What the F*#$? Richardson endorses liberal for President

An obvious hat tip to the AJC Political Insider on the Richardson endorsement story. 

The endorsement by Glenn Richardson of Rudy Giuliani smacks or pure politics plain and simple.  I believe Rudy Giuliani is an honorable man, but he’s wrong on so many issues and unacceptable to me and other Conservatives to be the Republican nominee for President.  

Georgia is a conservative state and we should expect our elected Republicans to follow suit and support conservatives. Before anyone cries foul and says that I’ve got sour grapes because he didn’t support McCain, I would submit that I’m surprised really because he didn’t support a conservative – period.    

Richardson likes to tout his conservative record in the state and make it seem that he is the King of the People in support of conservative principles.  His abandonment of those principles in his support of Rudy is just odd – it comes out of left field.

This is a clear example of what’s wrong with politics and why people distrust politicians.  If you’re going to talk the talk, be ready to also walk the walk. 

We should raise the bar of politics and public service and the first step in doing so is discarding multiple choice politicians who play politics and don’t have any core principles and are willing to compromise for political expediency. 

102 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    Wow! I’m going to have to start wearing the deluxe pair of hip-waders before coming-on to Peach Pundit again…the breadth and depth of rhetoric from SOME people is just too much for ordinary hip-waders to withstand.

  2. Federalist says:

    maybe he is trying to support a candidate that can win a national election…but such consideration would require you to think further than five minutes in front of your face.

  3. Seth Millican says:

    Yep, John McCain is so conservative that he divorced his recently disabled wife to marry the young Cindy Hensley, the chairman of the beer and liquor distributor Hensley and Company. Voteview reported McCain as the 6th most liberal Republican Senator in the 107th Congress.

    I reckon that’s why Senator John Kerry reportedly asked McCain to be his running mate in 2004, according to the New York Times.

  4. Icarus says:

    I consider myself a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment conservative.

    I’m also on record as favoring Fred Thompson at moment.

    But Rudy is my second choice, and I guess first choice if you consider that Fred isn’t a candidate yet.

    Rudy might not advance the pro-life movement, but he won’t do as much damage to it as Hillary, Obama, or HairDude. Same for gun owners rights.

    The reason I’m intrigued by Rudy is that he’s electable. I don’t see Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Brownback et. al. making one purple state competitive for us next November. Nor do I think any of them would win Ohio.

    Rudy gives us the opportunity to compete in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and even make the Dems spend money in California and New York.

    I’d rather win with someone who will advance 75% of what I believe in than lose to someone who will work against 90% of what I believe in.

  5. SpaceyG says:

    What does it matter? None of ’em have a uterus. Neither do you BM. Grow a uterus and call me in the morning if you want to discuss abortion. Ain’t never going to impact your body; just your mind apparently.

    Gawd BM, sometimes you just annoy the F#@$ out of me.

  6. Bull Moose says:

    SpaceyG… I take that as a compliment!

    Conservatives will stay home if Rudy is the nominee…

    And Seth, you go be a Prisoner of War for 5 plus years come home and tell me if it affects your marriage?

    McCain has been married to Cindy McCain for a LONG time… Get a grip bud.

  7. Jace Walden says:

    Icarus,

    I love you political philosophy:

    My candidate doesn’t support X and has worked against Y. But he doesn’t quite not support X as much as the other guy doesn’t support X…and he probably won’t work as hard at destroying Y as the other guy…HELL, he’s my first choice!

    🙂

  8. YourFutureLeader says:

    Rudy stance on 2nd Amendment and Abortion are just where I think they should be. Leave it in state hands. He has said over and over again he will not do anything to move abortion one way or another. Abortion is not a political issue, its a personal choice. The government should not be in the business of interferring in ones personal decisions. Thats the conservative value I think Rudy most strongly portrays and most of the others fail to show. Rudy is my first choice and if he choose somebody like Mike Huckabee as a running mate they would make a hell of a ticket. Glenn Richardson made the smart endorsement here. And conservatives wont stay home if Rudy is the nominee they are all too scared of a Hilary White House.

  9. LiveFreeOrDie says:

    Giuliani and McCain are both “liberals” in the current American sense. When you support a real conservative like Ron Paul or Fred Thompson, then and only then can you legitimately condemn anyone else for supporting a “liberal Republican.”

