Posted on 03/24/2007 1:03:12 PM PDT by veronica
"It's the essence of hypocrisy to denounce Rudy as immoral"
I have never said anything about Rudy's morals, or his marital situation. If others choose to do so, that is their problem. But you do yourself no good posting what you did on Swaggart, who is anything but Christian. I was just surprised to see you post what you did. You are intelligent enough to make salient points without reverting to equating Swaggart with Christians.
Nothing to be ashamed in your post. It was dead on for the group it was intended for, as any person reading the whole thread could see.
Well, that makes it all alright then.
Guiliani cheated on both his wives while still married to them. In fact he met his next wife, while still married to the last wife, twice.
Reagan was ONCE divorced and met and began dating Nancy, a while after his divorce.
WOW, some of you will go to great length's stretching the truth and creating false analogies of a great man like Reagan to make Guiliani seem not so bad.
Like the Clinton's dragging past president's through the mud, often exaggerating their transgressions to make Clinton seem not so bad. Moral relativism at it's worst. We are better than that.
How are the Rudy kneepads working out for you there? You might want to put some ice on that.
Rudy's national security experience is limited to attending a U.N. luncheon and dodging a falling building.
It's the abortion factor. Nothing turns these over-middle aged northeastern blue blood Republican women on more than the thought of slicing and dicing fetal tissue. They have to find some way of justifying their own abortions so now they're out of the closet.
Issue parking tickets?
Thanks for the ping. Looks like more heat than light on this thread. So, as a Duncan Hunter supporter I am choosing not to engage in debate on this Rudy Giuliani thread on Free Republic. As a freeper I am disappointed that there are fans of a liberal presidential candidate trying to push socially liberal views on this socially conservative forum. In particular, I have noticed that the Rudy G fans do not answer posts questioning the qualitative substance of their candidate, or the posts are met merely with insults. And in short, I have noticed that rudy followers are simply rude.
The 2 polls on Free Republic put forth an obvious SOCON (only Hunter fits that description given) versus a SOLIB (it certainly fits rudy).
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=171
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=172
Rudy splits the base.
I have noticed time and again that rudy supporters rudely send up the false dilemma of "who would you vote for, Hildebeast or Rudy". This particularly impolite at this early of a point in the primary cycle. Since this is a socon forum (not even a GOP forum), it is very impolite to ask double-bind questions, especially this early in the race.
Since team rudy is so fond of its own false dilemma, I would expect them to answer this false dilemma.
My contention: If rudy gets the nomination, he splits the base, possibly splits the republican party, and loses the election.
Rudy followers’ contention: If Hunter gets it, he wins the base and loses the election.
Hypothetical to answer the rudy followers’ hypothetical. Both sides losing to Hillary.
Side A: The solib republican splits the base. The MSM turns on him the moment he is nominated. Hillary wins. Republican party is split.
Side B: The socon republican wins the nomination, loses to hildebeast in a tough fight. Republicans are united against the hillary presidency.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Win-Win false dilemma:
Side A: Solib wins presidency by ignoring the socon base and permanently splitting the republican party.
Side B: SoCon wins presidency by (obviously) relying on the socon base.
Which candidate is best for the republican party, Side A or Side B?
Here's 2 more cases to round out this Pascal's wager for politics. The win-lose scenarios.
Hunterbot contention: Hunter wins, Rudy loses.
Hunter is a socon who unites the base. His cross platform issues attract wide swaths of democrats looking for someone who would support our military across the board, stay true on WOT and security issues like the border and militia/gun ownership, and even strikes a balance on the protectionism-fair trade-open border/free trade continuum. Hunter would proceed from uniting the base to attracting a large contingent of crossover votes and beat Hildebeast, never once relying on the MSM to do anything but what it has done in the past.
Rudy, on the other hand, splits the base. As soon as he would win the nomination, the MSM would turn on him just as they turned on the last liberal candidate with high poll numbers, and we end up with a split base, a president Hillary, and a fractured republican party.
Which candidate is better for the republican party, side A (rudy) or side B (Hunter)?
