Posted on 01/23/2007 10:03:35 AM PST by BunnySlippers
"If you can go toe-to-toe with liberals in Massachusetts and New York City and acquit yourself well, you are prepared for D.C.," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
**
Mead credits Giuliani with mental toughness rare among elected officials. Instead of seeking consensus, Giuliani openly defied many of the city's leading liberals on crime and welfare reform.
"Giuliani confronted not only the bureaucracy, but the community groups and the academics and the journalists and all those who said you couldn't be tough on the poor," Mead said. "He said that you can be — you can demand that they play by the rules. And he got away with it."
**
"It's very difficult for such a person to win Republican primaries," said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.
Difficult, but not impossible, Norquist said. As an example, he pointed to Ronald Reagan.
"Reagan passed the most liberal abortion laws in the country and the most liberal divorce laws in the country as governor (of California), and then ran as the pro-life, social-conservative presidential candidate," Norquist said.
**
Giuliani's sharp-edge personality is another wild card. He sometimes rubs people, especially journalists, the wrong way.
On the other hand, his toughness might appeal to like-minded conservatives.
"A nice person couldn't have done what Giuliani did in New York," Mead said. "You needed a pit bull. Giuliani is a pit bull."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
That is true of whomever the Republican candidate is. The real question is who stands the best chance of stuffing it right back in the media's face, rendering their opposition irrelevant?
Remember all of the Alan Keyes supporters on FR. Alan Keyes is just the kind of candidate that they love.
I rather liked Rudy's shoving that million dollar check back in that Saudi's face. Great hutzpah!
When have your gun rights recently been threatened, seriously? Not even the Dems have made gun control a major issue in any national campaign since 2000.
I agree with that statement too.
Gawd, you and your precious guns! As I've already asked on this thread, when was the last time gun rights were seriously threatened? Even the Democrats have largely abandoned gun-control as a national issue. I live in one of the most strict gun-control states in the nation (Calif.) and last time I looked, people here were still buying, owning, and using guns. I think all the "gun-grabber" rhetoric is nothing more than baseless hysterics.
he represented the social issues that New Yorkers care about, and spoke with their voice...what are his thoughts about these on a federal level...I don't know. I'm not crossing anyone off the list...particularly if they can beat the "other" Clinton.
The republican party can not win without social conservatives adn evangelicals.
Yesterday, now and tomorrow.
"Even the Democrats have largely abandoned gun-control as a national issue."
Oh? I must be dreaming.
"I live in one of the most strict gun-control states in the nation (Calif.) and last time I looked, people here were still buying, owning, and using guns."
Sure they are. My 1820s "assault rifle" is banned there. You also aren't the strictest in the nation, and there are many more like them.
"I think all the "gun-grabber" rhetoric is nothing more than baseless hysterics."
I think that claim is empty. I think it comes from one of the Brady bunch's useful idiots. I think any politician, or supporter, that doesn't protect freedom and thinks gun ownership is a privilege is dangerous, irrational and isn't deserving of any support whatsoever, let alone a vote.
"Gawd, you and your precious guns!"
They're mine precious, and so is my freedom.
This why you should vote for Rudy. Lets first address the social issues. Let's start with pro-homo. He's AGAINST gay marriage. Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.
As far as abortion goes, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. He said Roberts is his ideal justice. Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned I hope you're not naive enough to think that would stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and do you really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions too but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a real difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare and cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor) and supports school choice, supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect your life at all!!!
With Rudy you are not getting a liberal, you are getting a man who is conservative on most issues, the issues where the president actually has major influence over and yes he is fairly liberal on a couple of social issues, issues that the president has very little influence over. Nowadays judges have the most influence on these issues and Rudy supports strict constructionist so that pretty well takes care of the social issues and will help us get these issues back to the states where they belong. So on the AVERAGE he is fairly conservative and not a liberal and more importantly conservative on the issues where the President can make a difference. And most importantly he will continue Bush's work on the WOT and give us a great foreign policy.
Finally, Rudy and McCain are, IMO, the only two Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary, McCain, or Rudy. Sure, you can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, If he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. You know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So you go ahead and worry about gays, people that don't affect your life at all. I'm going to worry about Islamic fascism, you know the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.
Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself.
Dear Hetty_Fauxvert,
In 1967, Mr. Reagan signed a bill into law liberalizing the availability of abortion in California. The law permitted abortion as follows:
- In cases of rape, incest, and grave health risk to the mother;
- If certified by a panel of doctors at the hospital at which the abortion would be performed.
