Rudy To Attend CPAC

The Politico ^ | 2/25/07

[areafiftyone]

February 24, 2007

Rudy To Attend CPAC

I reported a piece last month about how Rudy and McCain were skipping some conservative conferences.  One of the events I mentioned that they had not yet RSVP'd to is the Grandaddy Of Them All -- the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC.  

Turns out Rudy will attend CPAC.  He'll speak to the confab Friday.

[EternalVigilance]

You really can't read, can you? I've been told that time and again. Thanks for proving it for all of us to see.

I can read just fine. You're trying to cover for your guy, who said his policies were "very similar" to Bill Clinton's, by claiming that Bill Clinton's policies were Republican. It's ludicrous.

[FreeReign]

As I recall, he (Hunter) gets a C+ on spending which isn't terribly good.

Yep, voting for 2003 PDB, 2005 Highway Bill and the 2001 No Child left Behind is not conservative.

[Peach]

Bill Simon on Rudy: And when you talk about issues related to fiscal conservatism, which are important to Rudy, I don't know anybody in the public arena who has cut taxes 23 times as Rudy did when he was mayor of New York; who has shrunk the size of government, which he did when he was mayor of New York; reduced the welfare rolls by over 50 percent, which he did when he was mayor of New York. And that's not going into reducing crime by 65% and many other things that he did while mayor in a situation that, before he became mayor, was widely regarded as the second toughest job in American politics, and was widely regarded as an ungovernable situation. I think he did an extraordinary job as Mayor of New York in a Democrat-controlled environment, and being able to function as a fiscal conservative>/B> in that Democrat-controlled environment is an amazing achievement. http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/02/i_watched_rudys.html

[Politicalmom]

Apparently, he was "being loyal to the party", which seems very important to many of Giuliani's supporters.

[Peach]

Rep. Sessions (98% conservative voting record) thinks Rudy is Republican and has endorsed Rudy.

Bill Simon thinks Rudy is a fiscal conservative and thinks it's practically a miracle what Rudy did in Democratic NYC.

I know those facts just about kill you, but I'll take Rudy for President any day over your guy, Alan Keyes, who wanted slave reparations. Not a terribly conservative idea, imo.

[68 grunt]

... Whattaya think?

I think you're a fifth columnist, pretending to be an extreme conservative in order to alienate fellow conservatives, but you know that.

[Peach]

I've watched with amasement as freepers have dumped good conservatives of long-standing under the bus, all in their hysterical quest to deem Rudy a liberal.

The fact that he's a staunch fiscal conservative and law and order conservative seems to have escaped their notice.

[mkjessup]

Giuliani has received and has PASSED the scrutiny of the Public already.

WHAT scrutiny?

Your pal Rudy has plenty of stuff in the closet, starting with his buddy Bernie Kerik, you do remember that guy don't you?

You can rest assured that IF Rudy got the nomination, it would be no time at all before the MSM would be 'exposing' Rudy as corrupt, with shady business dealings, cronyism, you name it, and it wouldn't even matter if it were true or not, because that is EXACTLY what our liberal media unintelligentsia want, which is commonly referred to as the 'bait and switch', they WANT Giuliani nominated, so they can then BURY him with attacks on his personal character and 'mode of living', his performance as mayor EXCLUDING 9/11, you name it, they'll be trumpeting it and who will benefit?

Whoever is the 'Rat nominee, that's who.

"The Public sets the rules"

To paraphrase Capital One, "What's in your goblet?"

[Torie]

Bill Clinton was content to live with the GOP Congress's spending cuts (those were the days weren't they?), and triangulated on welfare reform, so Peach is correct in that sense. The world is not all black and white EV. I know you don't believe in grays, but they are out there, just beyond the line of sight of your horizon.

[jmc813]

Look at the early polls. They are historically accurate that the most dominant and early leader will win the nomination.

Tell that to President Dean.

[dirtboy]

I can see that went right over your head. Most things do.

Areafiftyone was trying to re-write EEE's past views. Ask him yourself.

[M. Thatcher]

Calling some FReepers "insufficiently conservative", isn't the same as denigrating CPAC

I wrote: "I predict you will denigrate CPAC as being insufficiently conservative."

And I'm glad you agree, today, that anyone who calls the CPAC insufficiently conservative should they give Rudy a rousing and positive reception, would be indefensible.

You can call my comments "outrageous rhetoric," but my posts have been civil, reasonable and based on fact.

[FreeReign]

Apparently, he was "being loyal to the party", which seems very important to many of Giuliani's supporters.

I think many here are loyal to the Republican party because that's where we conservatives reside and it is our best shot. I think that loyalty is a good thing.

If anybody thinks that voting for the above three items because of party loyalty is good, I have no argument either way with that.

My point is voting for those three items isn't conservative.

[Peach]

I'm still waiting for an answer. Why did you lie about my religion and my views on marriage?

[Old_Mil]

I don't lie.

You stated, "I'm not going to pretend that a marriage before wasn't valid or was made under some kind of coercion or something" as your reason for disagreeing with Catholic doctrine on the annulment of marriage.

That's certainly your right to do. The whole "I'm an Anglican, not an Episcopalian" thing is a bit of a charade as Rowan Williams is hardly a bastion of conservatism - and besides, until the Episcopalians make a decision about what they are going to do, they are Anglicans.

The more important issue is the light that your affiliations shed on your willingness to support a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual candidate.

[Politicalmom]

So if you discount Hunter because of those, that makes you a 100 percenter, right?

He voted with a not-very conservative President and you disagree with those bills. Now you want to install an even MORE liberal President.

[dirtboy]

Giuliani has received and has PASSED the scrutiny of the Public already.

He hasn't received a single vote yet. That is your most ludicrous claim yet.

[dirtboy]

I've watched with amasement as freepers have dumped good conservatives of long-standing under the bus, all in their hysterical quest to deem Rudy a liberal.

We've watched with disgust as you repeatedly tried to trash Reagan to make Rudy look more conservative.

[Peach]

Did you ever find any resolution to the objection you had to the traditional Catholic view of marriage? Or have you decided to remain an Episcopalian?

That was your original post. So you did lie.

1) Clearly I don't have issues to the traditional Catholic view of marriage. And nothing you can post shows that I do.

What I said, on an Anglican thread about the reunification of the Catholic and Anglican churches, is that I don't approve of the how the RCC handles annulments/disolutions of marriages. That's a big hurdle you're trying to jump there by saying that I object to the traditional Catholic view of marriage. It's pretty much an insurmountable hurdle, not that I expect it to stop you.

2) This conversation all took place on an Anglican thread. And why don't you go on an Anglican thread and tell them that they're really all Episcopalians. That will go over big. /sarcasm

I'd be happy to direct you to one of those threads. And you couldn't be more wrong about the Anglican church, not that I see you're someone who is going to let a few little facts get in the way of your agenda.

Our Anglican church is a parish of the Diocese of the south, Catholic Church, egghead.

So you're on lie #2 in my book. And that's the last I care to derail this thread with religious lies coming from the likes of you.

[FreeReign]

So if you discount Hunter because of those, that makes you a 100 percenter, right?

What? I certainly discount my rating of Hunter based on those spending votes but given the field we have now I wouldn't discount Hunter all together.

He voted with a not-very conservative President and you disagree with those bills. Now you want to install an even MORE liberal President.

What? I want to install a liberal President?

What on earth are you talking about?