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 ...
And where do you get your 4400 a day number? The most recent statistics I've seen were through 2004 on the National Right to Life Committee's website and they estimated 1.287 million for that year. This works out to 3526 per day, which I modified to "OVER 3500."
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
Anybody who thinks abortion is equivalent to cosmetic surgery is committed to a cause, all right, but it's certainly not the cause of unborn human babies.
Here's what I don't get: Why don't you Rudybots just come right out and say, "We LOVE abortion! It's our very favorite medical procedure. And like our candidate, we demand that the government pay us to do it, over and over again, right up to the instant our babies wail at us!" That's what Rudy believes. That's what you believe. So just say it.
I agree. But when you're picking from the top of a pile of manure - you're still getting just manure.
"I do not have the opportunities to counsel women as other women would."
Well as a 33 year old woman I do. And I know what I hear. I listen to them and I take to heart what they have to say. Never in those converstation does the personal views of the POTUS come into it. It just doesnt.
These girls have been taught they have a "right" to abort their babies. I fight everyday to educate them that just because they have a "right" does not make it right.
I applaud your effort in the cause and apologize for the snarky comments I made earlier in the thread about your lack of involvement in it.
Maybe I have lost hope in our government to do the right thing. I just dont look for the law to be overturned and in light of that, I have shifted my attention to other areas of the cause that I believe will have just as an important impact. I am all for "banning" abortion. I just dont beleive it will happen.
FreRepublic has turned into a place I no longer recognize.
When posters lie and insult conservative values, and Moderators permit it, it's time ask the questions -
What is going on here?
And is it acceptable behavior to Jim Robinson?
After running a pro-life ping list on this board since 2002, I'm absolutely certain of the following:
If you could poll all the women on FR, they would overwhelmingly tell you that the time to make the choice is before you climb into bed. That's the best time for the man to make a choice, too.
Sorry, but you have no clue if you think there's any sizable pro-choice contingent at FR, even among the fairer sex.
I am telling you, if you allow a woman to run on womans issues, you will lose and you will lose big.
OK...can you provide examples of races where this happened? Where a liberal, hardcore pro-abort woman ran against a conservative, hardcore pro-life man and cleaned his clock because of this issue?
This is the biggest flip-flop I have ever seen from any politician : )
American Life League
1.3 million ever year are surgical abortions. That number doesnt include "chemical" abortions, which pushes the number closer to 1.6 million every year.
http://all.org/article.php?id=10123
It was an estimate on my part.
"Sorry, but you have no clue if you think there's any sizable pro-choice contingent at FR, even among the fairer sex."
I never said that. I said I have argued with women on this forum over the last four years that were pro-choice.
"If you could poll all the women on FR, they would overwhelmingly tell you that the time to make the choice is before you climb into bed"
Thats great! Unfortunately it will take more than the women on this forum to get the POTUS elected. Are numbers just aren't big enough.
"OK...can you provide examples of races where this happened? "
NO I cant..but I might be able to come late November 2008.
Why in the world would you think Fred thompson can't win the general? He whomped the crap out of heavily funded Dems in a battleground state two elections in a row!
Frankly, I think the Rudy/anti-Rudy rancor needs to end. Not the debate, but the name-calling. We Hunter/Tancredo/Thompson supporters need to educate and show the way. Reagan gave us the answer to this situation in 1975, and the answer is conservatism, so let's quit sniping and judging them by the worst among them, and get it done Reagan style!
Well for one, he hasnt even announced he plans to run.
Secondly, he has been MIA for the last six years while the party has taken a beating. Where has he been? The left and the MSN have waged a full court press against the party for the last six years, and I am only NOW hearing his name. I dont like that.
Third, I think America has Bush fatigue and I think he conjurs up the same image. I hate to say that, becuase I love W. It (Bush fatigue) is just what I am hearing on the street from peole who dont post on politcal forums. You know..the every day Joe!
I have no doubt FT could shore up the GOP ticket. Head and shoulders over Duncan. I just dont think he will get America excited about going to voting the booth and large turnouts usually favor the GOP.
If you look at my posts, I tried. However, you are right about that.
Then you should have written that, instead of writing something that would not have been even one word different if you had meant that the majority of female FR members are pro-abortion.
NO I cant..but I might be able to come late November 2008.
OK...let me make sure I understand you. You say...
I am telling you, if you allow a woman to run on womans issues, you will lose and you will lose big.
...but you can't provide any examples of a woman running on "women's issues" against a pro-life conservative and winning.
If that's the case, could you share with me exactly what you're basing "you will lose and you will lose big" on, if you can't cite examples?
Sorry, but your Hillary prediction means bupkis if you've got nothing to back it up.
"If that's the case, could you share with me exactly what you're basing "you will lose and you will lose big" on, if you can't cite examples?"
I post on a lot of forums. Only this one is politcal. I talk to a lot of girls (you know.. young impressionable women who get most of their information from liberal professors and liberal news networks) and I can see the way they lean and how they think.
