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 ...
Out there in the real world it isn't. Most voters couldn't care less about abortion either way. The issue has largly been decided with the American people who seem to be content with the status quo.
Well lets see what he says on the issue first before we denounce him as some kind of lunatic gun grabber (just a quote I've heard from some freeper not you!). I don't think he or any other candidate will touch the issue.
I'm actually still undecided. I'm somewhat pro Rudy because I believe he understands the WOT, though I may change my mind when the campaigns take off. Personally, I like Gingrich's mind, though I doubt he is electable.
All I am saying is that the Republican candidate will be more conservative than the Democrat candidate, especially regarding SC nominations. The SC has to stay as conservative as possible. This point is crucial and I believe too important to abstain from voting for "not conservative enough" candidates.
I will support a down the line, IMO nanny state, Christian fundamentalist, though I am not one, because I want the US to remain capitalist and conservative. I will not abstain because I'm more libertarian socially.
The Problem with Rudy Guiliani isn't that he hasn't supported 'any conservative agenda', the fact is there are BETTER People (not just those that appeal to the NE) than Rudy G. that represent most or all of the Conservative Agenda (dont get me wrong we conservatives dont dislike Rudy: We just dont see him as conservative enough): Not just that but it doesn't take a "moderate" to beat the likes of the boogey woman Hillary Clinton: If Guilani can; then certainly others that represent the Republican party can do it better!
I would like to respond to the author of this article "Conservatives Can Do Better..!")
I'm sure you can if you go on the Blog site. It's not a newspaper or media site - it's a blog so I'm sure if you join it you can respond to it!
1) Those 'abortons' are rare when you really have to pick the life of the child over the mother.
2) I also oppose abortion becuase of practical reasons such as:
a) Roe v. Wade was such an abohorant Judicial Activist decision that it should not have been made (where are your 'prenumbra' and 'emanations') b) Thomas Jefferson was pro-life: ALL Men are endowed by their Creatior with certain inalienable rights among those are LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS c)Your mother did not 'abort' (murder) You why should this be allowed to your 'neighbor'..? d) modern science practialy proves that a fetus is a full human being (just at an earlier stage of development).
3) Murder is wrong (I do take that belief partly from my religious views), and abortin is Murder!
4) I absolutely can impart these views into government since our nation gives us an avenue to do so, plus the left 'pro-choice' position is in such contrary to the Consitution as well as moral position that is is my duty as an American and a Chrisian to oppose it!
Can't do that.. Atheism and secular humanism are both religious..
I don't care what you say, I would PAY to see a debate between Rudy and Hillary. Now that would be theater. You could take bets on how may times Hillary says "you know" and how many times she says "I don't know". That would be good. I hope it happens.
I don't think anyone questions that Guliani is a highly competent leader.
I think Guliani would be sound on the War on Terrorism, which is our most important issue and the most difficult to get right.
I think Guliani would be sound on taxes and size of government issues.
I could stop there; those are really the only issues I consider to be important. I like gun people, but I'm not one myself. And my views on abortion are ambivalent at best.
That being said, I don't think either issue has made much impact on the national scene. I don't think Rudy would use his political capital to deal with either one, because unless one of those issues is your sole mission in life, it's just not worth the political flak you'll get from the other side.
D
Rudy on John Roberts nomination:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
COLMES: Now, Roe vs. Wade -- You are pro-choice. How important is it to you as a pro-choice Republican to have a pro-choice on the court as someone...
GIULIANI: That is not the critical factor. And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.
I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her. I expect, and listening to Senator Nelson, I expect that John Roberts will get support from a lot of Democrats.
COLMES: Now, he is coming under fire from some Democrats for claiming — they're claiming he is a partisan, that he had a behind-the-scenes role in advising the Florida attorney general during the 2000 election fight, that he gave money to the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign...
GIULIANI: He's a Republican.
COLMES: ... made the maximum. Is that...
GIULIANI: Who do you think the president's going to appoint?
COLMES: All right, but in other words...
GIULIANI: How many Republicans did President Clinton appoint?
COLMES: Should it be partisan like that?
GIULIANI: He isn't that partisan. He's a Republican who believes in the Republican Party and no more partisan than lots of people who get appointed to the United States Supreme Court and turn out to be excellent justices.
COLMES: So it's not an issue if you've donated ...
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: Earl Warren was the governor of a state. He was the Republican-elected governor of a state and...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: ... donated money to the guy whose nominated you, if you've given him money, money to his campaign, if you've worked to get him elected, behind the scenes advising the attorney general?
GIULIANI: Sure. That's be exactly the kind of person you'd think that you'd want to appoint, somebody who shares kind of your general outlook, but hasn't indicated and hasn't really predetermined most of the cases that are going to be determined by the court.
Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them. It's sort of an extraordinary thing to ask of President Bush. Nobody asked it of President Clinton.
President Clinton appointed people that basically agreed with his political philosophy, which is left of center. Of course, President Bush is going to appoint people that basically agree with his political philosophy. And then what we found out about the Supreme Court is, we don't really know until after they're on the court where they're going to end up.
My thoughts exactly. He would never take on his own party on those issues.
Do you know yesterday I was called a Domestic Enemy and anyone who likes Rudy was one too?
I don't hate R. Guiliani, but he has done well as mayor, but he shouldn't be our next Prez/.
That is uncalled for areafifyone (being called a Domestic Enemy because you like him..).
We can disagree without the hatred
I agree - but I still maintain that he looks better in a dress.
Exactly! They shouldn't get so worked up over him. It's getting to be ridiculous!
Why? Neither one of them look good in a dress.
2. How many people have terrorists killed in this country since 1973?
Even in purely mathematical terms, terrorism pales in comparison to abortion as a threat to this country's existence. And even if the math doesn't daunt you, just consider this . . . A country that kills a million of its own unborn children every year, while at the same time allowing a million illegal aliens to pour across our souther border, doesn't need a simple change in policies and/or legislative priorities -- it needs a collective psychiatric examination.
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.