Posted on 03/02/2007 1:04:18 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Greetings.
This is just going to be a simple thread. Granted, there's been a lot of vitriol on both sides of the Giuliani/Hunter divide, and those who are undecided (or voting for someone else) are probably wondering about the rage.
Well, let's examine this situation a bit.
First of all, Rudy Giuliani. He certainly cleaned up New York City; no doubt about that. His fiscal policies certainly seem conservative compared to the rest of New York City (despite that fact New York City and its home state are home to some of the highest taxes in the US; I wonder what previous taxes must have been like, adjusted for inflation?). I won't deny that he did a lot for New York City, but it's important to think about his positions and standpoints. Then you'll see why detractors of Rudy Giuliani are so angry.
For one thing, he is not a very constitutionally sound candidate. All you have to do is look at his positions concerning the 2nd Amendment. He's far too wiling to accomadate illegal immigrants. Socially, his conservatism is rather lacking; despite some Freeper's wish to the contrary, a lot of people regard abortion as a major issue considering that it results in the loss of innocent lives. His positions are often in conflict with a majority of the GOP, and are simultaneously coinciding with those of the Democrats. With the exception of the War on Terror, he's mostly opposed to the GOP. Considering the far-Left bent of New York, that's not surprising. That's one reason why a lot of people are skeptical of New York's former Mayor; although conservative by comparison with the rest of New York, he's most certainly not conservative enough for the office of the US President.
Although I know that the War on Islamofascism (the War on Terror for those who are politically correct) is supported fullheartedly by Rudy, it's important to weigh that with other issues as well. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was steadfast in his support of World War II, yet he was responsible for introducing a glut of socialism into American society (Social Security ring a bell?). This is a lead-in for a point I'll get into in a moment: sacrificing social conservative values for a strong wartime leader may seem fine and dandy, but why should that occur when other strong advocates for the War on Terror exist...without the Leftist baggage that Rudy carries?
A brief look at Duncan Hunter before I continue on; his strongest points are his social conservative values and his previous service as a Ranger. His military background and military family provide strong evidence for a good wartime leader, and one of his strongest points are his stances for border control and AGAINST illegal immigration. Granted, his fiscal conservatism may be a bit spotty; he's pro-tax cuts, but he's also a bit of a spender. I've heard many complaints about how he's against free trade, but his stances strike me more as against China's trade practices. Seeing China's military build-up and their friendliness with Iran and other hostile countries, it's understandable. I certainly don't hear him complaining about trade with England, Japan, Germany, or other countries.
When weighing all the issues, it would seem that - comparing Giuliani and Hunter - the latter comes out as more conservative than liberal, whereas the former is more liberal than conservative. I know that Reagan's famous "80% ally and 20% enemy" quotation has been thrown about a lot by Rudy supporters, but "80% enemy, 20% ally" seems more fitting for Giuliani considering how diametrically opposed he is to conservative values. The support is all the more confusing when you consider one important facet. When looking at this facet, some of you might wonder why there is such anger on Free Republic lately.
We're not even at the primaries yet.
Yes, that's right. The mainstream media has been trotting out Rudy/McCain/Romney as the big three Republican candidates, and considering the supposed invincibility of Hillary, it's quite easy to imagine a Rudy vs. Hillary general election. I guess this "anyone but Hillary" mentality is justification for supporting someone like Rudy, who's quite liberal. A major reason for his popularity with conservatives is:
A) Name recognition (a good deal from 9/11 alone).
B) "Electability"
I don't quite know how one can gauge option B. Perhaps it stems from the 2006 elections, where Republicans lost in a big way. I guess those who look at those who loss (like Santorum) and guess that illegal immigration is a losing issue. Understandable. However, this is surrendering to the power of the media, which has managed to color the Republican Party as the Party of Corruption. If their searing eye was directed at the Democrats with the same intensity, we'd see a big switch in voter positions. But alas, that's a different issue.
