Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Message to Rudy Giuliani and His Supporters (VANITY)
Self | February 23, 2007 | Alberta's Child

Posted on 02/23/2007 7:45:02 AM PST by Alberta's Child

There have been quite a few threads posted on the subject of Rudy Giuliani’s prospective candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008, and the endless back-and-forth on these threads has reached a fever pitch at times. I’ve refrained from posting extensively on these threads in recent days because they’ve started to get someone repetitive and tiresome, but also because I’ve been compiling a lot of material to include in a thread of my own. I post my comments here without any “cross-dressing” photos or “Rudy trading card” images (though I do appreciate them, folks!), and without any personal animosity toward anyone, though many of you may know me as one who has strongly opposed his candidacy for quite some time.

I don’t post vanities here very often (and usually only when I’m looking for advice!), so I think my comments here are worth a read.

The “pro-Rudy” arguments typically fall along these lines:

1. Rudy Giuliani is really a conservative. Freepers who use this argument will often cite examples -- sometimes accurate, sometimes exaggerated, but occasionally even downright false -- of cases in which his mayoral administration in New York City pursued a particular course of action that most of us would agree is conservative from a political/philosophical standpoint. His well-documented track record as mayor of NYC offers plenty of such examples, some of which would include his administration’s success in fighting crime (for all his baggage associated with this, as described below), improving the business climate in the city, etc. The biggest flaw in this approach is that his track record is only “conservative” if you focus entirely on these specific issues and ignore the rest of them. I believe this specific view of Giuliani’s background has been sufficiently debunked by substantial, accurate references to his public statements and actual record in public office.

2. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, and it’s unrealistic for anyone to think a 100% conservative could be elected president in 2008. The underlying point here is valid in general, but the argument is usually accompanied by accusations that opponents of Rudy Giuliani are "100-Percenters" who insist on a candidate’s fealty to the entire conservative agenda. This would only be a legitimate argument if applied to a candidate who is conservative on, say, 70% of the issues -- but it is awfully silly when used to support a candidate who is conservative on about 20% of the issues -- especially the "defining issues" for so many conservatives. Calling someone who refuses to support a liberal candidate a "100-Precenters" is comical -- and certainly isn’t going to get a candidate any more support among conservative voters.

3. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, but he’ll be relentless in the "war on terror" (whatever the heck that means) and therefore he’s the best GOP candidate in 2008. This is basically a corollary to Point #2, in which a Giuliani supporter who knows damn well that he’s conservative on only 20% of the issues will try to transform him into a hard-core conservative by pretending that one issue is somehow weighted disproportionately to the others and therefore this 20% is magically transformed to 80%. That doesn’t fly with me, folks. Basing your support of a candidate on your own assertion of "the most important issue" is silly, especially when you consider that most voters may not necessarily agree with (A) your presumption of the most important issue, or (B) your view of which candidate is in the best position to address this issue.

4. Rudy Giuliani may only be 20% conservative, but that’s better than Hillary/Obama/Stalin/Pol Pot/etc. At least this argument is based on an honest assessment of Mr. Giuliani’s political philosophy, but this is no way to win elections. Yes, a "20% conservative" is better than a "10% conservative," but then pneumonia is a terrible affliction except in comparison to tuberculosis, too. Supporting an unabashed liberal candidate is basically a complete abdication of our principles on the altar of "pragmatism," and while this is one thing when we’re talking about the minutiae of tax policy, entitlement reform, etc., it is entirely different when we are dealing with political principles that serve as the underlying foundation of our political views.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY I HAVE BEEN ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO GIULIANI’S CANDIDACY FOR SO LONG. I’LL LIST THEM ALL HERE, AND THEN FOLLOW THEM UP WITH A MORE GENERAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE END.

Reason #1: The Pro-Life Issue

Rudy Giuliani’s background and public statements on this issue have been well-documented here on FreeRepublic in recent months. It’s bad enough that legitimate conservative opposition to him on this issue is dismissed so readily by lumping it together with “social issues” (as if the protection of human life is nothing more than a social construct and not at the root of any functioning culture that intends to survive over a long period of time), but what is particularly preposterous is that Giuliani’s views on this issue represent a radical, left-wing extremist position that even many pro-abortion Democrats find completely unacceptable (Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, and Tom Daschle were three of many Democrats in the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal late-term abortion ban in 2003). Some people right here on FreeRepublic -- for some reason that baffles the hell out of me -- have even go so far as to suggest that his obfuscation on this issue makes him something of a “sort of pro-life” candidate. His track record particularly with regard to the issue of late-term abortion illustrates how utterly absurd this is.

