Giuliani Strikes a Note With California GOP [4 Ovations]

Wshington Post ^ | 02/10/07 | John Pomfret

[BunnySlippers]

Giuliani Strikes a Note With California GOP Testing the Waters, Former N.Y. Mayor Garners 4 Ovations

SACRAMENTO, Feb. 10 -- Rudolph W. Giuliani came west to learn whether his brand of Republican politics has a chance among party members significantly more conservative than himself. By the time he had received a fourth standing ovation Saturday at the California Republican Party convention, the answer seemed clear.

Equating the U.S. fight against terrorism with the Civil War and the Cold War, Giuliani told about 750 of his party's faithful that failure in Iraq would turn that country into a "massive headquarters for terrorism."

"Having had a job where I didn't have any choice but to make a decision," the former mayor of New York said, "prepares you as best you can be prepared to be the president of the United States."

[Alia]

The "clash" between conservatives, I think can be found in the realm of perspective and history.

One side (call, Side A) posits that due all the damage resulting from the Clinton years (for example), we must fight to get back to where we USED to be, before the Clintons were in office.

The other side (call, Side B) posits that damage has been done due the Clintons years in office, that going "back" is not the answer; but rather, acknowledging the damage done and working with the situation as it is.

Both sides have pros and cons. This seems to be the axle FR members keeping wrapping themselves around.

[longtermmemmory]

RINOS for Rudy...

[PatrickF4]

I'm not sure how Giuliani can get the base to support him, other than to ignore the issues which are important to them. He can gather lots of money from his rich friends, he can pound his chest about being "America's Mayor"... and the NYT and WP and all of that crowd can applaud his "moderation". Why not vote for a moderate on tax cuts? We have John McCain for that. Why are tax cuts and support for the "war on terror" not negotiable? Oh, even the thought is heresy!

[veronica]

You'll see much California GOP bashing on this thread.

Wasn't Ronald Reagan Governor of California? Wasn't his ranch there? Isn't his library there? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[OKIEDOC]

I'm not knocking anyone candidate out of the race.

I live in Duncan Hunters district and support him gladly.

The problem with Duncan and his run for president is the 52% of the vote who have self identified themselves as AIRHEADS (Democrats).

Then he faces the one agenda voters who say things like I won't vote because I don't like this or that about a certain candidate.

I won't vote and will allow the Democrat Airheads to pick my next leader.

I won't vote and help the conservatives try to save the nation as I am to damned immature, hard headed, egotistical, ignorant or arrogant to understand the dire consequences of what I am doing to me, my family and to my country.

At this stage of the race I don't support any one candidate except Duncan Hunter who I personally like.

But come the day after the candidate is chosen that is the person I will support.

Here is some of the things we know about who the Democrats will choose to represent them in the next election:
*Democrats will absolutely choose abortion over life.
*Democrats will neuter our military in an effort to placate the Europeans, Russians, George Sorros America haters and more specifically the Terrorist.
*Democrats will raise your taxes.
*Democrats will not defend the borders in any way shape or form.
*Democrats will not defend American traditions.
*Democrats will make 20 million new illegal immigrant citizens whether you like it or not.
*Democrats will bring back MALAISE from the Goobers Carter era.
*Democrats will take America into the folds of Socialism like we have never seen.
*Democrats will attack our individual freedoms under the guise that it takes a village.

There is no way I am sitting home this next election.

If we do not stand united against these Godless arrogant race baiter diversifier at all costs hypocrites then we deserve what we get.

[dmw]

"There is no issue that could be considered more important than national security.
There is an endless parade of single issue voters in the general population and FReepers alike and they share the same common stupidity."

Your comments made me laugh just because of the contradictions and inconsistencies of what you and other Rudy supporters say here on this forum. First of all let's begin with this comment that you responded to: "Rudy's fiscal and national security record far overshadows his social liberalism." The problem I have with many of the Rudy supporters here is their dishonesty. Many, if not most, of the Rudy supporters here say that Rudy is a "social conservative". There has been only two that I recall here who were honest enough to admit that Rudy is not a social conservative, and is in fact a liberal. But they felt that his stand on national security was the most important "single issue" that compelled them to vote for Rudy. That's honest, but most of the Rudy supporters here are not honest in admitting this, even though Rudy's record clearly shows that he is a liberal.