Think about the Democrats who won. Granted, a lot of voters wanted an alternative to "corrupt" Republicans, but take note that many of the new Democrats who won ran on pro-life, socially conservative positions. Whether this will hold up has yet to be determined, but it should remind people that socially conservative issues still carry a large sway with voters. It all comes down to presentation; certianly, Rudy Giuliani is an effective speaker (as his recent CPAC appearance showed; sorry Bush, but you're not very telegenic). Whether Hunter is has yet to be determined (8:00 PM Eastern on C-SPAN tonight will show a replay of his 8:30 AM speech, so we'll see; call C-SPAN to make sure they don't change it!), so we'll see.
But anyway, back to my main point: the primaries.
I see many Freepers tearing themselves to shreds. Many people are angry with Rudy supporters, and I see some Rudy supporters lament why they're so antagonistic. Can you blame them? We're not even at the primaries yet, and you're throwing your weight behind someone who is far more liberal than conservative. Obviously, this is quite concerning.
There are conservative candidates out there. Grassroots can accomplish a lot, and we are NOT at the primaries yet. For a conservative to support a liberal candidate strikes many here (including me) as contradictory, as it should be. Rudy Giuliani's own standpoints on many issues infuriate a lot of Freepers (note to all: showcasing the standpoints/political leanings/views of a candidate is not smearing). I note how many complain about people trying to "tear Rudy down".
This is what happens when the candidate you support is a liberal.
Of course conservatives are going to tear a liberal down! If revealing his stances, showcasing his political record, and doing so repeatedly counts as tearing an opponent down, so what? Would you not do the same for Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Hillary, Al Gore, or Obama? That's why politics is a deadly game and requires a tough skin...but alas, I have to finish with my point.
Conservatism is being rendered irrelevant bit by bit in this country, and a lot of people can see that. They want to reverse that tide and remind people why America's conservative values are the best around. But how can we accomplish that when we ignore conservatives in favor of popular liberals?
Needless to say, Rudy Giuliani was great for New York City. But he's simply too liberal to be good for America.
And what if it does come down to Rudy vs. Hillary?
Well, there's your answer: it's still a what-if. We're not there yet.
So focus on the conservatives until then. Unless you want conservatism to surrender itself to irrelevance.
Ping to all.
Be nice.
Above-average grammar and composition, for a vanity. Help yourself to some pretzels and a Diet Coke!
I agree with Rush Limbaugh's position. He's very upfront that Rudy is not a conservative and that conservatism will never allow itself to be redifined according to the current political fashions.
But Rush still quite clearly does not rule out supporting Rudy. That's because every election is different and in some elections it might be in the cards to swing for the fences with a conservative candidate, while in another election, the smart move might be to try for a bunt in the hopes of keeping the inning alive.
A vote for Rudy to beat Hillary would be comparable to a bunt in my view. I'm not saying that will be the best we can hope for, but I'm pragmatic enough to know that it might be required. Just look what happened in the 2006 elections to conservatives like Santorum and Allen in key battleground states.
Rudy with anyone will send me to a third party.
Please be respectful.
***I respectfully point out that Rudy's positions can be seen in his own words, on YouTube, and that his supporters have been quiet on the thread set up to discuss the video.
Rudy Giuliani video on YouTube: "I would like to run on the Democratic line "
YouTube ^
Posted on 03/01/2007 2:53:19 PM PST by Kevmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Even Newt?
I was just about to post that.
The "All or Nothings" and Duncanistas on FR are would rather have Hillary as Pres. All in the name for teaching the Republicans a lesson.
Unless and until that situation arises, I'll not support Giuliani.
Romney is my first choice, with Duncan Hunter gaining in second place.
There is no way I could iiin good conscience ever vote for Rudy McRomney. I will go third party.
A well said and reasoned post Ultra Sonic 007.
A good, cogent piece. See tagline for my thoughts on the matter...
Yes.
That's me. It's sad to watch conservatives cutting themselves up. The liberals must be loving this.