Keep in mind that the Republican Party has not had a pro-abortion presidential candidate since Gerald Ford ran and lost in 1976 -- which means no pro-abortion GOP candidate has ever won a presidential election. In fact, much of the party’s success at the voting booth over the last 30 years was attributable to its ability to capitalize on pro-life Democrats who had become utterly repulsed by their own party’s stand on this issue. The Republican Party ought to think long and hard about turning its back on the pro-life movement right now.

Reason #2: Illegal Immigration

This issue has been a hot topic of discussion over the last 12-18 months in the mainstream media as well as right here on FreeRepublic, and any candidate who ignores it does so at his own peril. Unfortunately for Giuliani, it is impossible for him to reconcile his track record with anything other than the most permissive open-borders policy imaginable. While mayor of New York City he was an unabashed supporter of illegal immigration, and even went so far as to maintain a “sanctuary city” policy regarding illegal immigrants in direct violation of those provisions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that specifically outlawed this type of crap. His actions with regard to that Federal law were particularly disgraceful in light of the fact that he himself had been a Federal prosecutor at one time, and with this one issue he has effectively exposed his "law & order" reputation -- which people might otherwise consider a strong asset -- as a complete fraud.

It also made him terribly weak on other issues -- especially in the aftermath of 9/11. If the mayor of New York City could take it upon himself to blatantly ignore key provisions of this Federal law, would it be acceptable for a mayor or governor to knowingly and egregiously violate terms of the Patriot Act for purely political reasons? Would it be acceptable for the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan to harbor militants from Hamas and Hezbollah in his city? Would it be acceptable for mayors of other cities to ignore the various Federal laws that Rudy Giuliani himself called for incessantly when he was the mayor of New York City?

Reason #3: Gun Control

That last statement is a perfect lead-in to my third point. I thought the pro-life movement would be the most difficult hurdle for a Giuliani campaign to overcome, but the backlash among gun owners here on FreeRepublic to his recent appearance on Hannity & Colmes was pretty shocking. Watching Giuliani twist himself into knots while engaging in that pathetic display of political gymnastics even made me embarrassed for him. As with the pro-life issue, this is one in which his background and well-documented track record cannot possibly be rationalized from a conservative standpoint.

And for all the silly nonsense I’ve heard about how “tough” Rudy Giuliani would be against terrorism, the reality is that he has an extensive track record of opposing the most effective means of protection Americans have at their disposal against the kind of “terrorism” they are most likely to encounter in their lives -- e.g., a couple of homosexual Muslims driving around the D.C. suburbs shooting people at random, some loser Muslim from Bosnia shooting people at random in a Salt Lake City shopping mall, an Iranian-born jack@ss driving his car onto a crowded sidewalk in North Carolina, etc.

And in the one specific case before 9/11 where Rudy Giuliani had to deal with a terrorist attack as mayor of New York City -- the case of the Palestinian malcontent shooting people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in 1997 -- Giuliani was complicit in the media cover-up of the incident (in which the perpetrator’s political motivations were brushed aside, he was portrayed as a mentally unstable loner, and the gun he used became the primary culprit). His public statements in the aftermath of that attack contained no mention of terrorism at all -- and in fact he went so far as to use the attack to support his public anti-gun campaign. His statements in the days and weeks after the incident have been posted here a number of times, and ought to be a shocking, disgraceful warning sign even for his strongest supporters here.

“Tough on terrorism,” my @ss.

Reason #4: If You Can Make it There, You’re Disqualified

In one sense, Giuliani’s approach to law enforcement, gun control, etc. was perfectly acceptable when he was the mayor of New York City. But it was for all the wrong reasons when it comes to presidential politics. In some ways his no-holds-barred approach to law enforcement (selective as it was, as I have pointed out above in Reason #2) and blatant antagonism toward the Bill of Rights would appeal to some folks the same way they would find the streets of Tokyo or Singapore safe and clean, or the same way they might be quite comfortable with Alberto Fujimori’s strong-arm tactics against the Shining Path militants in Peru. But Tokyo is not an American city, and Peru is not the United States . . . and nor, quite frankly, is New York City. People who walk around New York City can take some comfort in the notion that there are 40,000 police officers in that jurisdiction, and that few of their fellow pedestrians are permitted to carry guns. The city is just a place to do business, and for all intents and purposes these people aren’t even Americans anyway (Rudy Giuliani himself formally acknowledged this when he climbed his pedestal as an unabashed champion of illegal immigration) -- so who really cares? New York City might as well be an international protectorate, and the political climate there is such that anyone who can win an election in that city has no business leading this country. Conservatives ought to be no more willing to trust this man to uphold basic principles of constitutional law than they would trust Michael Bloomberg.

