to the atheistic European mindset. However, when he moved from theorizing to pronouncing judgement, he took it too far, but not nearly to the extent by which the knee-jerk media over-reacted,

For the record, this is not my view. I view the world more existentially and a lot less calvinistically.

[Brokeback Flamer]

Dox - Nice spin on that one. Do you even REMEMBER JF's quote on The 700 club? JF will NEVER miss an opportunity to stick his foot in his mouth. While I am not a Rep. nor Dem. the only candidate I like is the one JF doesn't!!
I think Rudy would do an OK job. NOT Newt, for heavens sake. At least Rudy can pander enough to get the right wing votes and still do what he can for those who don't quite fit under the tent.
Hillary? She may be one of "ours" but PLEASE.
Obama - And his qualifications are what again?
McCain - If it's Tuesday his position must be.........
Romney - See Mc Cain
Edwards - He probably wouldn't get us into a war, but I am not sure you can start a class action lawsuit against Iran.
Huckabee - Hey the LAST president from Arkansas wasn't too bad! (Start the hate mail again)

everyone else? Who cares

[Rocketfan]

Washington — Using the backdrop of the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich., Mitt Romney will make a presidential announcement Tuesday that emphasizes the need for Washington to pursue "innovation and transformation" in the face of persistent and heady challenges.

"It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It is what our country needs. It is what our people deserve," Romney will say according to the prepared text. "And so ... with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States."

Trying to distinguish himself from other candidates in the race, including top Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Romney will emphasize that he is not a Washington insider, but also not an untested chief executive.

"I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician. There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading," he will say.

"I do not believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even managed a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world," Romney continues.

Jewish Group Blasts Mitt Romney for Choice to Hold Campaign Announcement at Henry Ford Museum Campaign Aide Says Republican Mitt Romney to Announce '08 Bid Next Week But even while the former Massachusetts governor makes his official launch, he faces several challenges, not first of which is that several state representatives who had planned to support Romney are now moving to his rival's camp.

The group of state lawmakers, which had pledged to support Romney in 2008, will announce at a press conference in Lansing that they've switched their support from Romney to McCain.

Three-term state Rep. Judy Emmons said she backed Romney on the word of former House Speaker Craig DeRochem, who will be introducing Romney at the Dearborn event. But Emmons told FOX News on Monday that after researching the candidates on her own, she came to view McCain as the better choice.

Emmons said part of the decision came down to Romney's position on abortion, and a conservative conversion that has plagued Romney since he entered national politics.

McCain's "pro-life record is compelling," Emmons said. "For 20 years, he's been pro-life every step." Romney, on the other hand, has a "consistency issue."

Emmons said she also has respect for McCain's "willingness to be at the forefront of protecting our country from terrorism" and praised him as "fiscally responsible."

Romney is largely acknowledged as the third member of the Republican top tier in the 2008 race, having demonstrated an ability to rally Republicans to his cause — endorsements range from members of ex-Florida Gov Jeb Bush's inner circle to Capitol Hill lawmakers, including former House Speaker Dennis Hastert — and to raise money. He took in more than $6 million on the day he announced his exploratory committee.

But the "consistency issue" is sure to dog Romney throughout his battle for the GOP nomination for president. Romney favored safe, legal abortions until he became governor of Massachusetts, but says he was dissuaded from his abortion-on-demand position by a Harvard stem cell scientist. Afterward, Romney announced his opposition to embryonic stem cell research and later that year vetoed a bill making available Plan B or "morning after" contraception.

In 1994, Romney also has said he'd be a stronger proponent of gay rights than liberal senator Ted Kennedy, who he ran against that year.

[paradox]

Brokeback:

Whether you agree with Falwell or not, he is constantly assailed in the media and mostly unjustifiably.

Semantically, his 9-11 quote was distorted and exaggerated by the left-wing press. He was in essence critisizing and blaming the lobby groups who are aggressively trying to uproot the Judeo-Christian ethic in our society. From a theological perspective, Falwell believes that God's providence over this country is contingent on the way in which the nation as a whole prioritizes God. We have de-prioritized God. Therefore no providence. Then, he simply names the lobbies who openly oppose the Judeo-Christian ethic and wish to eliminate God from the public square. Whether we agree or not, he has every right to hold this view, and it sustainable.


On the other hand, leading left-wing pseudo-intellectuals such a Noam Chomsky openly stated that the US got what it deserved in 9-11 and that the terrorists were in the right because the US is the true terrorist /criminal of the world. Cold-hearted half-baked staements like these went unnoticed on the national scene, even though Chomsky is one of the most widely read indivduals among liberals and acedemics.

