Posted on 02/25/2007 2:07:53 PM PST by Al Simmons
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.
So I am taking the liberty of reproducing My Gop's post here in full:
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.
< Laz mode> I'd hit it. < /Laz mode>
He was kind of weird, but I chose to make light of his comments. They were so bizarre than one could hardly take them seriously. I personally thought my "South Park Satan" reply was inspired. But by then he was gone. Maybe he's just suspended for a time. I believe he might have been there before as 'lazmataz' (different spelling) a few years ago.
When the law is not on your side, argue the facts; when the facts are not on your side, argue the law; and when neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
In Peach's case, she's gone from arguing faulty facts, to feigning deliberate ignorance when confronted with her false claims, to hysterical name calling in an attempt to cover up both. Fortunately I think most people are intelligent enough to easily see these antics for what they really are.
I didn't know you were stupid. You can't even follow along on the thread and see that dirtboy's claim that I posted a, gasp, Wipedia link were debunked? It was an Answer.com link and my post used their reporting. Period.
But carry on,ace. You're showing your stupidity with each post to me and it's proving quite entertaining.
What's your next trick, Peach? Parsing "is" for us?
The entire point is, you were so hell-bent to show Reagan signed a "liberal" abortion bill that when the 1967 legislation was shown to be anything but liberal, you jumped on a mis-cite to claim he signed a second bill. In an ask.com link that clearly was from Wikipedia. On other words, you are more than willing to roll like a dog in unsubstantiated crap to try and drag down the Reagan legacy. And then, in the next post, you claim that Rudy having a book in the Reagan library bookstore is proof of his conservatism. You're a rank hypocite.
#1. It was Answer.com not Ask.com.
#2. It wasn't clearly Wikepedia unless one clicked on the links within the narrative of Answer. Since I posted the entire narrative straight out of Answer, I would think it was clear to anyone with a brain that I didn't click on the links that takes one to Wikepedia.
#3. But keep being a drama queen about the biggest bunch of minutia baloney I've seen on FR in a looong time.
Your real picture is prettier than that caricature of yourself.
Once again, in your eagerness to show Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill, you went with an unsubstantiated claim from answer.com - posted DIRECTLY from Wikipedia under a Wikipedia banner. Once you provided the link, other freepers figured out the problem within minutes - something you apparently couldn't be bothered to do in your haste to parry the fact that the bill Reagan signed in 1967 was not the liberal monstrosity you had been claiming. So having been caught in one lie, you perpetuated another.
Once again, there is nothing to see about Wikepedia on the Answer.com link I gave unless one clicks on some of the underlined or colored words in the narrative.
Now, I know you're dense, but surely you aren't that dense. So little drama boy, shove off.
This is the offending link you provided which you said took one to Wikepedia:
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
447 posted on 01/23/2007 10:41:19 AM EST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
As you can see, it's an Answer.com link.
Silly me, I've been taking your word for it that part of that link that I copied in that post on 1/23/07 took a person to Wikepedia.
Well, I just went back to Answer.com and went to that section (reposted below) and not a single link in the section I posted in January takes anyone to Wikepedia.
Care to try again or do you just not mind being known as a liar making another mountain out of another molehill?
This is from the link and narrative I provided in January:
Abortion
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 stand against abortion. He published the book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, which decried what Reagan saw as disrespect for life, promoted by the practice of abortion. However, two of the three Supreme Court justices he selected, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, voted to uphold Roe v. Wade.
http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan
Now, the words abortion, Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Roe v. Wade are underlined in the Answer.com link provided above.
That means we can click on those words and we will be taken to another link. And guess what drama boy? Not one of those links takes anyone to Wikepedia. Not one.
So I'll ask you again: Show me specifically where I linked to Wikepedia in my post about Reagan and abortion, because you sure haven't been able to do it yet.
Peach, the ENTIRE SECTION was copied from Wikipedia. Each section in that Answer.com link is from a different encyclopedia source. You cited from the section pasted in its entirety from Wikipedia - there is a large banner at the top of the section that says "Wikipedia".
I saw it immediately when you linked to it. But, then again, I was trying to verify your claim, instead of looking to make a dishonest attack on a great conservative icon.
Well I'll tell you what.
It doesn't make sense to me that different browsers would show different "pictures" or banners. I've looked all through that answer.com link and have yet to see anything about Wikepedia.
Now, I hardly know why you've been practically hyperventilating over this for a month, aside from the fact that Wikepedia has been known to have problems with the information posted within their categories.
You're certainly selective in your outrage, however, given that I've pinged you a couple of times now when I've seen some of your fellow ragers use Wikepedia as a source and you've not said a word to them.
So, here's the deal. I realize you don't know how to post live links. So have one of your buddies help you. Have them post where under that abortion section I posted it says Wikepedia.
I've posted from my computer what it says and Wikepedia is clearly not present. So why don't you do the same.
Blue bars at the top of each section. Britannia. Wikipedia. The section you cited was pasted directly from Wikipedia.
Now, I hardly know why you've been practically hyperventilating over this for a month
Just to show people how far you have gone to perpetuate a myth that Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill.
You're certainly selective in your outrage, however, given that I've pinged you a couple of times now when I've seen some of your fellow ragers use Wikepedia as a source and you've not said a word to them.
This is too funny. TOO FUNNY! You deny citing Wikipedia, but turn around and ping me to get after others citing Wikipedia! BWHAHAHA! That's as funny as the time you tried to attack Reagan for not asking for a PBA ban when it wasn't even an issue until two years after he left office!
I give you. You're not a liar.
You're just dumb enough to make it seem like you're one.
Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.
Okay - I just went back and looked AGAIN.
There are different sections under the Answer.com link. Some are called Who. Some are Answer themselves sections. And the abortion section IS under a single banner called Wikepedia.
So I'll tell you what, from now on when you bring this up, I'm going to bring up the fact that you said I linked to Act.Com. LOL
Typical tactic of yours, Peach. Try to draw moral equivalence to my minor memory mistake WHEN YOU DENIED CLAIMING THAT REAGAN SIGNED TWO ABORTION BILLS.
I got the big picture right, you got it wrong. But that's what happens when one isn't in a huge rush to attack someone like Reagan. You have time to get the details straight and check your sources.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........
Look what else slithered in the cat door...
Hey, dirt, the guy who can't debate, but smears all, no matter what is being posted.
Hey drama boy: When someone pointed out that Answer had it wrong, I dropped it. But carry on with your little drama; it's of no interest to anyone but you.
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.