Republican donors support Giuliani

The Daily Telegraph ^ | November 27, 2006 | Toby Harnden

[farmer18th]

If you can't see that Giuliani is the best out there so far, you cannot be helped.

And if you think Evangelicals will somehow wax excited about voting pro-gay, pro-homosexual, you aren't living in the real world. If you are going to tout the pragmatist line, you need to have a better candidate.

[Cobra64]

Some people here would rather have Hillary as president for 8 years, than to support Rudy or anyone else whom they do not see as "PERFECT".

These are the same folks who helped Bill get elected in '92.

Very true. A Rudy/Newt team is definitely my choice. Rudy is a hawk, articulate and a street fighter. New would be the "Rove" with his Contract with America. Newt is more conservative than Rudy and would temper some of Rudy's more liberal inclinations.

No that I've drawn out the Rudy bashers, I've donned my Nomex and Kevlar.

[tinamina]

And you see McCain or Romney as "born again"? The way I see it, the Supreme Court might be resolved for the moment, so it is better to elect someone on national security issues than whether they are your type of Christian. Do we want to give everyting else we have to the Islamists and the Chinese?

[AmericaUnited]

A great leader from your side of the pond said it best...:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
Winston Churchill

Well, if Satan was running against Hitlery, I would vote heartily for him and drag 10 friends and relatives to the polls to do likewise. Those who know her true character are not going to hesitate or be confused for a single second when it comes to voting.

[trumandogz]

I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999



http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=6320

[MadIvan]

And if you think Evangelicals will somehow wax excited about voting pro-gay, pro-homosexual, you aren't living in the real world. If you are going to tout the pragmatist line, you need to have a better candidate.

I expect the Evangelicals to have enough sense to realise that a Giuliani Presidency would throw social issues like abortion back to the states, which is actually the Constitutionally correct position (even Rush Limabugh has said so). I do not expect them to act in a brainless, knee-jerk way which will automatically lead to a Hillary Presidency which will work on Federal mandates for all the positions they oppose.

Perhaps I have greater faith in their intelligence than you do.

Ivan

[farmer18th]

And you see McCain or Romney as "born again"?

You won't find me voting for either of those guys, nor did you find me mentioning them here. So... your point?

[Cobra64]

Well said Ivan.

[bruinbirdman]

"Giuliani is a better pick than Hillary"

Can't argue with that. And I would vote for him if it came to that. But I think there are some charismatic Republicans not far over the horizon.

yitbos

[farmer18th]

Perhaps I have greater faith in their intelligence than you do.

That's the problem with crass pragmatists. You live in an amoral world. It's not a matter of their intelligence; it's a matter of their soul. I will not check a box next to a man who condones abortion or homosexuality, and there are MILLIONS of voters like me.

Wise up.

[Cobra64]

Rudy is not going to take our guns.

[nopardons]

Reagan instituted ABORTION as LEGAL, in California, when he was governor.

Did YOU vote for Reagan, when he ran for president?

The president doesn't have anything at all to do with overturning Roe V. Wade; the SCOTUS does. Rudy thinks that abortion issues belongs up to the states. Do you have a problem with that?

Rudy inherited N.Y.C.'s "gun grabbing" ( though people CAN legally own guns in N.Y.C., no matter WHAT you appear to believe. And what he did do, is to go after the CRIMINALS, who had guns ILLEGALLY!

Forget Tancredo; he is the GOP's Kusinich!

Brownback and Pence are nobodies and couldn't beat Hillary if they tried to.

The REAL point is, are you going to cut off your nosed and allow Hillary to become president, or Gore or Edwards, or Obama, or whoever the Dems finally decide on, because the GOP candidates can't walk on water?

[trumandogz]

Although Rudy, like John Kerry, has said that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, he also supports civil unions, "marched in gay-pride parades ...dressed up in drag on national television for a skit on Saturday Night Live (and moved in with a) wealthy gay couple" after his divorce. He also very vocally opposed running on a gay marriage amendment:



http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=6320

[nopardons]

When did Rudy decline to go up against Hillary? This year?
If you mean this year, why the hell should he have, since he wants to be president?

[trumandogz]

Rudy did support the Brady Bill.

[Cobra64]

Even a crass pragmatist could come up with someone better than Rudy.

And your choice is... whom?

[nopardons]

He IS against Gay Marriage!

You really ARE why the FFs instituted the Electoral College! You aren't smart enough to know who to vote for, for president.

[farmer18th]

Brownback and Pence are nobodies and couldn't beat Hillary if they tried to.

Oh ye of little faith. It's precisely that sense of the inevitable that keeps you from ever advocating true conservative leadership. You have more in common with a Russian peasant than you do with an American citizen in the classic, historic sense of the term.

[nopardons]

LOL

Newt is even MORE damaged goods than Rudy! But that might just be the right ticket.

[tinamina]

You know what the point is. If George W takes care of the Supremes, what can the President do to change their actions on abortion etc.? There ARE no born again Christians with the charisma to win the Presidency. Would you rather die or let the Supreme Court take care of the issues we Christians have been fighting for? What was the Supreme Court battle all about anyway?