Skip to comments.Giuliani Speaks at CPAC (CSPAN) LIVE
Posted on 03/02/2007 8:40:17 AM PST by areafiftyone
All day today we are covering speakers and panels at the 34th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. This morning, we'll hear from Republican presidential hopeful former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He will be followed by Reps. Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom Tancredo (CO), and others.
CLICK ON THE MAIN CSPAN PAGE HERE
I'm already there. *grin*
Coming from you, using your own words, that's pretty funny. Don't quite your day job, though. There could never be another Sam Kinison.
The answer is in my statements like these:
I've already stated that FR will probably become even more conservative than it already is, through attrition if nothing else. Besides continuing to champion the defense of America, FR just might become the "Conservative Conscience of the Republican Party," ie, we may become a real thorn in the side of moderate/liberal Republicanism. Someone has to try defend the party from completely tossing out traditional American conservatism. Might as well be us.
How many times must I say FR is a conservative site? We do not support abortionism, homosexualism, feminisim, environmentalism, gun control, liberalism, socialism, etc, etc, etc. When I say I suspect we will become even more conservative than we already are, possibly via attrition if nothing else, what do you think I'm referring to? When FR starts pushing hard and I mean hard against abortion, gay marriage, homosexual education forced on our school children, pandering to illegal aliens, gun control, McCaine-Feingold type usurpation, global warming, etc, etc, even if supported or advanced by the GOP, then I fully suspect certain types of moderate/liberal Republican supporters are probably going to be a little uncomfortable here. We will be fighting for traditional American conservatism no matter who we have to fight against and I'm afraid that's going to piss off some folks.
And I'll borrow a slogan used by the NFRA that I realy like:
"We are the 'Republican' Wing of the Republcan Party!"
Civility? You tossed civility weeks ago. Like I said, you're not only a nanny, you're the number one butt kisser and tattle tale and that's saying something, given the competition around here.
God, I miss Sam Kinison. A guilty pleasure.
I do too. Greatest comedian who ever lived.
That will be their decision to make not mine.
Gotta go. Will be back later tonight after the rally.
God bless our troops!!
How does going along with the leftward lurch of the Rudy boosters achieve conservative victories?
If I have learned anything about pubbie leaders in recent years, it is that they will try to run left and grab power if you don't give them a good swift yank on the leash from time to time. We failed to provide that yank enough times, and we got 2006 for our troubles. 2008, if Rudy is nominated, will make 2006 look like a minor setback.
Looks like you touched a nerve...LOL.
I doubt it. There are a few here who claim on a number of threads that either they or some mysterious "others" have turned to Giuliani as a result of the vitriol of the Hunter supporters. The fact that they have spewed more ugliness than the "Hunter" group seems not to affect their view of these threads.
I can't let the DEMs win the presidency. It's too scary a prospect to have Hillary as Pres.
Oh, I tried being civil. And saw bogus attacks on conservative organizations and candidates. And I don't recall you ever posting on the open forum that a few of your buddies doing such should stop. They declared war. And now they and you are whining about what resulted.
So it's a bit late to try and pretend you've taken the high road here.
I'm not whining about a damn thing.
I haven't decided if I could or not. If Rudy were nominated, I would have to see what he said and did in the runup to the general election.
I do know that I would have divots in my nose that dwarf those from 1996.
All you've done on this thread is whine about me. Get a grip. Seriously, chill out.
I agree with over 90% of how Jim defines this site -- that's why I'm here. There are a couple of issues I disagree with, but that doesn't bother me at all, and Jim has never struck me as someone demanding 100% compliance.
I hope that Jim continues to defend those principles and maintains Free Republic as a site that fights for those principles. I believe the vast majority of Freepers agree with that.
But when it comes to party politics and elections, neither Jim nor any of us get to define the candidates, the parties, who runs or who doesn't. We all have a free choice to support candidates and we all have the right to vote (except for MadIvan) -- but we usually do not get to vote in November Leap Years for candidates who agree 90% or more with the above. In some states, like Maine, 50% is the best that is politically possible.
In 1980, we had a great campaigner who was also quite conservative. I was 100% behind Reagan. That summer I met GHWB on my campus (senior year) after he was nominated at VP. Had Free Republic existed then, my guess is Reagan would have been the overwhelming choice.
This cycle it is more difficult. We're not facing an unpopular Jimmy Carter. We've had instead eight years of an increasingly unpopular Republican President. The 'rats are gaining ground -- although their perfomance in Congress so far shows that they are not ready for prime time. Winning the White House next year will not be easy.
We need a good candidate. Rudy is by far the best known, most popular, most able to appeal to the whole country (especially independents), most respected among elected Republicans, and the least conservative. McCain is viewed as a weasel. Romney has several problems. Gingrich may not run, and he has a lot of baggage. The other candidates are mini-mees.
Some Freepers -- like me -- believe Rudy is the clear choice despite his liberal views on some issues because his promise to appoint originalist Justices mitigates his personal social views, because he has the best chance to win, and because of his track record in NYC on issues like taxes, crime, economic growth, etc. I also believe there isn't another candidate out there with anywhere near as good a chance at winning.
Other Freepers -- including our illustrious Founder and Owner -- believe on principle that supporting Rudy is unacceptable because of his positions on issues of deep concern such as abortion and gun rights are unacceptable. They doubt his pledge on Justices -- fair point -- and/or refuse to support him even if he would appoint originalists because he is just personally not what they want to see in 1600 PA Ave. After eight years of Bubba that is understandable.
What I think needs to be said is that sincere, honest differences over the better strategery -- oppose or support Rudy -- should not be confused with the basic mission statement of Free Republic. I believe electing Rudy is the best chance to advance those principles -- given our other, limited choices. Others disagree. But at least for me, with only limited choices I do not accept that voting for any candidate means I endorse all of his views. I don't. And I suspect most of the Rudy supporters do not accept all of his views either.
I support Jim 100% sticking by his guns on the mission of Free Republic, and I hope Howlin and other Freeper Warriors stick to their guns too. Candidates and politicians come and go -- principles are timeless.
Well said. I just kicked in an extra donation to FR, and invite those who feel the same way I do to respond in the same manner.