Posted on 02/21/2007 11:03:00 AM PST by BunnySlippers
I am just curious and wonder if Duncan Hunter's name was included in this poll for folks to choose from along with the other names listed. Especially since Rep Hunter is from California and is a candidate for President.
I'm not suggesting you select only one. Who is acceptable to you that is a candidate?
I've been here for a VERY long time and interested in and involved in politics for many, many, decades longer.
There is NOT " some very bad news for Rudy there" at all. Most people have known who he is and all about him for years.
Don't know about Florida but as of right now, Ohio would vote 'rat, easily. If the vote were held today, what blue state would possibly go red, short of a Giuliani or McCain candidacy?
I go to church and associate with others who are regular church goers.
For your next rick, why don't you tell me my shoe size? :-)
Today probably none. Come election day 2008 we'll see.
Fancy List, but I bet you can't put it into a nifty table like Spiff does.
LOL
And also I just can’t understand why so many are making Rudy look more liberal than he really is on social issues and why they refuse to acknowledge he is a conservative on just about every non-social issue and I certainly can’t understand how social issues are more important than all the other issues when choosing a President since the President has very little influence on social issues. And I certainly can’t understand how being “perfect” on social issues is more important than electability.
To begin with, Rudy is AGAINST gay marriage. On Hannity and Colmes on February 5th he said, “Marriage should be between a man and a woman. [It's] exactly the position I've always had.” Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. And to top things off, marriage is a state issue. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.
Rudy is not the abortion on demand liberal people make him out to be. He is against partial birth abortions, contrary to the misinformation some on here are posting. On Hannity Rudy said “Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld(by the USSC). I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be.” And as soon as Rudy got finished saying this, Hannity acknowledged, “There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion”. So there we have, Rudy is against partial birth abortions. Rudy is also for parental notification. He also acknowledged this on Hannity. So Rudy certainly isn’t for abortion on demand.
In general on abortion, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.” Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned we know that this won’t stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
I'll admit his past gun stances are bothersome but he has say that what's good for NYC isn't good for all of America. However, he isn’t the anti-Second Amendment Nazi he is made out to be. On Hannity Rudy said, “I understand the Second Amendment. I support it. People have the right to bear arms.” Rudy isn’t going to try to ban guns or come take anyones guns. Are Democrats pushing for gun control now that they have control of Congress? No. And nobody has pushed for gun control since Gore lost the election in 2000. Everyone knows its a losing issue and I don't see any push for gun control by anybody in the near future.
Rudy is great on all the other issues, the ones where the President actually has the power to make a real difference, like the WOT. He's fiscally responible(he turned a NYC's deficit into a surplus), a tax cutter(he cut over 20 taxes as Mayor), conservative on domestic policies(he dropped 600,000 people off welfare, cleaned up the rampant crime as Mayor and supports school choice, ect), for smaller government and government deregulation, for social security reform, supports strict constructionist judges, and is 100% perfect when it comes to his stance on the WOT and all other foreign policy which by the way is 100 times more important than worrying about what some gays people are doing, gay people that doesn't affect our lives at all!!!
Finally, Rudy is, IMO, the only Republicans that can win in 2008. So take your pick, Hillary or Rudy. Sure, we can "choose" another Republican but he will lose to Hillary. Back to Rudy, if he's elected President and fights terrorist like he fought crime as Mayor can you imagine the results we will in the defining struggle of our generation, the fight against Islamic fascism. Everyone know for a fact Hillary will surrender the terrorist and hand our foreign policy over to the UN and EU and poor Israel would be left out to dry. Rudy is extremely competetent and a great leader and there is nobody I want more as Commander in Chief. So I think we need to stop worrying about gays, people that don't affect our lives life at all. We need to worry about Islamic fascism, the people that want to kill us all, and vote for someone that will go after them.
Many in the conservative community are open to Rudy. Sean Hannity is certainly open to Rudy and likes Rudy. George Will wrote this about Rudy, ““His eight years as mayor of New York were the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years, on welfare and crime particularly." Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes." Heck, even Rush is open to Rudy. Rush said, “"He's a smart cookie ... Here's the thing about Giuliani," he said on his radio show the other day. "Everybody's got problems with him ... But when you start polling him on judges, he's a strict constructionist ... That will count for quite a bit. He can fix the abortion thing ... So I think he's got potential--particularly, folks, since we're still going to be at war somewhere in 2008." If Rush is at least open to Rudy then he realizes Rudy isn’t that bad.
