Skip to comments.A Message to Rudy Giuliani and His Supporters (VANITY)
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 Giulianis prospective candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008, and the endless back-and-forth on these threads has reached a fever pitch at times. Ive refrained from posting extensively on these threads in recent days because theyve started to get someone repetitive and tiresome, but also because Ive 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 dont post vanities here very often (and usually only when Im 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 administrations 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 Giulianis 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 its 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 candidates 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 isnt going to get a candidate any more support among conservative voters.
3. Rudy Giuliani is not a 100% conservative, but hell be relentless in the "war on terror" (whatever the heck that means) and therefore hes the best GOP candidate in 2008. This is basically a corollary to Point #2, in which a Giuliani supporter who knows damn well that hes 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 doesnt 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 thats better than Hillary/Obama/Stalin/Pol Pot/etc. At least this argument is based on an honest assessment of Mr. Giulianis 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 were 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 GIULIANIS CANDIDACY FOR SO LONG. ILL LIST THEM ALL HERE, AND THEN FOLLOW THEM UP WITH A MORE GENERAL PERSPECTIVE AT THE END.
Reason #1: The Pro-Life Issue
Rudy Giulianis background and public statements on this issue have been well-documented here on FreeRepublic in recent months. Its 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 Giulianis 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 partys 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 partys 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 Ive 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 perpetrators 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, Youre Disqualified
In one sense, Giulianis 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 Fujimoris 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 arent 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.
Its no coincidence that there hasnt 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 Yorks academic and cultural institutions.
Today, much of Rudy Giulianis 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 Murdochs 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, weve managed to delude ourselves into believing that Republican and conservative are always synonymous. Rudy Giulianis 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 Giulianis campaign that pops up on these threads repeatedly (Ive 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. Ive looked long and hard for this, and I simply cant 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 arent necessarily bothersome in and of themselves, they raise some serious warning flags in light of the points Ive mentioned above. I suspect this is what Giulianis own campaign staff had in mind when they referred to the weirdness factor as a potential stumbling block in an election campaign. And its 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 aint 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 Im an unreasonable man, Id 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. Ive 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 YOURE TRYING TO SELL A PHONY CONSERVATIVE, THEN THIS FELLA AINT GONNA BE YOUR CUSTOMER.
I realize all that, but there are still too many abortions taking place in this country. A lot more could/should be done.
LOL....I also realize there are tons of red tape for him to get thru, and maybe my expectations were too much, I was just hoping for it to be stopped altogether.
The Statue of Liberty is about breaking the law?
The Statue of Liberty is about hospitals closing because of the burden of free medical care for illegals?
The Statue of Liberty is about meatpacker wages going from $19 per hour to $10 per hour in 25 years?
The Statue of Liberty is about using false Social Security numbers?
The Statue of Liberty is about penalizing businesses that follow the law?
The Statue of Liberty is about protecting Mexican fatcats?
The Statue of Liberty is about people coming into our country and refusing to assimilate?
The Statue of Liberty is about "Press 1 for English" and Mexican flags flying over our schools?
Let me tell you what the The Statue of Liberty is about, sparky. She's about Hyman Rickover.
You see, Hyman Rickover was born in 1900 in Poland and came to the U.S. with his parents in 1905. In 1918 he was the valedictorian at his high school and gave a commencement speech (in ENGLISH) that was well-regarded. He graduated from the Naval Academy in '22 as an engineer. After a engineering postings in the destroyer USS La Vallette (including, IIRC, chief engineer) and the battleship USS Nevada. Then he went to Columbia and got his masters (I suspect he wrote his papers for this degree in ENGLISH) and went on to spend four years in submarines, where he qualified for command. Insiders report he realized he was serving in the United States Navy, and that he communicated with the crew in ENGLISH, rather than Polish.
Further down the road, after WWII, Rickover was the father of the nuclear submarine and the architect of the Navy's entire nuclear program. He served as the head of nuclear reactors until retirement in 1982. Yes, that's right, he served as naval officer until he was 82 years old when he could have retired on a Vice Admiral's pension thirty years or more earlier. How's that for dedication to one's country.
