Posted on 03/25/2007 11:44:12 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led off with his strongest card, his terrorism-fighting credentials, before touching on healthcare, immigration and energy policy in a speech to a welcoming crowd Saturday.
"Sept. 11, 2001, taught me — and I believe it taught a lot of people, including President Bush — that we have to remain on offense," Giuliani said. "That means that we have to use our military. We can't show weakness."
Giuliani seemed to hit all the right notes Saturday, getting applause when he criticized Democrats' stance on healthcare and advocated vouchers for schools.
On immigration, he told reporters he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he could support a guest worker program if there were adequate border security and tamper-proof ID cards. He said that even if illegal immigrants "can demonstrate that they are lawful, that they are paying taxes [and] that they'll pay penalties," they still shouldn't be put ahead of people who go through legal channels.
"And citizenship here, if it's earned, should be premised on being able to read and write English and understand American history, so we restore assimilation to the process of immigration," he said.
"Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypilot.com ...
OK, you're right. I'll admit it. Rudy looks better in a dress.
This is a very interesting question. He apparently had two terms in the senate, got quite reasonably sick of that institution's legendary intertia, and quit. (He served out his two terms but did not run for re-election, which he would have almost certainly won.)
I would feel a lot better if he had been mayor of a major city or governor of a major state. Governor's probably the best position since most states are organized like the Federal government in miniature, and so they give the candidate a good idea of what he will be up against.
I'm dismayed at how few candidates in this race have successful executive experience, to tell the truth. Aside from Rudy, the closest match we have is Hillary Clinton's period as "co-President", where she pretty much flopped.
I think the reason there is so much interest in Thompson is that he is more socially conservative than the leaders, and has the name ID to make a difference in this race. For that reason, it's much harder to dismiss him as someone who cannot win, like Duncan Hunter. (To give you an idea of this, note that Duncan Hunter has never had over 2% of polls, while Thompson is at 9% with no campaign organization yet.)
From what I can see, Thompson's acting career was considerably more successful than his political one. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make me think of him as Presidential material.
D
So now reminding people of what they once posted about the president is considered disparaging? Huh, you learn something new everyday on Free Republic.
Uh, spam is considered something that gets posted repeatedly, whether it's true or not is another matter altogether. But hey, if you don't mind that people think you're too ignorant to know what spam is, carry on.
Perhaps not, but I notice that you are unwilling to answer my question. (Here's a hint, it's not some sort of riddle, it's very straightforward.)
Posting facts, one to a thread, is not spam. But you knew that, didn't you. If you disagree, tell JimRob. He is the arbiter of the TOS here, right?
Okay then here's a new one for you since you seem to have stooped to disparaging Jim Robinson as you attempt to establish a bleeding heart liberal should have conservative support. This is simply a question, there is no opinion in it. So, let's see how you do.
I'll ask a question I asked the other day that the Rudyites have been unable to sufficiently respond to:
If I referred to an anonymous candidate and I did not give you their party affiliation and gave you the following information:
- The candidate believes in the "right" to abortion, including partial birth abortion.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of homosexuals to have a legal union that resembles marriage.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of illegal aliens to illegally enter and remain in our country.
- The candidate believes government has the "right" to modify the Second Amendment of the Constitution at will to curtail the right to keep and bear arms.
If this was the ONLY information you had, would your conclusion be that this unnamed candidate was a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat?
You mean like the Goebbels-style repetition that Rudy is a conservative in hopes that enough people will be duped into believing it?
Or the constant reposting of pro-Rudy articles?
Reminding us that he was Mayor of NYC on 9/11/01 is starting to remind me of sKerry's Pavlovian mention of being in Vietnam.
As Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics has pointed out, Rudy is an adherent of the same approach to illegal immigration that John McCain, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and Harry Reid have championed:
"While McCain has taken heat for his support of comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy is every bit as pro-immigration as McCain - if not more so. On the O'Reilly Factor last week Giuliani argued for a "practical approach" to immigration and cited his efforts as Mayor of New York City to "regularize" illegal immigrants by providing them with access to city services like public education to "make their lives reasonable." Giuliani did say that "a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security" needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border, but his overall position on immigration is essentially indistinguishable from McCain's."
That's bad enough. But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:
"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OF GIULIANI'S LEFT-WING POLITICAL POSITIONS
If I referred to an anonymous candidate and I did not give you their party affiliation and gave you the following information:
- The candidate believes in the "right" to abortion, including partial birth abortion.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of homosexuals to have a legal union that resembles marriage.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of illegal aliens to illegally enter and remain in our country.
- The candidate believes government has the "right" to modify the Second Amendment of the Constitution at will to curtail the right to keep and bear arms.
If this was the ONLY information you had, would your conclusion be that this unnamed candidate was a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat?
This election is going to be very difficult for that special breed of conservative that aches for the good old days (that never really existed anyway) to come back.
Either the electorate puts their confidence in a Hillary or Obama, sending the folks who think this way a powerful repudiation, or the electorate puts their confidence in a Rudy or Romney, sending the folks to think that way a strong love tap that nonetheless tells them to get with the program.
There you go spamming again!
You will notice that the Rudyites can't bring themselves to answer it.
They aren't pretending. Paraphrasing William Blake, "The eye that alters, alters all." So shrill and myopic, some people detach further and further from reality to the point that they can't really trust their senses nor their judgment.
To the altered mind, there isn't a difference between Rudy and Hilly. This speaks volumes for the bearer of the altered mind, and less so much for Rudy or Hilly.
...was his name-o.
Allen lost a close one, but Santorum was squashed like a bug with a margin of around 20 points. Only the most myopic, conservative far out space nut can't see the significance in an articulate, strong conservative being thoroughly rejected by the electorate.
Conservatives have to be realistic - this isn't their hour. Sadly, their hour may have been back in 1956.
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.