That leads me to your comment where you said that "There is no issue that could be considered more important than national security". Then you go on to call FReepers who are single issue voters "stupid". I don't think that name calling is a very persuasive way to win people over to your side. Don't you see clearly what you are saying here? You are saying that Freepers who support Rudy because the number one issue (if not the ONLY issue) for them is, he will be good on national security. But Freepers who will not support Rudy for MANY reasons, are called "single issue voters". I believe that the FReepers who oppose Rudy have been far more persuasive than you and your Rudy supporter friends have been in explaining why they will not support Rudy. Many of them have pulled up his record and posted it here only to hear people complain and call them spammers. People who don't support Rudy are called spammers, stupid and single issue voters. Quite frankly, I think that the Rudy supporters have shown themselves to be the most single issue voters I've ever seen.

It would be far more honest if Rudy supporters would simply admit that they are supporting a liberal candidate and quit calling those who don't support him childish names. If you think issues such as guns, gun taxes, gay marriage, abortion and "blah, blah" (your words) are not important, then maybe you should tell Jim Robinson that. Or better yet, maybe you Rudybots should leave here and set up your own forum so you don't have to put up with us stupid Freepers here who believe in the conservative principles that Free Republic was founded on.

Let me say one final thing about the "particular slice of our diverse population" you speak of. Without our support Hillary is going to be the next president of the US. And I am honest enough to admit that without some of the moderate/liberal republicans supporting a more conservative candidate (if nominated) Hillary will be the next president of the US. For now, we can continue to disagree, that's fine, but at some point in time all of us are going to have to unite together for the good of our country and vote for the republican nominee, whoever he or she may be. I hope that we can at least agree on that.

[tarheelswamprat]

"DO NOT, underestimate how EVIL the average soccer mom is. They're out campaigning for leftists while their husbands are looking for jobs."

Since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, our country has sunk more gradually into socialism and social confusion.

They are the real-life embodiment and actualization of Benjamin Franklin's famous warning: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty in exchange for the promise of security deserve, and shall have, neither".

[ElkGroveDan]

BTW, if the California GOP supports Rudy's candidacy, what does that make them?

It hasn't and it won't, so the question is moot.

[antisocial]

"Most Texans have security as their #1 issue. Rudy was loved at the National convention and he'll do in Hillary. No one else can beat the Hillary/Obama Osama team."

Gracey, most Texans think of the second amendment as their security issue. Rudy doesen't have any respect for the second amendment. There are about 4 or 5 million NRA and other second amendment advocates (many in Texas) that couldn't support Rudy. Texans are by and large pretty strong on the social issues that Rudy doesen't support. If somehow he gets the nomination Hillary/Obama will beat him in the general because lots of people in Texas will vote 3rd party or just stay home.

[Doninnj]

"Reagan endorsed Democraps, took money from NARAL and accepted a Liberal Party Nomination?"


Reagan supported abortionists and was a Democrat.

[FreeReign]

Right. I see you're as confused as you've ever been. We have a history that goes back years and years. Through all that time, you haven't changed, you haven't grown. Here we are, common ground exists between us, yet you want to ignore it. That serves no good purpose.

Actually, my recollection of you as a poster through the years is somebody who I do see common ground with and somebody who is not a spammer. Instead (and I'm not trying to flame you) I see you as somebody who mistakenly believes that the time of Reagan was actually better than now. While others on this board have trashed you for things I have pretty much refrained from piling on at least while they were trashing you.

That said, last night you said a simple statement that Rudy was liberal on all social issues. I corrected you on it and I spent time (late at night when I should have been sleeping) and I gave you a good list to back up my claim. Instead of either agreeing with me or disputing my list, you gave me a non-sequitur question to answer and then you blamed me for not answering it and for being argumentative.

Maybe it's because I said when making my correct point that "you don't know what you are talking about". If you think that's an inappropriate response then just say so. Don't start flailing all over the place making false arguments and accusations about me.

