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 previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 651-661 next last
To: Al Simmons
[.. 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...

351 posted on 02/23/2007 11:54:34 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

Please do FReepmail me when you hear back from Hunter.


352 posted on 02/23/2007 11:56:26 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

Comment #353 Removed by Moderator

To: FreeInWV; Reagan Man; Fierce Allegiance; EternalVigilance; B Knotts; jmc813; Kimberly GG; Sun; ...

Ping.


354 posted on 02/23/2007 11:59:38 AM PST by NapkinUser (Free Ramos and Compean! Disbarment for the Nifong-wannabe Johnny Sutton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


355 posted on 02/23/2007 12:02:24 PM PST by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joylyn

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


356 posted on 02/23/2007 12:03:42 PM PST by jonathanmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
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

357 posted on 02/23/2007 12:04:41 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

Comment #358 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76; LimberJim
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

359 posted on 02/23/2007 12:07:41 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
"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????
360 posted on 02/23/2007 12:18:45 PM PST by Gop1040
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

An excellent post which sums up the reasons why I, and others who think like me will never be talked, bribed, cajoled, or threatened into voting for Rudy. Now his supporters may make a calculation that there simply aren't enough conservatives who care about the issues you cite to make a difference in an election. Perhaps they are right. In my estimation, if Rudy is nominated because there's a split in the conservative constituency among several candidates, Rudy will lose the general election by historic proportions...and rightfully so.


361 posted on 02/23/2007 12:21:09 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: merry10

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


So, what did you think of info in this thread? Make you want a stiff drink?


362 posted on 02/23/2007 12:21:35 PM PST by wolfcreek (Please Lord, May I be, one who sees what's in front of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
Well, some of us read the threads for the articles.

I think some people read them just for the softcore tranny pron. Look how popular they are.
363 posted on 02/23/2007 12:22:33 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Gop1040

You need to see the other reply after this one to you. I am not a Newt supporter.

I disagree with the idea that one must be in the race already, or two full years before the election.


364 posted on 02/23/2007 12:26:15 PM 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 360 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Call me paranoid, and call me judgmental, but something about this whole thing just ain’t right.

IMO, the globo-corporate mediot purpose of running Rudy Giuliani is to assure that Hillary gets elected. If he wins the nomination, many disheartened conservatives stay home and she wins. If a conservative is nominated, Rudy's campaign will have fomented the RINOs to turn to a McCain third party run or the equivalent. If we want a prayer of having a conservative in the White House, we need to end this charade EARLY.

IMO, that means promoting the only unambiguous conservative with cross party appeal in the race: Duncan Hunter. His stands on trade and illegal immigration are likely to enlist a great many cross-over votes.

365 posted on 02/23/2007 12:26:19 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I think some people read them just for the softcore tranny pron. Look how popular they are.

Well yes, the Anti-Rudy Oompa Loompas* do seem to be fascinated by them.

*AROL: Anti-Rudy Oompa Loompas - necessary to the story, but they sure are annoying...

JoinRudy2008 * Virginia is for Rudy * The Ward View

366 posted on 02/23/2007 12:29:03 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (If you don't support their mission, you don't support the troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
And how could we forget the recent Evolution purges.

Those purges drained half of the blood from this forum.

367 posted on 02/23/2007 12:30:52 PM PST by NathanR (Après moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

Comment #368 Removed by Moderator

To: NathanR
Those purges drained half of the blood from this forum.

Don't worry. We'll evolve more.

/s

369 posted on 02/23/2007 12:32:14 PM PST by EternalVigilance (“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007; Alberta's Child

Good post. It's way past time to put this country back on track, which means NO LIBERALS of any sort.


370 posted on 02/23/2007 12:33:23 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless America..Duncan Hunter 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Jim Robinson himself had them restored and gave that post a green light.

If Rudy (or any other Rino) gets the nomination, FreeRepublic will be his biggest supporter. I saw the transformation Robinson went through when Bush became the chosen one. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. Everyone should get it out of their systems now.

371 posted on 02/23/2007 12:37:23 PM PST by Glenn (Annoy a BushBot...Think for yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
"If this is an indication of what is going on with all conservatives, the GPO is in big trouble IMO"


Fortunately, if you have been keeping up with the latest goings-on, the Dims seem to have a few problems of their own. Rush, like him or not, is prophesying their eminent demise. Personally, I think they're like roaches.......just when you think they're all dead, then another one shows up.
372 posted on 02/23/2007 12:41:27 PM PST by wolfcreek (Please Lord, May I be, one who sees what's in front of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
"I disagree with the idea that one must be in the race already, or two full years before the election"

Say what? You don't have "two full years" (21 months to be exact). The first (NH) primary is less than one year away. Scheduled candidates' debates start in a few months. If you wait for your pristine candidate (Newt's not good enough) to reveal him/herself, it'll be too late.

