Posted on 04/16/2007 4:25:25 AM PDT by Liz
....Rudy Giuliani will speak tomorrow at the university founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, a major appearance for the former mayor...who holds liberal social views....Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against." Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that." Giuliani upset conservatives - and surprised supporters - by saying he favored public funding for abortion....His campaign quickly noted he wasn't proposing changes to current federal laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Let me translate the legalese. Roberts said that Roe vs. Wade (34 years old and counting) is "settled law" but so was Plessy vs. Ferguson (railroad segregation upheld) handed down in 1894 or thereabouts when it was overturned UNANIMOUSLY by Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954. With good reason, Roberts called Roe "settled law" but refused to say how he would rule on an attempt to overturn.
Did you notice that the online WOT contingent (forever yapping about "defense").....start kissing-up to Rudy when he trashes conservatives? The WOT crowd gets ecstatic when Rooty dumps on conservaties. Even lurkers suddenly start posting....deliriously happy b/c they think their champion is chasing conservatives out of the party.
Now, the Rooty Team is extremely selective, and tightly controls the agenda in his public utterances. More to the point, Rudy's being awfully secretive about actually delivering a solid foreign policy speech in public.
Jeepers, it's almost like Rudiani and the WOT whiners are plotting to keep the dumb suckers guessing as long as possible. Or maybe just until they can precipitate an international event to allow The Little Rudester to showoff his take-charge attitude.
It's time all America understands that these people are a threat to our republic b/c they want liberals controlling all facets of the US government.
This is not what the Founders intended. The checks and balances the Framers built into the system are central to the process.
Note well that the online WOT contingent (forever yapping about "defense").....start kissing-up to Rudy when he trashes conservatives. The WOT crowd gets ecstatic when Rooty dumps on conservaties. Even lurkers suddenly start posting....deliriously happy b/c they think their champion is chasing conservatives out of the party.
Now, the Rooty Team is extremely selective, and tightly controls the agenda in his public utterances. More to the point, Rudy's being awfully secretive about actually delivering a solid foreign policy speech in public.
It's like Rudiani and the WOT whiners are con artists----plotting to keep the suckers guessing as long as possible. Or maybe just until they can precipitate an international event to highlight The Little Rudester as a WOT showoff.
Dear BlackElk,
“We are going to beat Rudy before he gets to the convention.”
I hope you’re right!
Sen. Thompson seems to be a fine potential candidate.
sitetest
I am not saying executive experience is sufficient. (clinton and Carter are perfect counterexamples)
I am saying it is necessary. (BTW, George would tell you being a GENERAL isn’t chopped liver in that department.)
Executive experience is necessary, especially in these perilous times.
Especially after Bush.
We need experience and we need proven success.
The voters will demand it.
Fred Thompson is a nice enough guy with great stage presence.
He suggests experience and exudes what seems like gravitas, but does he really have either?
And he is no conservative. A true conservative would NEVER ever gut the amendment from which all of our liberties flow.
The issue isn’t Rudy’s conservatism, (which, according to you, is nonexistent). It is Fred’s.
If you are going to reject Rudy and select someone with inferior credentials based on his ideology, you had better be sure his ideology and the ideology you are desperately seeking are actually one and the same.
>>>God bless you and yours.
And yours as well, mi amigo.
Agreed!
Yes, I supported Rudy for a while, because I agree he is a strong leader. He has certainly talked about “strict constructionist judges.” But what does that phrase actually mean, if he later says that there is a constitutional right to abortion, and even a constitutional right to have the government pay for an abortion? No originalist or strict constructionist could possibly think that.
In other words, it depends what he means by “strict construction.” He also has shown little or no understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Not much good saying he’ll support strict constructionists if his idea of the Constitution is more like Souter’s than Alito’s.
Combine that with his past record as a pro-abortion extremist, and it’s just not enough to rely on.
If you know that some social and libertarian conservatives won’t vote for him (because they’ve repeatedly told you so), and you acknowledge that Rudy can’t win without these votes, then you’re admitting that Rudy is unelectable. If you vote for him in the primaries despite the previous facts, then it’s your vote that will give the donks the presidency.
