Posted on 02/13/2007 5:14:50 AM PST by MittFan08
While the White House is taking a hands-off approach to the 2008 GOP presidential primaries so far, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is quietly seeing an administration cheerleading section grow.
One insider said that it is built on the fact that Giuliani continues to beat Sen. John McCain in the polls and also because he is offering to stick with several Bush programs, including an aggressive stance against terrorists, and promises to name conservative judges to the court. One Bush official today noted Giuliani's pledge to nominate conservative judges and applauded the New Yorker for making that claim in liberal California.
"He didn't back away just because he was in California. In fact, he went there to make that statement. That's a very important signal," said the insider. Interestingly, even White House conservatives are showing support for Giuliani.
"He's the front-runner, and he's doing everything so far very good," said another official. "He isn't bending to what people want to hear. He kind of sounds like Bush did in 2000."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Other good conservatives who lost: Santorum and JD Hayworth. I know the stated reasons why they lost (the Democrats ran "conservative" democrats), but losing such good conservatives isn't a good sign of things to come at all.
Rudy is as fiscally conservative as they come, even more so than President Bush. As to social issues, we haven't made out terribly well on that front in nearly 27 years, and as far as I can tell, the states have had far more success on that front than the federal goverment.
However, once you exclude pro-life, pro-gun, anti-amnesty, anti-gay-marriage and anti-CFR pubbies, you're basically left with the Rockefeller rump of the party. The folks who led the GOP into decades of exile as a minority party in Congress.
So a Republican President nominated twice by Republicans and elected twice is somehow not a real Republican?
Is there a Rudy quote on this? Anybody?
Yes, we think for ourselves and we are not automatons. We are, however, supposed to be united around our platform. Guess what? In the midst of many good writings on geopolitical issues is a section entitled "The Sanctity of Life". Why? Because, like our founders, we believe that no other right is possible without the basic right to life. Like it or not, that is what we believe as a party and should be common ground.
You decry the "lockstep" approach of the Democrats and rightly argue for the debate-filled approach of the Republican party. What you can't see, though, is that those of us who recoil at the name of Rudy aren't doing it because we hate the man or don't respect his experience. We're doing it because our Republican "leadership" has already annointed him as our savior and is expecting the rest of us to get into lockstep--exactly what you supposedly oppose.
How are you personally affected if it's granted?
Were you affected by the millions granted amnesty by President Reagan?
What the hell has gotten into you?
BTW, I prefer Romney over Giuliani...but whoever is the GOP candidate will get my vote over Hillary Clinton.
And they should get yours too.
What Rudy has said, several times now, is that he'd appoint strict constructionists to the bench. And that is what conservatives want.
"President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he did appointed (sic) some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine - Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that … I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he’s young and he can have a long career and that’s probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint – Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate." race42008.com
Those crimes are committed by criminals, not the average NYC resident who I'm sure you'd agree is law abiding. As John Lott's research has shown, the correlation between crime and firearm ownership is inverse, more guns, less crime. Andedotally you'll see that borne out in the experience of the UK, where a firearms ban has resulted in a boost in violent crime. And in cities like DC and Chicago, where total handgun bans result in some of the highest murder rates in the nation. It's a law enforcement problem, and I admit Rudy has those qualifications, not a gun problem.
Sure! We are glad to have you on the list! :-)
:^/
I wasn't aware Rep. Sessions was part of the "Rockefeller Rump". Rockefeller? He died after sex with a chick much too young for him over twenty-five years ago! What does HE have to do with anything?
Excellent post.
I'm always surprised that these people who are acting decidedly un-Christian, actually think they can badger me into change my mind over who I will support.
I'm sure they would.
Gee, perhaps because I believe that when a mistake is made, it should not be repeated?
Reagan thought amnesty would reduce illegal immigration. Instead, it increased such.
Now, Bush wants amnesty and a guest worker program, while Arnold is proposing free insurance for illegals. Those two in conjunction would turn the river into a flood.
What the hell has gotten into you?
Common sense. When did that depart your brain on this subject? Or was it never there?
Do you realize that the same thing was said about W. during the 2000 election. W. was not conservative enough for some Freepers.
There were yelling matches and ... people like you. Now George Bush is embraced by this site.
So please stop acting like you know it all.
Otherwise, fine.
I thought YOU were above thinking I even was suggesting that..And you certainly know better than to imply that would ever happen..FGS.
You've got two years to save that $50..:)
sw
Oh, there are no shortage of pubbie pols willing to sell out the base. That is quite obvious.
But PhiKap mom's statement was about positions of voters - so nice try.
And they should get yours too.
This is precisely the point. We are at the early stages of campaigning. We should be vetting the candidates and holding them up to the platform to get a candidate who stands for Republican ideals--as enumerated by the platform.
Instead, we get the our party leadership joining with the MSM to annoint Rudy as the "second coming"--yet he stands opposed to significant parts of the platform... and the Constitution.
W. was still pro-life and did not have a history of gun control.
Just how far left do you think the party can lurch and still keep everyone on the bus? W. was barely able to. Rudy won't be able to.
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.