Hyman G. Rickover was a kid who came through Ellis Island, and became a Chicagoan, an officer in the United States Navy, a respected engineer and one of the most powerful military men in our history. He was an American, not a Pole living in America, and he is what the Statue of Liberty is all about. Not amnesty, not welfare handouts, not broken schools, but assimilation, hard work, and dedication to American ideals.
If you think any activity involving a coyote and stolen SSN's has anything to do with the Staute of Liberty or any form of "welcoming," you are sadly mistaken.
You can add me and my family to the above.
It's your vote and you can do whatever you want with it. I was replying to a poster who falsely suggested Rudy supporters were withdrawing the welcome mat for the Republican Party.
Okay, it was a joke. You are correct about me, however. I will definitely vote a 3rd party if Giuliani is the GOP nominee. No question on that whatsoever.
No, I am not, but I guessed who the worst female governor in the country would be, and the answer was immediately clear to me.
No one should be trying to change anyone's opinion.
What!:). What's the point of this forum, what's the point of campagning, what's the point of debate?
More then anything we should be trying to change the minds of people who support someone who supports abortion, gun control, and gay rights.
Why is that necessary now? The first primary isn't until next February. Even Newt Gingrich won't enter until September or October. By then Rudy Giuliani and McCain will have unraveled.
I kind of like this Guilliani guy, the way I like a well made chocolate cake: Its bad for me, but I may indulge in it anyway. However, his personal appeal aside, there is no way I can support him in a primary. I must actually support those that can carry forward principle that I believe are best for the nation.
McCain's nomination is one of the few things that might cause me not to vote at all -- shear disgust. I don't know what I will do if Fred Thompson doesn't run as I think he is the only guy with the recognition to take the wind out of the sails of the early announced group.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was replying to the vanity poster concerning his claim that NYC is not an American City. All those points you made to me are a waste of bandwidth, because I never mentioned anything about any of them.
I was merely stating that the idea NYC is not an American City is ridiculous. NYC has always welcomed immigrants, including all of my ancestors.
Because at this point, I think it's Rudy or a Democrat who will not even have the nagging guilt about irritating the base.
FR talks about a few alternative candidates, but at this point, no one outside FR even knows who they are. If they can catch up, great, more power to them, but at this point truly 'national' caliber candidates are few and far between.
On gays and abortion, I know when I say I just don't think it makes a difference, many here don't agree. But I'd be lying if I tried to pretend I cared more. I just really am pretty bored and unthreatened by gay rights issues... as are my two lesbian friends, who, I might add, are ex military (one of them anyway), are avid hunters and gun nuts, always vote for Republicans because they are very supportive of the WOT, and couldn't care less about marriage issues. I think the politics of gayness will be argued no matter what, and be just as tiresome no matter who wins this time around. It's a symptom of our time, and no president is going to make it go away because he has a negative view of it. Blech... enough said. It bores me. I just don't care. :~)
And before you jump to the conclusion that I am a Newt supporter, he is not my candidate either. However, if I must choose between one immoral candidate over another immoral candidate, it would be Newt over Rudy.
Where he could effect it, he did. But he's only the president and not the autocrat. :)
Maybe because the views of FR represent maybe 30% of the views of Republicans.
(This is only a SWAG. However, I think it is somewhat close.)
Post after post of CRAPOLA.
You are so off the mark it isnt even funny.
If you are trying to make a point, its been completely lost by the absolute idiocy of your posts.
Im just sure Ive heard this kind of rant before *thinking...* Ah yes, the DUmmie FUnnies (and it wasnt a freeper)
Get a grip.
No it doesn't... That's over 30 years of noise, and abortion is still here.
Produced and directed by the Hillary Clinton war room.