[paradox]

Haize:

One final though on Newt/Jerry.

I never implied that Newt and Jerry are one and the same, but emphasized that they are both equally assailed in the media and both strike the same liberal chord that puts the press into up-tempo paranoia mode.

In a nutshell:

They fear Newt because he is viewed as the leader of the conservative revolution of the 90's and they fear a ressurgence.

They fear Jerry because they hold him responsible for Reagan's election in the 80's. They ignored Jerry's influence prior to Reagan's election and they feel that they can't afford to do that again. A conservative-religous voting block is as scary as it gets if you're a liberal.

[Brokeback Flamer]

OX -
Jerry spins about as good as he gets. I understand that whole "hand of God" theory, but is it fact? And why would you say that on a show you KNOW is going to hit the ariways? Stupid.
Thankfully, the "Big Fella" doesn't have as much pull as he used to, and probably never had as much as he remebers.
I am holdin out for barney frank!!!

[nickrichard]

I am holdin out for barney frank!!!

Or even Barney Fife

[paradox]

OX -
Jerry spins about as good as he gets. I understand that whole "hand of God" theory, but is it fact? And why would you say that on a show you KNOW is going to hit the ariways? Stupid.
Thankfully, the "Big Fella" doesn't have as much pull as he used to, and probably never had as much as he remebers.
I am holdin out for barney frank!!!

Whether I agree with him or not, I'm not embaressed by Jerry at all.

I apprecitate his courage, sense of purpose, and candor.

It only sounds shocking when it get recycled and reintroduced through the feminized leftist media.

As far as his perpective on providence is concerned, it is legitimate theology, and can be easily sustained through classic Thomistic argumentation.

[paradox]

Back to Rudy

Rudy has made it clear that he will appoint only strict constructionist judges, he served eight years in the Reagan administration as an Associate Attorney General, and he seems to be the among the most credible war-time leaders around.

My only question is, will a NYC guy be able to get any support at all in the South?

[Libertine]

I'm in the South and if my other choices are the catcher's mitt and some guy named McCain -- did you know he was a veteran? -- I'm all over Rudy.

[LUconn]

The above was very depressing. I've been really burnt out on politics lately. I hate the fact, that you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils. D, R, what's the difference? The campaign platform, that's what. They all do the same thing once they get there and look out for #1 only. Nothing gets done, no matter what the candidate believes.

[Libertine]

The above was very depressing. I hate the fact, that you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils. D, R, what's the difference?

Dude, of course, you have to choose the lesser of evils. That's the whole concept behind politics in the first place. It's the only way anything gets done. If everybody from every little faction stood fast behind the individual nuances of their beliefs we'd end up with something like the Taiwanese parliament freak show or something.

[Libertine]

I think I'm going to start beginning all my posts with "Dude,..." in the hopes that Dude will show up and prove that he actually exists.

[Rocketfan]

I think I'm going to start beginning all my posts with "Dude,..." in the hopes that Dude will show up and prove that he actually exists.

its official, with no football to talk about Lib has cracked.

[Libertine]

Dude.

[LUconn]

The above was very depressing. I hate the fact, that you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils. D, R, what's the difference?

Dude, of course, you have to choose the lesser of evils. That's the whole concept behind politics in the first place. It's the only way anything gets done. If everybody from every little faction stood fast behind the individual nuances of their beliefs we'd end up with something like the Taiwanese parliament freak show or something.

Right, but it's not the same thing. It's not like choosing between Coke Zero over Diet Coke because regular coke has no electability. Neither tastes good but given the choice when you're thirsty, things could be worse, you could be drinking urine. It's more like like choosing to be kicked in the face or kicked in the crotch when you're thirsty. Every 2 years I seem to choose to be kicked in the face. I honestly think I will be throwing my vote away on a 3rd party for the rest of my life.

[Libertine]

The above was very depressing. I hate the fact, that you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils. D, R, what's the difference?

Dude, of course, you have to choose the lesser of evils. That's the whole concept behind politics in the first place. It's the only way anything gets done. If everybody from every little faction stood fast behind the individual nuances of their beliefs we'd end up with something like the Taiwanese parliament freak show or something.

Right, but it's not the same thing. It's not like choosing between Coke Zero over Diet Coke because regular coke has no electability. Neither tastes good but given the choice when you're thirsty, things could be worse, you could be drinking urine. It's more like like choosing to be kicked in the face or kicked in the crotch when you're thirsty. Every 2 years I seem to choose to be kicked in the face. I honestly think I will be throwing my vote away on a 3rd party for the rest of my life.

Dude.

[paradox]

javascript:SLIDES.hotlink()