Just as I thought -- those liberals who post here against Hillary are going to vote for her anyways too -- has anyone other than Greg ever heard of James Bopp? Is he related to the singing group Hanson?

Yes, I'll admit it in an election between Satan and Hillary, I'll take Hillary.

BTW What are the prominent social liberals saying?

This just goes to show that the right-wing, social conservative, pro-life bloc really isn't committed to the the anti-abortion issue. It's all about power and cronyism. Influence and kick-backs. They are willing to look the other way, as long as their palms are greased.

Not surprising. No morals, no principles, no backbone. Bullies never have them.

They are beginning to understand that they are losing influence, and are trying to keep the appearance of influence, at least.

I'd hate to see Guiliani get nominated, as he'd have a real chance at winning, and his 'so called' foreign policy is totally insane (and he was a fiscal wreck in NYC).

However, the upside is that it would declare the end of the culture war. Dobson's right, if Guiliani is backed by the base, his movement has 0 power.

I'd welcome a Guiliani nomination though to just end this silly culture war. No way any GOPer will be able to point fingers at the Dems and accuse them of any "immorality."

Bopp's an idiot, does he have to look up the word 'principles' in the dictionary?

I agree, abortion, gay marriage, are things conservatives talk about when the word 'issues' comes up. They don't want to talk about Iraq, Iran, spying, torture, mercenaries, budgets, or anything that actually effects the average voter. Thes 2 subjects are distractions.

If conservatives really cared about abortion, they would have done something about it when they controlled the presidency, congress, and the Supreme Court. If they outlawed it, what would they talk about?

Does this guy really believe the stuff he's peddling?

"I'm not prepared to surrender in the war on terror and have terror attacks on major cities in the U.S.," Bopp said. "Surrendering in the war on terror means the destruction of American civilation. Between the two of them I'm going to support the nominee of the Republican party."

The Republican Party has used different variations on the same shameless smear tactics to win elections for decades. Has any Democratic presidential candidate even come near to challenging a candidate's patriotism and love of country in this way? It's outrageous what these thugs will say.

Yeah Rudy's the only one I can think of that would be worse than Bush.

After 9/11, he was the one who oversaw the destruction of the evidence.

Asked how he could bring himself to vote for the pro-choice Rudy in a general election, Bopp said that a Hillary victory is unthinkable.

I don't see how any of this is surprising. This “party over principle” philosophy is espoused in the comments at Election Central every day, by Democrats. Those, (like me) who will not vote for Hillary in the general election, are routinely vilified for having moral positions that we're willing to back up with our votes, or lack thereof. We’re told we need to shut up and support her anyway simply to defeat the Republicans. We’re even told we shouldn’t criticize her at all because it might help the Republicans defeat her in the general election.

Now these same Dems who attack the Anybody-But-Clinton crowd and call us names for refusing to blindly support Hillary are going to make the complete opposite argument - that Republicans who are willing to support Rudy don't actually stand for anything. They have no principles. They’re morally bankrupt. What losers they are for trying to defeat the nominee of the other party above all else.

So which is it? Should I stay true to my principles and not vote for Hillary in the general election, possibly helping a Republican get elected? Or should I be like those morally bankrupt Republicans who will vote for any nominee their party props up in front of them?

audit the polls wrote on October 26, 2007 2:08 PM:

Yes, I'll admit it in an election between Satan and Hillary, I'll take Hillary.

butBrianm0122 says on October 26, 2007 2:32 PM:

This just goes to show that the right-wing, social conservative, pro-life bloc really isn't committed to the the anti-abortion issue. It's all about power and cronyism. Influence and kick-backs. They are willing to look the other way, as long as their palms are greased.

Not surprising. No morals, no principles, no backbone. Bullies never have them.

Really, this is what we all do. Stay in our ideological camps when push comes to shove, n'est pas, Brian? Or did you vote for Nader?
Politicians are shitheads all, if they've going to make it to the the top.

Why are Christians getting so worked up? Rudy is Catholic and Hillary is Protestant. I doubt either of them attend church regularly. If they are both pro-abortion, then does it really matter who Christians vote for? These moral issues are dumb, people should just vote for whoever they think is going to benefit themselves the most and not listen to super rich elites telling them who to vote for.

All their pronouncements about so-called morals and so-called "biblical values" -- abortion, gay marriage, and "family values" -- are really about wanting to control women. Hating the idea of women controlling themselves, or men choosing a life that doesnt include ownership of a woman. No wonder they hate Hillary with such passion.

Ebu:

Some of us unselfishly consider the millions of unborn lives we could save when we cast our votes -- I understand both of them are pro-choice -- but, even if there's only a 1% chance Rudy will appoint a John Roberts clone, that's a hell of a lot better than the ZERO% chance we've got with Hillary. There is NO other more important domestic issue today.

I still have no idea who this major leader in the "pro-life" movement is.

Jack D,
What about the millions of born lives that will end when Rudy starts World War 3?

Merryll:

Millions died during WWII -- should we not have fought that war either?

Captain Goto:

No thanks. I'm staying right here until the election.

No we shouldn't have fought WW2 We should have stop Hitler in the 30's instead of allowing our bankers inluding Bush's grandfathers to put Hitler in power. You sound like you're ready to go to war AGAIN. Will we ever stop?

I would support a syphilitic donkey for president over any republican.

Does that make me unprincipled?

Absolutely not, it makes me a patriot.

I fear Rudy Giuliani like no one else in public life. I lived in NYC for most of his mayoralty; I suffered his antics, his authoritarianism, his truly elephantine ego, his fiscal mismanagement, his terrible judgment of character (Kerik, Russell Harding, many others), his utter lack of preparation for a terror attack. And I walked home from Lower Manhattan that morning through the pulverized remains of the Towers and the human victims.

I can't stress enough how unfit he is for the most powerful job in the world, and how much of a disaster he'd be in that position.

At some level, though, I do find it amusing that the Christatollah crowd would consider supporting him. Put aside his departures from right-wing orthodoxy on sex-related issues; his own personal life is hands-down scuzzier than that of Bill Clinton, the devil incarnate (unless it's Hillary) to these people. Bill's had just one marriage; his daughter still thinks he's okay; he never announced on camera that he was done with Hillary. All the things he did do, Rudy did worse, and more (Monica Lewinsky was an intern; Chrstyne Lategano was a city official).

The only way I can explain it is that he reliably expresses the insane hatred they share--not for terrorists, mind you, but for liberals. The real enemy they see is us. This is what our politics have come to.

Here, here. I lived there during his term. Rudy was the worst.

Edu:

According to the Senate website, Lieberman is an Independent-DEMOCRAT.

Merryll:

I said we will stop someday -- when Jesus Christ returns in all His Glory -- in the meantime, war is the last resort, but sometimes the only choice.

Wait a minute, cd -- one Al Qaeda attack between now and Election Day and (a) even the 'handling terrorism' support falls under 40%, and Republicans are unelectable nationally, OR (b) it's the only way Giuliani wins against Clinton? Pick one, please, and then we can discuss.

Another 911 would only help the Republicans if they can appoint the investigators and hide the evidence again.

100% of born humans die eventually too -- you could say we are all "doomed" then -- I don't support experimenting on born humans either.

Thank you.