Re: Rudy Will "Clarify" Views To NRA

In article <46fc29b5$0$17125$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cognac756-24EA0A.23283526092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46fa98b3$0$28803$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cognac756-1E45F0.02265726092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46f83871$0$26344$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cognac756-5022C4.21175123092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46f69b25$0$17076$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cognac756-D89E22.22322421092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <46f3b9a7$0$24351$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/politics/main3283811.sht
ml?
sou
rce
=RS
Sattr=U.S._3283811
Giuliani Will "Clarify" Views To NRA
Presidential Hopeful Seeks To Improve Contentious Relationship
With
Gun
Group
Sept. 20, 2007
Two words here:
Fred Thompson.
You come up with any other words for November 08, and you're
looking
at
having to endure this inaugural address in January of 09:
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/dontF.wav
Followed by her first TV address to the nation:
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/hate_men.wav
Let alone the first "100 minutes of Power" led by VP Barak
Hussein
Osama
announcing this at a joint session of Congress:
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/vacusuck.wav
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!
You have convinced yourself that Hitlary can beat Rudy.......
I'm thinking otherwise....
Rudy's a *** sandwich.
I'm an American, and Bill Cosby once reminded me that an American
can
eat ANYTHING, if he first puts it between two pieces of bread.
Mrs. Clinton has a very good chance of winning the next election.
I don't even care if she does, as long as conservatism is led by a
conservative--and the next election is decided by the power of the
opposing ideals. In other words, I don't really care about the
results,
as long as we fight the good fight.
Clinton is not a good liberal, she's a stealth liberal.
She's a stealth Euro-Socialist.
I don't want a stealth conservative winning the election. But I
ESPECIALLY don't want a stealth conservative LOSING the next
election.
Rudy is a faux conservative.
But he's safer than Hitlary.
America mostly hates Hitlary.
Of course they do. And American who don't now, will change their minds
once she wins the general next year.
That's not gonna happen.
Rudy won't ever become president. It just ain't in the cards.

The national-level polls have been solid for 6 months with Rudy always
leading and Hitlary always leading....

Its gonna be one of them.

Something like aliens arriving in a big space ship has to happen to change
it...

Morris Udall was leading Jimmy Carter at this point, IIRC.

No aliens necessary. Not even illegal ones. Just some touchstone issues.


Clinton could beat him in between making a batch of cookies and
"earning" a cool hundred grand betting against herself on the Chicago
Board of Trade.
The Dems are HUNGRY this time. And nobody's gonna pull the dollar out of
the toilet before next November.

But Hitlary has HUGE baggage, Rudy doesn't.

Clintons are pretty good at carrying their heavy baggage around. Maybe
they work out or something.

And, of course: "practice makes perfect."

I want to qualify that. Rudy doesn't have meaningful baggage to the portion
of the electorate that he's been working - the Center - and he's is
correctly (we hope) taking for granted the Right will vote for him because
they can't do otherwise.

In the US, voters have at least three choices. In Australia, for
example, voters' choices are more limited. There, by law, every able
bodied citizen MUST vote. FWIU, even the personnel they have at their
weather station on the South Pole have to radio in their votes on
election day. No exceptions--vote or jail.

In the US, voters can stay home.

Don't use the last general as your guide. The evangelicals are in a
pretty sour mood lately.

Two pro-abortion candidates on the ballot will keep them home. The only
question is: how many?

GOTV may be whipping a dead horse this time.


In 1992, Bill Clinton and his team showed that they could defeat any
politician anybody wanted to throw up against them.
They proved it again
in 1996, even amid scandals which were nearing the boiling point.
1992:
Bill Clinton: 44,909,806
George Bush: 39,104,550
Ross Perot: 19,743,821
39,104,550 + 19,743,821 = 58,848,371
Bush would have won had Perot not split the vote.
1996:
Bill Clinton: 47,400,125
Bob Dole: 39,198,755
Ross Perot: 8,085,402
Perot 1992 19,743,821 - Perot 1996 8,085,402 = 11,658,419
Clinton 1996 47,400,125 - Clinton 1992 44,909,806 = 2,490,319
Perot 11,658,419 - Clinton 2,490,319 = 9,168,100
Assuming Clinton picked up 2.5 million votes from Perot, Perot's presence
CAUSED 9 million voters to STAY HOME.
I had to go over these results way back then. It turns out that the
Perot effect wasn't quite as simple as all that.
Voter lists show that over 60% of those who voted for him were
new-voters. That is, people who hadn't ever voted before, or people who
had not voted for three cycles or longer. It's hard to make the case
that he stole a significant portion from ANYONE--though he CERTAINLY
stole some votes, and a larger portion of these came from 1) swing
voters (who are historically pretty hard to predict anyway), 2) Gops and
3) Dems. In that order.
Perot would have had far more of an effect in 2000, where so many state
races were so razor thin.
Perot was a star in the Freak Show before the Freak Show was cool.

