To: PhiKapMom; Extremely Extreme Extremist; wagglebee; new yorker 77; NYCConservative; ...
This does sound promising. His instincts are RINO but his approach is conservative. Conservatives should not rule him out.
2 posted on
02/09/2007 4:47:51 PM PST by
Clintonfatigued
(If the GOP were to stop worshiping Free Trade as if it were a religion, they'd win every election)
To: Clintonfatigued
"Hello," lied the politician.
3 posted on
02/09/2007 4:48:16 PM PST by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
To: Clintonfatigued
It doesn't matter, Rudy's coming for everyone's guns, he eats and spits out unborn children, and he dances at gay marriages.
It's better to just elect a career Congresscritter with zero executive experience and name recognition who did nothing about these social issues when they were heating a seat in Congress.
To: Clintonfatigued
Very nice. Thanks for posting BUMP.
16 posted on
02/09/2007 5:35:06 PM PST by
BunnySlippers
(SAY YES TO RUDY !!!)
To: Clintonfatigued
Great article, thanks for posting...
24 posted on
02/09/2007 5:44:58 PM PST by
DKNY
("You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." --Margaret Thatcher)
To: Clintonfatigued
I am already tired of him
25 posted on
02/09/2007 5:46:17 PM PST by
Convert
(Praying for a swift, honorable,merciful,charitable victory with peace founded on God's Mercy and Law)
To: Clintonfatigued
On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am.His claim that he is a strict constructionist is ludicrous. How can anyone who supports Roe and McCain-Feingold and happily eviscerates the second amendment claim they are a "strict constructionist".
32 posted on
02/09/2007 5:54:25 PM PST by
garv
(Conservatism in '08 www.draftnewt.org)
To: Clintonfatigued
We've covered Rudy's promise of "strict constructionists" on other threads. In response to a question of mine, JCEccles had this excellent response...
To: Redcloak
Shouldn't Rudy be a strict constructionist himself?!Interesting point.
Giuliani's gambit is to assure us he will appoint strict constructionsts who will frustrate his social liberal tendencies and goals. "Elect me and I'll appoint judges who will protect you from me."
And his supporters are eating it up.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Do we really have so many people who believe that Rudy would appoint judges who fail to reflect his own views? If Hillary promised to appoint "strict constructionists", we'd have FReepers in the hospital with injuries from falling while laughing. No one runs for president to accomplish someone else's political ends.
34 posted on
02/09/2007 5:54:35 PM PST by
Redcloak
("Shooting makes me feel better!" -Aeryn Sun)
To: Clintonfatigued
This is the third statement, in the third different venue, where Rudy has addressed the matter of how judges should approach their tasks on the bench. I am satisfied on this all-important question -- will his judges stick to obeying the Constitution, rather than rewriting it? I am satisfied on that, and can therefore support him if he is the nominee.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Announcement: I'm Not Running for President"
38 posted on
02/09/2007 5:55:29 PM PST by
Congressman Billybob
(Please get involved: www.ArmorforCongress.com)
To: Clintonfatigued
You do realize the same MSM that has no problem bashing the President, the WoT, the Battle of Iraq, panders to left wing nuts as 'military specialists' is foisting Rudy on you as THE candidate to win the GOP nomination?
The Rudybots need to wake up. Rudy, makes a better Democrat candidate that Hillary.
62 posted on
02/09/2007 6:11:26 PM PST by
Pistolshot
(Condi 2008.<------added January 2004. Remember you heard it here first)
To: Clintonfatigued
Can he supply a list of the constitutionalist judges he appointed as mayor? He said on Hannity & Colmes that he had appointed over a hundred judges. I think this would be an ideal place for him to settle any lingering doubt about his judicial appointment record.
155 posted on
02/09/2007 7:31:25 PM PST by
Jim Robinson
("Electable" gave us Ford, Dole, Arnie. Voting for the "unelectable" right-wing kook gave us Ronnie.)
To: Clintonfatigued
8 years under the klinton presidency combined with 9/11 made a lot of people re-examine their views on certain matters. I for one have done a complete 180 on many things and look at them now with my eyes wide open in a completely different light. For some here to go back 18 years and say Rudy's views have not changed at all and use those ancient quotes against him is IMO asinine. The world has changed drastically in that time, why can't an individuals way of thinking be allowed to keep pace with the change.? A victory against the WOT and national security IMO are the most important topics that should at this time be first and foremost when selecting our next president and CIC, the other topics should be up to the SCOTUS and individual states. If the opportunity should arise, I have no doubt that Rudy would choose and nominate SCOTUS justices in the molds of Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. He said so himself this past week on national TV to the millions who were watching the Hannity/Rudy interview, and I believed him. Finally to put the icing on the cake, Rudy is very outgoing, has the knack of getting along with most but will not shy from putting someone in their place if the need arises.
164 posted on
02/09/2007 7:43:42 PM PST by
AmeriBrit
(#1 ISSUE....WIN THE WOT.)
To: devolve
225 posted on
02/09/2007 11:05:19 PM PST by
potlatch
(Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson