Posted on 02/12/2007 9:43:49 PM PST by RWR8189
The book on Rudy Giuliani is that he is too liberal on social issues to win the Republican presidential nomination. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, put it succinctly: "I don't see anyone getting the Republican nomination who is not pro-life and a staunch defender of traditional marriage."
But Mr. Giuliani is running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and leading most national surveys of Republicans. He's charming crowds of conservatives everywhere he goes. So it's worth wondering if Mr. Perkins is missing an undercurrent coursing through conservative politics.
Republicans have just experienced a bruising midterm election defeat. The president is suffering dismal approval ratings, and its erstwhile front-runner for the presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, made his national reputation as a "maverick." The Giuliani rise evident now may be more than name recognition and residual support from his stalwart leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Giuliani's support may also arise from his having successfully moved an entrenched political culture in New York City, something national Republicans have not been able to do in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
A favorable article on why soial cons like Rudy in the WSJ!!!!And BRENDAN MINITER is a sharp guy and his right!!
.
Ooooh Boy.....it's early in the morning and the RudyHaters are already up in arms !!!!
I am far from liberal, and on 9/10/01, there is no way I would ever have backed a Rudy Presidency. But on 9/11/01 that all changed. I am still pro-life, yet we are now 6 years into a pro life Presidency, and guess what, abortion is still legal. I am still Pro traditional marriage, but guess what 6 years after President Bush took office, gay marriage is still illegal (except in a few states that the judicial powers overrode the will of the people.
On 9/11/01 I woke up to the realization that no matter what my personal, moral convictions were, they would make no difference what so ever if we let the Islamic terrorists win. Rudy, to me, exudes leadership. And that is what we need right now. We need someone who will tell a Saudi Prince to shove his $10,000,000. We need someone who will take the war on terror to the terrorists, and not just wait around for the next attack. We need someone with Rudy's world view. Because if we don't 10 years from now, we may be forced to praise allah, instead of Thanking God.
Please, continue to support your candidate, and if he receives the Republican nomination, I promise with all my heart, that I will support him. Until then please don't question my priorities, or my "liberal tendencies" (I don't have any), and accept that the Republican Party can truly be that Big Tent that Ronald Reagan spoke of.
Of course I remember. So what?
Whatever happened to "LIVES, fortunes, and sacred honor." The Democrats quite apparently understand the stakes in politics: life and death. You clearly don't.
Beats death every time. Mel Carnahan won anyway.
That I believe. Pointless fighting is your forte.
let alone "run out of arguments".
That I don't believe, seeing as it's been dozens of posts cince you've cited an original fact.
OTOH, it appears that you ran out of any debate points long ago! Getting help from road kill, are you?
Reveling in your stupidity does nothing for your position.
Like Bill Clinton was.. whom he generally agrees with on many/most matters according to his own words..
What he did in NYC (fiscally) was because he had to.. to forestall bankruptcy.. Duuugh.. He cleaned up the streets more or less but to do that he expanded gov't.. He was good for NYC but NYC is the anus of America.. he merely WIPED IT.. He's a liberal.. I give him NO PARDON..
"You'll probably go away if I just ignore you..."
Well .. good luck with that delusion!
And .. still you have not said who you ARE supporting .. your only reason for being here on FR is to denegrate anybody that's republican .. which means you're supporting Hillary.
And .. when I said before you must be supporting Hillary .. YOU DIDN'T DISAGREE .. SO I WAS RIGHT!! You guys must be TERRIFIED of Rudy.
Why don't you go back over to DU and spew your junk there.
While both Boxer and DiFi are leftists, Boxer has the added nuance of being an utterly depraved human being (given her public pronouncements and her political career). Zippo dignity there.
I do hope that Ah-nuld runs for the Senate, it would be his for the taking, and compared to having another leftist in that seat he would be a MASSIVE improvement....
*ROTFLMAO*!!!!!
Please read post #205
No, I won't. What you don't understand is that a nominee like Giuliani would kick the center poles out, leaving the entire edifice laying flat on the ground.
Now you're just being a blowhard.
Rudy is losing to Hillary already in that state. In fact, he's never been ahead of her.
Maybe you should take a look at Duncan Hunter's activities.
We have candidates who are both social conservatives AND strong on national defense (a la Hunter and Tancredo).
Rudy Giuliani is strong on national defense, but he is NOT a social conservative.
If he gets the Republican nomination, I will vote for him; Hillary is not an option. But in the primaries? No. Hunter all the way.
Great post! Spot on!
(((PING)))
Where does the Constitution mention reparations and grifting?
STALINIST RISING?
HILLARY CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER
(WHERE IS THE UNREDACTED BARRETT REPORT ANYWAY?)
Check out what the wonderful conservative warrior, R. Emmett Tyrrell has to say.
I hope and pray that Tyrrell is right, that all factions will come to their senses and unite in the end, around Rudy [or, I would add, whichever candidate gets the nod].The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:
Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who
- as one-half of the 'twofer,' is the proximate cause of 9/11,
- is an abuser of women in her own right,
- is avidly pro-abortion,
- would nominate justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
- would resume clinton sale of our nuclear secrets and mineral rights to the enemy,
- would sic the IRS and the clinton 'secret police' on all opponents and critics,
- would nationalize healthcare,
- would decimate the military,
- would reinstitute the clinton policy of ignoring of terrorism,
- would raise taxes...
- even as she and her rapist husband rake in millions in quid pro quos for their slush fund foundation,
- would confiscate profits, end capitalism, if she could, etc., etc.
It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.
Do conservatives really want
- a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of an Alito, Roberts or Scalia?
- marginalization, if not worse, of their religious beliefs?
- a return to the amorality, immorality and corruption of the clinton years?
- and G-d knows what depth of failure in the War on Terror?
I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.
I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all the others, will win.
The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.
We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.
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.