Hahahahaha!!! Great line!!!

His base was the lunatic fringe and people who haven't anything better to
do
than watch Larry King.
And the other lesson is the Republican base STAYED SOLID.
It always has, and there's a solid Dem base, too. As you know, to a
large extent, they cancel out.

Yep, they do. In the last two elections its that difference from people who
don't usually vote in midterm elections do who come out for the
Presidential. In 2006 60% didn't vote, in 2004 50% didn't vote. That 10%
makes the winner. Nobody knows who they are.

If politics was easy, everybody'd be doing it.

One Green Party Candidate and the election goes Gop all the way. Except
a Green Candidate would, sometime before November, wake up with a horse
head in his bed. And the next day he'd be visited by Michael
Corleclinton personally.
"This is a letter announcing that you're withdrawing your name on the
ballot 'in order to spend more time with your family.'"
"I'm leaving with either your signature on that letter, or your brains."
You know, the deal they offered Newt, and then Livingston.

hahahahahah!!!

There's room for more than just a Green Candidate this time. We could see
an anti-war candidate run. Its not likely but we could see an actual
conservative run. There could be a double or triple split possibility.

Don't let the lunatics at Usenet, the internet blogs or the "results" of
the national push-polls fool you.

The war in Iraq is not a political issue.

Any more than WWII was a political issue. In the end, even Vietnam
wasn't a political issue (screaming and crying doesn't automatically
translate into action).

Nixon was undeniably correct when he spoke of The Silent Majority.

It was real then, and it's real-er now.

Cindy ain't running--and she's a product of the Dem Machine, anyway. You
can't go against the Machine, or you get ground up in its gears. Perot's
Independent Party has long since self destructed beyond repair.

Is there an Anderson or Wallace out here? Poor old Nader already woke up
with a bloody horse head in his bed. He won't be back.

Even Barak Hussein Osama bin Laden isn't against the war. He, like all
the rest of them, don't hate the war--what they all hate is Dubya's 90%
approvals and the 80% approvals America had for invading Iraq as March
03 approached.

Iraq is a faux issue. It gets a bunch of mice roaring, which kinda
SOUNDS like a crowd, but it doesn't make a difference at the polls.

The Dems won 2006 because 27 incumbent Gops were undergoing criminal
investigations at the time.

Period.

NOT because The Silent Majority was unhappy with the conduct of The War
on Terror.

The Silent Majority wants to beat the Islamist scum into hamburger.
They'd just as soon as double the troop levels there, rather than go
home in defeat.

No more Somalias. No more Vietnams. The Silent Majority won't put up
with that yellow *** more than once every two decades or so.

I know you like Newt, but Newt is only a politician (listen carefully
to
the *** he spews out both ends these days--he has as much "ideology"
and integrity as a $2 whore).
I like him but I don't lke him as President. He'd make an excellent Secy
of
State, for example.
Agreed. Mostly.
If you wanna put up a candidate who is "safer than Hitlary," then
you'll
have to endure her cackle for years to come.
In other words, the game's tied going into the second half. You wanna
play zone and prevent defense? No, you start doing that and you don't
get the ring.
You make 'em pay for every yard they gain against you. Pay for it with
their bones and blood. And you take it to them--you run it, you pass
it,
and you go for it on fourth downs.
Rudy's a *** sandwich, and on a personal level, he's a lying, cheating
sack of ***. He's made of the same stuff as, maybe, a $10 whore.
I don't know what kind of president Thompson would make, but I know
that
what he brings to the table is the one thing the Clinton team can't
defeat.
Thompson = Dole (above).
Dole couldn't defend Reaganism. That put a big hole in his candidacy, it
cracked the Reagan coalition, and, in the end, put him dead in the water.

Yep, that's exactly what happenned. Dole was too old, too old-fashioned,
not polished, not slick, not quick... He got the Republican base but nobody
else. But he DID NOT get that secretive group that sneaks out only every 4
years. (Perot got a tiny portion and most stayed home.)

GHW Bush couldn't defend it either. Which is why GHW raised taxes
anyway. Both he and Dole were of the opinion that it's all "voodoo
economics" and were befuddled when put in the embarrassing position of
defending it.
Now, you'll have your Gop candidate attempting to defend Reaganism with
a dead dollar. Nobody's gonna buy his arguments.
Because of GW Bush, the Dems will be arguing against Reaganism. They'll
point to Dubya's Nixonian policies as a condemnation of Reaganism.
I'm here to tell you, the Dems will win that argument with the swing
voters. I've sat in on enough focus groups with "independents" to know
THAT.