  10. Doug Deal says:

    Fed

    I agree. I am by no means a Rudy fan, but I do think that he is probably the only one of the current group that can win a national election.

    Freedom of speech is far more important than pretty much any issue to a free society, but McCain was the sponsor of one of the biggest violations of free speech that Congress has ever attempted.

    To criticize Rudy for anything while completely overlooking the Senator’s flaws is hypocritical.

    Has giving BM front page priveledges back proven to be a mistake yet? Why not just give direct access to the Georgians for McCain HQ, so they can post them directly?

  11. Icarus says:

    Jace,

    To put it more simply,

    Do we want to win, or do we want to lose?

    Elections do have consequences.

  12. Federalist says:

    screw the abortion issue people, it is not important. If you do not want an abortion do not get one, your neighbor or you sister having one does not affect you, or anybody else…just like any victimless crime.

  13. Holly says:

    YourFutureLeader,

    Small government? No intrusion? What are you thinking?! We should be expanding the government until it suffocates us.

    God bless, someone gets it. Thank you!

    I don’t mind Rudy. He’s not my first or second choice, but no, I would not stay home if he were the nominee.

    Glenn Richardson is all about low taxes – sometimes scarily so. Given that Rudy is a Taxbuster, I can see where Glenn would favor him.

  14. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Spacey,

    In the words of Homer Simpson, when trying to convince Marge to have another child,

    “C’mon, Marge. It’s not uteru, it’s uterus!”

  15. Icarus says:

    It had a lot to do with that. We abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility. Corruption was (and is) tacitly condoned. We also lacked of a compelling vision. We retreated to scare tactics about terrorism, instead on focusing on optimism for the future.

    I think Rudy is clear on his principles. They just don’t match 100% of the party’s platform.

    Some “conservatives” may choose to stay home if he’s the nominee, and that’s their right. However, if they consider the consequences, Rudy is a much better choice for pro-life voters than any Dem in the race.

  16. patriot says:

    federalist,

    Your reasoning reveals a common mistake on the effects of abortion, a FATAL error, I must say…

    The decision of another individual to have an abortion does have an effect — on the unborn child.

    That person does have rights, and they need “someone else” to stand up for them – as they cannot stand on their own, until they take those first wobbly steps – several months after we celebrate their birth.

  17. jsm says:

    “Grow a uterus and call me in the morning if you want to discuss abortion.”

    I’m so sick of hearing this. It’s like saying don’t discuss shootings with me until you own a gun. ANYONE can discuss abortion because it involves protection/destruction of human LIFE.

    That said, electing a president who will nominate justices capable of honoring the Constitution, rather than twisting it, would well serve the interests of the pro life folks.

  18. Seth Millican says:

    Rudy is soft on abortion. We all know this. But he has committed that he will not ever support public funding of the practice, and he has committed to appoint conservative judges to the bench.

    When will a United States President ever have the opportunity to sign or veto a bill on abortion, anyway?

  19. Bull Moose says:

    I think there is something wrong with a person’s judgement who is so careless that they think it’s nothing to just abort a baby.

    That said, I’m also in favor of stem cell research BECAUSE those embryos are already being thrown away.

    However, let me say, as a point of clarification, abortion is not in my top 10 in terms of issues…

  20. Federalist says:

    whatever patriot, same hollow rhetoric that your church feeds you. It is fetus, not a child. Roe v. Wade was not about abortion, it was a case concerning privacy rights. I think the “error” is your argument that women do not have the right to do what they want with their bodies. Typical cons: life begins at conception and ends at birth. Why don’t you listen to your precious bible, the unborn fetus is treated as property in that book (so are women unfortunately). The conservative right can not be trusted with these issues.

  21. SpaceyG says:

    How many men, or women for that matter, really toss and turn all night long over what OTHER women do privately with their own body parts? Not many. Their own bodies, and their own personal circumstances, of course.

    But please… don’t feed me all this “I care about unborn fetuses as a human being like they were my own flesh and blood” crap. If people make “caring” about life such a hand-wringer of an issue, then there are plenty of living, walking, talking, breathing, well kinda, perfectly viable examples, every single day in every kind of capacity as human beings, who need a LOT of caring for. Try a local shelter for abused women and children, or soup kitchen — for starters.

  22. IndyInjun says:

    Bill Simon – Best bring chest waders or even a full wet suit to PP!