Without you proposing and backing an alternative to Rudy soon, sounds like you've already ceded the primary to him. Good, now we can on to the general election.
373 posted on 02/23/2007 12:44:23 PM PST by Gop1040
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
There was a Rudy supporter that posted his accomplishments, and what he has done. I'd rather look at that information, than this.

The point is that you should look at all the information not just his accomplishments. Most everyone knows all of Rudy's good points. That's the problem. I was ready to crown him King of America after 9/11, but like most people I had no idea of what his views on ALL the issues were. I just saw the (R) after his name and thought he was a conservative on most issues, but now we see he isn't and people need to know that.

You might be tired of seeing these views expressed in many different threads, but new people log onto FR every day and this might be the first and only thread they see that shows them a more complete view of Guiliani. If you disagree with anything said then you should post and give your opinion, but there needs to be pro and anti views expressed on all the candidates so we know the pros and cons on all of them.

374 posted on 02/23/2007 12:52:07 PM PST by Elyse (I refuse to feed the crocodile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: joylyn
"As for immigration, the typical illegal immigrant in NYC didn't come across the Mexican border."


We're not talking about NY anymore....We're talking about a philosophy that will effect the entire country. I'm from Texas and believe me, We are more visibly Hispanic than ever.
375 posted on 02/23/2007 12:53:47 PM PST by wolfcreek (Please Lord, May I be, one who sees what's in front of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

376 posted on 02/23/2007 12:54:59 PM PST by Silly (plasticpie.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn; Jim Robinson
If Rudy (or any other Rino) gets the nomination, FreeRepublic will be his biggest supporter. I saw the transformation Robinson went through when Bush became the chosen one. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time.

I'm not sure. I notice that JimRob already has posted about ten times as many tough anti-Rudy posts as he posted about Bush in the entire nomination process. And JimRob actually had picked a horse in that race so his stake could be said to have been higher against Bush. JimRob doesn't have a candidate yet this time.

JimRob is a constitutionalist. That's what FR was established to be. That was the yardstick by which the pre-Bush FR measured everything, not just JimRob but pretty much everyone. You should have seen some of those old threads, like reading the fine points of constitutional law, especially when Xlinton issued an executive order.

During the Bush era with a congressional majority, it just became less popular to take on our own party, especially since they weren't gungrabbers or pro-abortion, the red-meat issues in the Xlinton era along with Monicagate, UN deployments, etc. Did the GOP majority spend too much? Sure. NCLB? Flaky. But not enough for armed insurrection or doing the Dims any favors by fracturing the party either.

Times have changed, our GOP majority gone and Bush lameducked. And Rudy Giuliani is the embodiment of the northeast liberal establishment. Rudy is the anti-Reagan Republican. And that is how I see JimRob's opposition to him. JimRob has returned to his steady compass of constitutionalism. I try not to dis the Big Tent too much but it really is true that political purity is easier when you're in the minority. Beyond that, a substantial defeat like we suffered in '06 should make anyone return to their party's bedrock principles.

[just in case his grep isn't working, I pinged JimRob]
377 posted on 02/23/2007 12:55:41 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
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:')

Where?

378 posted on 02/23/2007 12:56:24 PM PST by b9 ("America is great because America is good." ~ Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Like most Anti-Rudyites out there, there's the diatribe, then silence.

If you don't like Rudy, then who do you like that has a ghost of a chance of winning?


379 posted on 02/23/2007 12:56:27 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (Ignorance should be painful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doodlelady

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789986/posts


380 posted on 02/23/2007 12:58:52 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

Thanks, CDawg!


381 posted on 02/23/2007 1:01:45 PM PST by b9 ("America is great because America is good." ~ Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: doodlelady

Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina


382 posted on 02/23/2007 1:02:47 PM PST by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: doodlelady

You are welcome.


383 posted on 02/23/2007 1:03:02 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Registered; Jim Robinson
Registered said:
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...

Wouldn't THAT be convenient for those misguided folks who are openly campaigning for the most liberal Republican presidential candidate in history on a conservative forum?

Heck, why don't we open up forums for campaigning for Hillary and Obama too!? That would be more "fair" - right?

