Posted on 12/29/2007 6:59:40 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Cannot post due to copyright issues: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071229/NEWS0206/71229006/1009/NEWS02
How do you square “less government” and “strict interpretation of the constitution” with his history on gun control?
Rudy’s willingness to appoint strict constructionists to the bench preserves the sanctity of the 2nd amendment. This is a false issue and a media-created straw man that some GOP primary voters are irrationally fixated upon, which means they took the bait.
How do you square “tough on crime” with NYC being a sanctuary city under his tenure?
I don’t. I square being “tough on crime” with making NYC a safer city than the one he found.
Prayers sent then. Including for mom and dad
(((ejonesie family)))
thanks for the scuttlebutt info
What’s his name?
There isn’t a great deal of difference policy wise?
Except for, maybe, a minor and almost irrelevant detail such as a WAR where defeat would have catastrophic consequences for America's vital interests and safety?
If we are going to have a liberal in the White House, I would rather have a liberal that will not declare defeat in the Iraq War to appease the Left but, instead, will fight like a bulldog to win the war .
Rudy wants desperately to win the war.
Hillary wants to wage the war in whatever manner scores her political brownie points with her left-wing base.
February 18, 2007 ...... Hillary Clinton urges troop withdrawal to begin in 90 days
Today, the Surge has transformed the war and victory is there for the taking as long as the Americans of this decade have more guts than they have stupidity. Imagine the guaranteed defeat that would have occurred if the U.S. had commenced to bug out in May 2007 like Hillary proposed.
The strategic stakes in the Persian Gulf (70% of the World's known oil reserves and wealth militarily controlled by Islamist fanatics on the verge of developing nuclear weapons who think Mutally Assured Destruction is a good thing as long as they take America with them in a nuclear holocaust) are much to high and too many brave American men and women have given their lives to protect America's vital interests in the Persian Gulf to have us throw it all away because we are having a tantrum about Rudy not being "conservative enough".
Having a tantrum and voting for Ross Perot because George Bush, the Elder was not perfect enough for some of us is what put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992 with only 43% on the popular vote.
"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." ......... Winston Churchill
If Rudy is running against Hillary or Obama in November 2008, I will be voting for Rudy.
I hope you're right but it didn't in 2006 when it was really needed.
Great post.
John Michael. Just visited the NICU and they are trying to wean him off the ventalator so we seem to be making progress. Still not out of the woods and not being able to touch him is rough on my wife so still need prayers but I am very optomistic.
What good is winning the war if we lose the country. Hillary will do what ever the polls tell her to do and that means staying in Iraq.
Using your logic, you would vote for Hillary over Rudy if each switched their position on the war tomorrow.
R/
Is your wife still in the hospital? It’s horrible enough being there without having baby.
Was he early?
When you get to hold him, give him a kiss from me. :)
The are trying to feed him today and they are looking at starting to wean the ventilator some more. He is heading in the right direction.
We saw him a bit a go and my wife laughed for the first time. He was sleeping in the exact same position I do when I am sick or really tired. Nurses said no matter how they move him he goes right back to that position.
Would that put him in second or third?
I wouldn't rule out FIRST!
“Rudy’s willingness to appoint strict constructionists to the bench preserves the sanctity of the 2nd amendment.
If you believe he’ll actually appoint strict constructionist judges. I, personally, don’t. Episodes like him claiming that he can support a partial birth abortion ban -now- because it -now- has an exception for the life of the mother, when EVERY PBA ban ever proposed has had that exception, convince me that he’s full of crap, and willing to say anything, including slandering conservatives, to get elected.
“This is a false issue and a media-created straw man that some GOP primary voters are irrationally fixated upon, which means they took the bait.”
Oh please. I haven’t heard the MSM complain about his gun control position once, and would probably snort soda through my nose if they did. The complaints I’ve heard about it have been on the conservative blogosphere, and it’s a damn good point.
“I square being “tough on crime” with making NYC a safer city than the one he found.”
And he did well on violent crime - but he certainly wasn’t tough in any way on illegal immigration. He was in fact very open to it. Just so the record’s clear, his toughness on crime seems to be rather selective.
Qwinn
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.