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.
What was the spin again, in the context of this thread?
I respect your opinion and will keep this under advisement. Thank you.
I've never been a Buchananite. Nice try at marginalization though.
May I suggest you start by reading the Republican Party platforms on issues such as the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, abortion, taxation, and homosexual marriage?
No organization, political, social, whatever, can survive the sort of contradictions that a Rudy presidency would bring. It would be like having Martin Luther become Pope; like Yasser Arafat be Prime Minister of Israel; like Rush Limbaugh becoming President of Harvard University.
And how exactly do you arrive at such a conclusion? Where's your evidence?
Every primary battle is bruising. But I don't fear the fight, and neither should anyone who believes in his or her candidate. May the best one win.
I'm simply pointing out that the information is the latest spin coming directly out of the Giuliani campaign. Poll-tested, focus-grouped to death, and then peddled here as some sort of reason to support a liberal.
Huh? Pro God, pro life, pro family, pro individual rights, pro constitution, pro small government, pro low taxes, pro defense conservative here. I favor ripping out the unconstitutional big government programs by the roots. Strip the government down to what the founders intended and it'd be about a tenth of the size it is now. And while we're at it, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, abolish the income tax, social security and medicare, and return the power to the states and the people as intended.
If you're talking about Roe vs Wade, etc, that's liberal activism at its worse and should be overturned. The people are perfectly able to handle issues like abortion, marriage, etc, at the state level. Always have in the past and should be able to continue in the future, free of big government intrusion.
All the same, Santorum didn't get re-elected did he? Why - because he lost the social conservatives by supporting Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter. I don't agree with your characterization of s.c. by the way.
The information is a transcript of a partial Rudy interview, which I punched and saw myself. He said he did not find non binding resolutions a useful exercise in the public square.
LOL...
*yawn*
Yeah, what does that nutter JimRob know anyways? /sarc
You found the interview soporific? Aging is annoying. It should be made illegal. Getting tired before midnight is a sin.
You've managed to marginalize yourself, as a read-through of your posts proves.
Look, I LIKE political fights, and that's what a primary battle is. But your stuff is very weak, the equivalent of a perpetual raspberry. Surely you can do better.
Thanks!
JimRob has the whip hand, and is fully willing and capable of handling it, either with a flick or with a stronger hand that causes welts. Jimrob is at once one of the parties, and the judge. Such is life.
I agree completely. Both the far right and the far left want more Government not less interference in the daily lives of people. I am a less government person who believes social issues belong in my home, my church, my community, and my State. I don't send my Congressman to D.C. to deal with social issues.
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.