Posted on 02/15/2007 10:12:09 AM PST by meg88
Pundits of all political persuasions have been chattering about whether Rudy Giuliani, whose name is invariably modified by the description "social liberal," can overcome the objections of many religious conservatives to win the Republican nomination.
Will his assurances to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito and Scalia be "enough" to put their concerns to rest? Will conservatives overlook social issues in an election focusing largely on foreign policy?
The more interesting question is whether Giuliani can establish a new description of what it means to be "socially conservative." Perhaps to be socially conservative means something more than just fidelity to pro-life and anti-gay marriage positions.
Giuliani has a convincing argument that he is an ethical or cultural conservative who in the end will protect the values that most conservative Republicans hold dear.
What does this mean? It means that he sees the world as a battle between good and evil, and politics as a struggle between decent hard working people and elites who have too little respect for their values -- public safety, respect for religion and public virtue.
His world view is not one of multi-culturalism or moral relativism. He shows no empathy for bullies -- be they Mafia bosses or Al Sharpton. Giuliani, of course, first rose to public prominence by fighting the largest bully he could find: the Mob. Time magazine called his prosecution in 1985 of 11 Mafia leaders the "Case of Cases" and quoted his declared intention to "wipe out the five families."
For him, it is all about who is good and who is not, regardless of whose feathers he might ruffle.
Liberal sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and diplomatic niceties did not prevent him from tossing Yasser Arafat (with great delight) from Lincoln Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Hardly. Rudy or McCain would split the party. Both need to be opposed with all the strength conservatives can muster. Some of us can do more than just gush talking points.
Gee, no kidding Sherlock? I've posted that I don't know how many times.
If Hunter does get money and name recognition, then whatever Rudy support there is will vanish.
The best conservative hope is to run a strong Duncan Hunter campaign and right now it's falling short compared to the anti-Rudy campaign which seems to be in full gear.
If Rudy wins the nomination, the party is hosed. Which is why I promote Hunter or Newt and fight Rudy and McVain. Both need to be done.
I've done both. Some how I doubt you have.
"PURITY OVER VICTORY!"
Rather than have a hard-as-nails former Mob DA and proven can-do leader but one that doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on your "He has to be a pure conservative" list, you'll turn the WH and the country over to Hitlery.
Try again in 2012? Try 2016, maybe even 2024 (after Hitlery's VP Obama gets done with his two terms).
If Rudy wins the nomination, the party is hosed. Which is why I promote Hunter or Newt and fight Rudy and McVain. Both need to be done.
Of course. Thats what I said. Now if Hunder continues at his current lethargic pace, are you also going to agree that the party will be hosed?
Which is why I would advocate more pro-Hunter and less anti-Rudy.
Once again, some of us can do both. Rudy has a massive spin machine ramping up, and someone has to throw the sands of truth into the gears to slow it down.
Rudy - pro-WOT. Pro-PATRIOT Act. Pro-military, pro law-enforcement (to a degree - see "sanctuary city")
Cant' think of too many more. Like I said, it's easier to keep track of their differences than their similarities.
In your case, Emotion over Fact and Reason.
We are not seeking purity. There are many, many problems with Rudy's positions.
To make the absurd claim that we are seeking purity shows you are interested in doing nothing more than spinning and dissembling.
What is it with you guys? It's not a matter of crossed t's or dotted i's; it's a matter of the purpose of the document.
You might as well try to point out the similarities of "married" vs. "shacking up."
That's how you tell the difference between a "discussion" and a "campaign."
;o)
Honestly, there is a part of me which is already preparing for President Hillary. It hurts.
But it's simply the most likely scenario at this point. Rudophiles simply will not be moved no matter what he does or stands for, and we have made it crystal clear that we could never support Rudy, ever, under any circumstance, ever.
So he may very well slip by with a plurality and win the nod, despite the warnings of everyone from Ann Coulter to Jerry Falwell, to the Family Research Council, to the NRA, to Ramesh Punuru. But then reality will hit: The SoCons and Gun Conservatives will desert the election. Rudy will get hit from the right by a Third Party, and his openly Pro-war stance will not sell to the Moderates and Independents who don't want any more war. Hillary, having no moral compass, can simply take whatever position polls well and passes the focus group test, will tell Moderates and Independents everything they want to hear, and will promise them lots of "free" stuff that Rudy won't.