Like I said, it's foolish to think about the general election at the moment (this applies to both sides). So let's not assume that Hillary will get the nomination in the end (considering her recent fights with Hollywood-backed Obama).
We can't predict what'll happen a year from now.
Till then, support your conservative candidate.
Rudophiles are running and hiding. Kind of odd behavior for a group that's supposed to be taunting us about how their candidate "won" the straw poll in Spartanburg.
Congratulations on a well-composed vanity about our current situation. You made a bunch of great points on various aspects of the electoral scene.
Really. Good job. I wish half the discussion was at this level of discourse.
My main complaint this week is that the social conservatives who have been trashing this forum with spam and comments like "cretins" are not offering a viable alternative to destruction of the GOP frontrunner.
A circular firing squad generally isn't advisable.
There still is plenty of time for a Plan B candidate to emerge. You think it's Hunter. I'm not sure how likely that is, but it's not inconceivable. At least it's a plan.
If Rudy is allowed to back off his comments about abortion, which he's done, I'll surely allow Hunter to back off his opposition to free trade agreements, and pledge more fiscal responsibility.
We'll just see.
But this forum has been anything but respectful over the past several weeks, and it's more than time to try to re-establish that.
Bravo.
Nicely done!
Conservatives have practically been abandoned by the Republican party. Hunter would be better off to leave the Republicans and run under the Conservative party banner.
Hear, hear! I agree. Good points, US7.
"we all have to push back against the MSM and their attempt to direct our elections."
I am of the opinion if Rudy, or either of the other two RINOs, wins the nomination, the media has already directed the elction. The media has NEVER done any favors for conservatives and Rudy is one of their friends. The friend of my enemy......
I have to agree with you.
Since the Dems aren't running anyone who is strong for Border Control and against amnesty, Hunter will definitely win cross over votes on that issue alone.
sw
I think you like to post every day who you won't vote for, just to bug me. Or maybe because you think we've all forgotten your post from yesterday. Or the day before that. Or the day before that.
How'd your vote for Kinky Friedman work out?
There is not major difference on most issue between Rino Rudy and Hitlary. So I can not vote for either.
"And what if it does come down to Rudy vs. Hillary?"
This thought does bother me, even though we are still so far from the general election.
If it does happen I will be thinking the following:
Do I want a anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, pro gay agenda candidate who will prosecute the war with her own interests in mind?
or
Do I want a anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, pro gay agenda candidate who will prosecute the war with America's interests in mind?
I will have to choose the latter. Voting 3rd party may seem to be the morally correct choice but it would most likely end up handing the country to Hillary.
For now, I will whole-heartedly support Duncan Hunter through the primaries.
marinamuffy
PS - Nice vanity.
Better then a vote for Emperor Goodhair. Every few weeks he proofs that one right.
Me as well, sadly. I have 'gone along to get along' in the past, but it's time to draw the line and defend very core beliefs. Odd how the party can say to hell with conservatives through their actions, but when we stand firm in our principles, the party faithful get all bent out of shape. Oh, well.
"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated. "
Ronald Reagan
I think your first and second choices are both good. I just have the order reversed. I'd even be willing to vote for Rudy if he was second spot on the ticket. Then, if he helps the ticket get elected and doesn't give the middle finger to conservatives as VP, I'd be willing to trust him as #1.
Talk about a backhanded insult. Offer the man some beer! :P
Newt?
I would think that Giuliani would make a good Secretary of State, or a good Ambassador to the UN.
Wouldn't THAT give Democrats conniption fits to see Rudy at the UN.
I'm a minor, so no. :P
And believe it or not, I have a Diet Coke by my side right now. *sips*
Duncan Hunter is looking pretty good now. If MSM (lapdogs of the RAT Party) is pushing Giuliani, McCain and Romney down our throats as the only Pubby candidates, we should be wary and on our guard. It's been repeatedly stated that MSM's goal is to form public opinion not report the news (anyone remember Dan Blather?). So when MSM is telling us who we're stuck with, all the red flags should be surfacing warning us that danger is ahead.
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.