    Jace Walden – Agreed.

    Icarus wrote “It had a lot to do with that. We abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility. Corruption was (and is) tacitly condoned. We also lacked of a compelling vision. We retreated to scare tactics about terrorism, instead on focusing on optimism for the future.”

    You speak of these thing in the past tense, yet the GOP fully intends to put forth the VERY PEOPLE who committed this hideous betrayal.

    You all fool yourselves if you think the specter of a Hillary presidency will frighten a lot of us into voting for another George W. Bush. We will be voting Unity08 after you gleefully dispose of the only REAL CONSERVATIVE, faithful to the cause, Dr. Ron Paul.

    Complaining about the betraying of principles, then voting for the traitors is like the disciples of Jesus reconvening to share Judas’ silver.

  23. jsm says:

    Fed, MY precious Bible speaks of human beings in the womb: Jacob & Esau (Hosea 12:3), John the Baptist (Luke 1:41, 44), Jesus (Luke 2:21), Solomon (Ps. 139:13), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5). It’s best not to bring up the Bible if you don’t know it.

  24. kendrial says:

    Wow, I am stunned on so many levels. First I don’t think that it is appropriate to in title a post with a suggestive curse word. Bad, Bad, Bull Moose. Secondly, and I will probably take some heat on this. Why all the debate on Abortion? A true conservative doesn’t want the govt. to legislate morality. As Rudy said let the states decide for them selves. All it is doing is opening Pandora’s box to discuss this issue on a nation level. Let the free market decide. So, from my non neo-conservative point of view and I am so sorry Bull, Rudy is THE conservative.

  25. Bull Moose says:

    Oh, and I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how their free speech has been infringed by campaign finance reform.

    Day 2 of the question = no responses…

  26. Bull Moose says:

    JSM thank you.

    Okay, Kendrial, by your arguement, let the state’s decide. So, the Speaker of the GA House supports a pro-abortion candidate. Does that mean the Speaker now is a pro-abortion politician?

    Is he going to distance himself on those issues? Or fall in line?

  27. IndyInjun says:

    The problem for all of the “main” GOP candidates is that they are glued to the Iraq war and are ALL in lock step with a failed administration, with no courage to MAN the war with a draft or FUND the war via a tax.

    It looks here like most GOPers remain in total denial about the party’s impending suicide. 2006 should have given y’all a CLUE.

    Reclaiming conservatism requires dumping those who brought us here and if the GOP cannot find the guts to support candidates true to its principles internally, we conservatives HAVE NO CHOICE but to work as hard as possible to insure GOP defeat, even if it means voting for Hillary.

    I was VERY VERY HAPPY to work for the defeat of Max Burns for these reasons.

    Don’t get mad at ME, I want to see conservatism triumphant in the end.

  28. kendrial says:

    No, The speaker needs to LISTEN to his constituents and legislate if appropriate. Let’s remember that no candidate will encompass all of our political ideals. Sometimes you have to endorse the best overall candidate. You said yourself, that abortion was not a make or break issue.

  29. Federalist says:

    None of those passages directly address abortion jsm. how about gen 38, the fetuses are property not humans. or exodus 21:22, again the fetus is property. No passage of the bible expressly advocates any position on abortion, but when a fetus is “killed” by another man, the charge is never murder, it is a property crime. This is the closest that book comes to defining the status of a fetus. as far as the free market argument goes, i am for that. Afterall there is a market, and it should be helped by allowing insurance coverage (state insurance too) to assist in paying for the procedure.

  30. RJL says:

    Oh Lord (no pun), just what Jefferson et al. sought to avoid: policy based on Bible readings.

  31. jsm says:

    Fed, half-grown children are considered property by our own government–ask a divorce lawyer. And neither passage you mention deals with abortion, either.

    There’s no sense chasing these rabbits. The abortion debate comes down to what a person believes about the life and the rights of an unborn child. Presidents don’t decide anything about unborn babies, but their appointed judges do. I feel good inside when my President takes a pro-life stand, but all I want is a Constitutionalist.

  32. debbie0040 says:

    Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    This verse is the one most often pointed to by pro life groups as showing that life begins at conception.

    To say that life begins at birth is absurd. Scott Petersen was convicted of killing his wife and unborn child. There are many such cases as this.

    I am Pro Life and believe in the three exceptions.

    I have voted for pro choice candidates before. I am not a one issue person.

