Posted on 02/13/2007 12:34:44 PM PST by zarf
Theodore Olson, the stalwart conservative lawyer and former solicitor general for the Bush administration, told the Spectator he will be supporting Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid.
"I admire his character, his capacity for leadership, his instincts, and his principles," Olson said over the phone this afternoon. He said he will help Giuliani raise money as well as offer advice on legal issues and domestic policy matters that involve constitutional questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Thanks for the headsup
(((PING)))
Rudolf Giuliani does not deliver us from this evil, he delivers us to it.
Rudy has stated more than once that he likes judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate USSC Justice Samuel Alito, that he wouldn't hesistate to nominate more were he elected president. If that's conservatism's idea of evil, I want no part in it.
Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the courts, it's a federal issue, despite the fact that state after state has been passing legislation outlawing abortions within their own borders, that's their right.
The states have no jurisdiction overturning federal law, that's up to the federal government, and the only way we're going to get that far is by nominating more judges to the bench like Chief Justice Roberts and Assoc. USSC Justice Alito.
If you want to throw away 26 years of hard work, that's your business, I'm not here to convince you otherwise.
"... But the solution lies in dialougue, not flinging insults..
Barbara Olsen would be repulsed at supporting homosexuals and abortion. Does that make you fewl better?
nice of you to ask
Yes, but Rudy was there longer and he tried to be Senator.
BTW, what makes you so sure she is so utterly selfish to compromise on stances against abortion and advocating homosexuals and ONLY advocating measures against terrorism?
Understand some of us are still principled. Barbara was certainly a principled person and why I see her repulsed at supporting a baby killer and a pro homo for her own SELFISH agenda - her own protection.
All I've got to say is, BFD!!!
Luved Barb, but Ted sounds like a RockyFeller Republican!
No thanks Ted! No thanks Rudi!
If the shoe fits.
Hillary will walk away from Iraq, our troops, and the WOT ... Rudy won't.
I have a very personal stake in the WOT. I happen to know this person feels the same way I do
If you can walk away smiling from the killing of 47,000, 000 babies on the basis of an implausible hypothetical medical situation, how can I believe anything you say?
So I see no difference - and frankly, I think Hillary is scarier - if it's all about personal protection get the scary person.
You chose a poor example for difference between Rudy and Hillary (not talking about the WOT). Rudy is also "Pro-Choice" -
But I do understand the stakes in the WOT - but our current administration and the previous Republican-majority Congress chose to only half-fight the WOT. How can we possibly be fighting a WOT when our borders are less secure than the average mailbox?
Rudy's only strong point in my mind is his support of the WOT - then again, he has a personal stake in it, now doesn't he?!
Too many liberals do not have an investment in the WOT.
But there are other Republican names out there that are just as strong on the WOT, but are also much more conservative in just about every way.
If we vote an liberal into office - the WOT will proceed to be even more irrelevant, as we will loose what the Islamists want to destroy anyway- our strength and our freedom.
NMH... your latest posting proves my point about you quite well. Thanks for your public display!
I am a strongly pro life conservative Christian (who believes that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman).
You seem to be channeling me incorrectly, as with most of your other hateful spew...
You also seem to think that you know more about Barbara Olson than her own husband does... What an arrogant and insane view of oneself.
Again, the manner in which you impugn people is a discredit to yourself and the Christ that I love.
BTW, your initial comment kinda makes me think that you were schooled in a madrasa.
I do see your point, and Bush has done decent job on the judges, Harriet Meirs aside. But Bush's pro life reputation rests pretty much on two things: stem cell research and the passage of a ban on PBA.
I saw his administration somewhat closely in Texas, and Bush pursued no pro-life initiative at all until he absolutely had to for his presidential run. I would argue that he followed a similar strategy as president. A ban on PBA and a ban on federal funding of stem cell research was, at the time, the minimum expected of him as a Republican. As it happens the Republican party has since lurched to the left on stem cell research and cloning, as has the general population, making Bush more conservative by comparison.
Bush has cut loose a few good court nominees that he should have kept. He has not pursued any cuts in federal funding to abortion providers. He has not pursued parental consent laws on a national scale. So that why I say he has a moderate commitment. Probably a moderate committment is more than most Republicans these days, but it simply means that he has a general bent that direction, but would risk little or no political capital to see policy enacted.
Hillary will express displeasure with some terroist leader and one of her peons will kill him for her.
What is Rudy going to do?
kick some homeless people around? Help women kill their babies?
What is he going to do that Hillary won't do?
If he can walk away from 47,000,000 dead people, smiling, how can I trust him more than I trust Hillary
It's not like she is on her third husband
Powell was pursued to run for POTUS v. Clinton in '96. He chose not to run and IIRC we didn't take the White House that year.
That is what Rudy SAYS now that he's trying to win a nationwide Republican primary election. But if you look at his history of appointing judges, it is the exact opposite of what he SAYS now. I'm sorry, but given his liberal past and his constant flip flops there is NO way that I trust him on this one.
The states have no jurisdiction overturning federal law, that's up to the federal government, and the only way we're going to get that far is by nominating more judges to the bench like Chief Justice Roberts and Assoc. USSC Justice Alito.
True. And there's NO way that anyone in their right mind, who has reviewed Giuliani's history and views on the subject, believes that he is going to appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade.
If you want to throw away 26 years of hard work, that's your business, I'm not here to convince you otherwise.
Right back at you. If you want to throw away 34 years of hard work by electing Giuliani as the Republican nominee, I'm here to be a snare to your feet every step of the way.
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.