Posted on 09/02/2006 8:39:06 PM PDT by VictoryIsInevitable
The Conservative Case for Rudy Giuliani in 2008
John Hawkins of Right Wing News makes the conservative case against Rudy Giuliani for 2008. Hawkins’ piece largely consists of the same old anti-Rudy arguments wrapped in slightly new packaging, focusing a lot on Rudy’s decade-old socially liberal positions on a few cultural issues, as well as his Manhattanite personal life and some nonsense about unelectability (more on that later). As such, I think this is a great opportunity for someone to lay out the conservative case for Rudy in ‘08. And that someone might as well be me.
Giuliani: Pro-growth tax-cutter
Rudy Giuliani has proven, both during his tenure as mayor of New York and through his subsequent rhetoric, that he is a pro-growth Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and Newt Gingrich. As mayor, Giuliani cut city taxes by more than eight billion dollars, reducing the tax burden on New Yorkers by 22%. Giuliani’s low-tax views remain intact. As Race42008 correspondent Kavon noted yesterday, Rudy’s recent visit to Minnesota included an emphasis on achieving economic growth via low taxes and less regulation on the economy. Rockefeller he ain’t; Rudy’s a Reagan Republican.
Rudy: Gingrich-style government reformer
Conservatives who liked Newt’s welfare reform and GWB’s attempt at entitlement reform have an ally in Rudy. As mayor, Giuliani reformed welfare in New York with the same tenacity as the class of ‘94 in Congress. Once again, this ain’t Christie Whitman we’re dealing with; Rudy’s a Newt Republican who also made a serious attempt to take on the teachers’ unions in NYC and fund school choice via charter schools. A President Giuliani means a conservative reformer who will fight for market-based revisions to our age-old bureaucratic messes in Washington.
Rudy Giuliani: Fiscal conservative
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani cut...
(Excerpt) Read more at race42008.com ...
Rudy IS running. He is. Can't say anything more, but he is.
"Rudy IS running. He is. Can't say anything more, but he is."
Ah, more of the "I'm an insider" garbage.
---"Is locking up criminals "out-liberaling the Democrats"?"---
It is when the "criminals" are law-abiding gun owners, pro-life protestors, and clergy unwilling to peform gay marriage ceremonies (mark my words, the latter is coming soon).
I don't have a weak mind that can be changed by a million articles, polls, etc. The facts are out there; and based on those facts, my family will not vote for him.
"LOL, and you freak out at the possibility."
Just holding out hope that DeWine isn't so far gone he'd hire you.
"Frankly one does not need to be an insider to see it. Duh!"
He has not announced anything. Ergo, he isn't running.
"GRAVITAS! They need it, he has it."
As I recall, people said the same thing about Kerry. Curious circles you run in....
Your post is almost identical to the posts on DU when it was reported that Clinton was doin Monica. "We don't care." Here, many who now support Rudi "because he can win" were saying "Character Does Matter". You weren't around then so I can't say where you stood, but for those who claimed character mattered then should hold Republicans to the same standard.
BTW, Clinton wasn't impeached over getting lewinskys in the White House. He lied under oath about another sexual misconduct.
Rudi's lack of character isn't the only reason I'm against him. Read my first post. He's pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment and pro-gay marriage. Since there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats on spending and growth of government, these issues take on even more meaning.
Rudi can't get the nomination.
"Rudi can't get the nomination."
Not after his positions become clear. If he throws in his hat, they will.
Unless it is MSNBC no one ever thought Kerry had GRAVITAS. Like how you personally insult me all the time. Mike DeWine is a fine man, for your information I went to school with one of his kids. Big deal. Rudy is running. Free Republic is a great place, they even allow the narrowed minded petty insulting types in. You can't win an argument so you resort to insults. It's OK, I have been in the arena and small minded little men like you don't bother me in the least. Off to my party, a Republican Party with real people.
We'll see if Rudy can or can't but it's seriously childish to misspell the mans name. Says a lot about you.
"I expect a formal apology for your libelous statement against conservatives in your earlier post."
Expect it, but don't count on it. I just wonder what libelous statement (i.e inconvenient truth) that was?
Getting back to "possession doesn't predicate use", if I understand you correctly, you should be able to have a gun just for the sake of having one, without any intent to use it for any purpose whatsoever (including hanging picture frames when you can't find a hammer)?
So, if I get this right, you might have no use, or really and truly want one, but you would have one anyway (if only to gather dust) just because you could or should be able to?
Why, that reminds me of that scene in the "The Life of Brian", where the Judean People's Front decides to fight for the symbolic right of a man to have a baby if he desires it, even though he's incapable of bearing one in the first place.
I guess you might call that "principle", even if it is ultimately stupid.
You can't debate the issue so you attack. That says more about you.
No, I just don't see the point of having something around my house that will ultimately go unused, and by it's very non-purposeful existance, will cause Mrs. W. to complain that we must move because we've run out of closet space, seeing as how I'm going to be keeping things I won't use, but won't throw away "because I want to" have them. (/sarcasm on).
In some twisted way (and believe me, I had to have a third cup of coffee to follow the thread of this twisted idea), your premise does make sorta-kinda sense, even if (if, I say!) it seems to be going to an extreme to prove an ultimately useless point. I say "sorta-kinda" because one must turn mental summersaults in order to even begin to believe that you posted such nonsense and can still look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself you're sane.
As for "free country" I know better than you what it means. The unfortunate (for you) part of "free country" is that while we have rights, we also have corresponding responsibilities as citizens of a civilized nation. I happen to take both seriously. You want your rights but without the obligation of responsibility, apparently.
How you consider that a "conservative" viewpoint is beyond me, since the first premise of "conservatism" IS responiblility.
"Yet another libel. It should be pretty obvious what disgusting insult you levied."
I'm still waiting for you to identify the libel. I'm well aware of everything I've written but haven't seen a libel yet.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks that Rudy has suddenly discovered thay his Catholic religion is unalterably opposed to abortion and has changed his stand on that all important issue is daydreaming. Another thing, without 4 or 5 million votes from pro-gun voters for whom that issue is the deciding issue no Republican has a chance of winning the presidency, and Rudy is as anti-gun rights as the most radical far left Democrat could be.
I hope and pray that Rudy isn't the GOP nominee next time, but if he is it will finally be 3rd party time for me and my family. I almost went 3rd party in '96 when the unelectable Bob Dole was nominated as the token opposition to Clinton, but didn't. Instead of "throwing away" my vote on a 3rd party nominee I threw it away on a token GOP nominee.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go clean my guns and tidy up my gunsmith's bench.
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.