Posted on 08/30/2006 9:09:02 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Giuliani oughta be nailed - period. :-)
Seriously, all the Rudy cultists keep repeating the mantra that the WOT is the issue for '08 and therefore Rudy is 'the man'. Even if that was the case re: the WOT, then Rudy would NOT be 'the man'. The cultists seem to be forgetting one very important part of the WOT, the COURTS.
As we've seen in Michigan one moonbat judge can almost stop the WOT in its tracks. And what king of judges would Rudy appoint? Judges like him - LIBERALS (okay cultists say 'moderates' if you wish). Justice Stevens is older than dirt (86), Kennedy is 70 and Ruth Buzzy is on death's door. Does anyone in their right mind really want Rudy appointing replacements?!?
So no, the WOT is NOT the issue for 08. Like 04 its the JUDGES. And that means Rudy is NOT 'the man'.
A "penchant" for dressing in drag? Nancy Reagan dressed like a bag lady for her appearance at the Gridiron dinner in 1982; I suppose that means she was really a hobo.
I'm sure many people look at Rudy and see Bloomberg. And that's not a good thing.
Now Bloomberg is your typical wealthy Upper East Side condescending liberal.
I'd rather spend my time defending macaca that trying to defend - and with a straight face - why I would support a guy who OPENLY wants to take my guns away and who would without a doubt sign every UN gun grabbing treaty that comes along.
AND spend my time defending a guy who sees nothing wrong with my grandchildren being FORCED to learn about why 'Jill Has Two Mommies' and reading "Jill and Jill went up the hill".
Yeah, I'd have noooooooo problem defending those.
btw, in Bhutanese 'Macaca' has two meanings. One is 'sh*t for brains', the other is 'Rudy For President'.
Dumb thing to do for a guy aspiring to run for Prez of the U.S.
Man has enough self confidence to make fun of his image at an appropriate venue.
Maybe he didn't measure every act by how it could be used by underhanded people.
He should have played with a monkey. That's Presidential. Although I wonder if you would interpret that as implied bestiality.
I base a decision on who to vote for using a criteria of many issues. All from a conservative perspective.
I'll go along with that but a difference on one or two issues isn't going to prompt me to cancel the guy out.
You don't care one bit what he stands for as long as he can "lead".
Not so but I guess there will always be disagreement. I see in Rudy things that you don't. I guess that's why we have these discussions. I don't think Rudy's views on some social issues are a threat and don't believe his views would alter much U.S. social policy. His proven leadership however can alter world events. I guess we just choose different people for different reasons.
You and Rudy may be at odds over one or two issues. Most conservatives remain at odds with Giuliani on most issues, both social and fiscal. Rudy doesn't represent mainstream conservatism. Period.
This idea you're stuck on, that only Giuliani has the leadership ability to be POTUS is an utter fallacy. Sounds like a bad case gullibility on your part.
Take a look at this,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1693067/posts?page=1
Yes....him too! Mitt Romney, Ted Stevens, DeWine, Chaffee, etc.
"His proven leadership however can alter world events.
What proven leadership?
It's a website that some people think has been bought off by the national GOP. If so, that would explain why conservatives are routinely attacked by a small, protected group of GOP toadies and party hacks.
This is an interesting site for an outside view of what goes on here:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=156802&SC=1&EC=40#C1
If what you are suggesting here is that a GOP candidate who is liberal on about 90% of the issues is the only "electable" candidate from the conservative side of the political spectrum, then I'll have no problem sitting this one out.
Neither will a lot of other principled conservatives.
That argument doesn't stand up at all. Because Giuliani was precluded from running for re-election in 2001 under New York City's term limits law, there was absolutely no reason for him to "adopt liberal positions to maintain political viability" from the moment he was re-elected in 1997.
For all your "certainty" about how far to the right this guy would actually position himself as president of the United States, the fact remains that his 8-year tenure in New York City is the only record as an elected official that we can use to judge him.
You've provided two characteristics to a presidential candidate that may very well be mutually exclusive in 2008. On the one hand, you suggest that the most important job of the president relates to national security. But then you also insist that the Republican candidate must be "electable."
How electable would your ideal "national security" candidate be if a substantial part of the U.S. electorate in 2008 doesn't consider national security to be the most important issue?
The electorate has issues with the Iraq war, but not with the issue of national security.
In fact the Democrat Trojan Horse is that they can do national security better. Hope to win on that lie and then force their domestic agenda down our throats.
The Republican that will win will take the national security issue away from any Democrat BS- that's Giuliani.
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.