Values voters not satisfied
Today’s Washington Times runs an article by Ralph Hallow entitled “Values Voters Find No Satisfactory Candidate“;
Several conservative leaders yesterday concluded that none of the principal Republican presidential hopefuls deserves their support, not even Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister.
“There was no consensus on candidates, no agreement, period,” a participant confided after the meeting, held at the Washington Hilton one day after several of their groups participated in a “Values Voters” summit at that hotel.
Then, referring to Mr. Huckabee, he said, “He’s finished, I think. Bad things will be coming out about him,” referring to long-standing accusations surrounding Mr. Huckabee’s clemency for a rapist who later murdered someone in another state.
It pretty much describes the feeling I’ve had this election season. Last weekend, while surfing around the ‘net, I got involved in a discussion over Rudy Giuliani and his “values” such as they are, at Little Green Footballs. When I made the point that Giuliani is no more trustworthy than the Clintons because of his marital infidelities and the speed at which he changes his platform to suit his audiences, I was called a troll by several LGF lizards. 😮 Me? A troll?
Well, it turns out that alot of supporters of various Republican candidates are as rabid as the supporters of a certain candidate with two first names who shall go unnamed here to keep my spam filter from overloading. Giuliani supporters are willing to overlook the fact that he’s just another Northeast Liberal Rockefeller Republican that wants to take our guns and pass out abortions on demand because he refused a check from a Saudi prince once.
That’s just immature. Some Republican voters are beginning to sound and act just like the carcatures of us that are spread around the other side of the internet. Would I pull the lever in a Presidential election for Rudi Giuliani? Probably – but only because of the alternative. In essence, I’d be voting for him for the same reasons democrats voted for Gore and Kerry – against a candidate instead of for a candidate.
I think we’ve led ourselves into a trap – we’ve trapped ourselves by becoming single-issue voters. Although, I agree that the war against terror is the foundation of everything that happens to us from this day forward, I think it’s irresponsible of us to just follow the sound of whichever piper is playing our tune.
Giuliani thinks he’s golden because he’s probably the most pro-national security candidate, but given his recent record, I wouldn’t trust him to take out my garbage. If alot of Republicans are disappointed in George W. Bush’s performance, i’m pretty sure they’ll be apoplectic during a Giuliani Presidency. At least when Bush became President, he told us exactly what he was going to do before he was elected and that’s what he did. With Giuliani and his position shifts over the last year, who knows what he’s going to do in office.
Jonn, I think you are right re Guiliani, but I will vote for anything that runs against Hillary. And that in and of itself is just plain scary.
I think Ron Paul is a democrat plant – our Nadar – or worse – our Kucinich.
Guiliani will destroy the GOP by disrespecting the base worse than his second wife. I really doubt he can get elected. It’s great that he can fight like a junk yard dog, but for president, I think we need someone who has had his rabies shots.
And I would still vote for him before I’ll let the socialists have all three branches of government.
Jonn wrote: My intent is to discourage people from nominating Giuliani in the first place and not forcing me to hold my nose and pull the lever for him.  It’s the same with McCain – he’s too vulnerable on the Keating Five Scandal to be a serious candidate. Although I don’t like his campaign finance and tax cut postions, it’s the S&L thing that turns me from him first. So I guess that makes me a “values voter”, too.