The Real Rudy Giuliani:
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST RUDY GIULIANI
(Clink link for well-sourced truth about RINO Rudy)
Posted on 11/14/2006 1:51:18 PM PST by DCBandita
The announcement by McCain, who has put together campaign organizations in many of the states with early nominating contests, was widely expected. The intentions of Giuliani, who has been less active in early organizing, had been less clear.
Giuliani's campaign team said the committee was simply an opening move designed to keep his options open, with a final decision still to come.
"This filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision," Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What's funny is that DCBandita has given up the "idle-trolling" and gone off to greener pastures and what's left is arguing about the reasonableness "its" posts......
"I'm curious. As a Democrat who trends VERY moderate (for example, I'm very pro-enforcement on the immigration issue; reasonably pro-gun, etc.), I'm curious as to how the potential of a Rudy Giuliani running for President is being seen over here."
Correction: immigration issue=illegal aliens issue.
If you aren't pro-2nd Amendment, then you're anti-gun. I don't think Rudi's even "reasonably pro-gun" (does that mean the police and criminals have guns while the rest of us don't?) and that's the `third-rail' for most conservatives. And he dresses up in womens' clothing.
Duncan Hunter!
The Real Rudy Giuliani:
THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST RUDY GIULIANI
(Clink link for well-sourced truth about RINO Rudy)
You may not have noticed, but the deficit is dropping like a stone.
Thanks to economic growth.
Thanks to tax cuts.
You wrote---"I believe wholeheartedly that the gap between high income and middle-income is getting wider".
That one statement makes you a left wing socialist democrat. Your lack of understanding capitalism. A "gap" between high and middle is strictly up to the individual. If you want to be middle income, that's what you'll get. America gives everyone the opportunity to do as well as they see fit. You are completely responsible for everything that happens to you from the time you leave home and before. Every action you take, bears a reaction. To socialist dims like yourself, it's all about hand-outs and entitlement.
Economic populism is a milder variety of the failed economic policies of the late and unlamented Soviet Union.
Go away. Go read some of Webb's kiddie porn before the theocrats you fear have a resurgence and take it away from you.
Because you know that's what we're going to do, don't you?
As for Rudy vs Social Conservatives, I come out with the following opinion. I could vote for Rudy (I have to hear a clarification of his partial - birth abortion stance first), but in my opinion I am much more OK with a moderate President than I am with a moderate Congressman, or Senator. After all, they write the laws. In 2008 my two main concerns will be the War on Terror, and Fiscal responsibility. From what I know Rudy fits these two things. I am in no way set in my decision, I am just not appalled at the thought of him being POTUS. He also exudes leadership. We, in America, need that. My next point may get me flamed, but here it goes anyway.... I am pretty sick of self - righteous politicians speaking moral absolutism when we know they are being hypocritical. I have more tolerance of a sinner Rudy, than of a sinner Newt. One never claimed to be the social savior, while the other did.
One of the things that attracted me to President Bush (although in my opinion he failed) was his initial stance of helping the Countries moral faults. He didn't try and say that illegitimate children, or their parents, were evil. He just pointed out that statistically those children have a greater chance of not succeeding. He wanted to promote marriage, not as a religious means, as much as a way to improve America. He didn't say that the Gay couple that live next door are immoral, but he did say that Marriage is between a man and a woman. He never put down the sinners, he tried to help, and respect them. And although he failed, he still tried.
We must all remember that although a President may lead our individual political parties, at the end of the day he is the leader of ALL of America, Republicans, and Democrats. Maybe a moderate is the best.
Excuse me, but this is an honest question.
What, exactly, is it that you have against the "religious right"? Indeed, who do you think comprises the "religious right"? And why should they be denied a voice?
I've asked these questions of liberal friends (and family) and have yet to get a coherent answer. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
The problem with nominating a moderate is 1) The views of a guy like Giuliani on social issues do not match either those of the GOP faithful or most Americans (for instance, most Americans are not friendly to the gay rights agenda as evidenced by the near-universal success of marriage protection referenda at the state level). 2) The game theory aspect. Since 1980, if a liberal Democrat wants to get elected nationally, he has had to move to the center on economics and not forcefully advocate the sorts of liberal social ideas that votes view as, well, kooky. When you have a moderate like Giuliani against an either moderate Democrat like Clinton or a liberal masquerading as such (Kerry), the election quickly devolves away from the big issues like size of the Federal government, size and method of taxation, American foreign policy, role of the government in issues like gay marriage, to "who of these two near-identical candidates will give me more of someone else's money?" Obviously, Democrats win that hands down. We lose that fight because we want to give people back more of their own money (tax cuts) and less of other people's money (welfare).