Here's another of your false arguments. Something about me supposedly trying to boil down your list(that I agree with) into only three subjects.

There are many subjects/topics contained on my list of major social issues that could be debated. You want to boil them down to three issues and ignore all the rest. Kind of leaves you standing around with no way out. And looking real foolish to boot.

LOL! What?

Anyway...

[dirtboy]

Rudolph W. Giuliani came west to learn whether his brand of Republican politics has a chance among party members significantly more conservative than himself. By the time he had received a fourth standing ovation Saturday at the California Republican Party convention, the answer seemed clear.

The folks who gave us AhnoldCare are conservative?

[dirtboy]

I get the gut feeling that somehow or somewhere we are going to have another really stupid (STUPID) egoistical H. Ross Perot debacle and elect Hellary to at least four years of tearing down this country.

Nominate someone from the far left fringes of the GOP and you'll get just that - STUPID.

[OKIEDOC]

I have found only three people brave enough to admit they voted for that midget egotistical Napoleonic doofus Perot and gave us 8 years of Clintonism.

If being for the Republican nominee is stupid as you indicated then so be it.

But wasting a vote trying to prove a point and endangering your countries future seems more stupid.

If Rudy is from the fringes then about 75% of the party is living out there.

I say support Duncan all the way until the party nominates a candidate and then support that candidate.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

According to the latest surveys, (2/9/07) a strong 84% live "out there", in the Rudy camp. Those numbers have not changed much regardless of the slanderous effort put forth by that bitter 16%.

[dirtboy]

If being for the Republican nominee is stupid as you indicated then so be it.

No, what is stupid is when the Rockefeller wing wins the nomination by running left and expects the entire party to follow.

[dirtboy]

Reagan supported abortionists and was a Democrat.

More falsehoods from the Rudy camp about Reagan. Reagan never supported abortionists. Never got an award from NARAL.

[OKIEDOC]

Thank you for correcting me.

This next election is way to important to be spoiled by a third party can not win candidate.

The Democrats will for sure nominate an extreme fringe candidate in either Hellary or Barracks Hussein Osama Obama.

Either of these two Democrat muck-divers get elected and America as we have known it will disappear into a rewritten history.

You can dang well bet the farm that all the nut fringe (Secularist, Godless, Gays, Lesbians, Abortionists, Terrorists, Environuts, Muslims, Antiwar, Anti-Military and America Haters in general) out in this crazy world are pulling for the Democrats.

I am not at the present a big Rudy fan but if it is between an extremist (Hellary or Barracks Osama Obama) from the Democrats or a third party one agenda spoiler then Rudy will definitely get my vote and support.

[dirtboy]

Excuse me I am not the one living in the bizarro world... and you show yourself for what you are when you resort to such ridiculous comments.

Asking if serving in the NG isn't military service, as you implied, is bizarro?

[Reagan Man]

"It'll be interesting to see how you extricate yourself from this dilemma. I'll enjoy watching. Carry on."

That was the close of my last post to you. So far, you haven't extricated yourself from anything and remain entrenched in crapola up to your neck.

I'm not so sure if we had that much common ground in our past debates. But there is obvious common ground between us on Rudy Giuliani being wrong on the general topics of abortion, the 2nd amendment and illegal immigration. The problem all along has been your unwillingness to accept Rudy`s entire liberal record on every major social issue ---- not to mention his false credentials as a fiscal conservative, which we can get to later on, if you like.

From the get-go our debate has centered around the list of issues I raised with you and Rudy`s obvious agreement on those issues with every major liberal Democrat alive today. From Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman and Algore. Issues you refuse to even acknowledge exist. Social issues relevant to any debate of a serious GOP candidate for POTUS. Sorry, running away, won't make them go away.

Btw, referring to someone as a "spammer" for posting Rudy`s real liberal record, is a cheap pot shot, with no bearing on the facts. Also, bringing up Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. However, if you thought something could be gained by piling on, you would act accordingly. No doubt about it.

So what'll it be? Face the facts of Rudy`s liberal-leftwing extremism, or continue ignoring reality, in your borderline fantasy state of mind?