Posted on 02/02/2007 4:47:11 PM PST by PhiKapMom
And that is a very fair concern.
I don't buy into the No Congresscritter since 1880, or whenever it was - supporters of Rudy are completely overlooking the history that no mayor has ever been elected without a federal office as well. But candidates have to prove they can step up to the plate, and Hunter will need to demonsrate fundraising and speaking capabilities over the next 6-9 months to have a chance.
But debate needs to be based in reality. It's a fair fight to discuss Hunter's bringing home some defense bacon for contractors in his district, or certain votes of his.
But on the whole, his defense and national security bona fides are outstanding.
"I don't buy into the No Congresscritter since 1880..." I would just claim I was the reincarnation of James Madison and get the New Age vote.
"...supporters of Rudy are completely overlooking the history that no mayor has ever been elected without a federal office as well." Actually I have addressed this and it is a concern BUT being mayor of NYC is more difficult and complex than being governor of most states.
The point is executive ability and experience and this trumps the not being a governor. Besides Rudy is a special case who has a tremendous legion of admirers across the nation. It is not composed of people who agree with him on everything but admire him nonetheless.
"It's a fair fight to discuss Hunter's bringing home some defense bacon for contractors in his district, or certain votes of his." As long as these efforts are legal I have NO problem with this. Why shouldn't he make these efforts?
I haven't seen anyone claim Hunter is lacking in the areas of National defense and national security. Actually not many have ideological disputes with him at all.
The pinhead we are discussing did.
Some people cannot argue on the facts but must try and get a LIE by. This rarely works on FR.
Or CBS, for that matter, because of entities like FR.
FR is the greatest danger to the Treason Media.
The latest theory is you live along the Snake River in Idaho.
Where? With your antifreeper stalker friends?
Where do you live, downtown Missoula? Butte?
Nope, not even when for college. Butte, for all it's liberalism, is a great party town. They have the best St. Paddy's Day celebration in the state. People from all over converge on Butte for one day.
That's too bad actually. The Snake River is a beautiful area if you can afford it.
Idaho might be worth looking in to. You could trade the hobby of working for duds for working with spuds and still make a shiny penny.
Looking at the big picture:
Hillary elected=Constitution trashed
McGiuliromney elected=Constitution trashed
Constitution trashed=end of republic as we got it from the founders. Difference between candidates= zip point zilch. Would any of the above be worthy of my vote? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Big picture: FIND A CANDIDATE WILLING TO CONSERVE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC. Stop electing RINOs and rewarding bad political behavior.
Oh, and your "80%?" With Hillary it's 5%, maybe; with McGiuliromney, maybe 6% at best. No 80% or anywhere close to it unless you're just another RINO liberal... are you?
Let see here, Rudy supports the WOT, war in Iraq, is for a pro American foreign policy, is for low taxes, for fiscal displine, for pro growth economic polices, for government deregulation, workfare and not welfare, for small government, for school choice, for law and order, for social security privatization, for securing the border, and for strict constructionist judges. Rudy is for all these things. Hillary isn't. That's about 80%. Facts don't lie. Social issues aren't 95% of the issues and certainly aren't as important as the other issues, especially since the President has minimal influence on social issues.
This is what conservative George Will said about Rudy:
"As George Will said on “This Week,” “His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes."
Rudy was Reagan's Associate Attorney General and was awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, putting him along side Margaret Thachter, Billy Graham, and Bob Hope.
And really Rudy isn't as bad on social issues as you think. Here's his interview with Sean Hannity, who supports and like Rudy by the way, that was conducted last night
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMAXw3ZZuYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bM-r3dDMd8
And speaking of Ronald Reagan, Reagan said this about compromise:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .
So Ronald Reagan believed in radical conservatives. I do too. I'm talking to one now. See my tagline. Did I mention Sean Hannity supports Rudy and Reagan hired Rudy and gave him his Freedom Award.
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Opps... ANO=ANY
This is what Rudy said last night on Hannity:
"I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms."
Enough said. He's not going to come after your guns. Is the Democratic controlled Congress? No, they are not even talking about. They know its a losing issue. Nobody has pushed for gun control since it cost Al Gore the 2000 election. They all know its a losing issue. Rudy isn't going to try to take your guns.
This is what Rudy said last night on Hannity: "I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms."Then there is what he DID: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 MAYOR GIULIANI AND SPEAKER VALLONE ANNOUNCE CITY LAWSUIT AGAINST GUN INDUSTRY
If you are just going to follow me around and harass me and spam, I would prefer you not post to me again.
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.