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 ...
Wait a minute! I missed the impugning, lies and slinking. I miss all the good stuff, I guess. Could somebody please put me on the impugning, lies and slinking PING list? I'll be waiting.
Don't worry. I'm sure there will be more.
You're not running a PING list? Come on! Make yourself useful!
I'll be sure to add you to the "Annoying posters for Rudy who otherwise have nothing else to say" ping list if you'd like.
Oh my. Well said! Thanks.
One of the most disturbing trends I've seen happen in the last 7+ years since I joined FR is the breakdown of respect for others opinions here. Part of it may be the addition of DUers who troll on this website, but also the lack of respect and hatred that the dems have had for this President and other Republican lawmakers has been like a cancer spreading throughout. We should be able to "agree to disagree" without name calling, gutter talk, and viceral comments on this site. We do not need to act like the democrats when discussing all areas of politics and deeply held ideals. I know that I have stated things here in the past that I shouldn't have and that not all of my opinions need to be aired. Perhaps a delay and editing of our posts before we click that final post button might give us all pause and help retain some modicum of respect rather than making sure our feelings are printed for all to see. Just my 2 cents worth!
Dunno.. Probably the same people that selected Giuliani, McLaim and Romney to be the annointed front runners for the republican primarys.. Some kind of shadow government..
Which kind?.. Who knows.. The Communist Manifesto does not get enacted fully point by point into America Law without SOME HELP.. As you know.. IT IS NOW...
Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Out of sixty judicial nominations made by Rudy as mayor, two were Republicans.
Meanwhile, Rudy supported public funding for abortion, opposed a PBA ban, received awards from NARAL, took guns away from long-time NYC permit holders, and spoke strongly in favor of assault-weapons bans and stringent restrictions on handguns.
So excuse us if his history is not washed away by lukewarm assurances.
When those opinions are pro-abort, anti-gun, pro-amnesty and pro-CFR, I have little respect for them.
Um, I hate to point this out, but the world has changed significantly since 1989. Specifically, 9-11 happened. That changed the worldview of a lot of people, myself included. I used to be a registered Democrat. Now you couldn't pay me to vote Democrat.
I venture to suggest that if you asked Rudy his views on the military today, you would get a different answer.
Hmmm. And how has Rudy responded to 9-11?
Why, he pushed a corrupt crony - Bernie Kerik - to be head of DHS. Makes me wonder just how seriously he takes the post 9-11 world.
And if Rudy had not sited the NYC emergency command center in the WTC, despite strong misgivings from others, NYC might not have been as blinded by the attacks.
Supposedly 1 on 7 New Yorkers was on welfare when he became mayor. And the city was totally bankrupt.
He went through massive welfare reform and cleaned up NY.
He's a terrific manager!
Well then why even bother to vote, since the "shadow government" controls everything anyway. And here I thought Ronald Reagan was elected twice by voters. I guess he was selected, not elected by the "shadow government" also, eh? Or does the shadow government just step in once in a while -- like when your candidate loses?
Funny stuff, but that's the second "retard" or "rutard" reference on one thread so you get no points for it.
I tried...
Don't I know it. I'm just as involved, if not more so, in Republican Party politics than you or anyone else here is. I've been a political activist for years and have been involved in a number of campaigns among other things. I've spent more hours than I can count doing things for the Party and its candidates.
Rudy IS a threat to the Party. I won't tolerate it and will fight day and night to reduce the threat or eliminate it. The information about Rudy that a number of other Republican Party activists is gathering to widely disseminate will help in that respect.
As a lifelong Republican and a Conservative, the Republican Party and Conservatives are far from being on life support no matter who the nominee of this party is and anyone that thinks otherwise doesn't understand Republicans and how hard we fought over the years to gain the majority in the House and Senate along with the White House. We have two new Supreme Court justices that are going to make us proud because of our efforts over the years.
If you're a lifelong conservative Republican, then start acting like it. Stop promoting this liberal trojan horse candidate as if he is the savior of the nation and the Republican Party. He's not. He's the most divisive Republican presidential candidate I've ever seen and he will split the party, set conservatism back decades, and damage our country's core values immeasurably. And given his past there is no way I can believe his recent words that he's going to appoint good justices. It's just not believable unless you're drinking the koolaid.
In August 2000, parts of this forum as Mr. Mojo reminded us the other day in a link was so anti-Bush that they were threatening everything because he wasn't a 'true' conservative.
While I've had SEVERE disagreements with Bush's policies - mostly domestic spending, border security, immigration enforcement, etc. - I would burst with joy to have another 8 years of him compared to even 4 years of Giuliani. While Bush is not a "true conservative" at least he isn't a "true liberal" like Giuliani.
I don't believe that social issues belong at the federal level and never have. These are issues for my home, my church, my community, and my state on rare occasions. You don't legislate moral vaues from the right or left because you start down a slippery slope. You have to believe in moral values and pass them on to your children and those around you.
Should slavery have been decided at the state level? Precisely the same argument applies with abortion.
All of this posturing and threatening to quit the Republican Party or not vote if Rudy is nominated, will force Republicans to reach back out to other groups that have not wanted to vote with us because of the rigid social conservatives and the my way or no way philosophy.
"Social conservatives" didn't just wake up one morning and decide, "Hey! I think I'll start being a 'social conservative' today!" No. Instead, their values are based strongly upon their deeply rooted spiritual faith and convictions that defines their lives. You can't separate us from our convictions, nor should you try. Complaining about it is like complaining about gravity when you wish you could fly. You have to work with us and field a candidate acceptable to us - not one that is utterly offensive to us - if you want to get someone elected. Marginalizing, belittling, dividing, shunning - that won't work. You need our votes and we're not going to give them to someone as offensive to our convictions as Giuliani. Like gravity, that force is not going to go away no matter how much you curse it.
We have a problem with Iran -- huge problem. Does anyone remember Iran-Contra and how we were involved with Iran and that was after the fall of the Shah -- long time after. Does anyone remember how our Marines were killed in Lebanon? What was done after that? We withdrew from Lebanon if you don't know. We have made a lot of mistakes in this Country, but you do not know what lies ahead as a President when you make the decisions. Today we are facing a threat from Iran because for years we did nothing. Those are real threats to humanity along with the Islamic fundamentalist that want to kill us. That is why I support Rudy Giuliani for President because I believe he will stand up to the terrorists, not negotiate, and will put America First
Your assumption that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who would stand steadfastly against Iran and Islamofascist terrorists is a false assumption. And that he would be the best at it is also quite debateable.
But what good is defending a nation that has rotted from within? What is left to defend if your nation doesn't resemble what it started as and has abandoned the core values that defined it and made it great? It's like barricading your house and fighting off all external threats while termites undermine your house's foundation and construction so much that just a strong wind would cause it to collapse. Rome was not conquered until it was rotted from within.
If you're absolutely convinced, as I am, that only a Republican candidate can protect our country from the external threats that face it, then you better get busy finding a candidate that will unite the party, not divide it, and get elected. If Giuliani is the GOP nominee (God forbid) then you will guarantee a Democrat win. It's that gravity thing - there are forces that you will be absolutely unable to change. And if you're supporting a liberal like Rudy, I intend to be a snare to your feet every step of the way.
If my support of Rudy causes me to be banned from Free Republic so be it, but I will continue to support him until the day I am told to leave this site. You or no one else on here is going to tell me what I believe and that I am not a Republican Conservative.
