Posted on 01/27/2007 2:26:06 PM PST by narses
Rudolph W. Giuliani, who developed a national reputation for decisive and reassuring leadership after 9/11, now faces the odd challenge of having to reassure some supporters that he can be decisive about a very different issue: running for president. Even as his fellow Republican John McCain and fellow New Yorker Hillary Rodham Clinton have all but formally declared their candidacies, Mr. Giuliani has proceeded more cautiously.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I am here tonight trying to fend off the Rudy bashers. I see you as one of them.
You don't seem very successful in cleaning up your local area - your state and you have admitted not much success nationally.
Now you want to trash Rudy Giuliani? :-)
And that is what you don't grasp. We are reacting to what he has said in the past as well as his actions. Get real.
If you think its going to end with all 50 states outlawing abortion, you're being extremely overly optimistic and naive.
If you think in a conservative state like South Dakota that getting 44% is encouraging - then we see things very differently :-)
Jeez - you are quite the name-caller. I take it that you are NOT a Christian?
At least you weren't called a filthy gay!
I am suggesting that you listen to what he has to say. Why is not that acceptable to you?
No I have no intentions of moving. This is our home too. We live in the most beautiful place in the world IMO, and I'll not give the Lenin-worshipping socialists (there's a statue of Lenin in our largest city) the satisfaction of living in their little utopia without me as a thorn in their side :-)
Lastly, it's specious to expect one family to change an entire state.
I always heard that name-calling was a liberal tactic(s)
Lot of liberals on this thread trashing Rudy Giuliani(s).
You write good post, btw. As I said earlier. You think(s). That is refreshing on these threads.
I answered in #436. He can do the Kerry flip flop all he wants. More power to him. Holding someone accountable for previous statements is what voting is based on as well as issues. Can he convince people he may have seen the light on some issues without looking like a panderer? I doubt it.
I find it amusing that so many people feel the need to bash and trash instead of supporting what they do like.
I am one who believes that it is more powerful to be for something than against something.
I know, I always thought liberals were the name callers. I never thought I would be called a filthy gay on FR just because I said gays are a reality in the world, we can't discriminate against them, and we can't shelter children about the fact that there are gays out in the world. And this homophobe was an atheist of all things! Thanks for the compliment about my post. You write nice post also.
You are absolutely wrong about him governing like one. He required welfare people to work, get printed and used database matching to nail double dippers. He stood up to the unions as best he could in a union city. He was in court with the ACLU dozens of times. He cracked down on strip clubs and actually shut a bunch down. He cut the crime rate by the policy known as "Life in Prison A Day at A Time," whereby marijuana dealers and other quality of life offenders such as urinaters and public drunks were put in jail every day, then released and the process repeated indefinitely. He was by far the best mayor in NY's modern history. As someone once said, "Politics is the art of the possible."
I hope Roe gets overturned and it may but I don't see us outlawing abortion in all 50 states. In fact, I see very few states completely outlawing abortion. And with different states having different abortion laws if a woman can't get an abortion in her state she can always go to a different state that will allow her to get one. That's why I don't see abortion ever stopping and why I don't make it a major priority when choosing the GOP nominee.
You have failed the test to get into the club! :-)
Maybe not. Some of this may be tied to intellecual atrophy within many of the large pop-culture evanegical churches that serve as base-camp for many in the social right. That is a problem also of interest - restoring our Colonial/Puritan roots, but it is a different discussion and applicable foremost to the church.
The evidence of positive imact by socially conservative nominees to the SCOTUS may not be seen for many years. There is no quick fix to this quagmire of social entropy - just as it did not develop overnight but represented a long and gradual rejection of the social mores that dominated into the 1960's. The concern lies in the fact that, in so doing, we have unwittingly cast off ideas (expressed in our founding documents) that provided the very basis for the freedoms that we enjoy. I'm not sure how long we will last without them.
Either 1) you've given up in exasperation - exactly what the secular progressives want, and want to try to be happy during what little time is left or 2) you share their vision of a purely secular state that silences any faith besides secularism (and yes, it is a faith).
Have a good night. Until the next Rudy thread.
You too, look forward to it!
I ask again, how is electing a democrat going to further the cause?
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.