It’s no coincidence that there hasn’t been a New Yorker on a successful national ticket since a nearly-deceased FDR won for the last time in 1944 -- a period that now exceeds 60 years even though New York has been one of the three largest states in the U.S. in terms of electoral votes for that entire time. Most of the issues that occupy the minds of voters in New York are completely alien to ordinary Americans -- which is why the Big Apple has been at the forefront among big cities in almost every recent story involving the intrusion of a big, nanny-state government into the personal lives of its residents . . . from smoking bans, to laws against trans-fats, to the latest half-baked idea to hit the airwaves: the prohibition against the used of cell phones by pedestrians.

None of this should come as any surprise to us, since New York City has long been detached from reality when it comes to American culture and politics. The American Revolution was fought throughout most of the Thirteen Colonies, but was won largely the South -- New York City having remained in British hands throughout most of the conflict. Mass immigration from Ireland and Wales made it a “foreign” city even as far back as 160 years ago, and the Eastern European immigration of the early 20th Century introduced an element -- radical secularism and (later) communism -- that has only grown stronger over time. Almost every rabidly anti-American ideology at work in this country can trace its roots to New York’s academic and cultural institutions.

Today, much of Rudy Giuliani’s media support is coming from big-city, cosmopolitan “neo-conservatives” who have a long history of supporting interventionist foreign policy (I would have to devote an entire thread to this one issue), but have never been much for supporting traditional American values and often give some pretty clear indications that they have never even read the U.S. Constitution (the New York Post has a long-held editorial view in favor of gun control, and have the words “Second Amendment” or the phrase “right to keep and bear arms” ever been printed in the Weekly Standard?

These people have an agenda that is not mine, and any lapdog in the neo-conservative media -- and that includes Rupert Murdoch’s mouthpieces at Fox News, the New York Post, etc. -- who goes out on a limb to support such a radical left-wing candidate (that means you, Sean Hannity and Deroy Murdock) has basically lost all of his/her credibility as a conservative commentator.

. . .

What this all comes down to is that each and every one of us is either a Republican or a conservative. Because the Republican Party platform has been quite conservative (and downright hard-core right-wing, in comparison to the Democratic platform) in recent decades, we’ve managed to delude ourselves into believing that ‘Republican” and “conservative” are always synonymous. Rudy Giuliani’s prospective candidacy for the GOP nomination in 2008 should put this tenuous relationship between party affiliation and political philosophy in the proper light. We are either Republicans first, or we are conservatives first -- there is no middle road here.

Regarding one other item related to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign that pops up on these threads repeatedly (I’ve steadfastly tried to avoid mentioning it, but it cannot be overlooked) . . .

Anyone who has the time to do some research on Rudy Giuliani might want to sit down and do an extensive search through old newspaper articles, internet articles, etc. -- and try to find any such article where Mr. Giuliani is doing something that anyone would consider “manly” in any normal sense -- and by this I mean engaging in physical activity, playing a sport, or doing just about anything that most normal people would associate with manliness. I’ve looked long and hard for this, and I simply can’t find one. I mean, even something staged as a photo-op for PR purposes -- like Ronald Reagan riding a horse or chopping wood on his California ranch, George W. Bush clearing brush on his ranch or driving around Crawford in that big white Ford F-350 Super Duty truck -- is nowhere to be found.

If the “cross-dressing” photos of Rudy Giuliani aren’t necessarily bothersome in and of themselves, they raise some serious warning flags in light of the points I’ve mentioned above. I suspect this is what Giuliani’s own campaign staff had in mind when they referred to the “weirdness factor” as a potential stumbling block in an election campaign. And it’s very important to note that this warning was documented all the way back in 1993, not 2007 -- which means it dates all the way back to his second mayoral race in New York City. Anyone who comes across as “weird” in New York City would be a bizarre freak according to the standards of at least 95% of the people in this country.

Call me paranoid, and call me judgmental, but something about this whole thing just ain’t right. Run down the list of all those things that ought to be setting off warning bells in the minds of normal, decent people . . . the cross-dressing . . . the public statements extolling the work of Planned Parenthood and eugenicist Margaret Sanger . . . the enthusiastic support from NARAL . . . the hosting of those Gay Pride and Stonewall Veterans Association events . . . those bizarre marriages.

