Skip to comments.Giuliani campaigns in Newport Beach (and outlines his positions)
Posted on 03/25/2007 11:44:12 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led off with his strongest card, his terrorism-fighting credentials, before touching on healthcare, immigration and energy policy in a speech to a welcoming crowd Saturday.
"Sept. 11, 2001, taught me and I believe it taught a lot of people, including President Bush that we have to remain on offense," Giuliani said. "That means that we have to use our military. We can't show weakness."
Giuliani seemed to hit all the right notes Saturday, getting applause when he criticized Democrats' stance on healthcare and advocated vouchers for schools.
On immigration, he told reporters he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he could support a guest worker program if there were adequate border security and tamper-proof ID cards. He said that even if illegal immigrants "can demonstrate that they are lawful, that they are paying taxes [and] that they'll pay penalties," they still shouldn't be put ahead of people who go through legal channels.
"And citizenship here, if it's earned, should be premised on being able to read and write English and understand American history, so we restore assimilation to the process of immigration," he said.
"Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypilot.com ...
I know the answer the Rudy crowd will give, and I'm ready for it. ;^)
Their "canned" answer is that Rudy wants to be president, so he didn't want to have back-to-back campaigns. But, Hillary was willing to do it -- are the Rudyites implying that she is tougher than Rudy.
See, the Rudyites do better when they have a pre-scripted answer. But if you ask a question that they aren't prepared for, they either ignore it or accuse us of "smearing" Rudy.
Take for instance my question in #60, I first asked it on a different thread THREE DAYS AGO, I've reposted it VERBATIM a few times since then and Narses has also reposted it VERBATIM. As far as I know, it hasn't actually been answered. I guess the FRiberals are thinking it's some sort of riddle or whatnot.
So then you are a Hillary supporter. What are you doiing here?
It was only last week htese same people were pretending Rudy was no differnet than Hitler. I dont really. I cant wait until he gets the nomination and they all have to eat crow.
"The candidate believes in the "right" to abortion, including partial birth abortion."
If you are implying that this is Rudy's position, you are a liar.
So, Rudy says in a CNN interview on December 2, 1999 when asked about BANNING partial birth abortion, "No, I have not supported that, and I dont see my position on that changing," and you have the gall to call me a liar?!
But I notice yet again that no Rudybots are willing to give an honest answer to the question posed in #60.
Let a Hunter Duncan or Fred Thompson turn the election into a "womans" or "gay rights" issue, and you will hand Hillary/ Obama the WH.
I am a huge pro-life advocate. However I believe there is more than one way to decrease the number of abortions and actively work to achieve it. The movement goes way beyond legislation. If a Rudy ticket neutralises the issue so that the left (Hillary) can not run on it and win, then more power to him.
I have a sneaky suspicion that you dont really about the issue as you are making it out to seem. But rather are just exploiting it to make "anti-rudy points" on the forum.
Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake. Hes proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God.
In a two person race, why wouldn't you select the person who supports more of your views than the other candidate?
He'll vote for the Greens, just like me.
We need to get the Greens over the 5% mark so they can get federal election funding that they can use to pull in more voters from the howling moonbat wing of the Democrat party.
Someone says they won't support Rudy and in your mind that makes them a Hillary supporter?! And we non-Rudyites are here because we are CONSERVATIVES and we are opposed to his candidacy BECAUSE HE IS A LIBERAL.
Moreover, what makes you think that Hillary will even be the nominee? The Democrats historically DON'T NOMINATE THE FAVORITE. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the political careers of the following Democrats:
Ed Muskie, Eugene McCarthy, Mo Udall, Scoop Jackson, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Howard Dean.
ALL of these men were seen as frontrunners for the DNC nomination and none of them was ever nominated.
I refuse to take a talking point from his campaign website over what he actually said. It is totally inconsistent with what he has always said.
Hillary will be the nominee. The Clintons own that party. Dont kid yourself.
Because we have a better chance of gridlock is Hillary! wins?
Whereas, with Guiliani as President, the Democrats will enthusiastically support his liberal policies in the spirit of "bipartisanship," while the 'Pubbies will be forced to go along.
Rudy's "conservatives" policies (such as they are) will, of course, be DOA.
Gridlock would be better.
This is at least the third time in the past several minutes that you have questioned someones integrity (you actually called me a liar). So, please don't post to me again.
This question from #60? Likely no one's bothered to answer because it's completely asinine. It's like asking, "Would you support...?"
- A candidate who has a DUI and a long history of subastance abuse, including cocaine.
- A candidate who believes in amnesty for illegal aliens, and who won't lift a finger to control the borders, even facing an ongoing terrorist threat.
- A candidate who won't veto the most outrageous spending increases in the history of the nation, or stand up to the opposition party as they wreck the nation.
- A candidate who will send our troops into combat, tying their hands with a strict ROE, and then leave them to the wolves in the media and JAG at the first hint of trouble.
If that's all you have to go off of, then you're pretty much baiting for one answer, so you can jump up and yell "GOTCHA!". It's cheap theatrics, at best, but hardly the caliber of debate that will actually change anyone's mind.
"I refuse to take a talking point from his campaign website"
Well of course you do. What else are you going to say.
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.