This is why you should vote for Rudy. Lets first address the social issues. Let's start with pro-homo. He's AGAINST gay marriage. Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.
As far as abortion goes, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice. Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned I hope you're not naive enough to think that would stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and do you really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions too but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a real difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare, cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor and supports school choice), supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect your life at all!!!
With Rudy you are not getting a liberal, you are getting a man who is conservative on most issues, the issues where the president actually has major influence over and yes he is fairly liberal on a couple of social issues, issues that the president has very little influence over. Nowadays judges have the most influence on these issues and Rudy supports strict constructionist so that pretty well takes care of the social issues and will help us get these issues back to the states where they belong. So on the AVERAGE he is fairly conservative and not a liberal and more importantly conservative on the issues where the President can make a difference. And most importantly he will continue Bush's work on the WOT and give us a great foreign policy.
Finally, Rudy and McCain are, IMO, the only two Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary, McCain, or Rudy. Sure, you can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, If he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. You know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So you go ahead and worry about gays, people that don't affect your life at all. I'm going to worry about Islamic fascism, you know the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.
Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself.
BRAVO! Very well stated and definitely a keeper!
Guns? Rudy is a big time, demagogic, gun banner. Worse than Al Gore, for sure. In fact if the Dems run a more pro-Gun candidate than the R's I will very closely consider voting for that candidate.
Probably not a prayer of winning. You can dream and scheme, and he may well be the nominee.
But until he can sign a blood pledge not to interfere with my ability to defend my family--he can hike to the moon in a scuba outfit. He is sunk.
This is certainly the perception, and may be the reality. I believe that this perception is his greatest strength and the basis for his popularity.
The electorate is going to want two things from the president, and neither one has much to do with social issues. The people will want strong leadership, especially after Bush's descent from his bullhorn moment at the wreckage of the Towers to his current muddling through. Rudy brings back that moment, rightly or not. And, the people want a sense that they will be kept safe. That means a leader with a record who exudes self-confidence and a "can-do" attitude.
The New Hillary will be a more attractive, warmer version than before but she will have to demonstrate strength and leadership without becoming the strident "Old Hillary" whackjob. Up in the air whether she can pull that off. Threatening to nationalize the oil industry is a poor start. But if she can, then it's up for grabs. If not then say hello to President Giuliani.
He's anti-gun. Done.
You write very well, and have made some excellent points about homosexuals and abortion.
Thank you for that thoughtful and informative post! I get very tired of the spamming that passes for debate on most of these threads.
By the way, the joke at the time Eisenhower was running was that the committee really meant to nominate Milton, not Dwight ;-)
Where is Rudy on illegal immigration?
Where is the proof of that other than a talking point? Yes, it's not the government's job to regulate what people do in their bedrooms, but it sure is to regulate marriage. Right or wrong, that's a fact. So it's the government's job to regulate gay marriage as well. Whether that means permitting or forbiding gay marraige is up to us, the individual states, or it should be. Of course it isn't, since Roe v Wade, that has had a lot of impact on state's rights, not just abortion. So that's where that war will eventually be won or lost, at first, the federal level. This is why we need someone who clearly is against even the idea of homosexuality, not someone who's been pictured in drag.
As far as abortion goes, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice. Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned I hope you're not naive enough to think that would stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and do you really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions too but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
Basically what you're saying here is that "since we can't stop all abortions, why try to stop some?" That's a defeatist attitude, demonstratively weak by the following analogy, "Since we can't stop all murders, why try to stop murder?"
Even beyond that, let's look at the facts:
1. Rudy is pro-choice. Sure, he may have supported the recent nominations by Bush, but do you honestly believe that was for "constitutional reasons", and not for political points? The man is pro-choice! He's not going to nominate anyone who isn't pro choice. Roberts and Alito are pro-life, and no matter what the president said about the reason for his nomination of those two, you or anyone cannot possibly tell me that their pro-life convictions didn't come into play as PART of the reason they were chosen. The reverse would clearly apply to Rudy: He would never nominate anyone pro-life, it just wouldn't happen, "strict constitutionalist" aside.
2. And let's talk about his "strict constitutionalist" mentality for a minute. The man is a gun grabber, no pro-Rudy person on this thread can possibly deny that. Where is THAT in the "strict constitutionalist" mentality?
3. Back to the discussion about abortion though: Sure, if Roe v Wade is overturned, then the issue goes back to the states, but again, to say that simply because some highly liberal states like CA would continue offering abortions, this means that the entire fight against abortion is worthless, is defeatest! There are plenty MORE states that would enact laws outlawing abortion, in fact, some have laws on the books right now that will immediately go into effect if the issue is thrown back to the states. Quit being defeatest, if you really do oppose abortion!
All of this said, I would of course vote for him over any other Democrat in the general election. But that doesn't mean that, right NOW, we have to simply shut up and take what the "inside the beltway" GOPers want us to take! The time is now to get a REAL conservative on the ticket, and quit being the party of comprimise!