Posted on 12/20/2006 8:29:40 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention.
That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated.
However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake.
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said.
He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions.
"No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded."
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices.
Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
On the other hand, if hillary gets into the White House, mothers will soon be able to tell their teen-age daughters, "If you don't make your bed this instant, I'll have you gang-raped by your cousins!"
Of course. I'm not only against abortion, I'm against murder, robbery, oath breaking, treason, and theft of the taxpayers' money.
But it depends what you mean by balance. First things first. Without the inalienable right to life, it doesn't mean much to lower tax rates, especially if you believe in killing off all those future tax payers.
I respect your disdain, but I would urge you to consider the Supreme Court. It is the most powerful of political institutions at this time, a time of war. Think about all the big issues of the day and imagine that court filled with liberals. That is what your future will be if the closet communists gain the Presidency.
One of the most ardent pro-lifers I know is an avowed atheist who bases his entire pro-life position on a non-sectarian, humanitarian philosophy.
Ironically, I suspect he's eventually going to become religious in the end as a result of this atheism. The diabolical nature of abortion is such that it has gradually convinced him of the existence of Satan -- which almost by definition will require him to acknowlege the existence of God.
I don't expect it to be a third party. I expect a lot of people will stay home so they don't have to offend their dignity by choosing one of those two.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy... You really ought to hire some people to research this stuff for you before you say such silly and thoroughly false things.
AMEN!!!
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy... You really ought to hire some people to research this stuff for you before you say such silly and thoroughly false things.
If you lived in NYC during the Dinkins administration - THAT WAS THE CASE! More people were dying from gun shot wounds than automobiles. I believe that is what Rudy is talking about. People could not walk the streets without fear of being shot at or mugged during the Dinkins administration. Don't compare the rest of the country with NYC during that time. NYC was a crime ridden hell hole and you were afraid to walk at night.
A nightmare; unless of course, the Democrats might not be paying attention when he slips in a true strict constructionist or two (2)!!!
Who knows about these judges anyway? They travel incognito!
Nancee
Have you looked at Duncan Hunter?
No!!!
Understood. But it would be a mistake to support a presidential candidate who wants to treat every gun owner as a likely criminal. Nationally speaking, cars kill nearly twice as many people as guns. And cars aren't a Constitutionally protected right. :-)
INDEED!!!
"Giuliani would appoint strict constructionists to the judiciary "
First off, administrators appoint people who mirror their own beliefs. That is what we will get regardless of rhetoric to the contrary.
Below are two examples of his perspective on the the Fourth Amendment which states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
From Rudy's weekly address at http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001a/weekly/wkly0205.html we can see his view of reasonable:
"The Commissioner has implemented a new stop-and-frisk policy that will require police to explain to the person being stopped the reason for the frisk.
A revised reporting form also contains a checklist of circumstances that form the basis for the stop, such as "unusual nervousness," and "suspicious bulge," along with other factors, like bloodstains or a ringing burglar alarm. This will make it easier to analyze what the officers are doing and give a better explanation to people of why they were stopped."
Also at http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/99a/me990221.html
he says: "Finally, I want to briefly mention a new Police Department policy that went into effect on Monday. The Police Department will seize the vehicles of those who are arrested for Driving While Intoxicated -- and the vehicles will only be returned after the completion of the civil forfeiture proceeding, entirely independent of the criminal charges. "
In http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/2001b/weekly/wkly0813.html he says "4,000 vehicles have been seized in an effort to deter drunk driving."
I fail to see how anyone could reconcile these proudly made statements with your belief that he would only appoint strict constructionists.
Guiliani is not the 'only' Repubican campable of Defeating Mrs. Clinton!
What about the 99.99% which are purely for convenience?
The "doctrine of competing harms" (to wit: do what results in less harm) rightfully covers the other 0.01%.
Exactly! And where did "A well Regulated Militia" come from (and corespondingly where did the weapons for the 'Militia' Come from): The People: The Average Man on The Street, The typical Family..It is self evident that the 2nd Ammendment was meant to apply to the individual man (citizen). It was also common sense (we dont need judges to 'tell us' waht the Constitution means.).
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.