Maybe we could start a forum here for conservative bashing - which seems to be your particular bent ever since the start of the California governor's recall election. Would that work for you too? You could collect all of the anti-Duncan Hunter photoshops you churn out (you've posted some already and it is obvious that you're just getting warmed up in the conservative-bashing department) and plaster them all over the place. I'm sure you could come up with some really good ones to bash on Tancredo and Gilmore too. No conservative would be able to escape your derision.

Or maybe, just a thought, we could stick with the original plan here and promote conservatives and conservatism while exposing the liberals and doing damage to liberalism. On a site dedicated to promoting conservatives and conservatism, all candidates - Republican or otherwise - are not created equal. And when you're talking about a pro-abortionist, gun-grabbing, globalist, anti-first amendment, pro-radical gay agenda liberal like Giuliani, he's going to get what he deserves.

The reason posts like mine are inserted by myself and others into Rudy threads has been explained to you by myself and others. Similar factual posts attacking other liberals and their positions are inserted into posts about people like Hillary and Obama. No difference. We've done that for years here. But, suddenly, when it effects your favorite liberal, you get all whiny about it. And it really is whining. Most of the threads you're talking about are hundreds of posts in length - some are into the thousands. Two or three posts exposing Rudy's odius liberalism and history amount to less than 1% of most of those threads. So, quit whining, stop bashing the conservative candidates, knock off the attempts to demoralize the supporters of the conservative candidates, and try rooting for a conservative candidate for a change.

384 posted on 02/23/2007 1:04:06 PM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Glenn; Jim Robinson
ping

(I'll do the courteous thing foryou and ping the Freeper you mentioned by name.)

Glenn prognosticated: If Rudy (or any other Rino) gets the nomination, FreeRepublic will be his biggest supporter. I saw the transformation Robinson went through when Bush became the chosen one. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. Everyone should get it out of their systems now.

385 posted on 02/23/2007 1:04:44 PM PST by don-o (Fight, fight. fight to drive the GOP to the right!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Registered
I'm not sore. I just think spamming the forum over and over and over and over is brainless. Got it? Brainless.

Most Rudy threads go into hundreds of posts. 2 or 3 of those posts may be repeats containing factual information designed to educate FReepers and lurkers about Rudy. Do the math and quit your whining.

386 posted on 02/23/2007 1:05:51 PM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Overall, this vanity reminds me of FR as it was during the pre-Bush era. A constitutional forum, committed to certain principles of the Founders. As long as we have vanities like this one, the old FreeRepublic still survives. I only wish some of the expedience-oriented Republicans of the Bush era had half the common sense and principle shown in this essay.

Hear! Hear!

387 posted on 02/23/2007 1:07:00 PM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs; Alberta's Child
Like most Anti-Rudyites out there, there's the diatribe, then silence.

Did you read the post? Obviously not.

AC said he would be away from the keys for a time.

388 posted on 02/23/2007 1:07:22 PM PST by don-o (Fight, fight. fight to drive the GOP to the right!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
Actually,

I think Hunter has a chance, after all it is still early. The MSM seem to think Republicans are limited to only three candidates (McVain, Guiliani, and Romney). Frankly they don't tell me to vote, and since these are their choices for me, I feel hell bent to reject them come primary time. If Rudy wins? Well, I'll hold my nose and vote (R) because I've seen what voting (D) gets me. I did my taxes here in the Commune of Maryland, and after getting a substantial refund from the U.S. gov't I had to pay the state of Maryland, (like "Dude, WTF???"). Democrats are out to tax the rich, which really means that they are out to tax anyone with a family income of 50K. You just can't live here as a family for less than 50K, so I'm in the crosshairs. Additionally the MD state house (i.e. Central Planning Committee) wants to give illegals free tuition. That's what you get when the Dem's take over, no more Erlich == MoM is gonna take it all "for the greater good" (of Baltimore's ghettos). I am really burned out on the fact that these big city northeastern mayors feel like its okay to invite illegals to come to their cities, give them incentives to do so, and then tax the crud outta the people who are legally there working. From what I see with Rudy, this was probably the case for his tenure as Mayor of NYC. Plus I am not impressed with his "handpicked" successor.

Cheers,
CSG
389 posted on 02/23/2007 1:09:36 PM PST by CompSciGuy (Duncan Hunter for 2008 - no flip-floppers or RINO's please...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

Thanks, SCP!


390 posted on 02/23/2007 1:10:43 PM PST by b9 ("America is great because America is good." ~ Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Gop1040

You are wasting my time. I know full well how an election campaign is conducted. Go argue your Rudy-rot somewhere else.


