Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NO TO RUDI
Nealz Nuze ^ | 11/15/06 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 11/15/2006 6:06:03 AM PST by steve-b

Earlier this week we learned that Rudolph Giuliani has filed papers to form an exploratory committee. That's the first step to running for president. Well .. .it didn't take long for the religious right to announce that up with this they will not put. Colleen Parro, the head of some group called the Republican National Coalition for Life says that Giuliani is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances." The two issues she cited? Homosexuals and abortion.

Now ... what was it I said earlier this week that made so many zealots so unhappy? Oh yeah .. it was something about us needing a political movement dedicated to individual and economic liberty, limited government with a strong defense, cutting government spending, school choice and strong capitalist instincts .. and one that had no desire to force the people of this country to live under any particular codification of religious dogma.

Good luck on that.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: abortion; boortzaliberal; giuliani; guliani; judyruliani; prolife; rudi; rudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

1 posted on 11/15/2006 6:06:04 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steve-b

I like Rudy. I can't vote for him as president at this time though.


2 posted on 11/15/2006 6:08:14 AM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Love him or hate him, he hit the nail on the head with this one.


3 posted on 11/15/2006 6:10:06 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

SAY NO TO RUDY!


4 posted on 11/15/2006 6:10:13 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance (<h2>SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; areafiftyone

Neal makes a great point. America needs a Patton in the White House, not a Falwell.


5 posted on 11/15/2006 6:11:33 AM PST by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades
Boortz has a valid point, but in his libertarian approach he overlooks a very salient, important point -- one that is the driving force behind much of the "social conservative" agenda in this country.

This quote -- taken from an article recently posted on the Human Events website -- sums it up perfectly (the emphasis is my own):

Giuliani understood the link between allowing people to urinate on the streets with impunity and New York City’s overall decline. Outside New York, on the Republican campaign trail, he is sure to meet many voters who understand that his positions on abortion and marriage do to our national culture exactly what the street people and pub crawlers did to New York.

6 posted on 11/15/2006 6:13:05 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Rudy should go far far away and stay there.

Some place he's never been before -- say, Queens.

7 posted on 11/15/2006 6:13:38 AM PST by Condor51 (Tagline Under Construction - Kindly Wear Your Hardhat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Gee....I thought that we already have a Patton in the WH, or so people here claimed before the election. It hasn't worked very well, has it?


8 posted on 11/15/2006 6:13:41 AM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Hey now...moderates within the Republican Party just lost a major election in dramatic fashion.

That means...we have to run even farther to the Left in the next election.

That means...if anything...Giuliani may be too conservative.

*cough*

*cough*

*choke*


9 posted on 11/15/2006 6:14:22 AM PST by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
And say yes to "whom" that can win?
10 posted on 11/15/2006 6:14:27 AM PST by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

How about his pro-gun control stance? Rudy Guiliani is not committed to small government and economic liberty.


11 posted on 11/15/2006 6:15:23 AM PST by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Bush = Patton? HA! Gimme a break! Patton didn't make his way to Berlin by "winning hearts and minds."


12 posted on 11/15/2006 6:16:59 AM PST by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
America needs a Patton in the White House,

That's a pair of shoes Guiliani doesn't even come close to filling.
13 posted on 11/15/2006 6:17:28 AM PST by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
SAY NO TO RUDY!

To be honest, I would have to hold my nose and beg for forgiveness if it ever came down to saying "yes" to any of this crowd of Republican hopefuls.

I see 2008 in only one way. Either someone finds a real conservative with real conservative principles and an ability to lead by example, or the Democrats are going to take the White House with ANYONE they please.

14 posted on 11/15/2006 6:17:49 AM PST by SaveTheChief (This is my "+3 tagline of smiting")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Think for a moment. If we are going to win, we need to put terrorism and the economy at the top of the agenda.

If you want to talk about gays and stem-cell research first, we cede that territory to Hillary.

Looking at the candidates many are offering here -- Sanford, Barbour, Purdue -- it seems many are content to see us become a marginalized, southern party, with Hillary making all of the national decisions. Democrats invading from the west (montana, Missouri, Colorado) and the Northeast (Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania).

Moreover, if we want to take back at least one of the houses, we need someone that can be competitive nationally. Tancredo and Pence aren't going to hack it.


15 posted on 11/15/2006 6:18:21 AM PST by JHBowden (President Giuliani in 2008! Law and Order. Solid Judges. Free Markets. Killing Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Odd spelling brings to mind....


16 posted on 11/15/2006 6:18:40 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

bump


17 posted on 11/15/2006 6:19:06 AM PST by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Pro-abort, bigger Nanny State, anti-2A...

No thanks. Maybe Rudy should go back to being a New York lawyer. He was good at that at least.

18 posted on 11/15/2006 6:19:53 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom

"Hey now...moderates within the Republican Party just lost a major election in dramatic fashion."

Santorum? Talent? Allen? Are you kidding me?