    Rudy believes issues such as abortion and marriage should be left up to the states to decide. I am in agreement with that.

    FRED

  33. debbie0040 says:

    FRED in 2008. He will carry on the Reagan Legacy and win in November.

    I supported Rudy when it was just he, McCain and Mitt were in the race. Once news broke that Newt and Fred were interested , I became a Fred supporter.

    Rudy would be my third choice. Rudy announced he supported the Senate Immigration Bill and that bothers me a great deal.

  34. Federalist says:

    we all want constitutionalist, but so many of the voters do not know what is in the constitution and feel that they are experts. we have not had a constitutionalist since van buren, and we will probably never get another ever again.

  35. Harry says:

    Unborn babies have no rights because the Supreme Court says it. Slaves had no rights because the Supreme Court said it.

  36. RJL says:

    Speaking of which — Pop Quiz:

    1. How many amendments are there to the Constitution?

    2. How many amendments deal with voting rights and which ones are they?

    Hurry; answers at 2:00pm

  37. And for this insight: “The endorsement by Glenn Richardson of Rudy Giuliani smacks or pure politics plain and simple…” Bull Moose gets front page posting privileges?

    Uhh, Bull Moose? They’re politicians.

    You like McCain, we get it. But do you have to subject us to a whining crybaby fit every time the world doesn’t rain gumdrops into your candidates pocket?

  38. kendrial says:

    I want to thank Bull Moose, for posting such thought inspiring post. We may not agree with your answers but, at least you pose the questions.

  39. RJL says:

    Time’s up. There are 27 amendments to the Constitution, 4 of which – 15th, 19th, 24th & 26th — deal with the right to vote, the most important right granted to citizens.

  40. YourFutureLeader says:

    Holly I completely agree, and I also think that the current state of the “Republican Party” is not where it needs to be but rather it is a party that has been hijacked by the Religous Right. Abortion is not a political issue. Federalism is and Rudy supports allowing states to make their own decisions and not follow federal mandates, which are usually unfunded. I support him in this regard. I also like that he hasnt flip-flopped on the issue.

  41. Bull Moose says:

    Okay, starting from the bottom:
    Jace: I’m not a liberal Republican.
    Mike: I don’t think I articulated my point very well. Set aside my support of McCain for one moment. A so called conservative endorses a liberal Republican. That’s odd to me. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not upset that Richardson endorsed Giuliani, I’m upset that Richardson didn’t endorse a conservative. Ugh… This wasn’t supposed to be a pro-McCain post, but you guys want to read into everything I say and create some sort of pro-McCain spin. Guess what, I have a new addiction to Diet Coke. I guess you’re going to tell me that I only drink Diet Coke because McCain drinks Diet Coke? I mean, that’s how insane some of your arguements are.

    Can’t you just be like, Wow, I too am surprised Richardson endorsed Giuliani. Or, I’m not surprised and here’s why. No, all you can do is say McCain McCain McCain.

    Yeah, I’m for McCain but I’m not beating you over the head with it the way you guys are making it seem.

    And, with that, I’m done for today. Debbie tied it all back to immigration. I guess Debbie you support the status quo also? We need reform and improvments, but if you do nothing, you get the status quo or even worse.

  42. Doug Deal says:

    RJL,

    The people of the former Soviet Block had the right to vote, as do all Cubans, Chinese, Iraqi’s under Sadam, Male Saudi’s and many other people. Is that the defining right that makes our system what it is?

    Also, there is also an amendment that allows income taxes, and the when congressional salary increases take effect. Does that mean that the right to pay taxes and limit when congressment get an increase in pay are equal to the freedom of speech in importance? What a salient argument you have there!

    The right to free speech is the first and they made sure they got it right the first time, instead of tweaking it as time goes on.

  43. debbie0040 says:

    I prefer the laws that currently exist be enforced. No legislation is better than the bill currently being considered.

    The cost of the bill is outrageous.

    Anyone that believes Bull supports the Immigration Bill only because McCain supports it is a damn fool. Bull is an independent thinker and anyone that believes otherwise does not know him.

  44. drjay says:

    i think its obvious your new found diet coke addiction is related to your support for mccain, bull and anyone here would be a fool to think otherwise…

  45. Doug Deal says:

    I was probably a little overly harsh on BM.

