Posted on 12/19/2006 3:59:27 PM PST by Paul8148
Because the GOP, and America, need Rudy now.
More than ever.
by DaveG @ 5:40 pm. Filed
(Excerpt) Read more at race42008.com ...
Yeah, I get the same thing here in Charlotte, where I'm not only a Yankee, but a damned Yankee, because I bought a house AND married a belle.
It's funny to watch people who claim to be insulted by the looking-down-the-nose attitude we big city folks are supposed to have engage in the same thing AND be completely ignorant of their subject matter.
It's like my mother-in-law, who had never left Waxhaw before, when we drove back to NY before the wedding so the families could meet. She was so convinced that if left on the streets alone for five minutes that she would disappear, that she stuck little pieces f paper in her shoes and pockets with her personal information on it, just in case "someone finds my body". Boy, was she amazed to find out no one found her worthy of a murder attempt!
When we moved from Manhattan to Chicago, I kept getting hit with : "WE'RE GREAT, SO WHY DO YOU PEOPLE LOOK DOWN YOUR NOSE AT US?"
To which I always answered : NEW YORKERS ARE FAR TO BUSY WORRYING ABOUT A GARBAGE STRIKE, OR AN MTA STRIKE, TO EVEN THINK ABOUT YOU!
Real New Yorkers don't look down their noses at people who don't come from there; it is always the other way around and the just moved to N.Y.C. who act as though everyone, from everywhere is is dirt and give tourists terrible directions, because they don't know how to get there themselves, since they just moved there.
"If we lose in 2008 to Hitlery and clan there won't be an America as we know it to win back in 2012. Why can't you see that?"
He does see it, but he doesn't care. As far as he's concerned, the prospect of either a Hilary victory, or the loss of the republic, is just fine. One is as good as the other. Because either is an excuse for him and his kind to reach for their guns and their bibles and storm the streets a'shootin' and a'prayin', so that they can implement their own version of the Taliban. (/sarcasm)
As long as he can frighten people with the spectre of a Clintonian victory, or the inferred threat of a nutjob uprising within the GOP, he believes he'll eventually get his way. Either the GOP will cave-in and tailor to his one or two issues (which it will ultimately be powerless to actually do anything about) in order to save itself from the political wilderness, or his ilk will reimpose themselves on the party, only with a better grip this time around. Either way, he's won. It's all about winning pyhrric victories which will not fundamentally alter the American way of life, but which will serve to make them feel special.
Hence, the logic of a seemingly illogical statement like: "I will vote for Clinton before I vote for someone like Guiliani" (or words to that effect).
That's what all you left-of-center mushy moderates say. Coming from a limp-wrist such as yourself, it's hardly an insult.
"Give and take"?!?! Look where that got you pathetic Brits. Your government has stripped you of your God-given right to keep arms and you just bend-over and grin. It's not suprising that you would look favorably upon a gun-grabbing cross-dresser like Giuliani.
The MSM hasn't poisoned my brain. I just graduated from Wake Forest University with a degree in political science. I know about political realities and the reality is in my expert opinion, only Rudy can beat Hillary. I can't understand why you ignore the fact Rudy is an economic and domestic conservative as well. Or why in the world you would sacrifice the WOT by voting for Hillary over Rudy? If we elect Hillary, we lose the WOT, get handed over to the UN and we lose our ENTIRE country FOREVER!! Voting for Rudy, you wouldn't be sacrificing all your values. I know he's pro-abortion and too gay friendly but its like I said earlier, the President has very little influence on these issues. I should know, again, because I have a political science degree. So you go ahead and make Rudy more liberal than he is, pretend he would be a disater on everything, and pretend Rudy would be worse than Hillary. You just can't reason with unreasonable people and people that know less than you do and don't want to learn.
I also have an undergraduate degree in poltical science.
Freshly spawned at the ivory tower idea hatchery, you are a fingerling that knows artificialities, not realities.
You need to be involved with real life away from the ivory tower for five to ten years before you know realities.
Here's a dose of reality:
A president has the power to order all sorts of bizarre social experimentation in the military and the federal agencies under his control.
Part of the reason 9/11 happened is that Clinton, Giuliani's twin on social issues, had the CIA and FBI mired in gay rights celebrations and transgender sensitivity training throughout the 1990s instead of doing their jobs.
Yes, that is an overstatement, but not by much. The point is, the heads of agencies and the politically astute bucking for promotion within those agencies are very sensitive to currents of political correctness emanating from the Oval Office. If a social liberal in power, they try to outdo each other in impressing him with their socially progressive bona fides. That detracts enormously from the true mission and leads to the implementation of touchy-feelly programs and policies that can never be entirely excised.
A president can also push a pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-Second Amendment legislative agenda, and with the Democrats in charge of Congress that would be a fast sell.
Strict constructionists on the bench would be bound to strictly uphold that legislation.
So, we certainly don't want social liberals controlling the executive and legislative branches. Conservative judges would have no choice but to validate their social liberal experiments. That is a disaster in the offing.
"Strict constructionists on the bench would be bound to strictly uphold that legislation."
Be very careful about what you ask for. I'm sure that the few victories you would have under a regime of "strict constructionalists" (i.e. the anal-retentive)would quickly evaporate when you begin to realize that our laws were written by politicians whose strong suits are ass-kissing and duplicity, not spelling, grammar, or punctuation.
I had to do a double take on this...
"So, we certainly don't want social liberals controlling the executive and legislative branches. Conservative judges would have no choice but to validate their social liberal experiments. That is a disaster in the offing."
Ah yes, God forbid the courts inthis country be independant and....GASP!...quite possibly err on the side of individual rights, which are only for degenerates and people we approve of!
You claim to have a degree in political-fu*king-science, and you actually WROTE THAT? If I were you, I'd sue the matchbook-cover university that issued that degree and demand my three installments of $29.95 back. You obvioulsy didn't learn that this is a republic, which has three branches of government which very often are SUPPOSED to work against each other (it's called Checks and Balances, look it up), where the people (all the people, not just the ones you like) give their consent to those they ask to govern them.
God for-fu*king-bid that the people of this country should have any choice to make at all, especially one between your sort of sphincter-puckering-church-going despot and their choice of potential poison. Nope, can't have the brain-dead-heathen-gay-frinedly masses making THAT kind of decision! Why, that would be UNAMERICAN!
I understand there might be a job opening at the head of thre Iranian government soon. Perhaps you might apply for it.
And probably better than the female Rudy-haters here, as well.
You people just can't stop. Don't you take time off, even during the holidays? Do you ever take a break from spewing vitriol? What a way to live...
Giuliani supporters keep assuring us that Giuliani's social liberal tendencies won't matter because he has said he will appoint strict constructionists to the SCOTUS. My point is that his social liberal tendencies will very MUCH matter, especially if he appoints strict constructionists to the bench.
A socially liberal Congress and a socially liberal president would wreak havoc on this nation and a conservative SCOTUS would ensure that the full weight of that foolishness was visited upon the necks of the voters who put the social liberals in power.
Now that's exactly how it should be. The SCOTUS should not be stepping in save a stupid electorate from a foolish Congress and president. Choices have consequences and wisdom is gained by learning that painful fact.
ON the other hand, there is no need to go down that difficult road. We can show wisdom now by placing a socially conservative president in the White House in 2008 to check the worst tendencies of a Pelosi-Reid Congress.
thx and Merry Christmas to you and yours as well:)
This morning, Mayor Richard Daley has endorsed Obama should he run. Plus, William Daley, Gore's campaign manager and Mayor's brother, is backing Obama too.
Many uniformed people tell me that Obama for President is good, because he is a freshman Senator and untainted by Cognressional scandals. Yes, its stupid. But a lot of Independents think that way.
Our guy must be an outsider too. McCain and Hunter spent too long in Congress. Unfortunately, these who can claim outsider status are Rudy and Mitt. Yuck.
I have mixed beliefs about Rudy. He was the best Mayor NYC has ever had, and turned the city around from virtual anarchy. Amazing administrative ability. Obviously, he's too liberal on social issues.
But if he were to commit to appointing Constitutionalist judges, conservatives should not rule him out.
Q. What is the difference between a civil divorce or civil annulment and a Catholic Church annulment?
A. Anyone who marries in the United States must obtain a civil license to legally contract the marriage and cohabit with all the privileges the law provides. In most cases, the civil divorce states that the above did take place, but the contract is severed and each party is free under the law to remarry. The legitimacy of children is not affected.
The Church views marriage as a covenant for life that cannot be severed. However, some marriages are entered into without the necessary maturity or full knowledge, ability and commitment to keep such a permanent commitment, or without fully free will because of external pressures. Therefore a person has the right to ask the Church to examine a previous marriage to see if it was less than what the church views as a valid marriage, a freely chosen commitment between two mature, knowledgeable and capable adults to enter a covenant of love, for life, with priority to spouse and children.
A Catholic annulment is a declaration from a diocesan Tribunal that the marriage bond was less than such a covenant for life because it was lacking something necessary from the very beginning. One or both parties may have entered the marriage with good will, but lacked the openness, honesty, maturity, fully free choice, right motivation, emotional stability, or capacity to establish a community of life and love with another person. If an annulment is granted, then both parties are free to remarry in the Church, however, for pastoral reasons, counseling may be required prior to marriage in order to prevent the parties involved from repeating mistakes. The legitimacy of the children is NOT affected in any way. There was an assumption of marriage at the time; therefore the standing of children is never affected by an annulment. link
I think you need to correct the THOUSANDS of pages on google that also refer to his two 'divorces' and two ex-wives. You best get the word out as soon as possible on that one.
Two ex-wives is right, I agreed with that, and for all intents and purposes you and the thousands of pages on google can refer them as divorces, but that doesn't change the fact that one marriage ended in divorce and the other was annulled. But feel free to call them divorces - that's probably what most people do - but don't tell me that is a FACT as you did on your #186.
Why is it bad he divorced? Freepers do that all the time.
Ronald Reagan and Jany Wyman had two children when they divorced, and Ronnie went on to marry Nancy Reagan, who gave birth to their daughter only 7 months into their marriage.
Bob Dole is divorced.
Newt Gingrich divorced and as far as I know his wife had cancer when he left her.
Dick Armey is divorced.
John Warner is divorced.
Bob Bar was divorced twice and married for the third time.
George Allen is divorced.
John McCain is divorced.
The list of many GOP representatives goes on, but I hope this gives you an idea that Rudy isn't the only GOP individual in the political arena who is divorced.
Man, you Rudy-apologists are really groping when it comes to 'splitting hairs' on this one....lol.
Rudy apologist? Why would I apologize for what you consider to be Giuliani's shortcomings? How is it that my apology or anyone's apologies would generate forgiveness for whatever faults and trespasses you think Rudy has committed?
Use of the word is absolutely silly. I expect that if someone did something wrong that person would apologize for himself or herself and take full responsibility for his or her actions. In Rudy's case, the concept that total strangers to Rudy are apologizing for something he supposedly said or did doesn't make any sense.
I realize however, that the phrase “Rudy apologists” is intended as an insult, and that you and everyone else who loosely throws that term around are cognizant of such.
What makes you think that Rudy will govern from the left?
Have you checked Rudy's website? Let me post a few issues he addresses:
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 the New York City government payroll by 19%, eliminating unnecessary civil servants from the public dole. Can anyone remember the last time a Republican president was able to send lazy federal workers packing? Inheriting a multi-billion dollar deficit, Rudy turned it into a surplus, delivering eight consecutive balanced budgets. Folks, this ain’t Linc Chafee we’re talking about here.
Giuliani: Tough enough to take on the bad guys
Unlike the Democrats, who are too nuanced to acknowledge that the “bad guys” in life even exist, Rudy Giuliani knows how to identify a threat to safety and security and pound that threat into submission. Giuliani’s record on crime in NYC is well-documented; if Rudy is able to do to the terrorists what he did to the crime lords of the Big Apple, Americans will once again be able to feel secure in an uncertain world. Sure, every Republican will talk tough on terror, but only Rudy’s proven he actually knows how to eliminate a threat terrorizing a population.
Rudy will secure our borders
An essential component of national security includes securing America’s borders. Unfortunately, President Bush has been unwilling to take the necessary steps to accomplish that task. While John McCain and Mitt Romney discuss “comprehensive” solutions, Rudy is ready to do what it takes to prevent individuals from illegally entering the United States. During his recent visit to Minnesota, Rudy laid out his immigration plan, which begins with sealing the borders and also involves ensuring that immigrants learn English so that they can be better assimilated into American culture. As such, Rudy is to the right of President Bush on this issue.
Giuliani would appoint strict constructionists to the judiciary
Social conservatives who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and who fear the imposition of same-sex marriage on unwilling populations by judicial fiat have a friend in Giuliani. Rudy has now explicitly voiced support for the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench. His recent trip to Minnesota included an admission that he would appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. During this same trip, Rudy also confirmed that he believes legislatures, and not judges, should set policy. A Giuliani presidency would now almost certainly fail to yield judicial rulings from the federal bench in favor of gay marriage, and would be at least as likely as any other Republican presidency to see abortion returned to the political process, where it belongs. Rudy believes that marriage is between a man and a woman
Mayor Giuliani has made clear his belief in traditional marriage only; that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, and in no other form. Says Rudy:
“I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case,…”
Some social conservatives are uncomfortable that Rudy doesn’t support amending the Constitution to make sure this definition of marriage stands. But Rudy has made clear that he’ll do whatever it takes to maintain the traditional definition of marriage; he just thinks the constitutional amendment is the wrong strategy right now. I agree. As long as judges like Roberts and Alito are on the bench — the type that Rudy would appoint as president — a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
Giuliani understands the party he’s leading Unlike McCain, who basically told southern, religious conservatives where they could go back in 2000, Rudy understands that he’s campaigning to lead the party of the sunbelt — a party that is more pro-life and pro-gun than his New York constituents. As such, the mayor has given no indication that he will turn his presidency into some sort of pro-abortion, pro-gun control crusade, and every indication that he will defer to his base on those issues. We’ve yet to get definitive statements from Rudy regarding abortion or the Second Amendment in the last few years. While Rudy opponents trot out statements from the 1990s or even the 1980s on those issues, let’s wait and see where Rudy stands in 2006 before passing any judgment. Mayor Giuliani might just surprise pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives with his interpretation of how the president, and not the mayor of the most liberal city in the country, should handle these hot-button cultural issues. At the very least, Giuliani appears prepared to do no harm to conservatives on these issues while promising to advance their causes via the appointment of conservative judges.
More info here
He dissed Lincoln Chaffee, Christie Todd Whitless, Nelson Rockefeller and took a soft jab at GWB.
I guess Mitt Romney won't be the only candidate accused of pandering to the GOP base.
:D
Except that a socially-conservative presidential candidate CANNOT WIN....ever.
So, your choice is to cut your nose off to spite your face and continue in this delusion, or, admit defeat and recognize that social conservatism cannot be advanced by government action, except at the margins.
Social conservatism has very little place in the governmental process (unlike fiscal and small-government conservatism), and traditionally does much better when the message is taken to the streets and churches, not the halls of congress or the Supreme Court. And btw, packing the Supreme Court, no matter who does it and for whatever apparently-pure motive, is wrong. Both sides have been guilty of undermining the constitutional process in this regard because it easier than making a case before the public, and because any defeat is merely temporary (unlike the constitutional method, which might very well result in permanent defeat on any given issue); judges have a habit of dying or retiring and getting replaced, you know. In either case, both sides have denied the American public their right to debtae and freely choose this or that polic because the courts are constantly being hijacked.
And no, it doesn't matter who started it; it should stop, or this is no longer a republic any more. That is a greater threat to American democracy than the prospect of a Clinton presidency. The country could survive a disasterous Clinton presidency; it cannot survive when it's institutions are repeatedly bypassed. Warn of the those dire consequences, why don't you, instead of creating negative, unfounded strawman arguments based upon an erroneous view of how the government is supposed to work (your 'the courts will be forced to rubber stamp a democratic congresses agenda' nonsense)?
Only when hearts and minds outside of government are ready to embrace a full socially-conservative agenda will that agenda stand any chance of being successfully reflected in both the electorate and then, incrementally, within the government.
Until that time comes, all this "we need a fire-and-brimstone-type" talk is useless, and will only ensure that progress on other fronts will be sacrificed to make a relative few feel superior. Which is what this discussion is really all about anyways.
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.