19 posted on 11/15/2006 6:19:54 AM PST by JHBowden (President Giuliani in 2008! Law and Order. Solid Judges. Free Markets. Killing Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Up with Rudy I will not put, but there will probably be enough from the left supporting him that he'll still win. All out Dems will vote for him rather than Hillary.


20 posted on 11/15/2006 6:21:10 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Man defiles a rock when he chips it with a tool. Ex 20:25)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

"Boortz has a valid point, but in his libertarian approach he overlooks a very salient, important point -- one that is the driving force behind much of the "social conservative" agenda in this country. "

Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide. We want less government yet we are trying to impose our social agenda on the courts. Gee, the left does the same thing and we condemn them for it.


21 posted on 11/15/2006 6:21:44 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (I thank the RNC for freeing me to vote my values rather then political party. It is liberating!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Maybe we could try to win Rudy over rather than dump him under the bus. It would be a worthy effort even if he decides not to run.


22 posted on 11/15/2006 6:22:09 AM PST by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser and Shalit, we are praying for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Rudy's got three problesm as a Republican candidate. He's an All-Pro: pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and pro-gun control. While that's not a problem in New York politics, it is nationally. Plus those pictures of him dressed in drag......


23 posted on 11/15/2006 6:23:17 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Or any kind of liberty for that matter.


24 posted on 11/15/2006 6:24:43 AM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JHBowden

Jim Leach, Lincoln Chaffee, are they conservatives? (Just to name a couple).


25 posted on 11/15/2006 6:25:01 AM PST by Iowegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide. We want less government yet we are trying to impose our social agenda on the courts. Gee, the left does the same thing and we condemn them for it.

President Reagan recognized that attempted social engineering by the so-called "cultural conservatives" was just as big as an electoral loser as when the left does it.

I like Rudi in general but I can't back him for President unless and until he at least quits supporting gun grabbing. In the Bill of Rights, it's the Second Amendment that truly guarantees the other nine.

-Eric

26 posted on 11/15/2006 6:26:13 AM PST by E Rocc (Myspace "Freepers" group moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Patton? More like an Eisenhower is needed.


27 posted on 11/15/2006 6:26:47 AM PST by LiveFree99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
If that's Guilianni than I'm a Guilianni man. I'm just very very skeptical about whether that these are his passions.

needing a political movement dedicated to individual and economic liberty, limited government with a strong defense, cutting government spending, school choice and strong capitalist instincts ..

28 posted on 11/15/2006 6:26:58 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
There's going to have to be a fusion of social conservatism and libertarian conservatism. Until that happens, we are dead in the water.

Libertarians need to learn to live with the fact that we aren't going to abide on demand abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research. I hear libertarians talking about individual rights, but as long as they think that letting a man starve his infirm wife to death for the insurance money is OK, they are NOT serious about individual rights. We at least think the states should make their own laws about marriage.

Social conservatives are going to have to forget this instinctive 'law and order' and big govt tendencies we have. We don't go around asking the government for its permission; it's supposed to ask ours. Media censorship is a loser of an issue and it needs to be discarded and forgotten as quickly as possible. Excessive tobacco and other vice taxes are not interpreted as efforts to get people to quit smoking, but as efforts to butt into people's personal lives (which it is). Govt charity and education spending are also big losers. Social cons need to actually read the Constitution and then learn and understand the significance of the fact that that same Constitution doesn't detail the full extent of the people's rights; it details the full extent of the government's granted privileges.
29 posted on 11/15/2006 6:28:14 AM PST by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Yeah, sure. Let's just turn the argument against the shibbolith of the Left--that 'ol "Religious Right". You know--Gays and such.
In case you forget, Rudy is Pro:
High taxes.
More Gov't $ for everything.
A much bigger Gov't to boot.
Wierd social systems.
Very "creative" prosecutions for invented crime.
Highly intrusive laws (see Bloomberg, transfats, smokes).
Illegal Immigration/amnesty and free medical care for those breaking the law--sending YOU the bill.
No guns for citizens--for Rudy self-defense is the crime.

The MSM loves him, but the more you learn, the less electable he is.
BTW this goes double for McCain.


30 posted on 11/15/2006 6:28:33 AM PST by Flintlock (Keep yer powder dry--yer gonna need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

That is complete bullsh!t in today's political/legal climate. It is impossible for states to maintain any social conservative climate whatsoever until the Federal judiciary has been rightly repudiated for its past transgressions in overturning previous state laws along these lines. This cannot happen until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns each and every one of those prior decisions -- and it won't happen if we delude ourselves into thinking that these are "state issues" even as a majority of the sitting justices on the U.S. Supreme Court bench insist that they're not.

Put it on the local ballots and let the people decide.

As per my comment above -- this is a pointless exercise until AFTER the Federal judiciary acknowledges that local ballots and/or "the people" are legitimate arbiters of these issues.

31 posted on 11/15/2006 6:29:07 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Neal makes a great point. America needs a Patton in the White House, not a Falwell.

Tom Tancredo...

32 posted on 11/15/2006 6:29:14 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JHBowden
Santorum? Talent? Allen? Are you kidding me?