391 posted on 02/23/2007 1:11:16 PM 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 373 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs; Alberta's Child

Actually, it is said in Post #1 that AC would be away from the keys. Sorry. So, did you read the thread or just drive by?


392 posted on 02/23/2007 1:11:49 PM PST by don-o (Fight, fight. fight to drive the GOP to the right!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
If Rudy (or any other Rino) gets the nomination, FreeRepublic will be his biggest supporter. I saw the transformation Robinson went through when Bush became the chosen one. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time. Everyone should get it out of their systems now.

Maybe, just maybe, Jim Robinson and a number of previous "broken glass Republicans" are sick and tired of being taken for granted. Nominating a liberal like Giuliani and expecting us to hold our noses once again, this time for the most odious liberal GOP nominee in history, may just be too much. I know it is for me. I can't vote for him. I can't speak for Jim, but he just might not allow the GOP kingmakers to take him for granted anymore. If Giulian is the nominee, you will see a split in the Republican Party of historic proportions. From which, the GOP may never recover. Have you heard of the Whig Party? Yeah, kinda like that.

393 posted on 02/23/2007 1:14:40 PM PST by Spiff (Rudy Giuliani Quote (NY Post, 1996) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
[.. 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. ..]

Needs to said again.. and hard questions answered..
The republican denial is massive..

Seems obvious to me.. but most republicans are oblivious.. even here(FR)..

394 posted on 02/23/2007 1:21:18 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Did you read mine either?

ALL RUDY DIATRIBES are just that - diatribes. Lots of problems with Rudy, and no viable alternatives proffered.

AC could have popped his preferred alternative in at the end of his post.

As to that, any of the Anti-Rudy crowd can do the same thing, but they generally don't.

Some people are talking about Hunter.

He can't raise the money, and winning a house seat isn't the same as winning a gubernatorial bid. Most districts are pretty heavily gerrymandered, and represent dukedoms more than districts.

If Hunter wants to run for President, he could run for governor in 2008, win, then run for the WH.

It's the only way he's going to be able to build the organization and the fund raising required to do the job.


395 posted on 02/23/2007 1:22:34 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (Ignorance should be painful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Good post.

Now prepare for the onslaught of Rutards who will dismiss all the evidence and enlessly repeat their misinformed mantra.

Duh, Roodi is tuff on terrer!

Uh, like Rooty will point strickt construction worker judges.

Da presdent aint got no sey bout aborshun and gun cuntrull.

Yure just a anapeesabul 100%er.

396 posted on 02/23/2007 1:27:23 PM PST by metalurgist ("For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" No to Rudy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Rudy Guiliani is running for the Republican nomination for President, not the Conservative Party nomination. Just the same way that I am a conservative, but I usually vote Republican because there are so few conservative Democrats.

As long as people are convinced that the two must be the same, we will all continue to be disappointed and at contention with others we think we should be in constant agreement with.

As much as I would like to see a President of the United States act like a conservative; balance the budget, reduce government spending and government size; provide for our common defense, and promote our general well-being, I realize that life is a series of compromises.

As a result, I generally support the current President, even though he has exhibited no control over spending and I disagree with his treatment of our national security over the southern border.

I generally support Republicans in Congress, even though they made a complete mess of the homosexual predator situation by refusing to deal with a mess because of political correctness.

The point is, that while I would like to see a true conservative President, the only one I'm hearing about is Duncan Hunter, who most voters have not heard of. And even then, I don't know enough about him to be confident that he would act like a conservative in the White House.

So that leaves me with Republicans. And of all the people in the race, the one I like best is Rudy. Why? Because I think he would do the best job of getting the important things done. We can disagree about qualifications, philosophies, and track records, but I am most comfortable supporting a person I can agree with who appears to be electable.

Of course, a Guliani / Hunter ticket would work for me.

397 posted on 02/23/2007 1:31:22 PM PST by Bernard (Immigration should be rare, safe and legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
"You are wasting my time. I know full well how an election campaign is conducted. Go argue your Rudy-rot somewhere else."

You should go somewhere else. I believe the title of this thread is:

"A Message to Rudy Giuliani and His Supporters (Vanity)"
398 posted on 02/23/2007 1:31:44 PM PST by Gop1040
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
America now begins at the Delaware River.

So the 9/11 attack on the WTC really didn't hit America, did it? Disgraceful.

399 posted on 02/23/2007 1:32:23 PM PST by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Gop1040

Argue your Rudy-rot with someone else here, then.


400 posted on 02/23/2007 1:32:38 PM 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 398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 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