Posted on 05/18/2007 7:20:00 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
It is clear that Rudy Giuliani is the right man at the right time. Rudy is already showing the leadership skills of a President and it is still early on the campaign. In the Fox News debate, Rudy stressed to the American people that we as a nation must focus on the terrorists’ war against us and our economy. Those are the defining issues of our time, and we need a strong leader like Rudy who is focused on defending this country against terrorism and growing our economy.
Rudy’s answers on foreign policy issues show that he will not let this country fall back into a pre-9/11 mentality. He has seen first hand what happens if we do not stay on offense against the terrorists, and he will use his power as President to keep the country on offense.
On growing the economy, just this week, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said “It is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment.” The Club for Growth praised Mayor Giuliani’s record of cutting taxes and drastically cutting spending. His proven record as a fiscal conservative in New York City makes him the ideal candidate to clean up Washington’s nonstop spending.
Read on . . .
Rudy Giuliani is the one candidate that is focused on the positive ideas that unite our party, proving why he is uniquely qualified to win the general election. Not only is Rudy the frontrunner in the polls, he is leading the Republican Party down a path to victory over a Democratic candidate.
Rudy is right when he says our party must unite in this election because if we don’t unite around our general principles, we will lose.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Quit bogarting the Rudy-Aid and pass the jug over to me.
Bob Erlich is the former Governor of Maryland. He has endorsed Giuliani for President. This could carry some weight in Maryland.
He did that in March.
Allow the killing of babies, deny Americans their 2nd amendment rights. Yea, I recommend Rudy.
No, what America needs is someone who is right on terrorism and right on domestic issues. Rudy isn’t it. McCain isn’t it. Ron Paul isn’t it. Those three have pretty much eliminated themselves.
Rudy? Uh, no thank you.
What a shock! A liberal RINO endorsing another liberal RINO.
BWAHAAA! Where the f-ck is Rutard’s credibility on “national security?” One big stump speech in front of some burning buildings, and since then some rather inane boiler plate template milking 9/11 for all of its worth. If that’s “leadership” then this country really is going down the crapper...
Rudy is not a fiscal conservative, and his support for liberal social issues undermines his character and whatever (lack thereof) leadership abilities he possesses.
Go Fred!
Ummmm, no, we need not.
I would have guessed Maryland would have voted for either Giuliani or McCain, this is not too suprising.
Unite for abortion, gay rights, gun control and amnesty? Yeah, right, Bob. Way to unite a conservative party. Buy a clue.
Duncan Hunter has been in congress since 1980. He is 100% conservative. He wrote the bill to build the border fence. He is on the Armed Force Committee(chairman up until quite recently).
There is no real parity between someone of Mr. Gullianni's poor public conduct(his treatment of his wife) and Congressman Hunter( Vietnam Vet)
It's time we stopped pussey-footing around and got on with the show
Go to gohunter08.com
and see what you can do to help. Get a bumpersticker or something!
Cinton vs Gullianni--save us please!
Duncan Hunter is the one we should be pushing here! Not phoney liberal pretend Republicans!
gohunter08
It's time to get off the fence and act!
Oh yeah, and hemispheric integration...*crickets chirping*
Hmmm. Red State?
Has that site been hijacked by those who WANT the country Red in the old 1950s sense of the word?
SAY IT ISN’T SO!
You’re right. The endorsement might carry weight in Maryland. In other states, no one will care about that endorsement. The majority of Republicans I know don’t want to have a president who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage. Rudy doesn’t have enough political experience. The last nine presidents (JFK-GWB) were governors or U.S. reps., and Rudy was only a mayor.
I’ll volunteer for Tommy Thompson. While he was governor for 14 years, he proved that he’s pro-tax cuts, pro-welfare cuts, pro-life, pro-capital punishment, pro-gun rights, and anti-gay marriage. He says that he wants to deport as many illegal aliens as possible, as quickly as possible. Two of the last three republican presidents were governors. Thompson was a governor almost as long as Huckabee and Romney, combined. The last president who had been a mayor was Grover Cleveland, and he was a governor between being a mayor and president.
Red State isn’t endorsing Giuliani. It is merely posting an editorial by one of his supporters.
Same with me posting this editorial. I’m just providing the information, and Freepers are free to reach their own conclusions after reading it.
Where’s the Barf Alert?
Since you’re posting pro-liberal crap on a conservative forum, are you going to post some pro-Hillary crap next? What the heck is wrong with you?
This editorial came from another conservative blog site. And I don’t dispute anyone’s right to disagree with it. Since he’s a serious candidate, let Freepers read it and make their own decisions, rather than not posting it at all.
Well. Something out of the Rudy I actually agree with.
Unfortunately (for him) he and I share only a couple of principles, so I am looking to 'unite around' someone with more principles...that I agree with, of course.
So, are you, or are you not, saying it isn’t so?
The Left gatekeeps info about GOOD candidates.
The Right surely shouldn’t shill for BAD candidates.
Speaking for myself personally, I haven’t decided which GOP candidate I’ll support. But Giuliani does deserve serious consideration, given his accomplishments.
Exactly what are your critera for President, pray tell?
What are make-or-break priorities other than ‘just winning’ vs. whatever boogeyman the Left has or might have?
