Posted on 02/07/2007 9:57:50 AM PST by SirLinksalot
If the U.S. is involved in costly military campaigns in 2008 -- especially in Iraq -- then the Republican Party doesn't have a prayer of winning the White House even if the Democrats nominate Osama bin Laden.
This is the dilemma Rudy and his "War on Terror" credentials -- the only real credentials he has, as far as most of his supporters in the media are concerned -- will face in 2008.
Rudy is a fiscal conservative. That's the rub. He's a social liberal and would split those two groups.
Exactly!
"He said he thought the gun issues in a crowded major metropolitan area were different than gun issues in rural or suburban areas.
He said he thought that individual states should decide for themselves what works best for them.
He said he thought that individual states should decide for themselves what works best for them.
Parenthetically, let me mention the fact that Reagan, Rudy's old boss, supported the Brady Bill. "
Unparanthetically, let me mention that Rudy said he supported the Brady bill because it gave him tools useful in NYC.
This contradicted the thing he said immediately prior about preferring local laws, as Brady imposed the same draconian, stupid rules on all of us. Besides, I disagree with the idea that just because one is unfortunate enough to live in a high population density area that one is thereby not really eligible to exercise the right of self-defense.
Then, unfortunately, Sean elected to just let that one go whereas if his interviewee had been a (D) candidate he would have pursued the subject.
I am not opposed to Rudy's candidacy but I was *very* disappointed by this part of the interview -- by both Sean and Rudy.
I can appreciate Rudy for strongly preferring constructionist judges and still be upset by his (IMO) lousy position on 2A. It's an important factor. If, in 2009, we have Rudy and a Republican congress, nothing will result from it. If we have Rudy and a Democrat congress, he'd probably sign any gun control bill the Dims pass.
The term he used was "normalize," which doesn't make sense. But I knew what he meant. He wants "comprehensive immigration reform," e.g., amnesty, which makes him unacceptable no matter what else he says. And this is the same thing John McCain wants, as well as our current President.
I heard a caller to a radio show who had a great analysis. He said Guliani is Hillary Clinton but in favor of the war.
I wish Arizona Senator Jon Kyl would run. Bill Bennett was looking for a way to start a "draft Kyl" campaign. Sounds great to me.
For the last year I've been posting just that. Breaking up the old Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives would be disastrous for the GOP`s chances in future elections. Nov7th 2006 lead to the first step in loss of power. Unless Republicans come to their senses, 2008 will complete the cycle.
Rudy may have been fiscally responsible by NYCity standards. But when you look at his overall record and what he left behind for the city to deal with, I wouldn't call him a fiscal conservative. The Manhattan Institute offers some good analysis and evaluation on Rudy`s final record as Mayor. The good, the bad and the ugly.
No, you miss the point. There are a lot of people, even strict constitutionalists, who hold personal opinions about specific issues that aren't in line with the Constitution. That does not mean they won't enforce rulings from SCOTUS or handpick judges based on that single issue.
Rudy didn't say he agreed with Roe v. Wade.
He said he supported a woman's right to choose.
If you recall, abortion was legal in New York years before Roe v. Wade.
BTW, pretending that Roe v. Wade gives women an unlimited right to abortion prior to birth is just silly hyperbole. It may scare the children but it doesn't do your position any justice.
Rudy Giuliani has already demonstrated his willingness to flagrantly violate Federal law when he feels it suits him to do so (see his disgraceful response to the Federal immigration reform legislation of 1996 when he was mayor of New York City). So I hope you can understand why I am so skeptical/cynical when he falls back on a "settled law" argument to rationalize his support of a legal/political position that cannot be justified under any legitimate interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
If you support a womans right to choose, you support Roe v Wade. No doubt about it. NYCity passed full abortion rights in 1970. You use YEARS before Roe V Wade, like it was 10-20 years.
>>>>>BTW, pretending that Roe v. Wade gives women an unlimited right to abortion prior to birth is just silly hyperbole.
Ever hear of something called, partial birth abortion. Look it up. Btw, Rudy supports PBA.
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."
- President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", 1983
On a related note, I challenge you to find a single documented case of a woman who was unable to kill her unborn child because of third-trimester restrictions imposed by a state or municipality.
Rudy didn't say he agreed with Roe v. Wade.
Rudy Giuliani has an extensive track record of making public statements in support of Roe v. Wade. They've been posted on these threads with such boring regularity that they are now considered "spam."
Exactly. I despise liberal Rockerfeller Republicians. I would vote for a conservative Democrat before I would vote for a so called liberal republician. YUCK.
I'm sorry but my rights noted in the BOR do not depend on where I live. I suppose if you live in NYC you would think it good if they denied you freedom of religion? That is a nonsense unconstitutional argument you put out there. I would not want someone with your trashing of the Constitution in elected office.
Every turn??????? Really??????? He agrees with them on abortion, gun control, gay rights. And I do think he is one of those types of Repubs that are too LAW AND ORDER for me.
When are you going to pick up your government license to speek, pray, petiton your government. Would you FEEL that would be good?
Giuliani supports PBA only to save the life of the mother.
I doubt this actually comes up often in real life, but occasionally -- rarely -- women are too ill or weak for a Caesarean section to be safe.
Letting the mother die kills two people.
He opposed federal and NY State PBA bans.
No Constitutional right is without limit. I don't just "feel" that, I KNOW that.
Perhaps you don't know that, in which case I am happy to tell you something you didn't know.
Examples -- you cannot bring a gun into a jail, a courthouse, a school, in every state, as far as I am aware.
Oh, boo hoo, do you say?
You cannot own a machine gun.
Oh, woe, do you say?
Not if you're sensible, as I expect you to be, given that you're a physician.
BTW, you can't practice medicine without a license. How about that restriction on your freedom?
Because they didn't have exceptions for the life of the mother.
And the Supreme Court says the same thing. If there's no exception to save the life of the mother, it's going to be struck down. See Stenberg v. Carhart.
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.