Skip to comments.Rudy a Lefty? Yeah, Right.
Posted on 10/28/2007 4:43:03 AM PDT by libstripper
You wouldn't know it from reading the papers, but the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination is a confirmed right-winger. On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
That candidate is Rudolph W. Giuliani.
As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Your posting #41 is well said.
If anything can be said in Rudy’s defense, however, Rudy seems to be more forceful and communicative, less Politically correct and with more backbone than the current Whitehouse occupant.
I do not care, no matter what I will never vote for the liberal statist elitist SOB.
I can now hear the black Helicopters way before they even come into sight.
“Rino rudy a liberal statist. I will never vote for the pro abortiion, anti gun, pro gay worthless SOB.”
I heard last night somewhere he somehow pioneered the sanctuary cities (illegal immigration) idea a few years ago. Would be interesting today to ask him what he thinks about the anchor baby concept now on national TV.
Who knows? He two faced.
Pioneered sanctuary cities? Nope. He just continued city policy started before he was elected. Sanctuary cities developed in the 1980s in response to the lack of Federal enforcement of illegal immigration laws. The Feds expected the locals to carry the load, and eventually the locals refused because of the lack of support.
I’m not saying I wont vote for him if hes the nominee,...obviously I will. I’m just saying he’s not my first choice,
So you admit he help violate US law in supporting the policy of sanctuary cities. And he is a pro illegal invader.
I told you to keep your head down.
Rudy has not gained the nomination yet and likely will not do so. Isn’t it a bit early to be condemning those who have retained their honor, integrity and principle and refuse to vote for an immoral, pro-abortion, flip-flopping media creation?
If one does not vote for Rudy, one does not vote for Rudy. For it to be truly said that one elected Hillary, one would have to cast a vote for Hillary. These separation by degree arguments and least smelly turd comparatives are contemptible and dishonest. I for one, am sick of them.
To all those capitulating camp followers who dare suggest principled conservatives somehow want Hillary because they refuse to vote contrary to their beliefs; I invite you to participate in the osculation of my posterior and those of whom you have insulted.
I know there are some who don’t care that the last vestiges of conservatism seem to be circling the drain, but I do. So, take your “Hillary as bogeyman” fear-mongering and best ordure comparatives to someone who gives a damn.
I am not impractical, but firm in my beliefs and my resolve as are many others on this forum. I realize, and it looks likely, the GOP will again be represented by a posturing and pandering creation of the media. As long as candidates “promise” some seem content to believe them. That is always worked so well before, why not, right? Everyone knows a candidate has never lied or broken a promise. They do it every time and do you know why they do it? They do it because we vote for them and are complicit in their dishonesty, because we were ignorant enough to trust them. Did you ever wonder why the candidates with impeccable credentials and a history of doing things to move conservatism forward and that have consistently been socially conservative never seem to be “electable”? I am far more interested in the answer to that question because I already know why a conservative wouldn’t cast a vote for Rudy.
If Rudy's nominated that's exactly what's going to happen.
Presidents are elected to single 8 year terms now? When did this happen?
Ain't gonna happen. Hillary would have to deal with a revitalized GOP in Congress and public. All of this has to go through Congress anyway, unless Hillary will receive magical dictatorship powers upon taking the oath of office. And ask King George back in 1776 what happened when he tried to pull that.
Rudy's nominated = 3rd party
No, it's called sticking by our long-held principles and refusing to compromise on them by voting for POS pro-abortionists.
No, it's called going down with the ship after blowing a whole in the hull AND tying everyone on board up to ensure they all die along with you.
Understood where you are coming from...when I was young, I used to believe everything was just black and white as well...
I do not see any real difference between the two so if Rino Rudy is nominated I will go third party.
I am 37adn know there is grey, but Rino Rudy has as black of a heart as Hitlary. I will never vote for teh lying pro illegal invader liberal.
Leave it to a liberal to describe Guilani as a “self-styled lawman,” and describe total charlatans as “heroes,” or “decorated veterans.” Like him or not, Giulani was a committed career Federal prosecutor who had more success than any other at exterminating much of organized crime in his District, and that in spite of contracts out for his assassination. In the same breath, a liberal will hail as a “hero” some ninety-day Vietnam fraud with self-nominated decorations, no witnesses other than himself to the “exploits,” or some REMF faux Marine clown who is only the most corrupt of all the members of Congress. It’s classic newspeak from the party of no standards.