Perhaps Freud had it right when he postulated that “a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” (General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, 1952)

The last thing this country needs right now is an effete, dysfunctional weirdo from New York City serving as its chief executive.

And lest anyone think I’m an unreasonable man, I’d like everyone to take a look at the article posted below. I wrote it in the turbulent aftermath of the 2000 election, and posted it here on FreeRepublic when the election results were finally certified in mid-December of that that year. (The link below is a re-post of that article from 2004).

The Triumph of Little America

You can be sure that the passionate (but also extremely objective) conservative who penned those words in December of 2000 will never support Rudy Giuliani in 2008. I’ve traveled across this country too many times -- and know too much about what this country is really all about -- for me to support a big-government, liberal globalist from New York City in a presidential race, regardless of his party affiliation.

And anyone here who works for the Republican Party in any capacity -- and anyone regularly browses through various threads here on FreeRepublic on behalf of a GOP candidate or a GOP media outlet -- should heed this message . . .

IF YOU’RE TRYING TO SELL A PHONY CONSERVATIVE, THEN THIS FELLA AIN’T GONNA BE YOUR CUSTOMER.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2008election; aliens; choosinghillary; duncanhunter; giuliani; gungrabber; koolaidersaremad; lostertarian; notvoting4rudyever; oompaloompa; paleos4hillary; paleos4obama; republicanparty; rino; ronpaul08; rudy; rudylegacy; spamo; tomtancredo; whino; yawn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-661 next last
It's the Friday after Presidents' Day, and I thought I'd post a contentious thread out there for all of us to think about -- in light of one of the hottest topics of discussion on FreeRepublic in recent weeks/months.

I'll be checking back in here later today, so post amongst yourselves while I'm gone!

1 posted on 02/23/2007 7:45:08 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Nice post. You could have added several other points, but this was more readable and still makes the case. The other points would merely add further evidence.


2 posted on 02/23/2007 7:48:20 AM PST by TommyDale (What will Rudy do in the War on Terror? Implement gun control on insurgents and Al Qaeda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Victoria Delsoul; 3niner; AdamSelene235; Afronaut; ajolympian2004; Al Simmons; ...
Rudy Giuliani ping.

If you've been pinged to this thread, it's probably because I've come across some interesting comments from you -- for or against Rudy Giuliani -- on another thread.

If you weren't pinged but find this thread interesting -- well, no big deal . . . you managed to find it anyay. LOL.

If you wish you hadn't been pinged -- well, too bad . . . I don't keep a ping list, so you probably won't hear from me again anyway. :-)

3 posted on 02/23/2007 7:48:33 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Right. I didn't even mention the Bernie Kerik debacle, for example -- which might be the most damning incident of all.


4 posted on 02/23/2007 7:49:52 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

5 posted on 02/23/2007 7:50:38 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Vote for RINOS, lose and complain by sending a self-abused stomped elephant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Or Rudy wanting to move 9-11 compensation funds to one of his companies so they could hoover a couple mil in administrative fees. That alone shows he sees government as a means of personal enrichment for him and his cronies - it was some of the worst PR I have ever seen, and the Dems will use that and the Kerik fiasco to chip away at whatever post 9-11 goodwill Rudy might try to muster in support of his campaign.


6 posted on 02/23/2007 7:51:58 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Hmm, makes me wonder what my "interesting comments" were.

I'll give it a read.
Thanks for not adding me to any ping list — I'm on enough already.


7 posted on 02/23/2007 7:52:12 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I like Rudy just fine but that doesn't mean I like the idea of him in the white house. It might be different if there were more conservatives in congress but there aren't.


8 posted on 02/23/2007 7:52:35 AM PST by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

Your "interesting comment" could have simply been an "intelligent comment," too. LOL.


9 posted on 02/23/2007 7:53:30 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Your "interesting comment" could have simply been an "intelligent comment," too."

So you didn't ping to any of the Rudy supporters? LOL!

10 posted on 02/23/2007 7:54:54 AM PST by TommyDale (What will Rudy do in the War on Terror? Implement gun control on insurgents and Al Qaeda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I made an interesting comment somewhere?

Hmph. Didn't see that one coming... ;^P

(Nice post, BTW.)


11 posted on 02/23/2007 7:55:09 AM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I know this, I will nto be voting for Rino Rudy. Period.


12 posted on 02/23/2007 7:55:41 AM PST by Hydroshock (Duncan Hunter For President, checkout gohunter08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enosh

LOL. Thanks.