Rudybot contention: Rudy wins, Hunter Loses.
Even though he's an acknowledged solib, Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. He polls highest, so he wins the nomination and would beat Hildebeast in the general election. Hunter would lose the general to Hildebeast due to name recognition factors and a seeming contention that socons are yesterday's news. Rudy pulls the republican party leftward the same way aRINOld is doing in California. A Hunter loss would mean a united republican party against Hildebeast; a rudy win could mean the end of the republican party similar to what happened to the Whigs over the social issues of their day.
So out of the 4 cases, Hunter wins 3 of them. And out of ALL 4 CASES, Free Republic and the republican party is better off with Duncan Hunter than Rudy as the candidate. This social liberal candidate is simply not healthy for the republican party nor for FR. And rudy followers are proving to be very impolite freepers.
Duncan Hunter's campaign website
http://www.gohunter08.com/
Sam Hunter: Duncan Hunter's Ambassador to Free Republic
3/13/2007
Posted on 03/13/2007 10:11:39 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800187/posts
Sam has been answering questions, unlike the crickets we hear on rudy threads.
Statement of Jim Robinson, Founder of Free Republic:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Rudy Giuliani video on YouTube: "I would like to run on the Democratic line "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1793570/posts
Video of Rudy Giuliani in his own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Transcript of video below.
Will the real Rudy show up at CPAC?
Culture of life:
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip December 2, 1999:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
Immigration
CNN clip:
Announcer: "Back in 1996, mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants."
Rudy Giuliani: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago."
Gun control:
CNN clip
Rudy Giuliani: "I'm in favor of gun control"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "How about registration of all handguns?"
Rudy Giuliani: "You know I'm in favor of that. I've been on your show many times."
Gay Rights:
CNN Clip:
Announcer: "As mayor he supported civil unions, and extending health and other benefits to gay couples."
ABC Clip: "I supported domestic partnership legislation and signed it"
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "So should gay people be openly allowed to serve?"
Rudy Giuliani: "I think people should be judged on the merits. And there should not be a specific focus on someone's sexual orientation."
First Amendment:
ABC Clip
Cokie Roberts: "Would you vote in the senate in favor of Mccain / Feingold?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes, I'm a big supporter of Mccain / Feingold. I have been for a long time."
Party Loyalty:
ABC Clip:
Rudy Giuliani: "Frankly George, I'd like to run on all the lines. I'd like to run on the liberal line, the conservative line, I'd like to run on the democratic line if I could figure out how to do it."
Conservative Values:
Meet The Press:
Tim Russert: "Whether it's gays in the military, gun control, campaign finance, late term abortion - you and Hillary Clinton are in sync on those issues."
Rudy Giuliani: "Well then maybe the other side should stop the 'He's part of the vast right wing conspiracy'."
Welcome To CPAC, Rudy!
End clip.
It was directed at me, and I think I got the message.
It's not my place to decide who's a Christian, but from what I know of him, I don't think Swaggert is a poster boy for Christianity.
For a select group of anti-Rudys, the political discourse revolves around transvestites (he is), homosexuality (he might be, at least he likes them), his cancer (effects his erection you know), his wive (sluts, one of them a nurse!), these political criticism expressed graphically. Rudy's supporters, or anyone who questions these tactics, are variously described as gay, transvestites, traitors, abortionists, murderers, religious slanders; you get the idea.
I'd suggest these tactics are counter-productive, that they're not the tactics Rupublicans would pursue, and like Swaggert,and I can't disagree that they're not representative of Christians either.
What opportunities we'll have depends to some extent on party machinery between now and during the primaries.
Well stated. I don't give a hang about Rudy's sexual proclivities, or his marriages. I am against him because he is not at all conservative. Possibly all those years in NYC
is part of the problem. As an administrator, and a prosecutor, he has much in his favor, but his positions on gun control and open borders rules him out completely from my POV. I have had a bellyfull of Bush, and his pro-illegal immigration/pro amnesty positions too. Voting for Rudy is tantamount to pouring gasoline on the fire.
Good post! Thanks for taking the time.
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.