Actually, IIRC, the majority of the republicans that lost were, in fact, RINOs. Some conservative pubbies did lose, and the media is anxious to play that up to make it look like conservatism lost.
33 posted on 11/15/2006 6:29:44 AM PST by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him. If it's a choice between him, Romney and McCrazy, I'll vote for Rudi.

The only influence that the President has on abortion is by virtue of his role in appointing Supreme Court justices. I think Rudi would appoint conservative justices, irrespective of his views on abortion. He supported Alito and Roberts. That's good enough for me.


34 posted on 11/15/2006 6:31:23 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc

Get rid of the gun grabbing and I will support Rudy. Unless Gingrich runs in which case I am voting Newt.


35 posted on 11/15/2006 6:33:16 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (I thank the RNC for freeing me to vote my values rather then political party. It is liberating!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock
BTW this goes double for McCain.

McCain is also straight out opposed to free speech.
36 posted on 11/15/2006 6:33:39 AM PST by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Our "Social Conservative Agenda" should not be part of any Federal guidelines. We need to rely on the states to do this and at the moment they are doing a very good job.

Wrong. You need to read the Constitution...

States ratify Amendments...

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

37 posted on 11/15/2006 6:33:55 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Please stick to the subject and do not spam the thread with irrelevancies.


38 posted on 11/15/2006 6:36:07 AM PST by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Abortion and Marriage are not CONSTITUTIONALLY in the federal realm.

If Social Conservatives insist on nation-wide laws that govern these issues they will continue to drive small (l) libertarians out of the party.

I believe we should be able to join under the banner of "strict constructionism"...solidly constituional judges...that put these issues back to the states. We also share the desire to beat the jihadis...and close the border. To a lesser degree we share the desire to reduce the overall size of the federal governement...and "fair" trade.

If we cannot agree to form a coalition around these basics we don't belong in the same party and should formally split.

39 posted on 11/15/2006 6:36:41 AM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

YES TO RUDY !!!


40 posted on 11/15/2006 6:37:29 AM PST by BunnySlippers (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
His so-called "pro gun control" stance was as an executive charged with enforcing existing law...and as a prosecutor charged with enforcing existing law.

If he agrees to appoint strict constructionists (he's spoken words of admiration for Alito and Roberts), the 2nd amendment issues will take care of themselves.

41 posted on 11/15/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Why is it that people who want political leaders who support if not share their moral views (a moral code which extends back for thousands of years)- are accused of being dogmatic religious zealots who are against "individual freedom"?

Some (many? most?) of us believe the "individual" starts at conception and that marriage (defined by the world's holy texts as being vows of fidelity before God between a man and a woman) ... is a religious sacrament into which govt is trying to clumsily intrude for purposes of social engineering...

That is radical dogma?


42 posted on 11/15/2006 6:39:50 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Well .. .it didn't take long for the religious right to announce that up with this they will not put.

Wow. I didn't realize Yoda was a religious right-winger.. ;^)

43 posted on 11/15/2006 6:41:29 AM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Lets all be moderate-libertairians. That sounds like a winner to me! ( extreme sarcasm!!!)


44 posted on 11/15/2006 6:42:37 AM PST by blastdad51 (Proud father of an Enduring Freedom vet, and friend of a soldier lost in Afghanistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

I'm holding out hope a conservative comes along, because right now, i don't see much difference between Hillary & Rudy, obviously rudy is slightly better, though. But only very slightly.


45 posted on 11/15/2006 6:43:51 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance (<h2>SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Gee....I thought that we already have a Patton in the WH, or so people here claimed before the election.

More like a McClellan.

46 posted on 11/15/2006 6:45:38 AM PST by Seņor Zorro ("The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"--Qui-Gon Jinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
YES TO RUDY !!!

Great, another fan of the New York, pro-abortion, anti-constitution, cheat-on-the-wife liberal.

SAY NO TO RUDY!

Please, enough with liberal ccandidates, and the liberals here who support them!

47 posted on 11/15/2006 6:45:58 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance (<h2>SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Please stick to the subject and do not spam the thread with irrelevancies.

The Constitution is irrelevant??? You support Julie-Annie???

48 posted on 11/15/2006 6:47:32 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
If he agrees to appoint strict constructionists (he's spoken words of admiration for Alito and Roberts), the 2nd amendment issues will take care of themselves.

Not so fast, my friend. For starters, Rudy would have to acknowledge that the Second Amendment is an inviolable personal guarantee, pledge to veto ANY anti-gun legislation, and eliminate BATF harrassment of gun owners and legitimate firearms dealers to gain any traction with the gun people. Then, it would be nice for him to tell us his plans for expanding the protection of gun owners' rights at the federal level, and which obnoxious gun laws he would push to repeal.

Rudy's got a LOOOOOONNG ways to go on this issue!

49 posted on 11/15/2006 6:47:32 AM PST by LiveFree99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
Here's a campaign slogun you can use:

"The hell with conservatism, Vote for Rudy!"

50 posted on 11/15/2006 6:48:56 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson