Posted on 12/20/2006 8:29:40 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention.
That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated.
However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake.
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said.
He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions.
"No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded."
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices.
Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
Terrorism is BY FAR the most important thing on peoples minds. If we get attacke again (dirty bomb perhaps ), the other issues wont matter much . Rudy so far is the best for the job.
All this fear of terrorism is getting old. If it happens, people will adapt and overcome. They will gain resolve, be more alert and life will go on. Just like when terrorists & saboteures struck during all past wars.
What we need to fear is politicians using terrorism as an excuse to arbitrarily destroy our constitutional rights.
So, why did Bill Clinton say that the NRA beat Al Gore? I saw the interview where he said that.
But Hey, Clinton's an proven liar. Look at the states: Had Gore won his own state of Tennessee, he'd have won. The last time a state failed to go for a "Favorite Son" was something like 70 years ago. Even in the Reagan landslide of 1980, Jimmeh Cartah carried Georgia and not much else. In 2000, Tenn voted their guns. How about West-by-God Virginia? Huge mining state. Heavily democrat and extremely poor. Hasn't gone Republican since the 1950s or thereabouts. But the first day of deer season is a school holiday so young'uns can go out and help harvest meat for the winter table. WV voted their guns. Plain & simple. I don't know about abortion but the 2nd Amendment has enough legs to knock the stuffing out of just about anybody....once Americans understand the true stakes.
The name for your poem should be--"Old Crusty" ;-)
It may be getting old for those in West Virginia but the rest of the country can see the potential out there for a myriad of terrorist attacks.
Call me a single issue voter if you want. Where my right to defend myself and this nation are concerned, there are no other issues.
Excellent point! There is little doubt a Guiliani candidacy would be a disaster for conseratives, the Republican Party and the country.
You're free to argue that if you want, but I'm going to have a hard time reconciling it as being politically conservative when having it would probably require abandoning or making some wholesale changes to the Constitution.
Sorry, but protecting the Constitution/BOR is more important than anything else. Anyone willing to not honor their oath of office to protect the Constitution/BOR (anti-2nd Amendment) will not get a vote from me, lesser of 2 weevils/weasels or not.
I see it this way, the country has survived roughly 30 years of abortion we can survive with it a little longer. This country can survive with gay marriages. I am not pro either one of those. This country can not survive us not being armed.
Gun control is a form of slavery, we have to get permission from our masters (the governements) to have them (only certain ones). Until we return to a Constitutional government, we should not put any other issue above protecting the Constitution/BOR.
"It may be getting old for those in West Virginia but the rest of the country can see the potential out there for a myriad of terrorist attacks."
Is it really that bad out there? I haven't seen anyone show genuine concern for a long time. Do you live in a big city? It is just not a priority whatsoever here.
Dear wastedyears,
In Maryland, Medicaid pays for the abortions of poor women.
Of nearly 3,700 abortions paid for in the last reporting year (FY 2005), none were performed because the mother's life was in imminent danger.
Two were performed because the continued pregnancy may have eventually resulted in the death of the mother.
Three were performed because continued pregnancy might have had an impact on the mother's physical health.
The law, pre-Roe, provided for exceptions in these very, very rare cases.
sitetest
Look to your own first, please.
I'm afraid I was unclear. I meant that nobody has been able to change the settled law on these subjects in quite a while, no matter how much pushing they've done.
So there's not a lot of point from a candidate's point of view in pursuing these issues unless they are the only reason you're in politics. You just make a lot of people mad that you'd rather keep happy.
Sorry for any confusion.
D
Your logic escapes you.. I was talking about ancient Isreal not the United States.. A Kingdom _vs_ a Republic thats been currently morphed into a democracy (which is Mob Rule).. A Kingdom is Mob Rule also but the Mob is smaller..
When dealing with Mob Rule(democracy).. you must deal with the symptoms of it.. (a social disease) Socialism the main symptom..
You gave an example to bolster that argument. If that example doesn't apply to us, then it wasn't a very good argument.
??
No, it's not. It ceased to be a major issue by 2003, and George W. Bush would have lost in November 2004 if John Kerry hadn't been such an inept candidate.
If the GOP intends to run a candidate on the "terrorism" mantra in 2008, it's going to lose -- and badly.
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.