As for whether Giuliani would govern in a fiscally conservative manner, the general perception is that moderates tend to side with large government regardless of what they may say otherwise. The temptation to give people other people's money is too large for a politican to overcome unless he or she has a strong ideological backbone.
I like Rudy and I get called a RINO all the time. Doesn't bothe me. We need to get back to the middle and fix problems. This left-right war needs to stop. IMO.
I agree--I'd rather deal with sane folks regardless of which side of the road they are on than zealots from either side.
That doesn't answer the question. The Supreme Court amended the Constitution in 1973 using very poor legal reasoning. They usurped the prerogatives ot the people and the states to govern themselves. The federal government was founded primarily for the purpose of protecting the states from attack by foreign powers not for the purpose of centrally determing the social policies of the various states. If New York wants to have different laws from Texas, that should be their prerogative.
No, it is not. You are simply do not understand the first Amends. requirement for neutrality in the matter of religion.
I think conservatism wins cause the democrats had to run conservative to win this election.
The last clause really doesn't properly characterize the social issues. The US Supreme Court has taken on the task of legislating social issues since Griswold v. Connecticutt. In effect, they have decreed that the States may have no involvement in a wide range of social issues, from contraception to sodomy. The issue really isn't whether the government will or will not make decisions about moral issues, the question is where they will be made--by nine unelected federal justices, or by the states, where the Constitution pretty clearly places that power.
So it would be more accurate to say that there would be no effort by Guiliani to reverse four decades of morals legislation by fiat by the Supreme Court and return the question to where it belongs, the States.
It's hard to put this into the context of traditional conservativism. Until the astonishing activism of the Supreme Court in 1973 on Roe vs. Wade, these social issues were pretty much consensus issues everywhere--face it, in 1955, for example, there was no push to make sodomy or abortion into sacred constitutional rights--not even liberals made that argument to my knowledge.
So, until the late 60's, when the make-love-not-war generation came of age, social issues really weren't a liberal/conservative divide. The hippies and their progeny started to make "do whatever you want with whomever you want whenever you want" into a partisan issue about that time. Naturally, conservatives did not agree with that. What suprises me is that liberals did. But this issue has only really existed as a partisan issue since the supremes took it on themselves to legislate morals.
Republicans have always been more supportive of law-enforcement than the opposition, so I don't see how Guiliani would be a change in that regard.
I really have no idea whether Guiliani would support smaller government. Except for Reagan, it would be hard to find an example of a Republican president that actually supported smaller government in his heart, instead of just giving lip-service at election time. Neither W nor his dad could really be characterized as conservatives in this regard, unless you completely redefine conservatism.
Very Moderate???? Exactly what is that? A pro-abortion murderer, high taxes, big government program spender, anti-military, anti-religion, pro-terrorist, socialist????????????
Oh yeah, you definitely belong here! LOL!
And he dresses up in womens' clothing,
and hangs around in bars.
Pressing wild flowers.
To the extent that "reaching into the middle" means accepting in some way the idea that the government's job is to shape and arrange society, which is the premise of the Left, and thus of the Democrats, then yes, reaching into the middle is a bad thing. Government's job is to ensure our freedom so that we may shape and arrange our lives ourselves, as we see fit; the shape and order of society in a free country results from that, not from edicts handed down on high by divine rulers.
'Course, I doubt that Republican politicians believe that either, but at least they are not bound to socialism as are most of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Rudy's a little too liberal for me. I can't see the Republicans nominating a pro-abortion candidate for President. Congress maybe... but not President. It will take crossover Democrats to give him a primary.
John Boehner would be a better candidate.
And what is JC Watts up to? I could support him in a heartbeat.
The fact that you have been around for a while and don't know the posting format reeks of troll so... IB4TZ!
I must ask though, out of curiosity, if you were active at the time, did you also have a problem with Carter or Clinton envoking religion as their reasons for wanting to "care for the poor". Or when many Democrats speak of their faith as a reason we should put more money into social programs and education?
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.