Actually, it is effective. You suffer from the false assumption that everyone reads every thread on a certain subject. Actually, they don't. Some people may not ever read a thread about Rudy until some headline piques their interest. They'll pop into the thread, see the factual material they've never seen before, and it will help them make a decision about whether they will support the most liberal Republican presidential candidate ever or an actual Republican in the race. I know this because I get FReepmails and responses all the time in response to factual posts that have been posted for weeks in the pro-Rudy threads from FReepers who had not seen the information before and they become quite outspoken in their derision for Rudy.
The Partial Birth Abortion post was pulled one day from several threads. Jim Robinson himself had them restored and gave that post a green light. The comparison table that I researched and created that has been posted a number of times also now bares his endorsement when I post it.
You're just sore because unlike your success in pushing RINO liberal Arnold Schwartzenkennedy and constantly beating on conservative Republican McClintock here during the California recall election, you're liberal candidate is getting beat over the head and you're not making much headway.
I'm not sore. I just think spamming the forum over and over and over and over is brainless. Got it? Brainless.
HAHA LOL and that cat....cracks me up everytime. really says it all :-)
Here's the Reader's Digest version:
1) He's about as exciting as oatmeal.
2) His "No Car Tax" plan was excellent campaign material but lousy policy and helped elect Mark Warner AND Tim Kaine.
3) It's personal.
I could tolerate Gilmore taking John Warner's spot in the Senate. I just don't think he's White House material. He wouln't carry Virginia.
Personally, it would make absolute sense to have links or another forum for each candidate that is running where lists like yours could be posted and referenced. That would make much more sense than repeatedly inserting it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Ok, well, I agree with all this, but it's not what you said earlier. I say we should try to change minds but be civil about it, you are saying the same thing when you say present facts, but don't force opinions.
Why? I'm NEVER voting for another Bush or Clinton. If the Republicans can't manage to nominate a conservative (and whoever the nominee is will be long decided before the PA primary) they will not receive my vote in the general. I am a conservative, unlike many on FR who are Republicans, and do not vote for all the dreadful people like Specter who run as Republicans but are no better than Democrats. I stopped voting for liberals a long time ago, and don't plan to change in this election.
Yeah it was. I went back and checked. The 2nd paragraph explains the first of that post. Anyway, glad we cleared that up. By the way, I agree with you on your concerns regarding Rudy. The President has a lot of power to shape decisions regarding issues he cares about.
Great post, Mr. Silverback.
His emergence as 2008 Rudy mark him as a rank opportunist who was sent to Obedience School, emerging as the eager lapdog of those who are bent on radically changing American culture.
We need to reinforce the fact that 2008 Rudy's zigzagging and flip-flopping on issues indicate he will take whatever positions his handlers tell him to take.
The myth about Giuliani's credentials on homeland security, and military matters.....is entirely manufactured by his handlers.
CASE IN POINT: Giuliani recently "lost" his mayoral campaign's vulnerabilities playbook. He publicly blamed the "opposition" (Hillary's old VRWC trick).
Julie-Annie wanted us to believe that an airport employee knew precisely in which bag, and in which binder the critical documents were, sneaked them out of the bag, copied them, then stealthily returned them to the bag without anyone knowing it.
Giuliani's campaign organization obviously has a leaker, and Julie-Annie did not deal with it?
He placed blame on "someone" at the airport. If he was so sure it was an airport employee, did he demand an investigation? Did he file charges?
No, he did not because he knew the story was bogus .......and don't forget that Giuliani is the owner and operator of a multi-million dollar "security" company (formerly known as Giuliani-Kerik LLC).
"Security expert" Rudy co-opted GWB into naming his mobbed-up buddy, Bernie Kerik, as Home/Land/Sec chief (Kerik is Rudy's former driver and bodyguard). Kerik was ushered out the WH door when dirt spilled about his hiring an illgal nanny. Married Kerik was also having trysts in an apartment set-aside for 9/11 workers. Kerik later pleaded guilty to misdemeanors for accepting gifts from a company that was trying to do business with New York while he was corrections commissioner.
Giuliani and Kerik were partners in a SECURITY company, and Julie-Annie STILL didn't vett Kerik? Leaving the president of the United States embarrased before a global audience was of no concern to this so-called "security expert?"