I believe, and I may be wrong, that if the abortion debate becomes the primary issue of the election, millions and millions of voters will go to the booth to ensure that thier right to have an abortion will stay intact.
This is a gut feeling I have from speaking to young and new voters across all walks of life. These girls have been brainwashed into believing that abortion is their liberation and needs defending. I cant stress this point enough. We can not undo that brainwashing before November 2008. If the election is centered around the issue, we will lose on it.
It is just peronsal observation from speaking candidly to girls, who have no poltical agenda, about abortion.
I asked why he couldn't win if he did. This is irrelevant.
Secondly, he has been MIA for the last six years while the party has taken a beating. Where has he been?
First, he's been working for a living, unlike the vast majority of his former colleagues in the Senate. Second, and more to the point, the party has been taking a beating because we have too many people like Rudy out in front and not enough people like Thompson!
It (Bush fatigue) is just what I am hearing on the street from peole who dont post on politcal forums. You know..the every day Joe!
This is the most important thing I'm going to write today, so read carefully:
I have learned one thing that is beyond doubt in the political arena: The I-can-tell-the-vote-will-go-this-way-based-on-my-personal-conversations method is about as reliable as reading chicken entrails. It is absolutely, positively worthless in every way for judging a candidate or party's chances.
It's what convinced the DUers they were about to get the White House in '04 (there were umpteen posts about how the exit polls must be right, because I talked to all these people...etc.) and convinced some Freepers that we were going to hold the Congress in '06. I could provide more examples, but you get the point.
And besides, I'm guessing you haven't been asking these people about Thompson.
I'd like to note that for the second time in the same thread, I'm saying someone can win based on their past performance, and you're saying they can't based on speculation that has nothing to do with any empirical fact. Instructive...
No I havent spoken to kids on the street about Thompson, because they have no idea who he is. I cant convince someone to vote for a guy they never heard of. Someone who isnt even on the thier radar. Can you understand that? What am I supposed to say to young people...ummmm you know that guy..he had a walk on part in Law and Order?
These kids are MTV generation voters... They prefer the far left of Obama! MTV's new politician de jour and I am supposed to come back with "the guy from Law and Order"?
Do you think this election is going to be the status quo? I do not. I think there will be a record turnout and that the these youths will have an huge impact on its outcome.
I want to win those voters to the GOP ticket. Dont you?
Young, unmarried women vote for the Dem in overwhelming numbers no matter who the GOP puts up. I'm not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're now more loyal as a demographic than Blacks, given Dubya's draw of record Black support in the last two elections. (Note the appeal to empirical data...pretty cool, eh?)
I believe, and I may be wrong, that if the abortion debate becomes the primary issue of the election, millions and millions of voters will go to the booth to ensure that thier right to have an abortion will stay intact.
1. Think about 2004 for a moment. You had an unswerving pro-lifer and un unswerving pro-abort. Guess what the primary issue in the campaign was? National security. Trust me on that; I wrote an op-ed about it based on exit polling data. The single greatest deciding factor in who people voted for that year was whether they thought we were safer now than on 9/11.
2. Given the small number of women that are both pro-abortion and hardcore conservative on other issues, there is virtually no chance that pro-abortion women will choose Rudy over a liberal, especially if a vote for that liberal is a vote for the first woman president.
3. When Rudy is asked to give examples of the kind of judges he would appoint, the names he lists are pro-life strict constructionists. If you were Hillary, you wouldn't have anything to say about that? You wouldn't say "He says he believes in the right to choose, but he'll appoint a Supreme Court that will have us in the back ally"?
I cant stress this point enough.
I guess I can't stress this point enough: The class of women you are talking about vote Dem almost unswervingly and ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE SWING VOTERS. They do not decide elections. Choosing a candidate based on what they say about politics is like me saying that Rudy can't win the general because all the NRA members I talk to are really concerned about gun rights.
Oh, and Hunter's fine with free trade. With Austrailia, Japan, England, etc...but not with nations like China, which are building up their military with funds they cull from us (no thanks to Clinton). As for his position on NAFTA/CAFTA, well, let's direct you to the answer by Sam Hunter.
Q: We know he wants to renogotiate the China trade deal (mercifully) and he is not a fan of CAFTA. But what is his stance on unfettered trade deals with good allies such as Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, Poland, Denmark, Italy etc. Can he assure the skeptics that he is not a strident protectionist?
Sam: Dad's position is that trade deals esentially are business deals between nations. He feels that nations can be good friends and allies and still require a level playing field with respect to trading rules. Presently all the nations you mentioned have the right to rebate all taxes to their exporters. However, under the deal we signed, America does not have the right to rebate taxes to our exporters. This amounts to an unfair advantage. My dad would require our allies to allow us the same favoarable tax treatment that they receive. This would do much to change the one-way street which produced a 804.9 billion dollar U.S. trade deficit last year. Thus, dad is for a two way street in trade, achieved by effective negotiators.
And there you have it.
Don't vote than. Sit on your couch.
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.