13 posted on 02/23/2007 7:55:42 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Thanks for the second breakfast spam.

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

14 posted on 02/23/2007 7:55:44 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

I'm a Rudy Supporter. Not sure how I got pinged.


15 posted on 02/23/2007 7:56:27 AM PST by merry10 (http://joinrudy2008.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
I know this, I will nto be voting for Rino Rudy. Period.

If you had a better P.R. rep, we'd know that by now.

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

16 posted on 02/23/2007 7:56:54 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I would hope so!

If so, thanks for noticing. :)


17 posted on 02/23/2007 7:57:04 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Kerik also went to Iraq on a $5 million contract to train the police force there. He took their money, returned a few days later and declared he had been successful, when he wasn't. Does anyone think Giuliani Partners, LLC returned the money?


18 posted on 02/23/2007 7:57:29 AM PST by TommyDale (What will Rudy do in the War on Terror? Implement gun control on insurgents and Al Qaeda?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: merry10
Hey, I'm "interesting" too!

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

19 posted on 02/23/2007 7:57:33 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: merry10
The new phonebook's here! The new phonebook's here! I AM somebody!!!

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

20 posted on 02/23/2007 8:01:08 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Regarding Rudy.

He would make a fine Senator from New York. And nothing more.


Better to be the Hunter than the hunted.


21 posted on 02/23/2007 8:02:03 AM PST by proudpapa (Forget Rudy McRomney it's Duncan Hunter in '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
..there has been much comment in recent times concerning "The Cultural War" in America

One would have to be comatose not to recognize the cultural war raging within the GOP--the next couple of years could be the death of the Grand Old Party.

Each American must decide whether fear of other candidates and pragmatism are more important issues than those principles which are clearly defined by Divine revelation and proven over time to be paramount--the hour grows late...

22 posted on 02/23/2007 8:04:53 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( ..when there is any conflict between God and Caesar -- guess who loses?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The last thing this country needs right now is an effete, dysfunctional weirdo from New York City serving as its chief executive.

True.

That is why I am voting against Hillary Clinton. (as well as any stealth Islamist candidate)

23 posted on 02/23/2007 8:05:48 AM PST by NathanR (Après moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Other than your utter nonsense about the dreaded "neocons", its not a bad screed.


24 posted on 02/23/2007 8:09:37 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance; 230FMJ; abigailsmybaby; afnamvet; Afronaut; airborne; alicewonders; Angelas; ...

Pinging the Duncan Hunter list for their opinion on this vanity.


25 posted on 02/23/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007 (Vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NathanR

Good retort.


26 posted on 02/23/2007 8:11:22 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: pissant

There's nothing nonsensical about that. Do you think it's just a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch's media outlets have been Rudy Giuliani's biggest cheerleaders?


28 posted on 02/23/2007 8:12:30 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
This would only be a legitimate argument if applied to a candidate who is conservative on, say, 70% of the issues -- but it is awfully silly when used to support a candidate who is conservative on about 20% of the issues -- especially the "defining issues" for so many conservatives.

Please give me more insight into your calculation. On basis of what are you saying that Rudy is only conservative on only 20% of the issues?
29 posted on 02/23/2007 8:14:08 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner
One would have to be comatose not to recognize the cultural war raging within the GOP--the next couple of years could be the death of the Grand Old Party.

Glad you pointed this out. Following the Rudy threads here has been like witnessing a debate between social conservatives and leftists--same arguments, same sloganeering, same distortions of data to belittle conservatives and the causes dearest to our hearts. Basically, every reason the Reagan Democrats gave for voting GOP has been belittled or ridiculed except one: the concern about national defense. And what have we heard about national defense? That Rudy talks tough. It's just horrible.

30 posted on 02/23/2007 8:14:10 AM PST by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
Thanks for the second breakfast spam.

This from someone spamming four nonsensical and non-topical replies into the thread.

31 posted on 02/23/2007 8:14:14 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Very well done AC!

The primaries are still a year out so there is much work to be done. In the years I have been voting this is the first time I have ever had such an awful choice of candidates. One thing is for sure and that is my personal line in the sand has been reached. I refuse to support or vote for someone who would deprive me of my rights, property and possible freedom (2nd Amendment).

The immigration issue is disgraceful and can anyone successfully argue the WOT when the borders are wide open and we are flooded with illegals? This war will never be over and both parties will milk it for all it is worth. There is no country to be forced to surrender. Terrorist groups sprout like weeds. It is a world wide gorilla operation with so many groups that a declared surrender or end is impossible. All we can do is try to exterminate them first.

