the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
Posted on 10/28/2007 4:43:03 AM PDT by libstripper
You wouldn't know it from reading the papers, but the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination is a confirmed right-winger. On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
That candidate is Rudolph W. Giuliani.
As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
And that is precisely the problem. We don’t need any more Bush era “conservatism”. We need Reagan era conservatism. Rudy isn’t the guy to deliver that.
Any real New Yorker would also know he endorsed that flaming leftist Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki for governor.
Lots of Republicans are ignoring that big stab in the back...
Sure, I think that's right. But he's gone nowhere and it's time for the "margin of error" candidates to drop out and clear the field.
IIRC, he also had the Conservative Party endorsement.
the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
I refuse to believe anyone would endanger their lives and the lives of their own families just to make a political point (not voting if RG gets the nod)not to mention put an end to our very way of life. This is why I have come to the conclusion that those who say they will stay home or vote third Party are liberals in conservative clothing.
The only other possible excuse is sheer mind numbing stupidity along with a stunning lack of the smallest quantity of common sense.
Just like the "life-long, true Republican, rock-ribbed conservatives" who were so offended by our undeniably defective Republican Congress, didn't vote, and gave us the present DemonRat monstrosity. If the Witch is elected every one of us is absolutely assured of at least a 20% income tax increase since she won't try to extend the Bush tax cuts and will veto any Congressional effort to do so. The rabid opposition to Rudy seen here is a superb example of people biting their noses to spite their faces.
That is what worries me, I want nothing of a “Bush era” conservative.
No more fooling around with this insane nonsense.
Go away, Rudy.
"...Well, what about Reagan? This president, renowned for his naps, granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. As governor of California, he signed the most liberal abortion legalization bill in America, then flip-flopped and became an abortion opponent. What did he do about it as president? Gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, the two swing votes that upheld and enshrined Roe v. Wade for the past quarter-century...
This is a recent editorial by Krauthammer and it can be found: HERE.
>> Then be prepared to hear the words “President Hillary Clinton” every day for eight long, long years. <<
Why, because Giuliani is going to be nominated TWICE? Two years after Bill, we elected the first Republican Congress is six decades. We lost in ‘96 because only-party-loyalty-matters types crammed Bob Dole down our throats, who then proceded not to fight against Clinton liberalism, but to make war on the class of ‘94.
People like YOU are the ONLY reason Clinton got re-elected.
Heck, why not? Last time a Clinton was in the White House we won the House, Senate and Presidency. And it wasn't just a coincidence; the Clintons put people off. The idea that the Clintons are Mr. and Ms. Antichrist is just the RINOs way of shutting down (permanently) the Republican wing of the Republican party.
In a general election neither Rudy, Mitt,or mcCain will beat Hillary.
The main stream media know this. The Democrats know this. Rudy himself knows that he cannot beat hilary. if he could beat hillary it would be Senator Rudy instead of Senator hillary. I believe that the Republican National Committee know this.
Unless the Republicans nominate a strong Conservative candidate, instead of trying to out Democrats as they did in ‘06, they are going to lose.
Granted Rudy is a fighter, he fought legimate gun owners.He also sued the gum manufactuers.
With the exception of Dunkin Hunter,should the Republicans stick with the candidates they have now, I will probably sit this one out.
If hillary is elected President, so be it.
I fell for the line, “Elect Republicans so I can appoint Conservative judges”. I voted for and helped elect Mel Martinez. And have regreted it ever since. What happened? The charge to neuter President Bush and Senator Frist was led by who? A Republican , John Mc Cain. A man who many on this forum now consider to be the savior of the universe. A man who was also instrumnetal in the Mc Cain-Fingold Act that gave George Soros a foothold in financing Democrats and fighting Conservatives.
In 2006 a genuine Concervative by the nme of Katherine Harris ran for Senate. She received no support whatsoever from the Republican National Committee.
This tells me that they, the Republican Party, wanted the Democrat Party to win the Senate Race.
I don't like refighting old battles but I thought Dole was a terrible choice. We had numerous better potential candidates, but they didn't run because they didn't want to go up against Dole, a man they all liked and respected. But still I voted for him. IIRC, it was Perot who drained off enough votes to allow Clinton to win a second time. Something the "I'll vote third-party before I'll vote for Rudy" types should keep in mind.