I'd rather die a clean, quick death (Hillary) than a slow-agonizing one (Rudy)
I guess it's time to put your glasses on:)
Or take your rose colored ones off. He is as liberal as Hitlary.
You don't want Hillary in. Who would you NOT vote for against Hillary?
There are quite a few people who will not vote for Rudy, either, as a matter of concience.
For me there is no difference, either would openly use my tax money to finance abortions making me have to choose between prison for not paying taxes or being an accessory to murder.
I won't vote for either one of them in the general.
Now, maybe some folks should get real enough to consider this and seriously consider a candidate we can all vote for.
That just won't fly in flyover country.
Though it will get lots of airtime next October, and maybe even be explained, the bulk of the tube watching population won't care why.
The image will haunt them all the way to the voting booth.
I can't see how voting for a former mayor who put the city's emergency response center in one of the buildings in a complex which had already been targeted by terrorists is a good idea for America, and that dies not even touch on the issues.
So put a gun to your head or take poison, just don't take me and the rest of the country along with you.
I hope you’ll be happy with President Hillary. When you have to fork over more than half your pay for her Socialist programs, please do not complain.
I liken voting between Rion Rudy and Hitlary as choice between a kick in the crotch and a punch in the teeth. I will vote for neither.
There's the problem--the adjective, "Bush-era" is the same as "compassionate", i.e., NOT.
No I will not be, but I would equally not be happy with what would happen under Rino Rudy. So I see no difference.
“the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination is a confirmed right-winger.”
“Look...would you rather have the Clintons back for eight years?”
Careful with that argument, it’s an antique. Rudy is NOT the only one running with and R after his name you know.
Just the most liberal one.
The RNC and NRSC were too busy spending millions in Rhode Island smearing Steve Laffey to ensure the re-election of Linc Chafee...Hmmmm
“I refuse to believe anyone would endanger their lives and the lives of their own families just to make a political point”
You are concerned over the things of this world. We who refuse to vote pro-abortion based on our relligious beliefs are concerned with the Word of God and the afterlife.
That is FAR more important than ANYTHING that could possibly happen in this world.
Well, the good thing about having Hitlery as president is that we'll reach CW-2 much sooner. This country's on it's way down the tubes. The sooner it happens, the better chance an armed populace will still exist.
Are you honestly going to make a case that Bush or Rudy are better conservatives than Reagan?
Bush-era conservatism kind of an oxymoron, isnt it?”
Some kind of moron, anyway.
Jorge is not a conserative, he is a rockefeller republican.
Great post, if this was stated by Fred, Duncan or Tancredo at the next debate, I’d be standing and applauding!
“Jorge is not a conserative, he is a rockefeller republican.”
RNC = Republican, Not Conservative.
Sums it up nicely.
You got real. Give Rudy the nomination, and after one flash of Rudy in a dress (likely to be the most used MSM image after September 1, '08), and the average guy in flyover country will be somewhere besides the polls on election day.
It is a pity so many Republicans feel the need to compete with the Democrats for the Democrat base, but that seems to be what is happening.
In the meantime, conservatives are expected to wish in one hand and watch the other fill up.
They’re just labels and you’re suicidal.
Just as I suspected. You all have no clue what you are talking about, relying on text-proofed media accounts for your opinions.
The Liberal Party sided with Giuliani in 1989. Sadecki, that they sided with a vast underdog in 1989 devestates your theory that they did so to gain access to the winner, doesn’t it?
When else did they go against Democrats? True, they opposed Koch in 1977. BECAUSE HE WAS TOO CONSERVATIVE. They sided with Mario Cuomo, instead. Sound like a conservative choice to you? Then there was 1969, when they backed John Lindsay, whom I’m sure jonathanmo’s source counts as supporting the Republican. Lindsay was booted out of the Republican Party, which prefered the DEMOCRAT to him, because he was FURTHER TO THE LEFT THAN THE DEMOCRATS.
In fact, the Liberal Party was so angry at Koch for being too moderate, they consistently endorsed his opponents.
Against Koch (who supported Bush), for Lindsay (who criticized even Johnson for being too conservative), for Giuliani... Not exactly a pattern of moderation.
That is FAR more important than ANYTHING that could possibly happen in this world."
So in the name of your God you are willing to get all of us killed? You are no different then the crazed savage ragheads.