Rudy was good for NYC and that is all that can be said.

Long shot or not Duncan Hunter is my only option.

32 posted on 02/23/2007 8:15:17 AM PST by beltfed308 (Democrats :Tough on Taxpayers, Soft on Terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner

The sad truth of it is that Rino Rudy is so liberal he makes me lose my fear of the rats. If he is nominated I will go third party.


33 posted on 02/23/2007 8:15:39 AM PST by Hydroshock (Duncan Hunter For President, checkout gohunter08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Absolute nonsense. The difference between those who would vote for Rudy in the general election and those who would not, is that the former group understands the importance of the war on terror. Does that make them neocons? Thanks, I consider that to be a compliment.


34 posted on 02/23/2007 8:15:45 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The Dims will have a field day with this stuff.


35 posted on 02/23/2007 8:15:46 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Misery loves miserable company.......ask any liberal. Hunter in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
This from someone spamming four nonsensical and non-topical replies into the thread.

You're welcome.

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

36 posted on 02/23/2007 8:15:50 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Post of the week!!


37 posted on 02/23/2007 8:16:24 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Misery loves miserable company.......ask any liberal. Hunter in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
The sad truth of it is that Rino Rudy is so liberal he makes me lose my fear of the rats.

So you're saying that you're more afraid of Rudy than Hillary. Why don't you just come out in support of Hillary? You know you want to...
38 posted on 02/23/2007 8:16:48 AM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
The difference between those who would vote for Rudy in the general election and those who would not, is that the former group understands the importance of the war on terror.

Rudy understands the WOT so well that he pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country.

Maybe he can sign draconian fedeal gun-control laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic terrorists! We'll REALLY be safe then!

39 posted on 02/23/2007 8:18:02 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
And thanks for keeping score. If I ping you to the rest of the threads I'm on, would you let me know the weekly tally?

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

40 posted on 02/23/2007 8:18:08 AM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Very good post! I already don't like Gulianni. As you said better than me, a New York Republican is something the red states don't recognize.


41 posted on 02/23/2007 8:18:52 AM PST by caver (Yes, I did crawl out of a hole in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
"Does anyone think Giuliani Partners, LLC returned the money?"

Why don't you call Newsday and find out!
42 posted on 02/23/2007 8:19:47 AM PST by Gop1040
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I didn't ask to be on this ping list, but I am asking to be removed from it. Thank you.


43 posted on 02/23/2007 8:20:15 AM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

All excellent points. The place to beat Guiliani is in the primaries. I'd prefer Newt, and I'd probably vote for a Guiliani-Newt ticket (but I'd prefer a Newt-Guiliani ticket).

If it came down to "Guiliani-Romney" vs Hillary, I'd probably go third party.


44 posted on 02/23/2007 8:20:38 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Alberta's Child
Thanks for ping.

Giuliani?

LIMBO PARTY - GOP - How low can the neo-cons drive you go and still be conservative?

46 posted on 02/23/2007 8:21:20 AM PST by ex-snook ("But above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt

I am saying I will not play the fear game anymore. Both Rino Rudy and Hitlary are so alike in their views that if both are nominated I will go third party because they will both govern the same. If either win conservatives lose.


47 posted on 02/23/2007 8:21:59 AM PST by Hydroshock (Duncan Hunter For President, checkout gohunter08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LtdGovt
Please give me more insight into your calculation. On basis of what are you saying that Rudy is only conservative on only 20% of the issues?

Depends upon whose list is being used. If we used your list, several long-standing conservative issues such as abortion would not be present.

48 posted on 02/23/2007 8:21:59 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Looking for a candidate to support is hard for us on this forum, because conservatives have no one, not one, who is a great or even good candidate yet. They are either liberal leaning, not qualified, no name recognition, no executive experience, or scarred by the MSM beyond repair.

I think need to take a deep breathe with your anti-Rudy screeds. Honestly, will you support Hillary rather than him if he wins the nomination?

49 posted on 02/23/2007 8:22:29 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
But Tokyo is not an American city, and Peru is not the United States . . . and nor, quite frankly, is New York City.

This attitude is a good part of the reason why the anti-Rudy contingent finds themselves on the losing side this time and can't understand why. You clearly haven't got the slightest idea what the Statue of Liberty is all about.

50 posted on 02/23/2007 8:23:35 AM PST by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-661 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson