Posted on 02/14/2007 9:22:08 PM PST by PhiKapMom
HotAir has a must see video of Rudy Giuliani talking about the senselessness of non-binding resolutions and what's wrong with Washington from the Mayor's appearance on Lary King Live. In case you haven't seen him make this case in the last few days, this is must see viewing:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/14/video-rudy-on-non-binding-resolutions/?s=video
Transcript:
GIULIANI: I mean, you can look at the practical and common sense conclusion on that anyway you want. But there's something more important than that. We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect people to make decisions. Here's what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what's my view on that. The nonbinding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds, they have every right to that, that it's wrong, you should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don't like is the idea of a nonbinding resolution.
KING: Because?
GIULIANI: Because there's no decision.
KING: But it's a statement.
GIULIANI: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert does and that's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide. The United States Congress does declarations, the war…
KING: So if you feel that way, withhold funds and that's the way you feel?
GIULIANI: The ones I think have a better understanding of what their responsibility is and are willing to take a risk are the ones who are saying we've got to hold back the funds, we've got to vote against the war or we're for the war. And maybe it's because I ran a government and I tend to be a decisive person. I like decisions. And I think one of the things wrong with Washington is they don't want to make tough decisions anymore. Nonbinding resolution about Iraq, no decision on immigration, no decision on Social Security reform, no decision on what to do about energy independence, no decision. You know why that happens? Because it's unpopular.
Better scratch Duncan Hunter too. He won't carry CA.
Freepmail.
No, if Rudy "gets the nod," that means he will have been able to get more votes than anyone else, which means he will have been able to persuade more people than anyone else. If you believe your God-given unalienable rights are threatened by Rudy, then you are morally bound to make sure your candidate can compete for the votes.
This is what a free society does.
How about McCain? Will he carry AZ? Probably.
Who else?
Ron Paul --- NOPE, he won't carry TX.
Tom Tancredo? Will he carry Colorado?
Brownback? There's a winner, huh?
What a fun game.
I haven't decided yet either. My biggest concern is that Rudy cannot win his home state. Mitt might win in his home state -- at least he has a better chance than Rudy.
And the idea that RWR would be a loser today . . . well, let's just say I disagree.
C'mon now, you said you'd wait for the debates.
Hey, it's you contention and I am only playing along.
Hunter won't carry CA, so he'd have to be the first candidate to win the presidency without carrying his home state, right?
But should this happen, I do believe the more determined among us will continue the fight against liberalism/socialism, etc. It just may be in different venue.
Long live the Republic!
True. I've never seriously considered that guy. Hope I don't get banned.
It's good to know that you remain undecided too. I think it's way too early to choose, although I commend those who have made an informed choice. I just can't until I see them interact with one another and articulate their respective views.
Write off your base at your own peril.
The proportion of Republicans who buy into social liberalism is about 35 percent. That's roughly Rudy's level of support. He's their candidate not because they really believe he's the only candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. He's their candidate because they are social liberals like him. They favor the gay rights agenda, they support hate crime legislation, they generally think guns are icky and scary, and the have few concerns about abortion.
There is no other viable Republican candidate running who more perfectly sees the world the same way they do.
In my view espiecally if Hillary is the Dem nominee, Rudy mkes her dump a ton of money into a state which she probably wouldnt have to against any other Republican, I have to image it would be the same against Obama. Plus Rudy makes New Jersey and Penn. competative and even likely pick ups. His coattails would strech long and far in New England, where virtually our entire House regiment was wiped out last year, maybe we pick back some of those seats, without which rebuilding a majority will be impossible.
I think there is a different dynamic this time. She won't pick up the red states except maybe NM -- AR hates her. I think Rudy puts some of the blue states that barely went Dem in play. Given a choice between Ms. Clinton and Rudy, red states will stay red. I have two Dems on my straight that have said if she wins the nomination, they are registering Republican and so are their six children and their kids. They are 72 and 70 years old and it is no more Clinton in the WH.
NY hasn't been red in years so it is never taken into the calculations. If you are from TX and cannot win TX as a Republican you are in trouble. Elections have totally changed from the past before the Internet IMO.
First, I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to say how much I truly respect you. You're a good man, and a patriot.
May I ask, how deep does this current run? If Rudy did win the nomination, can you see yourself possibly not voting for him this election?
Keep dreamin' those dreams. Nobody has ever won the Presidency without winning his home state. This isn't about picking up a few House seats in New England.
I love liberty. I love free markets and free elections. Don't fear them, Jim.
Is there some reason to believe that he'd lose NY? I wasn't aware of that . . .
...
NY hasn't been red in years so it is never taken into the calculations
Big, Big, Big mistake. I don't want to have to pay for that mistake starting Jan. '09.
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.