    The problem for him is that the current batch of candidates are so horrible, that no one is really sticking up for their own guy. BM sticks up for his, so in the political game of whack-a-mole, he is the tempting target.

    Maybe things will appear better when all candidates are in the field, and it gets to be October or November and we can legitimately widdle the field down and get serious in time for the primaries.

  46. Bull Moose says:

    Thank you Jay. Thank you Debbie.

    Does everyone have a second favorite candidate? Just curious? I’ll reveal mine if you reveal yours!

  47. jsm says:

    Not trying to start anything here, but I keep laughing to myself about what my dad used the acronym “BM” for while I was growing up.

    http://dict.die.net/bm/

    I’m not trying to make anyone angry. It’s just funny. 🙂

  48. Icarus says:

    1. Fred Thompson
    2. Rudy
    3. (Distantly) McCain
    4. (Even more distantly) Romney
    5. Doesn’t matter at this point, because 3-12 are unelectable.

  49. IndyInjun says:

    Count me as sticking up for Ron Paul.

    When he launched his campaign he admitted that he might not be the most attractive candidate or the most articulate.

    Had our GOP ‘leaders’ followed the principles, America would not be in the serious jeopardy in which we find ourselves.

    Going forward, the rest of these imposters as conservatives have welded themselves to a war policy of more-of-the-same, when more of the same is unacceptable. They have refused to explain how they intend to MAN this war to victory, given that our military cannot sustain the status quo, and they steadfastly refuse to PAY for the war either.

    Come fall, do ANY of these idiots think that the war is going to be BETTER? Who among them will look wise? I submit that it will be the one who was never snookered into supporting the war.

    Exploding gasoline, food, and medical costs are validating Dr. Paul’s talk of the INFLATION TAX, which the others are to stupid to acknowledge or understand.

    I agree with him that he is not the most imposing of candidates, like the masses want and the corporations who control everything fool us into wanting, but the man is the only one in the bunch speaking in support of the CONSTITUTION and being truthful about spending.

    It is hard for the rest to make spending an issue – their hands are stained by all the red ink.

  50. kendrial says:

    I am just pointing out that this post has 60 comments. The only other to come close is Isakson signals S.O.S.
    May 22nd, 2007 by Jeff Emanuel · 46 Comments

  51. Bull Moose says:

    1. McCain

    Distant Second: Thompson (Fred not Tommy)
    More Distant Third: Tie – Huckabee or draft John Kasich

    There is no way I can vote for Giuliani or Romney – PERIOD.

  52. Doug Deal says:

    jsm,

    You caught me, it was a private little joke to myself, that I thought no one would catch on, but now that it is out, I will go back to using Bull.

    My candidates:

    1) Fred
    ~~~~~~~~

  53. Bull Moose says:

    Jace — not even close to a liberal — a mainstreet conservative Republican here pal…

  54. Doug Deal says:

    Oops, I cut off the rest. I made a little arrow that pointed to the ~~~~ that said big gap.

    Below them was

    2) Rudy
    3) Romney
    4) McCain

    But really you could sort the bottom three randomly and it would be just as accurate.

    As for the rest, if any of them make a move, I might consider them, but currently they are not contenders. As for Newt, he is too painful to think about, and I do not know where I stand on him.

  55. Jace Walden says:

    Just released…the latest Democratic Presidential Preference Poll:

    Clinton: 33%
    McCain: 26%
    Obama: 26%
    Edwards: 15%

    My candidates:

    Paul
    F. Thompson
    Gilmore

    Let’s just say that for me to have a chance, Fred needs to run.

  56. Lee Benedict says:

    I cannot stand Rudy and have made it well known. Plus, with a year and a half left until the election, so many things can happen and so many positions can change…but Rudy has always been a narcisistic egomaniacal double-talking back-peddling es oh bee and THAT will not change!

  57. drjay says:

    w/ the current crop of candidates i go 1) mccain 2) huckabee 3) hunter

    if fred thompson runs i would drop the others down a notch a piece

  58. Lee Benedict says:

    At this point in time, I have 1) Tommy Thompson, 2) Gilmore & Huckabee. This is subject to change since we are many moons away from the election.

  59. Holly says:

    Lee, why so big on Tommy Thompson? I’m genuinely curious. I know almost nothing about him.