On the contrary, Fred fought the entrenched DC powers when he was in the Senate. You may have heard about the several times that he cast the lone dissenting vote in 99-1 Senate votes because he thought the subject matter should be left to the states (e.g., the national .08 DUI limit). Here are some other examples:
- While in the Senate, he waged total war against government waste and fraud.
From Citizens Against Government Waste:
CAGW PRAISES THOMPSON REPORT ON FEDERAL MISMANAGEMENT
Key excerpt: "Once again, Chairman Thompson deserves great credit for exposing the pervasive problems in the federal government," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "As CAGW has documented repeatedly, many federal agencies and programs are duplicative, unaccountable, nontransparent, get poor results, lose money, are mismanaged, and outdated. These problems have persisted for decades, and as this report indicates, are growing worse and require rapid action."
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_06052001b
-He also ferreted out and brought to light federal abuses of power:
KEEPING BIG BROTHER FROM WATCHING YOU: PRIVACY IN THE INTERNET AGE
Key excerpt: This report brings to light one of Orwell's worst fears--not only are government agencies sharing private, personal information about individual citizens and failing to inform them, but they are also overstepping checks and balances designed to prevent such abuses from occurring. Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) emphasized that the government was technologically challenged when he said that "the Administration is not enforcing the laws that Congress passed" and that the federal government's underlying infrastructure is "riddled with vulnerabilities which represent severe security flaws and risks to our national security, public safety, and personal privacy."
- He doggedly held the line on taxes; as one example, he was one of only 36 congress members and only 9 senators to receive the coveted "Taxpayers' Friend" award from the National Taxpayers Union:
CITIZEN GROUP SALUTES "TAXPAYERS' FRIENDS" IN CONGRESS: JUST 36 LAWMAKERS RECEIVE AWARDS FOR SCORES ON NTU's 2002 RATING
Key excerpt: “Not all Members of Congress fought day in and day out during 2002 for the principle of limited government that is the cornerstone of our country’s greatness,” said NTU President John Berthoud. “Fortunately, at least 36 allies in Congress demonstrated an unwavering commitment to taxpayers. We are proud to honor this fiscal ‘coalition of the willing.’”
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=113&org_name=NTU
- He has been a tireless champion of federalism/states' rights:
THOMPSON EARNS "RESTORING THE BALANCE" AWARD FROM NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
Key excerpt: WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, has been selected to receive the 2000 "Restoring the Balance Award," presented by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The award, given annually to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators, was presented to Thompson last night at the NCSL’s Leader to Leader Dinner in Washington.
-snip of complimentary quote about Fred just for brevity's sake-
Thompson's dedication to the principles of federalism and sound government policy has resulted in the Committee’s advancement of the Federalism Accountability Act, and Senate passage of the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the Federal Financial Information Assistance Management Improvement Act, the Truth in Regulating Act, and revision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/030201_thompson_press.htm
Fred was even responsible for one of the only positive things in McCain-Feingold -- he successfully fought McCain and most democrats for an amendment to substantially raise the individual hard money limits and index the limits to inflation. Here is the link to the votes where McCain and friends tried unsuccessfully to table/kill Thompson's amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00053
This list is by no means comprehensive. He is also steeped in foreign policy experience, is tough and has the right philosophy about our fight against Islamofascists.
Just so. I was willing to suspend judgment on Rudy, but his recent series of remarks have virtually ruled out any possibility that he will change his position on these fundamental issues. And his position for many years was that of an extreme abortionist. So extreme that he would not even agree with the very mild pledge offered to him by the NY State Conservative Party for an endorsement in his senate race against hillary. All they asked was that he refrain from saying that he favored partial birth abortion during the campaign. And he refused to do even that.
Even if I were willing to vote for him, which at this point I am not, I am confident that tens of millions of religious voters will not pull the lever for him if he is on the ballot in November.
Not unless he changes, which he has now virtually ruled out. He could have repudiated his earlier positions before these latest remarks, but I don’t see how he possibly can now.
I know nothing of the kind. Rudy has sufficient support from both groups.
And his crossover appeal will more than compensate for those on the Right who will reject Rudy and instead place their de facto vote for hillary clinton.
