Posted on 04/16/2007 11:59:05 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The stakes are way to high to put a liberal of EITHER party in the White House. But, make no mistake a liberal Republican and/or a Democrat would be worse than four years of Hillary.
Eight years of a liberal Republican will realign Congress pre-1994 and pre-Reagan. Social conservative/Reagan Democrats will retake the south in Congress and leave the GOP in a minority for generation if RINO Rudy reaches the White House.
And, there will be no stopping any leftist policy Giuliani attempts to push through.
Definitely to the latter because she wouldn't want to lose power.
As far as the former, why would you think a liberal Republican would maintain tax cuts and not raise them? History shows that RINOs like Christie Todd Whitman will raise taxes if it is politically expedient.
RINO Rudy has shown that he is open to tax increases and will oppose tax cuts when politically advantageous as well:
Taxes
---"Over the objections of a furious Mayor Giuliani and city legislators from both parties, the New York state legislature has abolished the New York City commuter tax. The action, done to apparently affect a local legislative race in suburban Rockland County, could cost New York City $360 million. NPR's Margot Adler reports."--- NPR Report
---"Let's face it: Rudy Giuliani argued for the reinstatement of the tax,..."--- NY Sun report
[Giuliani] says ruling out a tax increase is "political pandering." Newsday, August 31, 1989
"When I ran for Mayor both times, I was asked very, very often to do the following:
Pledge that you will never raise taxes. I refused to do that. Pledge that you will lower taxes. I refused to do that." -- Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, October 25, 1994
Mr. Giuliani criticized Mr. Pataki’s proposal to cut taxes as “a shell game” that would hurt everyone in the state… -- New York Times, October 30, 1994
Nor will Giuliani nominate anything but the same kind of liberal judges he appointed in New York:
Judical appointments
A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.
A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.
Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group. "They were decent, moderate people," she said.
Source: Ben Smith, The Politico, 3/1/07
One judge approved by Giuliani, Rosalyn Richter, had been executive director of a gay rights organization, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, before being named to the bench. After her initial appointment by former Mayor David N. Dinkins, Richter changed the questions asked of potential jurors to be more welcoming to gay and lesbian couples. She was later reappointed by Giuliani.
Another judge, appointed by Giuliani to the criminal bench in 1996, Dora Irizarry, has called herself pro-choice and was later elevated to the federal bench with strong support from Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
A family court judge reappointed by Giuliani, Sheldon Rand, was excoriated on the conservative-leaning New York Post editorial page last week for ruling that city funds be used to pay for a sex-change operation for an indigent New York resident.
And a fourth judge, Paula J. Hepner, appointed initially by Dinkins in 1995, issued a ruling that allowed a lesbian to adopt her partner's child. Four years later, Giuliani reappointed Hepner to New York's family court bench. Hepner was subsequently married to another woman in a ceremony in Canada.
Source: om Hamburger and Adam Schreck, Los Angeles Times, 3/12/07
There’s a possible way to prevent this. My thought is we here could cross over in the democrat primary and vote for Obama. At least in my home state - Illinois - this could work, I suspect it could work in other states. I know Obama is unqualified - really, an empty suit - but at least we could in theory drive a stake through Dracula’s heart and rid our country of the Clintons. Any thoughts on this concept out there???
Even 2004 was not 2004. I am still amazed how close Kerry came. What if it was Gore or some other Dem heaviweight? We were lucky that time.
And they are working toward that. Imus was just the first step.
I agree. I also believe the Clintons would never take the second slot under Obama - it would not be in their nature. So, if somehow another - any - democrat could be assisted by cross-over Republican votes, perhaps it would be possible to finally end the influence of the Clintons in our country.
In my experience, even if they won’t vote for her in the Primaries, they will march in lockstep and vote for her against a Republican.
There is maybe 3-5 % of the vote that is up for grabs. A candidate like Fred Thompson, should he decide to run, or Rudy, might appeal to those people.
I agree with Rush, Hillary is just using Obama. Obama doesn’t have the chance of that proverbial snowball you know where.