Mr. Reagan regretted the bill within a year, because, he said, he didn't realize that the grave health exception would be used to justify a wide range of abortions.
That is the liberal abortion law that Mr. Reagan signed, and repudiated in 1968.
sitetest
Dear cicero's_son,
"I AM pro-life,..."
That's great! Were you at the March yesterday?
"Rudy is going to make peace with reasonable Right to Lifers."
Unless Mr. Giuliani persuasively and convincingly renounces his belief that Roe was rightly decided, that abortion is a real constitutional right, I know many committed pro-lifers who will not vote for Mr. Giuliani.
I'm one of them.
I've never actually not voted for a Republican before. Except the time that the Nation of Islam guy was running as a Republican for the US House in Maryland's Fifth District, and his unofficial campaign slogan was "Kill Honky." But other than that, it's been straight ticket "R" voting from 1978 to the present day. For every office. Without exception. In every single election for which I've been eligible to vote since 1978.
Heck, I even gave money to BOB DOLE'S campaign.
It'll feel very, very strange, as I've never not voted for the Republican candidate for president, and I am pretty much a party-line voter.
All that being said, I will not vote for a pro-abort for president.
If Mr. Giuliani is the nominee, I don't think he'll win. Although I believe that many social conservatives will vote for him, many won't. He won't hold enough of the base.
I also don't think he'll have much pull from the other side. Although there are probably lots of liberals and Democrats who might usually think of voting for a pro-death Republican, most of these folks are against the war. I don't think that they'll vote for the individual who will be most identified with the war, aside from Mr. Bush, himself.
In that most folks, unfortunately, are pretty much now against the war, I'm not sure that choosing one of the most hawkish candidates in our party will be a big winner in 2008.
However, I never thought that America would elect a peanut farmer, or an obvious fraud from Arkansas, either, so Mr. Giuliani might win without some segment of the social conservative vote.
Never say never.
But although you claim to be a pro-lifer, you seem to misunderstand what the movement is really about. We don't necessarily believe that we are going to win anything soon, even though we believe that we will win eventually. We don't necessarily believe that the Republicans can't survive without us, even if we are skeptical that they can.
It's quite possible that persons like you will succeed in kicking pro-lifers to the curb.
Here's something that I posted today. It may give you some sense of what most folks feel who bother to protest outside abortuaries, or who march on Washington every January:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1772232/posts
sitetest
Yui forgot the most important thing. He dressed up in drag ...
Reagan signed a limited legalization in 1967. I can't vouch for the 1969 claim, as the link doesn't work.
Grover Norquist. Big phony president of a 501(c) tax-exempt corporation, drawing cushy salary at the expense of the taxpayers. How many tax leeching "non-profits" is Mr. Norquist affiliated with?
How many of these "non-profit" groups on corporate welfare do we really need Mr. Norquist???
How about tax-exempt reform? There are more leftist nut groups on this type of corporate welfare than there are leftists who actually work for a living.
When will the Republicans ever learn to defund the Left?
Let's compare history. WWII was judged by the population to be necessary and the CinC had a hold on the populations perspective of the war. The war in Iraq is unpopular and so is Bush, because he doesn't have a hold on the pop. Rudy will fair worse in that regard. Eisenhauer facilitated the end to the Korean war, which was similarly unpopular, but he had a handle on the pop.
Eisenhauer wasn't a gun grabber; Rudy is.
Rudy isn't "moderately conservative".
If that is the case, how do you explain the several "Rudy isn't so pro-abortion" and "Mitt supports hunters' rights" threads that have been popping up on FR lately? Why even bother?
That's not what the sidebar polls have been indicating.
I supported Day Quayle. Unfortunately, he had been too savaged by the MSM to have a shot.
However, it wasn't too difficult to shift to supporting Bush, who was pro-life and was not a gun control freak. Yeah, Freepers banged over the candidates in 2000, but in the end, we ended up with a guy who could appeal to most of the party. And got behind him once he was the nominee.
That's the point - someone on either far fringe is NOT going to be able to hold the party together - and that cuts BOTH ways - and Guiliani, being pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-amnesty to the point of fighting for illegal sanctuary is NOT in the right place in the party to unify it. Throw in the fact that he tossed in the towel the last time he took on the Hildebeast, and I'm really not sure why folks are convinced he can win the White House.
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.