And that is precisely the problem. We don’t need any more Bush era “conservatism”. We need Reagan era conservatism. Rudy isn’t the guy to deliver that.
-
you mean you want a president who would appoint Sandra Day o’connor, criticize Israel for bombing a nuke reactor, visit Bitburg and sign the 1986 tax increase?
Then Krauthammer is a bald-faced liar. Reagan didn’t become pro-life only AFTER getting elected. The implication is pure deceit.
As for Simpson-Mazzoli, we wouldn’t be in this situation had the enforcement provisions been enforced. But instead, liberals took over the country a few months later, leading to 20 years of the Bush-Clinton dynasty of pre-emptive surrender to Mexico.
The Simpson-Mazzoli bill turned out to be a mistaken way of preventing illegal immigration. Giuliani desperately fought for more illegal immigration.
Let's be serious, there is no tenth amendment.
Yeah, it still in ink on the original document, but for all intents and purposes, it's a memory long ago neutered of all it's meaning .
Fear of Hillary is way overblown.
She needs a 60 % majority in both houses to do half of what is is accused of wanted to do. Not that I don't think she wouldn't try, but I really don't see that much difference between Rooty and Hillary except for the war on terrorism.
I for one, will not vote for a RINO. I have ONE vote and ONE vote only, I'm sick of using it for unprincipled feckless quasi conservatives candidates
Did you actually read Krauthammer? He said he flip flopped on abortion before the presidential election not after.
Oh, and by the way: Charles Krauthammer was WALTER MONDALE’S speechwriter. That makes Krauthammer singularly the voice of the anti-Reagan “naysayers.” Nice sources you’ve got there.
There are two in upper East Tennessee who will never vote for Rudy. We are keeping it real.
Waste of time. I remember the 90s well enough to know Rudy was the devil incarnate to the left, second only to Newt. But now in 2007 the cranks have their feet wedged firmly in the mud, and their fingers stuck tightly in their ears. Their first commandment is “Thou shalt not say anything sensible about Giuliani”.
I’m not even particularly a Rudy for prez supporter. I can live with him as the nominee if that’s how it goes down. But the sheer childishness of the Rudy haters, the petulant foot stomping DO IT MY WAY OR ELSE churlishness turns me off more then I can describe. But really what more can you expect from people who’s idea of a clever political argument is to call him “Julie-Annie”.
In 1992 there was a radio show in the afternoons I’d listen to sometimes when I had to be on the road, a show syndicated out of Florida called “For the People” which was an Art Bell type format before I ever heard of Art Bell. Generally silly but more entertaining then local talk shows.
The host was a Ross Perot fan, and shortly before the election the show stopped talking about flying saucers and such, and began attacking of GH Bush. Traitor was one of the nicer names he and the callers threw at Bush. Days of this. I’ve often wondered how satisfied were those callers by the Clinton years.
The point is I really think the hard core Rudy haters are beyond reaching, but there aren’t enough of them that it will matter. In 1992 there was a Ross Perot who could appeal to ordinary concerned people as well as to the nutcases and fanatics. Ron Paul is no Ross Perot, nor is Pat Buchanan. The fringe without a big chunk of the regular voters won’t turn the election whether it’s Rudy or whoever else is the nominee.
> I refuse to believe anyone would endanger their lives and the lives of their own families just to make a political point (not voting if RG gets the nod)not to mention put an end to our very way of life.
Yeah, I will probably vote for RG if he is the nominee. *sigh* I will swallow a cupful of Dramamine, put a clothespin on my nose, and grit my teeth, and vote for the amoral weasel who will be one shade less putrid than Her Thighness.
But I won’t campaign for him, and I won’t give money, and I won’t champion him to friends and family, even as I halfhearted did for half-conservative Bush. And I am not alone here.
If we want to win, you will need the grass roots fired up and ready to rock. RG will not do it.
I’m imploring people to really take a hard look at Rudy before the primaries, and ignore the “inevitability” trap that the Dims seems to be prey to. We’re smarter than this.
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.