And apparently even Reagan liked Rudy. Rudy was Reagan's Associate Attorney General and was awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, putting him along side Margaret Thachter, Billy Graham, and Bob Hope as receiptants of the award. Speaking of Ronald Reagan, Reagan said this about compromise in his autobiography An American Life: "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Yes, Rudy may be alittle bit of a compromise but in reality, everytime you vote it’s a compromise. Nobody is ever going to find a candidate or a President they agree with 100% of the time, even Ronald Reagan. Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants in 1986 and I’m sure the vast majority of Freepers disagree with that. Reagan even appointed O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Nobody is perfect. The only thing we can do is find the Presidential candidate we agree with the most on the most important issues and issues the President has the most influence over, the one that is the most electable, and the one that would make the best and strongest leader. That’s Rudy.
Back to Ronald Reagan for a second. In the above excerpt he used the term “radical conservatives”. So apparently Reagan thought that conservatives that were all or nothing, unappeasable, unpragmatic, and unrealistic are “radical”. I do too. Lets review history. World War II ended in 1945. SEVEN years later in 1952 the most popular general of the war, Dwight Eisenhower, won in a landslide despite far right extremist unpragmatic Republicans not supporting him in the primaries. History always repeats itself. I must now end the overly long post by quoting Dennis Miller, who also supports Rudy, “Rudy would have the best bumpersticker, ‘I’m the man the men in caves don’t want to win’”. Enough said
Oh come on now. Be serious. You actually believe that we DH supporters are bigger bullies than the folks who can't wait to jump into a Hunter thread with "he can't win," "you people are delusional," "he's only at 1%," etc.? You and me both should be praying that our country's future isn't in the hands of people who would discount a candidate because some of his supporters were mean to them. That sounds like the touchy-feely party of Bill Clinton to me.
As for complaining about the tone of the arguments, how about setting an example by offering an insult-free, reasoned argument as to why you believe Duncan Hunter can't or won't win. Then I challenge you to respond point-by-point to a reasoned counter-argument as to why he can, given certain circumstances (see, few if any DH supporters are as sure that he will prevail as you are that he can't/won't; we see too much volatility in both parties to make such predictions).
Go ahead, take a shot at it.
Right now, all but McCain or Giuliani. I am still hoping that Haley Barbour, Fred Thompson and others will enter the race.
I don't know any ricks, but I must say you must attend a very liberal church if you have no problem with abortion, partial birth abortion or homosexual civil unions and/or marriages. I don't know anyone who believes that those are acceptable.
Judging from the quality of the judgment displayed in your postings so far, I can believe you are an expert in electoral disasters. "veteran in political wars!" Where? Highschool? You need to take some advice from somebody because you're clearly still pretty wet behind the ears.
I served as a campaign advisor in several elections, from congressional to Presidential, including three Reagan races. What are your credentials?
Dear BunnySlippers,
"Why did the Vatican grant the annullment."
Because Mr. and Mrs.(I) Giuliani requested the annulment, and they had grounds for it.
Mr. Giuliani claims that he thought they were third cousins when they married, but it turned out that they were second cousins, once removed, and for a valid Catholic marriage, a dispensation must be granted. No dispensation had been granted.
However, it was unnecessary for Mr. and Mrs. Giuliani to divorce and seek the anulment. They could have also asked for the dispensation upon discovering the defect, and had their marriage made valid.
But that isn't what Mr. Giuliani wanted. He wanted to end his 14-year marriage, as he'd already hooked up with Ms. Hanover. The fact that he'd married his second cousin once removed rather than his third cousin was a fortuitous accident of history that gave him cover to divorce his wife, seemingly in obedience to unbending Church law.
He wasn't following Church law. Church law permitted him to obtain a declaration of nullity for his first marriage, but did not require it.
Of course, then he was married to Ms. Hanover for a while, and got tired of her, and dumped her overboard, while fooling around with Ms. Nathan.
His pattern seems to be that he lasts about a dozen or 15 years with each woman. Perhaps we'll be "treated" to the first divorce of a sitting president near the end of his first term, or during his second?
Unlike folks who seem to learn from a bad first marriage, and go on to long and successful second marriages, Mr. Giuliani is a serial polygamist.
sitetest
ROFLMAO! Never! Basically I don't have the HTML expertise to do it. LOL! I can do it in Word, Excel or Powerpoint but ask me to do it in HTML and forget it.
I don't care what you think. I never worked in a losing election. Reagan didn't win the nomination in 1976, so I worked for a congressman, who unseated a multi-term incumbent.
Does not matter what Calif does, I believe NH has a state law that automatically clicks their primary 10 days before all other primaries. Thus we would have a primary 10 days before the Calif. primary.
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.