A Message to Rudy Giuliani and His Supporters (VANITY)

Self | February 23, 2007 | Alberta's Child

[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.

[Hydroshock]

On the top 4 issues I care about they ahve the same view. I will not vote for the liberal slime.

[Dolphy]

No, and please show me where I said that.

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.

[Liz]

And given Giuliani's past behavior on the abortion issue, conservatives can only shudder to imagine what his record would be if he can fool enough voters into electing him to office.

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.

[George W. Bush]

#1 - The Pro-Life Issue - this will be (and is currently being) re-directed to the issue of judicial nominations. It appears Rudy already has many prominent SoCons in his corner that support his views toward constitutional interpretation.

You haven't heard from real pro-lifers yet. Their initial rumblings are quiet but steadily negative. You should realize that they will not be caught endorsing the same candidate who holds the same positions he held when he was endorsed and funded by their arch-enemy, NARAL.

#2 - Illegal Immigration - sweeping amnesty will be passed by this summer, making II a moot point for the 2008 presidential election.

Don't count on it. There are enough remaining GOP senators up for re-election in '08 that they know better than to stab us in the back. It's suicide for about half those running in '08. And if we allow them to be defeated, the remaining GOP will probably be unable to muster a filibuster, making them untenable to lobbying interests and as power brokers. Principles aside, these are politicians and power-mongers.

#3 - Gun Control - may be his biggest obstacle for single-issue voters as #1 & #2 above are neutralized.

Again, they are currently quiet and parsing the issues, looking to see what these candidates will commit to as their presidential policy. But Rudy faces a very very high hurdle. The threat of a pro-NRA Richardson candidacy could wipe out the entire Southern vote in the Dims' favor. Before you dismiss that, keep in mind that Rudy is the Yankeeist Yankee you could imagine. He'd have to be gay as well to be more of an extraterrestrial to Southern folk.

In general, putting a gungrabbing pro-abortion pro-sodomy pro-illegals pro-CFR on the ballot will be, in effect, running your presidential candidate against all those downstream on the ballot. We'll lose our congressional and senate numbers and governor's races and legislatures over such a liberal. To run a leftwing NYC mayor is to court a disaster for the GOP that could last decades.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[CindyDawg]

I just called Duncan Hunter's campaign office. It was kind of funny because I have laryngitis but they understood me. Anyway I told them that there was a post about a delay with volunteer information and they are going to check into it and get back with me. You want me to freep mail you when they do?

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:')

[Ingtar]

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.

[DustyMoment]

You have lumped several issues together and I am selecting a few of them to respond to, starting with this: I think of illegal immigrants as people who are struggling for a better life by going through incredible hardships to get here, and then doing the most menial jobs, ones that Americans have largely abandoned.

I don’t 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. It’s 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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 don’t. 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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. That’s 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 don’t 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” won’t do. That’s 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 won’t do. And, in increasing numbers today, many of those sneaking across the border are bookkeepers, accountants, teachers and pharmacists. I haven’t 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 isn’t necessarily about his direct, hands-on association with abortion, it’s 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, wouldn’t 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 didn’t directly tackle abortion, but his two SCOTUS nominees will do that for him, should the issue come before the court again. Clinton didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t take a direct association, just a means to affect things for decades to come such as through a court appointment.

[Dstorm]

"His "No Car Tax" plan was excellent campaign material but lousy policy and helped elect Mark Warner AND Tim Kaine."

How was 'No Car Tax" lousy policy? The hated tax is still gouging us because of Warner not letting it sunset fully

[hosepipe]

[.. Unlike some Ostriches on this forum, I WILL support whoever the GOP nominee is against "Stalin in a pantsuit" in November. ..]

America is even more socialist now than in 2000 and 2004..
Hitlery WILL BE elected because of that in 2008.. no matter who survives the primarys,
even Newt or Duncan..

Bush has fractured the party like an auto windshield.. because of immigration and fiscal faux pas.. He(Bush) barely won in 2000 and 2004.. 2008 is another story.. America is getting itself brain washed.. and as 2008 gets closer the propaganda will get much more intense..

Already Ellen DeGeneres and Oprah are linking up.. Letterman and Leno are already working daily.. 2008 is another animal.. Republicans mostly are clueless.. or in denial..

You know.... Ostriches...

[Rudder]

Please do FReepmail me when you hear back from Hunter.

[NapkinUser]

Ping.

[ZULU]

Alberta's Child, YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!!

"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 "

When I was a little kid growing up in New Jersey many years ago, after many visits to New York City, I EVEN THEN concluded that America began at the Hudson River.

Sadly, due to the diffusion of liberal New Yorkers into the Garden State, and in some cases, even PA, America now begins at the Delaware River. Not that ALL New York City residents are liberals - but the voting record and election results over many decades indicates that a great many of them - the vast majority - are.

This is a GREAT piece. It deserves to be on FOX News, or Hannity or Mark Levin or in the National Review. You very cogently make the case against Giuliani and lay out clearly and logically why he is not the personality he is attempting to morph himself into.

Like most people here, I'm a conservative first, which explains why I am a Republican. I will work very hard for a conservative Republican like Hunter, or Gingrich. Should the unthinkable happen and Giuliani, Romney or McCain get the nomination, I certainly will never vote for the Democrat, but I will have to do some serious soul searching about voting for any of the latter three candidates. But what I decide will have little impact on the repsonse in America's heartland to any one of these three loosers. Enough of the conservative majority of the Republican base will fail to support them, guarenteeing a Hillery victory. (And I don't for one minute believe Obama or anyone else in that party can compete effectively against a dup who made Arkancide a word in the English Language.)

My prediction is that Giuliani will get nominated due tot he number of candidates running. Hunter will get exposure as a viable conservative alternative. History will repeat itself and, as with the case with Ford, Giuliani will loose to Hillery. Hillery, with the help of the Democrat Congress and RINOs will turn America into a living hell - a leftist basketcase. In 2010 the Repubs will take back the Congress and then in 2012, the Presidency. Hillery, lacking the sleazy finesse and oratorical skill, as well as the pragmatism of her consort, will be a one-term President and in her last two years will be crippled by a hostile COngress.

[jonathanmo]

Quit making sense!! You are spoiling the thread! :)

[Corin Stormhands]

Huh?! I checked, and sure enough this thread grew to 297 posts before anyone came up with a Rudy-in-drag photo.

Well, some of us read the threads for the articles.

There's a substantial discussion upthread about the posting of the pictures. You apparently missed it.

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

[Corin Stormhands]

Support him or not, at least you've heard of Jim Gilmore.

I think he used to be our Governor or something...

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

[Gop1040]

"Why is that necessary now? The first primary isn't until next February. Even Newt Gingrich won't enter until September or October."

The answer is simple....Money, Money, Money.

This cycle the horses were out of the gate right after the November 2006 elections. When money people who want to keep the Demorats out of the Oval Office see extraordinary national poll numbers (national and in the states) by a candidate, they'll gravitate towards him. Furthermore, numerous big states with rich primary votes like CA, NJ, FL, PA have or are about to move their primary up. Couple that with Rudy tied in NH, and leading in IA and several southern states, you got the makings of a ground swell that money people love. September/October will be too late. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself.

Waiting for Rudy to unravel is no strategy.
I love Newt. But seriously, speaking of baggage????