Security expert, my Aunt Tilly---I wouldn't let Giuliani walk my dog.
If he could see the light on immigration, I would vote for GB again if I could. Oh well, he's about been kicked around enough. It is about time for us to bring him home.Maybe we can put him back in the governor's office:')
Alas, we have to tolerate a lot of these things whether we want to or not. I'd say 1) work to elect people who share your views to congress, state legislatures and other lower level offices. The momentum for change on these issues comes from the bottom up -- and some of these politicaians will turn out to have star quality. In the future you won't have such a hard time finding nationally known politicos who share your views.
2) I hate to sound like Bill O'Reilly, but a lot of work has to be done through the culture. Gramsci Marxists, communists and secular social scientists with agendas devote whole careers to propagandizing the public. It's hard to fight this because people who believe in traditional values, by definition, aren't movement cadres. Still, you have to pick your issues and make your voice heard.
By the way, the typical NY Dem is stunned to learn that Rudy is pro-choice and pro gay marriage. I don't recall him ever making a statement on these issues. I'm not saying that he didn't talk about them as mayor, but he was out there pushing for something every day and I never heard him discuss these things. We knew him as the enemy of wild-eyed liberal judges.
As for immigration, the typical illegal immigrant in NYC didn't come across the Mexican border. He came on a visitor's visa and never left. Since the immigration service and the state department didn't care enough to even keep track of who went home and who stayed, it was hard to expect the police to take responsibility for rounding up a lot of people who were mostly working hard and minding their own business. The whole border issue is something many of us only started thinking about quite recently. In fact, NYC is much less visibly hispanic than it was 30 years ago.
You don't need to exaggerate to make your point. Rudy and Hitlery are not alike and they will not govern the same. Hitlery and the DemonRats will retreat from the war with the Jihadists. Rudy will not. Rudy will not try to impose a socialist health care system. Hitlery and her Rats will. To say that Giuliani is the same as Hitlery betrays an incredible ignorance of reality. Giuliani was hated by the Rats who dominate NYC. If he was like Hitlery, they would have loved him the way they love the true RINO, Mayor Bloomberg.
On the top 4 issues I care about they ahve the same view. I will not vote for the liberal slime.
You didn't say it but it most certainly is inferred. We both are only guessing what he may do but I think there is a lot more evidence that he believes that these issues are best left to state and local governments.
He is joined at the hip with NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the abortion savages. God only knows what they are planning behind closed doors to expand their "precious" abortion (gag) rights.
"The3 number of peoiple who have publically stated they will go third party rather then vote for Rino Rudy"
I'll be fishing that day so you can add me as well.
Thanks for the ping.
At the end of the day, I'l, support the GOP candidate with the best chance of defeating the DNC candidate,
If you believe that's Duncan Hunter, or Newt, or Sam Brownback, that's fine...your job is to get the candidate of your choice ahead of the DNC candidate on the polls, then to get him the GOP nomination.
At this point in time, it looks as if Rudy stands the best chance of beating the DNC; and while I would rather see a candidate with more conservative views in the ballot, I will not allow perfection to cancel out good, so I support Rudy.
Get your guy past him in the polls, and you have my support.
I cannot by my actions or my inactions, to see another Clinton in the Oval Office, so I will vote for whoever's name is on the ballot with an "R" next to it.
Also, if anyone is around San Diego, evidently, he is having breakfast fund raiser tomorrow. It's a little too far for pancakes for me, though:')
We have been called knuckle dragging neanderthals. It has been stated numerous times that it is good riddance if we cannot support Rudy any more than we could get behind Joe Lieberman as a Republican nominee. While it is possible that I will surrender, feel the shame, and vote against Hillary, there are many that will not. It is becoming less and less a possibility as the anti-social conservative rhetoric ramps up on the Rudy threads.
