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 ...
Rudy Giuliani: A More Charismatic Version Of Arlen Specter
Rudy Giuliani may have many fine qualities, but he is not a conservative, nor has he always been a loyal Republican.
For example, back in the mid-nineties, when he was actually running New York City, Rudy could have fairly been said to have governed as a moderate at best and to the left-of-center at worst:
"The National Journals rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."
As per his converstation with a report in Wilkes Barre while campaigning for Santorum: "WILKES-BARRE - Secure the borders, said Rudy Giuliani when asked about the nations illegal immigration problems in Wilkes-Barre Sunday night.
While calling for strong measures to secure the borders, the highly acclaimed former mayor of New York City said it is also important that a solution be reached that would prevent illegals presently in the country from going underground and becoming a serious threat to the welfare of the United States. He does not oppose people entering the county legally.
Why not wait and hear it from Rudy's mouth instead of some pundit?
None of these issues are national issues, they are all state's rights issues.
Go Rudy!
That is how we got eight years of Bill Clinton, and it is a sure way to give us four to eight of Hillary.
BINGO!!! No presidential candidate is going to touch them.
[Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group."
Revealing at one point that he was "open" to the idea of endorsing Clinton, he explained: "When I ran for mayor both times, '89 and '93, I promised people that I would be, if not bipartisan, at least open to the possibility of supporting Democrats." -- Rudy - An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, Page 459
"From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, 'Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." -- Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, Andrew Kirtzman, Page 133
"[Quite] frankly, you have to understand the fact that Rudy Giuliani was a McGovern Democrat, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party when he ran for Mayor.
In his heart, he's a Democrat.
He's paraded all over this country with Bill Clinton and, in fact, he's very comfortable with Mario Cuomo.
But what Rudy Giuliani wants is to be bailed out in the city, in the mess he's in, and everybody understands very clearly in politics that they struck a deal, that Mario's going to continue to be the big spender, save Rudy the options of raising taxes by pouring money statewide into the City of New York and bailing it out.
Quite frankly, I predict that he will join the Democratic Party." -- Interview with Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S., Conservative Party, CNN Crossfire, October 25, 1994
Not in your wildest dreams, this didn't work in the last election, and it will fail miserably in the next.
"Any one but Hillary" is not a platform.
Abortion is the single most important issue for me, with all that it entails--the inalienable right to life, strict construction of the constitution, an end to judicial tyranny and of rule by ideological fiat.
If we can't protect the lives of the innocent, if we declare a constitutional right to murder, then our country has been so bent that we don't deserve to survive. For that reason, I think we need to get those things straightened out before we can even venture to continue the war against terror. The judges who dictate abortion and gay marriage are the same as the judges who dictate to our president that he cannot secure the safety of our country by spying on our enemies, not even if congress approves of it.
Nevertheless, if Rudy becomes the front runner, I will give him every consideration. As I have said on other threads, he talked a very pro-abortion line when he ran for office in New York, but as far as I am aware he never DID anything to try to further the number of abortions, unlike Pataki and Bloomberg.
Further, I think he is an honest man. If he pledges not to oppose the pro-life position of the party, I will believe him. So, we need to hear what he has to say. Keep in mind that he may not come out strongly pro-life, because he does not want to offend some of the swing voters, so we will need to consider the matter very closely and carefully as the campaigns move forward.
There's no doubt about McCain. He is a nut case, totally incapable of running the country. And there's no doubt about Hillary. She is strongly pro-abortion, and she would take immediate action. Her husband passed several of his "stroke of the pen, law of the land" abominations the very first day he was in the presidency--one of them attempting to legitimate gays in the military, another reversing Reagan's Mexico City policy and authorizing billions of taxpayer dollars to be spent around the world furthering the cause of abortion, including forced abortions in China and abortions imposed by internation aid groups on unwilling smaller countries.
Hillary would do the same. She just aches to use taxpayer dollars to spread the Culture of Death: abortion, perversion, euthanasia, and surrender to Islam would be among the consequences if she is elected. She wouldn't just talk, she would act.
Hunter has zero chance of getting the nomination, let alone of beating Hillary.
This is most likely true and it is the most likely outcome of nominating Rudy. (IMO)
I think McKook is the only potential third party candidate who could take enough votes away from Rudy to give Hillary the election.
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.