And she will win. She will win because we (SoCon and Gun Conservatives) cannot sacrifice principles and the Constitution at the altar of Rudy under the guise that he would be a benevolent Social/Gun Liberal. And she will win because the Rudophiles simply will not even try to find a consensus candidate who will unite all wings of the party - even 21 months before the election and a year before any primaries. It's Rudy, deal with it. If you don't like it, you're with the terrorists. Your issues don't matter during a time of war, and we've declared perpetual war.
She will win because Rudophiles care more about Rudy than any issue or combination of issues important to us, or even the GOP party platform as a whole, and because we Rudophobes care more about our issues than Rudy Giuliani or any single election. We are trying to find a compromise candidate to satisfy everyone - Rudophiles cannot be bothered with such a concept. Compromise to them mean subjugation to Rudy, nothing more and nothing less.
Hence, I am preparing myself for President Hillary, but praying daily that we will be given someone else besides Rudy as the GOP standard-bearer.
I suppose Rudy expects "moderates" to make up for those votes. But to many voters, I think his tough-guy image will translate into a pro-Iraq-War stance at a time when the war is unlikely to be any more popular than it was in 2006. If they want social liberalism, why not vote for Hillary? If they don't want it, she'll buy their votes with health care or something they do want. And we'll have President Clinton once again.
Reasonable men are prepared to explain the reasoning for their statements.
I explained in some detail why I felt that Rudy is very anti-second amendment, and I provided a link to Rudy's own column to back up my statements.
While reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of the second amendment, what does this comment criticizing the actions of gun manufacturers tell you about Rudy's views on the second amendment?
Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement...
The comment "such as" doesn't explicitly preclude other legitimate purposes, however New York City didn't just ban criminals from owning guns. Rudy's actions weren't targeted at just preventing criminals from owning guns. They were targeted at preventing all but a very select few which were able to get special government permission from owning guns.
When the Constitution was adopted, insane and violent criminals were not allowed to participate in the militia.
New York City doesn't just ban gun ownership by insane or violent criminals, and Rudy's efforts were also not targeted so that they only effected the ability of insane or violent criminals.
But I believe myself to be a reasonable person, and I'm more that willing to listen to as to why you feel that Rudy is not anti-gun or is only slightly anti-gun. But I will ask you to justify your views, and substantiate them with examples.
No skin to peel here.
If the only reason for backing Rudy vs. Hillary is that "he is the only hope of winning", I will GLADLY back him for EXACTLY that reason.
We cannot, must not, give Hillary a win.
And I don't care WHO we have to put up on our side to beat her.
Actually, the guys I'd like to see win would be either Newt or Tom Tancredo. But they ain't gonna win. No way, no how. I know that, and so do you.
I want someone who can beat Hillary. And frankly, I don't care what the victory costs.
I don't care about the "social issues".
I don't care about principles. And yes, I mean that.
I want the Republican candidate to win.
And I want Hillary to lose.
It's that simple. Of course, I'm a simple guy (laughs).
- John
Yes there are. But their problem is, they don't have the horsepower to beat Hillary.
Rudy does.
- John
Actually I am not in the mood to explain anything to anybody who argues, without any other basis, that Rudy doesn't believe in self-defense when he listed reasons the 2nd Amendment is important. It's a specious argument.
But if you want to argue that no 2nd Amendment absolutists believe in the right to own machine guns, turret guns, chain guns, etc., let me know, because there's a guy on Free Republic I'd like to introduce to you.
I think this bears repeating. The mania for Rudy is otherwise inexplicable. I mean, they might as well be cheering for Obama . . . or Joe Biden. Those guys are not Hillary either. But the point is to eliminate social conservatism from the Republican Party and turn it once again into a playground for country-clubbers and libertarians, as it was in pre-Reagan days. These people would back Gerald Ford if he weren't so obviously dead. I'm surprised they haven't united behind Jim Jeffords for Veep.
However, Mitt Romney CAN defeat Hillary.
You win nothing backing a conservative candidate who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. You equally win nothing backing a candidate who's so far left, he's not even conservative (Guilianni).
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.