I dont disagree with the fact that they want a better life, certainly Mexico and many places in South America leave a lot to be desired in the way of opportunity and career growth. Also, I have seen the poverty and squalor in which many of them live. Its not much different than the poverty and squalor many of our immigrant relatives lived in before they came to the US. The difference is that, for most of us, our relatives emigrated here legally. America is an immigrant nation whose past is filled with the contributions of immigrants from every walk of life. To say that we dont want or need immigration is absurd at its core. But, what most of us desire is that the immigrants come here legally. I for one think Americans should be honored anytime someone abandons their home country to relocate to ours; they pay us a huge compliment. But, more than anything else I can imagine, those immigrants coming to America must come here legally. When someone breaks into your house, they have committed a felony crime of breaking and entering. America is our home, and these people are coming in uninvited. Living in poverty simply doesnt justify the wholesale violation that is occurring on a massive scale.
I think it's a big stretch to lump illegal immigrants in with thieves, murders and rapists.
I dont. Thieves, murderers and rapists are as much criminals as illegal immigrants. In fact, violating our national sovereignty, for many, is only the beginning of their crime spree. Many have gone on to become thieves, rapists and murderers as well as drug runners and minor thugs. We can adequately grow our own supply of those types of folks, we dont need them coming from outside of America to set up shop here. Granted, the vast majority are not thieves, rapists and murderers, they are just in my house without my permission. The fundamental criminal offense still exists. However, even for the vast majority of illegals, the crime spree doesnt stop there. They must acquire documents that allow them to work. Social Security cards and/or drivers licenses are either stolen directly by the illegal, or they are purchased from someone else who stole them, or they are purchased from someone who forged them. So, the very people who just came here to make a better life for themselves and/or their families, are now supporting and supplementing additional criminal enterprises.
Illegals cause problems but also create opportunities.
Yes, they do. They create opportunities for coyotes, document forgers, sex slave traders, exploiters, bilingual teachers, bilingual doctors and nurses, drug kingpins, etc. Thats probably not what you meant, but it is a fact of life for the majority. They live in the shadows and are afraid to complain to the police for fear that they will be arrested and deported (how is coming here better for them?). Also, they come here demanding that we accommodate them. Many make little or no effort to learn our language or our customs and try to assimilate. Instead, they take space in our schools and demand bilingual education because they are too lazy to learn our language. They have burdened public health facilities to the extent that many clinics and taxpayer supported hospitals have had to close due to being driven bankrupt by illegals. Even Mexican health facilities on the border will send uninsured patients across the border to the US for treatment so that they dont have to absorb those costs. Despite the whining stories of the MSM, not all illegals come here to tend lawns, wash dishes, bus tables or perform other functions that Americans wont do. Thats totally untrue. After the Swift raid, how many people showed up to apply for their jobs? If I recall correctly, it was something like 3,000 Americans who showed up to apply for those jobs that Americans wont do. And, in increasing numbers today, many of those sneaking across the border are bookkeepers, accountants, teachers and pharmacists. I havent heard of any Americans unwilling to do those jobs.
Rudy Giuliani is for abortion, but I'd be shocked if he would mention the word even once as President.
I would, too. But the crux of the issue isnt necessarily about his direct, hands-on association with abortion, its about his ability to affect it indirectly, as well as other critical issues, that raise the concern about his public/private position. Because, whomever is elected in 08 will get to make more SCOTUS appointments and, therein, is where many of these issues reside. Giuliani, as president, wouldnt have to directly address the issue of Roe v. Wade, he could leave his mark via whatever SCOTUS appointments he might be able to make and get approved through the Senate. This is why the personal preferences of the president matter a great deal. President Bush didnt directly tackle abortion, but his two SCOTUS nominees will do that for him, should the issue come before the court again. Clinton didnt have to acknowledge that he was a raving fan of socialism and judicial activism, he let his judicial nominees do that on his behalf. Looking at the many screwy rulings coming off of the bench, it doesnt take a great deal of effort to track the judge down and discover that the president who nominated the judge was just as screwy as the judge is. So, it doesnt take a direct association, just a means to affect things for decades to come such as through a court appointment.