After Bush, this country will NEVER go for a right-wing ideologue. I do concede, however, that Thompson does not come across as a right-wing ideologue.
But Thompson seems moderate because, at his core, he is moderate. After all, he learned at the knee of Howard Baker. (Perhaps this explains his easy disregard for the First Amendment.)
Your only real alternative is placing a de facto vote for hillary clinton, who will, without question, not only appoint pro-abortion judges but will go on a crusade to make abortions, etc. more readily available. I cannot understand how you can rationalize this.
A distinction must be made between Giuliani’s personal views on abortion and the effect of a Giuliani presidency on abortion policy. He will appoint strict constructionists judges. End of story.
Would you rather elect one of the liars whose stated view on abortion changes with his ambitions and venues? Giuliani deserves CREDIT for not compromising his view. Virtually every other politician has flipped on abortion when going from the local to national stage.
If they could so easily flip on this, they should be trusted less on this, not more.
the only positive things in McCain-Feingold -- he successfully fought McCain and most democrats for an amendment to substantially raise the individual hard money limits and index the limits to inflation
Your implication, that raising and indexing the hard money limits somehow mitigates the gutting of the First Amendment by McCain-Feingold reminds me of the expression, 'you can't be just a little bit pregnant.'
Citizen politicians: What the Founders envisioned were people of exceptional character, ability and achievement who would lend their expertise by serving a term or two and then return to their day jobs.
This isn't Fred Thompson.
Indeed, Thompson exempifies DC entrenched power and the revolving door.
50+ million butchered babies vs. Campaign Finance Reform. That one's a no brainer: each murdered baby is infinitely more important than all the nervous Nellyism over Campaign Finance Reform.
Sorry, if I have to choose one or the other it is gonna be Campaign Finance Reform every time. That a bunch of Washington, DC, issue group bureaucrats have to go hysterical in the mail six weeks earlier to augment the plush offices, the First Class air fares, the restaurant luxuries beyond the imagination of Roman emperors, limousine living, et al., by scaring the wits (and bank balances) out of blue-haired old widows that THE CAUSE is jeopardized by (whomever) unless that cash comes in fast and large, as the PAC in question produces absolutely no discernible results other than luxuries for the operators and poverty for the contributors. AND, to top it off, the Swift Boat Veterans (may God bless them) and George Soros (may he go straight to Philadelphia) seem not deterred in their effectiveness in the slightest despite the purported death of interest group luxur...(whoops!) freedom of "speech."
I was a state chairman for Reagan when he bucked Ford and I have never regretted any presidential enthusiasm of my lengthening life as a voter, starting with Nixon 1968.
As to the allegedly all important experience issue (while complaining that you want citizen politicians and not the establishment DC kind), Reagan had a handle on it. He publicly recognized his own lack of universal knowledge and said that the art of executive governance was best practiced by appointing those with such knowledge and backing them up unless and until they failed in which case, without personal rancor, they would resign or be fired and replaced. They were told before hiring that no firing would be personal. He was right.
Zachary Taylor was a general but not a particularly notable president. And Garfield, and Grant, and Benjamin Harrison and Dwight David Eisenhower. Andy Jackson would have been a great president even if he had been a mere private.
Fred Thompson (check the current FR poll of FDT vs. RG) is a LOT more conservative than Rudy ever was or will be. Gun grabbing, babykilling and lavender "marriage" are simply NOT the stuff of which conservatives are made. Rockefeller style Republicans want to have the country run by a group of politicos of whatever party whose ideologies, if any, produce calcification in policies. The important thing for them is who gets the contracts and who gets the jobs. It is all about money. No soul. No thrill. No despair. Nothing but money, boring money. After 50+ million dead, ending abortion is a cause worth fighting for. So is an end to the Islamofascisti being able to breathe. Bernie Kerik might have helped Giuliani with the second of these but he looks like he won't be available (which I genuinely regret). Rudy has New York Chutzpah which is a good thing. Fred Thompson can do as well. Fred Thompson fought against Red China trade. Fred Thompson is credible on social issues as Rudy is not and on judges and on the things that social conservatives most care about. There is plenty of available military command talent available to any GOP president. Rudy simply has no presidential level advantages, is NOT a conservative, is particularly not a SOCIAL conservative. Why buy a pig in a poke when Fred Thompson is a proven conservative and will be available after the Law and Order episodes have run?
