Anti-Giuliani-Bots on FR are poorly informed "Kool-Aid-Drinkers"

Recently, My GOP wrote a BRILLIANT post about the REAL Rudy Giuliani and his record. It is MUST READING for most of the anti-Giuliani Kool-Aid-Drinkers around here who are going off half-cocked without knowing the FACTS.

I just can’t understand why so many are making Rudy look more liberal than he really is on social issues and why they refuse to acknowledge he is a conservative on just about every non-social issue and I certainly can’t understand how social issues are more important than all the other issues when choosing a President since the President has very little influence on social issues. And I certainly can’t understand how being “perfect” on social issues is more important than electability.

To begin with, Rudy is AGAINST gay marriage. On Hannity and Colmes on February 5th he said, “Marriage should be between a man and a woman. [It's] exactly the position I've always had.” 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. And to top things off, marriage is a state issue. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.

Rudy is not the abortion on demand liberal people make him out to be. He is against partial birth abortions, contrary to the misinformation some on here are posting. On Hannity Rudy said “Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld(by the USSC). I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be.” And as soon as Rudy got finished saying this, Hannity acknowledged, “There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion”. So there we have, Rudy is against partial birth abortions. Rudy is also for parental notification. He also acknowledged this on Hannity. So Rudy certainly isn’t for abortion on demand.

In general on abortion, 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. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.” 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 we know that this won’t stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone 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 like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.

I'll admit his past gun stances are bothersome but he has say that what's good for NYC isn't good for all of America. However, he isn’t the anti-Second Amendment Nazi he is made out to be. On Hannity Rudy said, “I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms.” Rudy isn’t going to try to ban guns or come take anyones guns. Are Democrats pushing for gun control now that they have control of Congress? No. And nobody has pushed for gun control since Gore lost the election in 2000. Everyone knows its a losing issue and I don't see any push for gun control by anybody in the near future.

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, ect), for smaller government and government deregulation, for social security reform, 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 our lives at all!!!

Finally, Rudy is, IMO, the only Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary or Rudy. Sure, we 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. Everyone 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 I think we need to stop worrying about gays, people that don't affect our lives life at all. We need to worry about Islamic fascism, the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.

Many in the conservative community are open to Rudy. Sean Hannity is certainly open to Rudy and likes Rudy. George Will wrote this about Rudy, ““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." Heck, even Rush is open to Rudy. Rush said, “"He's a smart cookie ... Here's the thing about Giuliani," he said on his radio show the other day. "Everybody's got problems with him ... But when you start polling him on judges, he's a strict constructionist ... That will count for quite a bit. He can fix the abortion thing ... So I think he's got potential--particularly, folks, since we're still going to be at war somewhere in 2008." If Rush is at least open to Rudy then he realizes Rudy isn’t that bad.

And apparently even Reagan liked Rudy. 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 as receiptants of the award. Speaking of Ronald Reagan, Reagan said this about compromise in his autobiography An American Life: "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."

Yes, Rudy may be alittle bit of a compromise but in reality, everytime you vote it’s a compromise. Nobody is ever going to find a candidate or a President they agree with 100% of the time, even Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in 1986 and I’m sure the vast majority of Freepers disagree with that. Reagan even appointed O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Nobody is perfect. The only thing we can do is find the Presidential candidate we agree with the most on the most important issues and issues the President has the most influence over, the one that is the most electable, and the one that would make the best and strongest leader. That’s Rudy.

Back to Ronald Reagan for a second. In the above excerpt he used the term “radical conservatives”. So apparently Reagan thought that conservatives that were all or nothing, unappeasable, unpragmatic, and unrealistic are “radical”. I do too. 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. I must now end the overly long post by quoting Dennis Miller, who also supports Rudy, “Rudy would have the best bumpersticker, ‘I’m the man the men in caves don’t want to win’”. Enough said.

Heck, it goes beyond that. "I adore Rudy Giuliani and have for nearly 15 years"

I certainly can't speak for Peach, but I know if I "adored" someone for 15 years I wouldn't be waffling one year out from the primary.

Read the details of the act. The law was only intended to allow for abortions for rape, incest and the life of the mother - in other words, exceptions consistent with millions of pro-lifers. It was NOT pro-choice legislation, nor was it liberal.

Who knew that a legislative act called the "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" had nothing to do with abortion, but rather "exceptions consistent with millions of pro-lifers."

These red herrings that you throw up are merely diversions for your putative "case." For your own edification I point out that your fellow delusionist said "Ronald Reagan never supported abortion." Yet when offered probative information (a. his son's own claims, b. his signing of a legislative act called the "California Therapeutic Abortion Act") you mental giants call your opponents liars.

Go on and deny all you want. It's great fun to use your own words to school you.

Who knew that a legislative act called the "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" had nothing to do with abortion, but rather "exceptions consistent with millions of pro-lifers."

Once again, you fail to read the details.

These red herrings that you throw up are merely diversions for your putative "case."

Funny how you call relevant facts red herrings. I guess you're allergic to herring.