    Mine are as follows:

    1) Fred Thompson
    2) John McCain
    3) Duncan Hunter
    4) Rudy Guiliani
    5) Mike Huckabee

    I can’t warm up to Mitt Romney. I gave it a genuine stab and just can’t get there.

  60. Bull Moose says:

    Auditions open soon to be the new host of Price is Right and I draft Mitt Romney and John Edwards to a spin-off competition to see who gets the honors!

    Both are just too damn slick.

  61. Lee Benedict says:

    I’m big on Tommy Thompson because…well wait, first let me say that I prefer Governors because they have been a chief executive before and have actually governed, whereas Members of Congress tend to hideout in DC and often compromise a wee bit too much. That said, overning 1 state is a far cry from 50 and the title of POTUS. Back to your question; although he needed Wisconsin’s legislature to come on board with and sign off on a lot of initiatives, TT stood his ground on cutting taxes and school choice initiatives beginning with vouchers for children in poverty. IT WORKED WELL and now serves as the model for those states wishing to implement vouchers. Upon taking office, he sought after the country’s finest number-crunchers and budget gurus to help with Wisconsin’s budget woes. He cut the size of state government and reduced welfare rolls, and BTW, people were not going from welfare to working at the welfare office. Again, to accomplish this, he had to propose the measures and stand firm with Wisonsin’s legislature.
    As HUD Secretary, he reduced its size and exercised fiscal responsibility and accountability. In a nutshell, that’s the long-and-short of it. Now, the election is aways away and anything can happen.
    I do like Fred Thompson and wish he would enter the race (watch and see if he pulls an Arnold on Leno’s 6/12 show). I would be quite pleased to see a Thompson/Thompson (either one can have top billing) ticket. McCain hasn’t stopped campaigning for POTUS in 9 years and he really hasn’t impressed me OVERALL as a Senator, and, I just don’t trust him. Romney, I don’t know about that guy. I have always liked Marilyn Quayle and wish that someone would notice her.

  62. IndyInjun says:

    All of those guys are BIG GOVERNMENT apostles.

    Y’all are focused on candidates who are sure losers and who will set your party back to the 1930’s.

    The national Republican Party has done more measurable damage to America in the last six years than the Dems did in 60, and you are talking more of the same abandonment of principle that produced the 2006 debacle.

    You and they arrogantly think you can maintain the status quo and retain your grip on this state YOU ARE WRONG.

    Here is an open invitation. Go and read the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA and the GOP platform. Then consider which candidate in the field best embodies and PRACTICES those principles.

    I have invested entirely too much time and money in the GOP to quietly sit on my hands and let it be taken over by IMPOSTERS like these clowns running for President. Surely there are some here who would dearly love for me to shut up and go over to the Dems.

    That ain’t gonna happen. I intend to remind y’all at every turn what YOU are supposed to stand for and your candidates too. This is not to say that I, and many thousands of Georgians like me, will not vote for a Dem if you stand by these idiots.

  63. debbie0040 says:

    If you live in the Gwinnett area, come and march in the Dacula parade and wear your favorite candidate’s t- shirt or stickers.

    In an email from Greg Howard.
    Monday, May 28th

    Dacula Memorial Day Parade:

    The Gwinnett Republican Party will be celebrating by walking in the Dacula Memorial Day Parade. Many of our elected officials will be walking with us.

    Contact: Peter Henrickson, District One Manager – 770-354-8396

    Where: The staging area for the parade is the Hebron Baptist Church parking lot in Dacula.

    When: Monday, May 28th, this coming week is Memorial Day. It is the only parade in the north-of-the-285 area. Please join us at 9 AM.

  64. debbie0040 says:

    Glad to hear Rudy does not support the Immigration Bill. I thought I had read where he did.

  65. Federalist says:

    how can you put Newt as #2? He can not win a national election, and could probably only win two or three primaries (including GA). So many people have a bad taste in their mouths after the absolute failure of the “contract w/ america,” not to mention he has had how many wives? And people worry about Romney b/c he is a mormon. Rudy can win a nat. elec. but electability does not matter to most of you neocons.

  66. jsm says:

    Fed, how dishonest can you be? There was no failure of the contract with America. It balanced the budget that Clinton claims credit for. What people don’t like about Newt is his double standard in going after Clinton when Newt was screwing around himself.

  67. debbie0040 says:

    I l ike Rudy and you won’t see me trashing him.

    I was supporting Rudy before I heard Newt and Fred were interested.