For an unconventional politician, Fred Thompson has had three careers: actor and lawyer and US Senator. His experience as a lawyer is probably even better than Rudy's. Rudy spent much of his time fighting the Mafia. Congratulations to Rudy but his work put the Russians, the Rastamen, the Dominican gangs, and other elements far worse than the Mafia in charge of the drug trade and the streets. Fred Thompson cleaned out a gang of political criminals in Tennessee headed up by a governor whom he drove from office and into prison n what used to be Demonratic Tennessee. He served as counsel to the Republican minority on the Senate Watergate Committee. He has the presence and track record of a good actor.
Rudy has succeeded in three things: US attorney, cut street crime in NYC significantly and calmed the city after 9/11. One hopes that the third of these will not need repeating, that the second is not a presidential task, and that his experience as US Attorney is no better than Fred Thompson's experience in several government lawyer capacities and probably less. Gravitas and stage presence are in the eye of the beholder and Fred has both in spades. Fred does not do "gay" "rights" fundraisers much less in drag, nor NARAL dinners, nor grab guns.
Ideological reliability of a social issue sort IS the credential. Fred has it as Rudy does not. We can keep going back and forth but you are not going to convince conservatives or social conservatives that Rudy is either.
Only those who are social conservatives can decide for themselves whether Rudy is one of us. I have decided he is not. I am not alone if you check the FR poll now running. I can reject and so can anyone Rudy because I do not like my candidates photographed (or otherwise) wearing fake beauty marks, garish powder and rouge makeup and ballerina clothing at "gay" fundraisers whle suporting abortion and federal funding of same while lying to us that he will support what he calls "strict constructionists" to the SCOTUS and other fedcourts.
I am more tolerant of Rudy than most because, if he keeps his liberal nose out of social issues, judges, guns, etc., keeps his nose to the grindstone and uses RICO against the Islamofascisti as he once used it against the Mafia, I can see him as an effectve Attorney General. That is the best offer he is going to get next year. The national GOP is not Manhattan liberal and never will be.
If you think Dubya is a right wing ideologue, I think that must be really good stuff you are smoking but it distorts your perception of reality.
50+ million butchered babies vs. Campaign Finance Reform. That one's a no brainer: each murdered baby is infinitely more important than all the nervous Nellyism over Campaign Finance Reform.
False choice.
The First Amendment, and by extension, all of our liberties, are on the block. And conversely, abortion isn't.
Rudy will PROTECT the unborn (and ALL the children) by his selection of judges and by his prosecution of the war... as opposed to the only other real alternative in our 2-party system, hillary clinton, who will imperil them. If you reject Rudy, you will be helping to elect hillary. That is the choice. It's really that stark.
Look. In the end you may decide to help elect hillary clinton, but at least do it honestly, with your eyes open.
But if you do decide to place your de facto vote for the clintons, don't preach morality to me. To my mind, there can be nothing more immoral than knowingly, willingly helping the clintons retake the White House.
The Reagan analogy doesn't apply. Carter is not Bush and the clintons were not on the scene demonizing the president and the religious right.
Given the clintons' plans for the RR, it is quite ironic that the RR may in the end be the vehicle that delivers another clinton to the Oval Office.
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS
AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right
What's black and white and read all over and is more self-destructive than pre-9/11 thinking?
Pre-clinton thinking, that's what....
Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.
We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations.
We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)
If you think I am exaggerating the clintons view of the Religious Right, goto the first two links and play the video. Listen carefully to clinton. He delivered that ‘sermon’ in a black church.
“I don’t know but if you go with a gun grabbing, illegal alien pandering, gay rights supporting abortionist liberal like Rudy as your “conservative” standard bearer you’re going to have a whole lot more than OH and PA to worry about.
43 posted on 04/16/2007 5:08:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Yep, you can write off the south, midwest, and much of the west too!!
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.