I don't want you banned. I just want the open campaigning for the most liberal major Republican presidential candidate in history to cease. It's one thing to report one various news items concerning Giuliani, but you and others openly admit that you're here campaigning for him and your posts and threads prove that. That's not the mission of this site and it interferes with this site's mission to promote conservatives and conservatism. Look at the keywords on the new posts page. There's a bunch of pro-Rudy campaign stuff there and nothing from Hunter or any other candidate. It is clear that you're using this site as a campaign platform for the most liberal candidate in the race. That's just plain wrong.
Should there be debate about Giuliani and his positions? Sure. That's what we do here. I welcome the Giuliani debates because it has spurred me to dig and dig and dig and find more stuff on Giuliani - pretty damning stuff - than I ever thought existed. The more I dig, the worse Giuliani looks. Instead of debating it, you want to spin it or call it spam or "hate".
I keep posting that chart for a reason. It demonstrates that Giuliani holds views (he even admitted to it in his own campaign documents in 1993) that are "anti-Republican". If that same chart was made for Romney, you'd see less anti-Republican views. McCain, even less. Nearly all of the remaining candidates would be almost nearly completely in line with the views of the majority of Republicans. THOSE are the candidates that you should be looking at and supporting. The ones that represent the actual views of the majority of the Republican Party as demonstrated by the party's defining document - the Republican Party Platform. If that is not the yardstick by which we measure our candidates, then we have no standards at all. But that is what you're arguing for. Abandoning conservatism, surrendering our convictions, jettisoning our traditional values, etc. all because of ONE stupid, liberal candidate. You are asking too much. We are the Party of Lincoln. We are the Party of Reagan. We can't throw that all away to become the Party of Rudy. But that is what you ask us to do.
I don't know how things work in your wing of the Republican Party. But where I'm at, as an elected party member, I had to swear an oath to support the party platform. My duties include promoting and helping candidates who support the platform. If you're not supporting the platform, then you can hardly claim that you are a Republican. You're working AGAINST the goals and mission of the party. If you get beat up over that, then you deserve what you get. If you don't like what the Republican Party stands for, go find a more acceptable party. Don't try to hijack the party to bend it to your own political goals. And that goes for conservatives if the party platform gets changed to become something offensive to us. If we can't change it back, then we should just leave the party. Well, actually, the party will have left us.
Right on the mark! They don't get it, dirtboy and they never will.
These endless diatribes telling us how Rudy Giuliani is the savior of the GOP aren't based on any conservative analysis I know of. They're downright silly. More emotionally based then intellectual. Rudy`s brand of politics has always been about liberalism. Not conservatism. Longtime Freepers wanting Rudy`s liberal record and a lifetime of his supporting liberal causes to be overlooked, is something that boggles the mind. As I said yesterday, is this a case of arrogance, ignorance or just plain stupidity. Maybe its a bit of all three.
And of course, what would a good pro-Rudy thread be without the obligatory Reagan bash included in perpetuity. Even the dumb Democrats realized that FDR was the gold standard for their presidential candidates years after his death. Until the last few years around FR, Reagan use to be the gold standard by which Republicans judged their presidential candidates. Now it seems like the only times Reagan`s name is mentioned, is when the Bushies and Rudy-Rooters need someone to bash. This can only be called bizarre.
yet conservatives should be attracted to a candidate, who runs counter to their core principles, while he hopes to attract Dems in sufficient number to offset them?
Mistakes were made by a great many people in both trying to prevent 9-11 and then responding when it happened. Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration seemed to have a huge blind spot that we could ever be attacked in such a manner, and they were not at all prepared for it. Our own military couldn't get planes into position in time to shoot down the hijacked planes, and then couldn't get the authorization to do it in time. Our White House probably would have been toast if the civilian heroes on board Flt 93 had not made a stand. MISTAKES WERE MADE ALL AROUND.
The main question is not who made mistakes, but how did they respond afterward? And have they not only learned the lessons of 9-11, but have they *retained* those lessons even now? Because "We will never forget" is a hollow memory for far too many people these days. It is my opinion that Giuliani learned the lessons better than most, and has the guts to implement them.
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.