I don't think so. The Dems can't hide Hitlary. They can't hide her
baggage, can't hide the Socialism, can't hide the flip-flops. The
Republican doesn't have to defend anything.

Hitlary is lying about her political convictions.

So's Rudy.

Everybody knows it.

Everybody.

And every supporter is hoping that their candidate isn't lying about the
particular touchstone issues important to them.

That ain't no way to run a railroad. That's how America gets Eisenhowers
and Carters and Clintons.

We don't need any more of those. Especially not now.

Look, the Evangelical Block knows that if they just get one more Man in
Black on the SCOTUS, then Roe v Wade gets the streak through the heart.

That's probably true.

They may live with a dead dollar--or not. But their one touchstone issue
is Roe v Wade.
They know Rudy ain't the guy to appoint their Van Helsing. I know it
too, and so do you.

You're making too big a deal of that. The polls put Rudy steady in the lead
for six months straight so it would seem that the Evangelical Block is less
significant than that group that put and kept Rudy in the lead.

You know that polls are pretty meaningless right now--just as well as I
do.

Go out about 9 more months and they showed McCain ahead. You and I ALSO
knew that McCain's particular baggage would destroy his candidacy sooner
rather than later.

Polls are only reflecting what's going on with the rock solid base (The
NPR Liberals and the Limbaugh Conservatives) and in the Gop and Dem
Political Machines.

NFL training camp, in other words. We're not even into the August
exhibition games yet.

Rudy's got the Big Mo', but large groups of people are just now starting
to pay attention to him. His momentum ain't unstoppable, any more than
McCain's was.

The Fred Tide is being caused by something, just like the tide down at
the beach is caused by the moon.

And Hitlary won't appoint Van Helsing either--but SHE ain't the
adulterer, is she?

She's not the adulterer but she's just as bad, if not WORSE among women.
Many, many, woman can't accept that she didn't toss Bubba's ass out. Of
course they understand that he's her meal ticket but too bad. Most women
will not tolerate an adulterer or getting smacked even once. Get drunk and
smash the car? You're an *** but okay. Get drunk and lose the car at a
poker game? You're an *** but okay. Get drunk and smack you're wife?
*** NO, you're outta here! Get drunk an get your picture taken at a motel
with some broad? *** NO, you're outta here!

Heh.

That's why even last month Hitlary was carrying a 39% Never-Vote-For-Her
heavy bag...

Yabut, there's 39% solid Gop voters (R-3).

I know those polls showed a big cross-over (many D-3's said they'd never
vote for her, either--but they aren't in the polling booth yet).

She's got a big Hate Factor against her, granted.

Now flip that around. All women know that all men are about as useful as a
shaved monkey, and they're all dogs. Maybe they haven't cheated yet but
could. That's how woman think. So says my wife. But its personal and
indiviual. What I mean is its no surprise to a woman that some guy OTHER
THAN her husband was an adulterer, because they're all dogs anyway. See?

On this score (I know its strange) Rudy actually wins because he was being
the dog women already knew he was (even if he hadn't been that dog)! But he
wasn't THEIR dog. And Hitlary loses because no matter what she should have
thrown that dog out.

Hitlary is like that old white-haired witch-lady that lived in the
neighborhood. She was old and ugly, and cackled just like the Wicked
Witch of the West.

But all the kids would stop by her house when she made a batch of
cookies. They didn't LIKE her. In fact she freaked them out if they hung
around too long.

But they came for the cookies.

Hitlary is handing out Government Entitlements like Shriners hand out
candy in a Fourth of July parade.


They'll stay home. In droves.

That's the scare. On this I think you're 100% wrong. Look at 2000 and
2004. More people came out in 2000 and 2004 than both Clinton elections AND
there wasn't a third choice. Why? Its NOT because they loved Bush. Its
because Gore scared the *** out of them and Kerry did too....

Definitely.

If Gore, simply a wacky environmentalist, can generate that much fear that
turns into getting off the couch to go vote AGAINST him then you gotta know
that Hitlary will generate TWICE that.

The Dems admit all this, btw: What they call it is "Freak Show Politics."

They hate Drudge (even more than Limbaugh) because they see Drudge as
being the man most responsible for '04 The Freak Show.

And, it's true--Drudge was/is able to bring embarrassing facts about the
idiots out--Center Ring in the Circus.

The Dems don't like it--they think pointing the Freak Finger is their
exclusive prerogative--so they should be immune.