Rush: “Everybody says, “Well, what about Obama? What about Obama?” Folks. I know there are stories out there how the Clintons are worried about Obama and not just on this fundraising stuff, but his “godlike status to the godless” and so forth. If you’re the Clinton machine, and your single competitor is somebody with less than two years experience in these foxholes, do you really think they are worried about Barack Obama? If you have fallen for the notion that the Clinton machine is sort of upside down and discombobulated and doesn’t quite know what’s going on here, you are falling for more myths from the media, which is designed to make it look like she has real competition so that she can overcome obstacles rather than be this candidate of inevitability — which she is. So she’s trying to make it look like she’s got a serious challenge and she’s up to it, and she can handle it. But I’m telling you, I know the Clinton machine. If you think they are seriously worried about somebody with as little experience as Obama has in these kinds of things, then you’re falling for it. “
Rudy’s record speaks for itself. He cut taxes over 23 times. To suggest he is opposed to tax=cutting is dishonest. He is a quintissential supply-sider who applied Reaganomics in NYC over and over. He cut NYC’s top income-tax rate by 20.6%. Local city taxes on a family of four dropped 23.7%. He cut the commercial-rent tax. He cut sales taxes, including taxes on clothing. He cut the marriage penalty tax. He cut taxes on commercial rents and on small businesses and self-employed New Yorkers. He privatized municipal assets, selling city-owned radio and television stations and divested the City from the New York Coliseum adding $345 million to erase the City’s red ink. Then he cut NYC’s hotel tax from 6% to 5%. Tourism increased 50% in the city per year during Rudy’s tenure. Personal income increased 50%. Unemployment in the city went form 10.3% to 5.1%.
Sure, that’s why Steve Forbes endorsed Giuliani, because he believes Rudy will raise taxes, sure. (/sarc)
Rudy’s the One
The free-market leader of the GOP field.
BY STEVE FORBES
Friday, March 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Opinion Journal
Rudy Giuliani is the real fiscal conservative in the 2008 presidential race. That’s why I’m endorsing him for president.
Most Americans know that Mr. Giuliani turned around America’s largest city. They know he cut crime and welfare in half; they know that he improved the quality of life from Times Square to Coney Island and everywhere in between. And they witnessed his Churchillian leadership following the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Less well known is the mayor’s fiscal record. Nonetheless, conservatives will find it impressive. He built New York’s resurgence not just on fundamental police work, but also on a foundation of fiscal discipline. He cut taxes and the size of government and turned an inherited deficit into a multibillion dollar surplus.
http://www.slantright.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=360
Let’s see, who has more credibility, an anonymous screen name or Steve Forbes?
She does do TOTAL protection interviews.
Questions ONLY in advance. Forbidden areas of coverage.
The MSM is desperate for access and the polticians use it for leverage.
Guiliani was ALWAYS a sacraficial annode to getting Hillary into office.
I put her chances at 6 in 10 actually. But its good to see Rush being honest with his audience - maybe all these “Hillary could never win” freepers will wake up.
“What is the POINT OF WINNING if conservatives have to become like liberals to win? That’s the question that doesn’t see to penetrate through the thick skulls of RINO Rudy’s apologists.”
Your premise is pure b.s. Conservatives don’t become liberals by nominating Giuliani. They show they are ready to start winning elections at a time that otherwise looks bleak for Republicans. The Dems have registered 15% more voters than Republicans. They have Soros to fund them from here to eternity. They have the mainstream media to push their propaganda and do their dirty work. They have red states like OH and VA and CO that are fast turning purple. They have Bush fatigue. They have the monolithic black vote and most of the Hispanic vote. What have the Republicans got? Do you think a second-stringer like Thompson could win NJ or PA? Get real.
your comments sound like the media elites who said “how could Nixon/Reagan/Bush have won, no one I know voted for him”.
do you live in NYC? do you understand anything about the commuter tax? the tax was designed to defray the costs, mostly for the transportation infrastructure, generated by people commuting into the city. the tax became a political football, it was repealed, and instead replaced with higher suburban rail fares and tolls.
Related:
Clinton out-raised but still sits atop largest war chest
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818861/posts
Overall, the New York senator actually brought in a record amount for this point in a presidential race, $36 million.
~~~
It’s very clear that underestimating Hillary is a major mistake. People should know better.
I think what you are seeing here - specifically with respect to why Rush is mentioning Rudy - is that Rush must have been talking to some high level RNC pollsters, who have told him the same thing I have been saying here for weeks - Thompson’s chances of winning the general, aren’t very good. His ability to flip any Kerry states is weak, Ohio is looking bad, western states like NV, NM and CO are looking bad with Richardson on the Dem ticket.
Giuliani supports are dumb, dumb and dumber.
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.