Posted on 11/26/2006 11:57:04 PM PST by MadIvan
Secondly, in terms of taxation and economic policy, Giuliani favours cutting taxes, as he did in New York. Hillary is on record at taking things away for "the common good".
Finally, as to the social issues you mentioned - Giuliani's official position is that this is not something to be mandated by the federal government but to be decided by the states. As the Constitution says that the powers not enumerated in it are reserved for the states or the people, that is actually the Constitutionally correct position, whether you agree with his personal opinion or not. Hillary does not share this perspective.
Build up what excuses you like, but Giuliani is a better pick than Hillary. I cannot believe I have to argue with conservatives whose experience should have been tempered by Impeachment on this issue.
Ivan
I don't understand anyone who doesn't believe this must be avoided.
Regards, Ivan
That would make for an interesting GOP Convention.
"We support gun control!"
"We support abortion rights!"
"We support Gay Marriage!"
"We are Republicans!"
"Vote for Rudy!!!"
In every important foreign policy issue, she is absolutely wrong.
She seems to be saying the right things about Iraq...no???
In case you hadn't noticed, she seems to be saying as little as possible on that issue, and trying to stay on the right side of the electorate. Her liberal record on issues tells her real opinion.
Ivan
I am beyond just being ANGRY at them and that IS what is needed!
We like to criticize liberals for choosing 'high culture' over fighting against Islamofacists because we think that doing that would lead to our demise. But, apparently we're doing similar things. We like to say that WoT is a war for our survival: to protect our life-style, civilization, etc. And we look down upon liberals for complaining about 'human rights violation'. The way I see it, we are doing the same thing: we are so busy complaining about gay marriage, abortions, etc.. at the expense of our own (and/or the future generation's) lives.
Not that I think those issues should be put aside. No. We need to fight for those. But, we need to pick the battles correctly, and prioritize the most important thing.
What's the point of tyring to get a "Christian" president if it results in Hillary (or any other Dim) presidency, which is more likely to (a) define the SCOTUS, and (b) surrender to international pressures including pressures from Islamic countries?
If we lose WoT, the US will go to either one of these two paths: accept Islam or die. The first one probably is not that bad, as they surely will give us legislations against gay marriage or abortion.
Rudy is very strong in WoT and Islamofacists (he returned the money from that sheik, didn't he?) So, I think Conservatives shouldn't write him off.
Then YOU have less than NO idea what Rudy is for and aren't fit to vote.
Known for being incredibly vindictive. Truly an evil person.
Some people truly have rocks in their heads. Myopic tunnel vision.
At this stage of the game The Telegraph might think there are only two candidates on the Republican side.
Giuliani and McCain are not the only conservatives who will be in the race.
McCain has already been rejected as presidential material. Giuliani has already declined to go up against non-Mrs. Clinton.
yitbos
Rudy is pro abortion and pro gun control.
I do not need to know any more than that.
and then there is that Gay Marriage thing.
Feel free not to support Rudy all the way up to the convention, but if the party does nominate him, and you sit on your hands, and Rudy is defeated because people like you stayed at home, I'm going to be angry at people like you for having subjected the world to the Hillary Presidency, because that is the effect of what you propose.
Sometimes being practical is more important than being pure. Anyone who remembers the trauma of Impeachment knows that Hillary is evil and has to be downed. If the Democrats were as sane and sensible to pick Richardson or Bayh, I might feel better about conservatives "staying at home". That said, I do think Hillary will get it. I also think she's absolutely intolerable - the world cannot afford a return of the Clinton Crime Family.
Ivan
I'm surprised you mention Brownback - all the anti-illegals folks hate his guts for being a champion of amnesty. Tancredo and Pence are not credible - not because they're not good people, it's because they have very little national profile, and secondly, no member of the House of Representatives has been elected President since James Garfield. Garfield had an advantage of being Speaker of the House as well.
You're not living in the real world, I'm afraid - think about who has a national imprint, who is known to the electorate, and who has a credible chance in beating Hillary in the debates. If you can't see that Giuliani is the best out there so far, you cannot be helped.
Ivan
We are not in disagreement. However, it would be interesting to see the GOP nominate Rudy and the Dems to nominate Bayh.
Left will be right and right will be left.
There's Mitt Romney, but his numbers look horrible. 43% saying they'd never vote for a Mormon (which is very odd).
Ivan
And since you'd rather have Hillary as president, then I guess that Rudy's stances on LOWERING TAXES and getting Supreme Court Judges like Scalia ( who he claims is THE best SCOTUS Judge and whom he reveres and whom he would choose his nominees in the mold of ), and his VERY pro-military/pro-WOT, and anti-crime stances all mean absolutely NOTHING at all to you. Noooooooooooooooo, you would much rather have Hillary for president, a woman who WILL destroy our nation.
Regards, Ivan
What is the difference between the two ??
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.