Winning is a top priority.
There is also the appointing of Federal Judges (which Giuliani is trying to assure conservatives not to worry), economic growth, deficit reduction, national security, border security, public safety, and opposition to outsourcing foreign labor.
Considering Rudy’s policechiefgate, his support of NARAL and his sanctuary city policy, using your own list of priorities, I trust Rudy on a maximum of three of those topics.
Who else might be someone worthy of Conservative support, in your opinion?
John McCain is someone I would have a lot of trouble supporting. More because of his being an opportunistic media whore than his views.
Mitt Romney I could support. He has impressive managerial abilities. He could be stronger in the vision department, but there is no perfect candidate.
I’d have to say my first choice at this point is Fred Thompson.
Rudy....
PUKEMAO!!
“But Giuliani does deserve serious consideration, given his accomplishments.”
Here are his accomplishments
Pro abortion
gun grabber
pro homo
pro illegal immigration
Take this POS, and run like a thief
We Must Put Forward Rudy = Um, frustrated? Wow. Dry up!
Rudiphilic dementia is tragic. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Like gun-grabbing and milking an attack for personal gain.
Maybe I am a little dense, but it is not so clear to me.
I agree, but would like to add that my number one domestic concern is reigning in the role of the federal government. The only perspective candidate who is both strong on the WOT and a serious Federalist, is Fred “Frederalist” Thompson.
I’m a Christian Conservative in the Republican Party. I’m not a Republican who’s a Christian Conservative.
Rudy offends the fundamental moral fiber of my being. If he’s the best we Republicans have to offer, I’ll consider the Constitution Party, or withholding my vote completely.
Rudy Giuliani is not running for Pope or National Preacher.
What are values for if we don’t carry them with us everywhere in life, including the voting booth? Surely the enemy does; and that’s why the radicaleftist agenda has fared so well with such a minority of the population supporting it.
Those principles being (a) win at any cost and (b) bash a pro-lifer with the carcass of a baby butchered at taxpayer expense.
I guess the gag alert was implied?
The rest that might satisfy your parochial views are not and a virtual guarantee that the baby killers and gun grabbers will both be in office and in charge. Even Newt called the Republican line up a bunch of midgets and I find the desperate rallying around the likes of Paul and Thompson confirmation of that fact. Romney is the only other candidate besides Guiliani that is competent. And he is conservative as a dickens! Yet your view would damn him from being President because he did what was required to get elected in Massachusetts. That is certainly why you attack Guiliani.
The fact of the matter is that among other things, I own and like my guns and would very much prefer the left not having opportunity to take them away or do any number of other things that they will do if they have the power that comes with controlling all branches of government.
However, if the government were in fact to take them away, it will be more your fault than those that actually do the deed.
So, in the absence of an unnamed, electable, non-midget candidate for President magically appearing from the wings and gaining broad Republican support, it is pretty much up to you and those that persist in views like yours. Its time to decide. Is having a nominee that kisses your heinie on hot button issues really worth being powerless, gun less and having even more incentive to picket against baby killers? Or do you want to compromise a little and actually make a difference?
Patton is claimed to have said that he would rather have 5 German divisions in front of him than one French division behind. That is pretty much how a Republican that wants to win views the single issue right.
You damned well want to walk in front of the parade and give yourself medals when we win. But you sure are too busy demanding the best generals spend their days in prayer rather than doing God’s work.
So if you lose your precious guns and mine at the same time, keep it up. As incentive, I suggest you mull over the mark made on America by the Goldwater Presidency. Wasn’t much, was it?
We’ve heard that swill before, it didn’t fly.
Thanks, I was going to type several paragraphs in rebuttal to “wow”. However, you managed to put it in its proper nutshell (perspective) and saved me much typing. ;-)
LOL yep, short and to the point.
The reality about your man Thompson is that he showed promise as a campaigner in his red pickup, an act no more or less disingenuous than Prince Albert claiming to be a farm boy. And he sought and was given the role of taking on the Clinton's, but did not deliver the goods. Then, and in spite of this fact, when people were starting to think he was actually doing the grownup job of being a Senator (rather than just acting the part), he decided to go back to a supporting role on a television series, probably because actually doing something in the Senate meant long hours. In my book, that is when he gave up his shot at the Presidency. And whoever we run is most likely to have to beat a Clinton. It would certainly be my preference to have someone that has not already proven short of the task.
A Republican that wins will have to prove overwhelmingly competent to middle America, a quality that has been sorely lacking at all levels in the party and partly because of single issue disunity. Guiliani pulls this off in part because of cleaning up NYC and mostly because of his 9/11 persona and can paint NY blue. Romney can pull this off based a claim to being able to govern from the middle in Massachusetts and his executive success. Newt, if he entered, might pull this off (over big negatives), if he was successful in intellectually towering over his opponent. McCain has removed all doubt as to being a scatterbrain. And there is nobody else visible over 4’6”. Picking among an agreeable single issue midget that will lose over someone that can beat Hillary (but probably not Obama) over someone that might win is stupid.
If you have a ringer hidden away, bring them on. I’d like to be able to point to a candidate on our side with the kind of charisma Obama seems to manage. But the hour is late.
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.