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.
Comparing pro-war, pro-gun and pro-life conservatives to antiwar moonbats? Another low for the Rudy boosters.
And just what kind of values are promoted when the anti war party is in control of the government?
IMO you cannot take the judges Rudy appointed in NY and equate it to justices he would appoint as President. That is an apple and orange red herring thrown up on here by the Rudy haters.
In NYC as many of have pointed out the judges are recommended by a panel the Mayor appoints and come from the NY borroughs where the chances of finding a conservative lawyer who would make the merit roles in any borough is almost slim to none. You go with the hand you are dealt in a very liberal city.
He pushed for Scalia to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and was totally on board for Roberts and Alito. Do you not remember the justices that Pres Reagan appointed -- not exactly shining stars for conservatives. The comment about Gingsberg was taken out of context on here which seems to happen a lot recently.
All we are doing with Rudy is pointing out where he is conservative and some of those are issues a wide cross section of America supports. Rudy has never claimed to be a social conservative or flip flopped like others. He doesn't pander to the pro-life people by submitting a bill in the House that had no business being introduced and was DOA in a Democrat House. Why not submit it when Republicans had the House and Senate? That is pandering. All of a sudden a candidate turns conservative on issues he was never conservative -- that's also pandering.
As long as we are free to post on here as Rudy supporters we will continue to do so. If the day comes, that Rudy supporters are no longer welcome on this site, I would appreciate it if you would let me and others know personally. Until that day comes, we will continue in spite of the spam and half truths that get posted to us and name calling which is juvenile to continue to post for Rudy who is a Republican. If posters cannot handle an honest debate, then they have no business debating if all they can do is throw around insults or post spam IMHO.
If everyone agreed on a candidate in the primary, that candidate would most likely lose in the general. You have to become fire tested in the primary to get ready for the general when there is an open seat in the White House like this time. The more you get out about a candidate's negatives in the primary, the less ammunition you give the DemocRAT Party in the general. If you cover up like the Bush people did on the DUI, it can come back and bite you in the general. Let it all hang out in the primary. Every candidate should be under the same microscope that Rudy is being put under. If something is negative, get it out in pubic NOW not wait for the October surprise before the general election.
Thank you for freely allowing me to express my opinons.
As a wise old woman told me in Oklahoma who was the first Republican, first woman, and first Chickasaw elected to the State Legislature south of Oklahoma City, sometimes you have to agree to disagree.
Oh, that's special. Rudy took guns away from law-abiding Americans. He supported government funding for abortions. He believes in global warming, proponents of which seek to hamstring our economy. And he's in favor of CFR.
Yet somehow he's conservative. And we are not.
I don't think I have seen such destruction of the clear meaning of words outside of Supreme Court decisions.
Oh, that's right. You believe that we don't have a right to judge Republicans.
You must be a social conservative because no other type of Repubican would make such a statement.
Hint: insulting and belittling social conservatives is not conducive to winning their support come November 2008.
I'm disappointed, Rudy. Not one mention about the fact that this demoralizes our troops and aids and abets the enemy. Do you support victory or not? The surge has already begun. Why would Congress pass a resolution, binding or not, on something that is underway?
Easy. When observing the ugliness of some of the most confrontational 'social conservatives'.
It never ends.
They keep saying the social conservatives are single-issue voters. Last time I counted, I found at least a dozen issues. The latest is Rudy being to the left of Al Gore on "global warming".
All the while pushing Rudy on one issue - the WOT.
They say Rudy's the guy even though he pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
Dear OldFriend,
In the first place, in the Clinton regime, Republicans often held fast in opposition to the efforts of the Democrat president.
Under the Bush administration, Republicans have often rolled over for liberal initiatives.
In the second place, if the Republican nominee is part and parcel of the culture of death, then I can have no part in him or his election. It's a matter of principle and conscience.
Finally, those who believe that abortion is a constitutional right and that the state may use its power to re-shape that which precedes it - the family - have an insufficient understanding of human rights to hold the presidency.
It doesn't matter whether these persons have an "R" or a "D" after their name.
sitetest
HAAATERS! HAAATERS!
In NYC as many of have pointed out the judges are recommended by a panel the Mayor appoints and come from the NY borroughs where the chances of finding a conservative lawyer who would make the merit roles in any borough is almost slim to none. You go with the hand you are dealt in a very liberal city.
NYC is 30 percent GOP. It defies logic that Rudy's own board would only be able to put forward pubbies as only four percent of the judicial candidates.
All the time knowing that the guy, Bernie Kerik, is hiding out in South America and staying out of view of the American press.
Hey troll. Soneone turned your rock over again, eh?
Yeah, the disruptors looking to divide the base. You fifth columnist stooges who are taking advantage of the natural competition.
Goebbels would be quite proud of 'em, and I'll bet Carville and Begalla are looking on quite admiringly.
I agree only on the latter part, re: the nerve of some to say RinoRudy is a Republican. I could be mistaken - maybe he is Republican and I'm not. I know this, he and I share very little common ground - so little I can afford not to vote for him under any circumstance.
What, like Jim Robinson? There isn't a dime's worth of difference between what he believes and has been saying and what I've been saying all along.
You're a real flake.
Yeah, sure, I'm a flake but you're a liar. If you could conduct yourself like Jim you would not be accused of being a fifth columnist scum. Try learning from him, liar. I haven't had any bones with what Jim has been saying, in fact, I agree with him. I'm not supporting Rudy, but for the FReak Fifth Columnists, as Reagan Embarrassment said a few posts ago, it will never end. You will continue to try and divide the base, regardless of the candidate.
I've think you've done a nice job explaining why so many of us are opposed to Guiliani.
As you stated, the chance of finding a conservative lawyer in NYC is "slim to none". Since Giuliani is a NYC lawyer the chances that he'll govern as a conservative are also "slim to none".
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.