For your own edification I point out that your fellow delusionist said "Ronald Reagan never supported abortion."

For your own selective memory I was countering the argument that Reagan was pro-choice and signed a liberal abortion bill.

Yet when offered probative information (a. his son's own claims, b. his signing of a legislative act called the "California Therapeutic Abortion Act") you mental giants call your opponents liars.

You can't even erect a decent strawman. Take your deliberate ignorance and go soak your head.

Not to confuse you with the facts, because you certainly have difficulty in that area, but what I've said is that I've watched Rudy for over 15 years, liked him, thought he was destined for higher office and that I supported his candidacy even before he announced.

That doesn't take away from the fact that I also like Mitt and Hunter. But don't let the facts get in the way of our little lies.

Goes beyond what? And who is waffling?

I can admire someone for what they've accomplished, support their candidacy and still support and keep an open mind about other candidates. Which is more than most freepers can say.

I still like 3 candidates, but I don't need to wait until the primary to make up my mind, although I may still wait for the debates. The more I read about Rudy, the more I like his fiscal conservatism. Shoot me.

What you glossed over was:

- The murder of millions of innocent citizens (which Rudy says should be someone else's "choice")
- The disarmament of millions of citizens in the face of crime and terrorism (Rudy presumes all guns must be approved & licensed by the gov't, then allows further restrictions from there)
- The invasion of this country by millions of criminals, a significant percentage of whom intend to take several states back to Mexico (Rudy shows no particular interest in this)

WOT means nothing if the President cares little about these.

Of course, in calling people "Kool-Aid-Drinkers", you lightly dismiss the major issues Rudy's opponents are concerned about, and tout "but he supports MY issues!" Shut up already.

Since you're like Dan Rather and too damn lazy to substantiate your own claims . . . if you go to that link , you see that the section in question is from . . . Wikipedia

The link is here

The quote in question is "As governor in 1970, Reagan signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation, before Roe v Wade was decided." The characterization of "liberal abortion rights legislation" for the "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" is Wikipedia's.

Granting that this whole argument could be merely about whether the abortion legislation is from 1967 or 1970, but (please forgive my obtuseness) where's the lie?

Hey liar:

This is the thread you directed me to:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771792/posts?page=258#254

Can you read or are you truly idiotic? That thread you gave me links us to post #254 which isn't my post.

Now you're mentioning Post #617.

And you've been hysterical for a month or more because I linked you to a Wikepedia chapter that says that Reagan signed an abortion law in 1970.

As governor in 1970, Reagan signed into law California's liberal abortion rights legislation, before Roe v Wade was decided. However, he later took a strong ... www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan

Now, where in that link does Answer.com say Wikepedia.com?

You're pathetic.

"Of course, in calling people "Kool-Aid-Drinkers", you lightly dismiss the major issues Rudy's opponents are concerned about, and tout "but he supports MY issues!" Shut up already."

Aaaah the refreshing sound of the final reply of those who have no argument to back up their words...so...if Rudy gets the nod, will you 'take your marbles and go home'?

You're not being obtuse. The freeper in question likes to pretend I lied when I said that Reagan signed an abortion bill in 1970.

Another freeper had been on that thread saying he signed a bill in 1967.

I provided the link in question (to Answer.com) that said Reagan signed an abortion bill in 1970.

Apparently Answer is incorrect and the bill was signed in 1967 and I've never again asserted that Reagan either signed two bills or signed A bill in 1970.

But dirtboy just likes to split hairs and generally make an idiot of himself.

Why would I vote for a Democrat?

As for the "no argument" thing...the point is you failed to address the "Anti-Guliani-Bots"'s issues.
Oh, he's against sucking a kid's brains out when half-born - good start, but what about the other 9 months? well, killing the kid is a "choice".
Oh, he supports the 2nd Amendment - good start, but since when was a presumption of "all guns will be registered" consistent with "shall not be infringed"? well, if you're from NYC it sorta seems like freedom.
Oh, he recognizes different areas have different views - sounds nice, but did that stop him from suing into oblivion gun makers in other areas for doing what was legal? well, it was expedient for NYC, and there's nothing like a little hostility between the states.
Oh, he was a conservative in NYC - relatively speaking? well, that stance amounts to "hardcore leftist" to us red-state types.

Seriously, and in fairness, you started the initial article by insulting anyone opposed to Rudy, gave a faint gloss over their genuine concerns, then pumped up why you like him. That still leaves the opponent's concerns 99% un-addressed.

After reading your article, Rudy still looks like a Democrat to me, and I'll vote accordingly.

Once again, you fail to read the details.Yet once again, you've failed to give any. I've read all you've proffered and I just can't find anything besides your commentary to indicate that a bill called "California Therapeutic Abortion Act" does not deal with abortion.

Funny how you call relevant facts red herrings.

See above

For your own selective memory I was countering the argument that Reagan was pro-choice and signed a liberal abortion bill.

LOL, Above you (and your little dog too) crow that you've "proved [your] case." Now you're countering an argument. BTW name calling is no argument; please cite the post number of your "argument."

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.