We Must Put Forward Rudy (editorial)

It is clear that Rudy Giuliani is the right man at the right time. Rudy is already showing the leadership skills of a President and it is still early on the campaign. In the Fox News debate, Rudy stressed to the American people that we as a nation must focus on the terrorists’ war against us and our economy. Those are the defining issues of our time, and we need a strong leader like Rudy who is focused on defending this country against terrorism and growing our economy.

Rudy’s answers on foreign policy issues show that he will not let this country fall back into a pre-9/11 mentality. He has seen first hand what happens if we do not stay on offense against the terrorists, and he will use his power as President to keep the country on offense.

On growing the economy, just this week, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said “It is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment.” The Club for Growth praised Mayor Giuliani’s record of cutting taxes and drastically cutting spending. His proven record as a fiscal conservative in New York City makes him the ideal candidate to clean up Washington’s nonstop spending.

Rudy Giuliani is the one candidate that is focused on the positive ideas that unite our party, proving why he is uniquely qualified to win the general election. Not only is Rudy the frontrunner in the polls, he is leading the Republican Party down a path to victory over a Democratic candidate.

Rudy is right when he says our party must unite in this election because if we don’t unite around our general principles, we will lose.

Guiliani is electable, not a fruitcake, and is controllable on the issues that matter to you.

The rest that might satisfy your parochial views are not and a virtual guarantee that the baby killers and gun grabbers will both be in office and in charge. Even Newt called the Republican line up a bunch of midgets and I find the desperate rallying around the likes of Paul and Thompson confirmation of that fact. Romney is the only other candidate besides Guiliani that is competent. And he is conservative as a dickens! Yet your view would damn him from being President because he did what was required to get elected in Massachusetts. That is certainly why you attack Guiliani.

The fact of the matter is that among other things, I own and like my guns and would very much prefer the left not having opportunity to take them away or do any number of other things that they will do if they have the power that comes with controlling all branches of government.

However, if the government were in fact to take them away, it will be more your fault than those that actually do the deed.

So, in the absence of an unnamed, electable, non-midget candidate for President magically appearing from the wings and gaining broad Republican support, it is pretty much up to you and those that persist in views like yours. Its time to decide. Is having a nominee that kisses your heinie on hot button issues really worth being powerless, gun less and having even more incentive to picket against baby killers? Or do you want to compromise a little and actually make a difference?

Patton is claimed to have said that he would rather have 5 German divisions in front of him than one French division behind. That is pretty much how a Republican that wants to win views the single issue right.

You damned well want to walk in front of the parade and give yourself medals when we win. But you sure are too busy demanding the best generals spend their days in prayer rather than doing God’s work.

So if you lose your precious guns and mine at the same time, keep it up. As incentive, I suggest you mull over the mark made on America by the Goldwater Presidency. Wasn’t much, was it?

Your reply would appear to be kind of a smug, wouldn’t it?

The reality about your man Thompson is that he showed promise as a campaigner in his red pickup, an act no more or less disingenuous than Prince Albert claiming to be a farm boy. And he sought and was given the role of taking on the Clinton's, but did not deliver the goods. Then, and in spite of this fact, when people were starting to think he was actually doing the grownup job of being a Senator (rather than just acting the part), he decided to go back to a supporting role on a television series, probably because actually doing something in the Senate meant long hours. In my book, that is when he gave up his shot at the Presidency. And whoever we run is most likely to have to beat a Clinton. It would certainly be my preference to have someone that has not already proven short of the task.

A Republican that wins will have to prove overwhelmingly competent to middle America, a quality that has been sorely lacking at all levels in the party and partly because of single issue disunity. Guiliani pulls this off in part because of cleaning up NYC and mostly because of his 9/11 persona and can paint NY blue. Romney can pull this off based a claim to being able to govern from the middle in Massachusetts and his executive success. Newt, if he entered, might pull this off (over big negatives), if he was successful in intellectually towering over his opponent. McCain has removed all doubt as to being a scatterbrain. And there is nobody else visible over 4’6”. Picking among an agreeable single issue midget that will lose over someone that can beat Hillary (but probably not Obama) over someone that might win is stupid.

If you have a ringer hidden away, bring them on. I’d like to be able to point to a candidate on our side with the kind of charisma Obama seems to manage. But the hour is late.

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.