Same with Kerry. Swiftboating Kerry didn't get him dis-elected. Instead,
he scared people into thinking that he'd let or worse make us lose in Iraq.
Same effect.

Now, Kerry was an actual combat vet. Not Hitlary. Never served. Kerry had
decades in the Senate. Not Hitlary. And we'll still be at war, an we'll
still be dealing with Iran. I think you can see that it won't be hard to
make the case that Hitlary is very scary!

She's gonna be the choice of the Unions. And the Unions are rather
scared and shell-shocked these days. Then there's all that Bread and all
those Circuses she's gonna be handing out.

They're already lining up around the block for the handouts.

And then there's taxes... Last night Edwards (I think) lowered the
in-your-ass wage limit to $97,000 by stating that he'll raise the maximun on
which taxes are paid. And nobody has really starting picking apart how much
these universal healthcare plans are gonna cost.

I can well imagine every professional person who is moving up wage-wise to
be alarmed, and every small business owner who wants to grow their income by
growing their business to be alarmed..... All of that alarm, all of that
fear, is gonna cause what I anticipate to be the largest turnout EVER.

Well, it's now coming to the point that taxes are gonna be heavy, even
if the income taxes aren't raised.

The dollar being in the toilet is gonna kill anyone who doesn't get Wall
Street to approve their plan. And Wall Street doesn't give a *** if
taxes go up or down, just so long as the dollar stays liquid.

The strategy seems to be to take for granted that Republicans will vote
for
a Republican. The numbers above indicate that strategy is true IF nobody
splits or sours the vote.
It's been a 50-50 toss up since the mid 90's. It's closer today than it
was last cycle. It may be decided with 500 votes in Florida or Ohio.
Again.

I think that's a possibility. Equally possible though, if the 'fear' can be
attached to Hitlary, is a huge vote against her.

She's ready for all that.

Maybe Drudge should be very, very cautious. Not stand in front of open
windows; be careful while taking a shower; take GREAT care what he does
in airport bathrooms...that kind of thing.

We know they have guys going through Limbaugh's garbage, talking to his
maids, etc...They've even gotten to him a few times now.

Imagine how they're watching Drudge these days.

The strategy seems to be (above) PLUS use a left-leaning RINO to STEAL
votes
from the Democrats.
Prevent defense doesn't ever work. It's how you lose a game that you
once had in the bag.
Despite the lobbying thingy, Fred's the most likely guy to get that Man
in Black for the Evangelicals. Despite the dead dollar, Fred can defend
Reaganism--and turn blame around to Congress where it belongs...
Rudy and Fred will kill the terrorists, sure. But Hitlary is setting
herself up as a New Bill Kristol with a (D) behind his name. Bread and
Circuses for all, and we'll wait out the mess in Iraq.
Fred ain't the perfect candidate, but he ain't no Dole. And his
strengths are pointed directly at Hitlary's weaknesses.
Which is why the Dems don't want him in the race.

I totally agree.

But....

It don't mean ***-all if he can't get the nomination... And he can't seem
to break out of 2nd place.... Some huge number of people are keeping Rudy
in first place... Who are they? AND, some huge number of people think Mitt
has ass-rot leprosy or something worse.

A huge number of the same people backed Dole.

In retrospect, we all realize that Jack Kemp should have been the lead
name on the ticket.

The people keeping Rudy in 1st place aren't Republicans. They are the
right-leaning CENTER, the very same people Hitlary would love to get but
can't...

The Left and the Right are what they are. Whoever wins more of the Center
wins. And right now Rudy has more of the Center.

Or, the bigger the turnout the more likely Rudy wins, smaller turnout
Hitlary wins.

GOTV is vital. Having two candidates cynically lying about their
convictions ain't a great way to GOTV.

The problem, as I see it, is if Rudy gets the nomination and loses the
general, the Gop Eggheads will be saying he wasn't "centrist" enough.

Reagan showed that "center of the road" is where you get run over. He
ran over everyone who tried to get in the middle lane.

Dole got run over getting in the middle lane.

Bush didn't run as a centrist, and won twice. His dad was an inveterate
centrist, and won once because those Ronnie coattails were pretty long.
He moved farther to the center and got run over the next time.

Limbaugh has been preaching this for over a decade now.

But the Eggheads will still say Rudy wasn't centrist enough. It's what
Eggheads do.

Fred isn't a centrist. And he's only running because he isn't a
centrist. And the Powers that Be may want a centrist, but a centrist
ain't gonna beat Hitlary. And there's a ground swell out there that
knows this very well.

First big debate will either tip the polls in Fred's favor, or not.

We'll see.

--
NeoLibertarian

³The world is not going to be saved by legislation.²
---William Howard Taft
.

Loading