Posted on 03/18/2007 1:31:23 AM PDT by JohnSheppard
The same Beltway experts who declared Sen. John McCain of Arizona the GOP front-runner, even as he under-polled fellow presidential contender Rudolph Giuliani, now parrot equally dodgy concepts. When Republicans meet “the real Rudy,” they will abandon New York’s former mayor like cattle fleeing a burning barn. Then, the wobbly Washington wisdom continues, Giuliani’s three marriages, and his less-than-solidly-right-wing views on gays, guns and gametes will torpedo his buoyant presidential hopes.
These seers now detect unhappiness with the GOP aspirants. They cite a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in which 26 percent of Republican primary voters were dissatisfied with Giuliani, McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, among others. However, 56 percent called these choices satisfactory. This mirrors the 57 percent of conservative Republicans who preferred Giuliani, versus 31 percent for McCain. More broadly, Republicans backed Giuliani by 38 percent to McCain’s 24, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 10, Romney’s 8, and 2 percent each for Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
But what if voters like Giuliani better upon understanding his pre-9/11 performance? Educating Republicans on his complete mayoral record - and soon - may be Giuliani’s best bet for extinguishing the lingering grumbling about his candidacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Please see my #99...and, if it's OK with you...until you tell me otherwise, I'll count you as "undecided"...(G)
Dude, I never weighed in on the immigration issue on this thread.
I was suggesting that you chill with the insults as you discuss things among fellow conservatives.
Calling people stupid, or traitors, is not going to win arguments. It doesn't make this forum more pleasant. Show a little respect, that's all I'm saying.
I would happily support Thompson and Hunter. Not Rudy. And hell no to McCain.
And a Giuliani White House wouldn't?.......... http://www.blogicus.com/archives/rudy_giuliani_is_not_our_man.php
From your link:
"COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone..."
"GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And [Roberts] fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category."
Giulliani told Colmes that Roberts was a good choice, that abortion was not a litmus test and used Ginsburg's "intelligence" as justification for nominating somebody in the mold of Roberts.
If the choice in November 2008 is Giuliani vs. Hillary, here are the options:
1. Vote for Hillary and help Hillary gain the White House and guarantee more Ruth Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court and guarantee that late term abortions will be the law of the land for decades to come.
2. Stay home and help Hillary gain the White House and guarantee more Ruth Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court and guarantee that late term abortions will be the law of the land for decades to come.
3. Vote for the 2008 version of Ross Perot and help Hillary gain the White House and guarantee more Ruth Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court and guarantee that late term abortions will be the law of the land for decades to come.
4. Vote for Giuliani and have a chance that he may very well nominate more Roberts to the Supreme Court.
If the choice in 2008 is Giuliany vs. Hillary, I choose to vote Number 4 in the general election and I urge all other conservatives to vote Number 4 too.
If he would run, I think that Fred Thompson could have the charisma to pull a lot of those sheeple votes without demoralizing the base the way Giuliani at the head of the ticket would.
That is an issue that affects the primaries and I believe that Thompson could beat Hillary in a general election. There is no problem in voting for Thompson in the primaries.
The problem, however, is that far too many conservatives are saying that if the general election candidate is not a true conservative, they will throw their vote away or stay home and that guarantees a Hillary White House with all the horrors that would bring.
BTW..look for other conservatives, this summer and fall, to start endorsing Rudy...I predict Santorum, Coburn, Kyle, Cornyn, among others.. I suspect these are already locked up, and will be rolled out, one every few weeks...
If the illegals protesting in the streets carrying signs glorifying Osama Bin Laden wasn't enough of a clue for you... you are lost...
I'm sorry, but the WOT does not justify me compromising my world view and my political beliefs...I don't think that anyone can justify a moral compromise in the name of safety.
That anyone could buy into that rational alone scares the beejeebees outta me.
Frankly, I no longer trust anyone in a political office....I certainly do not believe that the Government is capable or really interested in protecting me.
Let's see. Abusive. Can't reply on topic. Unresponsive to specific points raised in posts, preferring to repeat earlier rants...
Leave the poor man alone. Hasn't poor Francois suffered enough in this exchange?
;)
Blogicus? Please.
When you posted .."Giuliani White House wouldn't?" I knew you had the Ginsberg quote in mind. Republicans typically don't object to judicial nominees, because they have more respect for the institution that did the nominating, be it the President or some N.Y.C. Borough committee members.
What do you expect Rudy to say about Ginsberg on T.V., that she's a vicious baby-killing whore who consorts with the devil? It's called being gracious. Rudy has said he'd appoint judges like Alito or Roberts. Has he said he'd appoint judges like Ginsberg? Of course not. He knows Ginsberg and her type would be judicial activists. Rudy has said many times he is very much against judicial activism.
As for the other issue of Blogicus, quoting Connie Mackey from the FRC saying Giuliani appointed mostly liberal judges to NYC Municipal courts - she apparently doesn't understand, or investigate the procedure NYC has for appointing Muni. judges. FYI, they are vetted by NYC Borough members - some are not even lawyers. The mayor is given a list of who the borough members chose.
So if the neighborhoods in Dothan, Alabama were able to pick the judges that decided cases in their neighborhoods, where on the political spectrum would they be? That's right, as far to the right as NYC neighborhoods chooses far to the left.
If Fred jumps in, McCain drops out and endorses Rudy, I suspect the alleged friendship between Thompson and McCain would be over.
Good idea.
Interesting how our soviet like news is picking our presidential choice for us.
I know what was said on the link. It said he has a history of appointing liberal judges. Of course he's not going to be foolish enough to come right out out and say he'd appoint Ginsburg clones when he's campaigning for the Republican nomination. But I have serious doubts about what kind of person he actually would put up if elected.
If the choice in November 2008 is Giuliani vs. Hillary, here are the options:...
How about if we work together to make sure that ISN'T the choice we have to make? If we have to have a government filled with Lincoln Chafee types because people say that real conservatives can't win, what have we gained?
In my congressional district, there was a lot of talk that we should nominate a moderate instead of Michele Bachman because she was just too conservative to win here. Michele wound up winning (at least in part) because the conservatives had somebody good enough for them to be willing to donate their time and money to help get elected.
Tom Friedman, whom I usually scorn for his relentlessly adolescent writing, made the point:
George Bush has lost the PR war to a bunch of people who blow up emergency rooms.
Let's see... illegals protesting in the streets carrying signs glorifying Osama Bin Laden...
Immigration is good, yeah... tough on terror, tough on crime...
Illegals protesting in the streets carrying signs glorifying Osama Bin Laden...
Immigration is good, yeah... tough on terror, tough on crime...
What do I expect he'd say? I'd expect he'd say whatever he needed to get the nomination (ala slick Willie). I notice he's saying things now to soften his stance on gun control. When he starts making statements that are polar opposites to his demonstrated core beliefs, it makes me think he'd say anything that the polling tells him to say.
Just my thoughts.
ROFL, thank you for proving my point.
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.