    The bottom line is we should not be trashing any of the GOP candidates as anyone of them could win the GOP nomination. I would vote for the nominee because any of them would be much better than Hillary, Al Bore or Obama .

  68. Federalist says:

    How many of the 10 points became law, jsm? Clinton did balance the budget, and it was after most of the gop did not win reelection…oh and i forgot to include the fact that dole lost an ass load of support b/c he was aligned with newt in the ’96 election. Newt was one of the least effective speakers in the history of the House. I will state again, Newt can and will never win a national election. Unlike Nixon, nobody in
    America will be fooled into thinking Newt is a good person and would be a good president.

  69. Holly says:

    Newt was one of the least effective speakers in the history of the House.

    I disagree. I do agree that he can’t win a national election – too many people hate him or don’t trust him or whatever. That said, I think he was far more effective than you give him credit for. As I remember it, most of the bills passed the House, but either died in the Senate or were vetoed by Clinton. If memory serves me right, didn’t the Congress override one of the vetoes?

    Newt also was/is a good speaker who could get his message out well, unlike the Republican leaders at the moment. None of them is particularly gifted in that area. And there was a sense with Newt that he was going to fight for what he believed in, no matter what.

    Now, for least effective, I award that to Dennis Hastert. He just seemed like a big paper weight to me, but that’s personal opinion. I’m sure others will contradict me. 🙂

  70. Federalist says:

    Like I said, he was ineffective. As the second in line he should have been able to get negotiations made in the Senate and the WH. Clinton was very friendly with the congressional GOP…he was actually ridiculed by many dems for not paying too much attention to the gop. hastert was weak but was able to get things done across the branch and in the WH (mostly by being a gop whore), and we should consider that the gop does not have much of a history holding the speakership…but he(newt) was no Joe Cannon, and has proven to be unsuccessful with maintaining popular support. He told his big lie already, got a lot of support in 94, and then was found out and nobody wanted to be seen with him in their district. then…newt fell off the face of the earth

  71. Federalist says:

    to early to tell. she has potential, and i think she will be able to work things through the Senate, but Bush is too stuborn to sign some of the Dem. proposals into law. In 2008 we will definitely have a president that will listen to the people of the U.S., and she will have a better position in negotiations. But to answer you question, I think she is doing a good job. Before I get slammed by everybody who has Hannity or Coulter think for them, we are only a few months into this Congress, and most everything that has been handled has been the run of the mill house keeping that occurs at the start of every Congress. She has shown she can handle the day to day work, and we will see what happens in the next few months. Ask me then what I think, and you will get a more definitive response.

  72. Holly says:

    Okay, one more question: in saying that Newt was ineffective because he couldn’t work with Clinton, how is Pelosi different since she can’t work with Bush?

  73. Federalist says:

    Clinton was willing to work with the Repubs, and showed that (welfare reform for example). Bush has said that he wants bipartisanship, but only as long as the two parties are republicans. Also, Clinton was still in his first term and had to worry about reelection, so he had an electoral incentive to work with the GOP. Bush is going to continue to be a dick, and the country will suffer. That is the difference. Newt had an open president and could not get a lot done, he actually had a chance. Pelosi will have a rough road ahead of her, a lack of success with this president should be expected. Bush is a lameduck president, he has been for a year or so already. Even if the country wants the dems to be successful, and they do on many things, Bush will probably not allow it…particularly with foreign policy issues.

  74. Hortence says:

    Props to Bull Moose for always creating controversial topics that generate LOTS of comments and visitors.

    The founders of Peach Pundit have got to be happy. The success of this site and blogs in general thrive because of controversy.

    I agree with you though, it’s odd that a self described conservative would abandon principles and support a self described liberal.

    That’s why I stopped paying attention to politics…

  75. jsm says:

    Fed, presidents don’t balance budgets–Congress does. No speaker ever gets 100% of his agenda passed, either. Newt had respect from both sides of the aisle as well as from Clinton until the whole Lewinsky mess. I agree that Newt will never be elected nationally, but it won’t be due to his ideas. His personal life has ruined him politically.

  76. Bill Simon says:

    “I can not disagree with that.”

    Wouldn’t writing it as “I agree with that” have been 2 words (and 3 syllables) shorter?

    Off with yer head for violating The Elements of Style, Fed! 🙂

Comments are closed.