Posted on 02/25/2007 7:17:47 AM PST by 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.
Liberals prosecute the Mafia and vow to destroy them? Liberals stand up to Arafat? Liberals support the death penalty? Liberals stand up to Leftist anti-Christian art lovers who put on shows at the Brooklyn Museum that denigrate Christianity? Liberals support waging war against Muslim Jihadists? I've never heard of Liberals doing any of those things. The crime rate is going up under Bloomberg. My borough is experiencing a dramatic increase in violent crime. Bloomberg has stood alongside Al Sharpton and condemned cops. That's the action of a Liberal. You don't need to exaggerate to make your point. I was amazed that someone like him could have been elected in this Liberal cesspool. He fought for his beliefs for years in spite of fierce opposition from true Liberals. Rudy has many Liberal views that I don't share. But, I give him respect for the many truly Conservative things he did while he was my Mayor.
Wrong.
In some political circles across Arizona, Sandra Day O'Conner was known as a pro-choice Republican. Obviously, that word never reached the right people. Even though Reagan did promise to appoint the first SCOTUS opening to a woman, this was a bad decision based on poor advice. Reagan received that boneheaded advice from Meese and Scultz on O'Conner and sadly, the rest is history.
Anthony Kennedy was a pro-life Republican, before he was nominated. He received endorsements from every major pro-life/right to life group in America. After several years on the high court, Kennedy started to pal around with the wrong crowd. He fell in with the liberals. Now it appears he's a pro-choice Republican. Just like Ike wasn't happy with Earl Warren, Nixon wasn't pleased with Warren Burger, and Bush41 wasn't satisifed with David Souter, Reagan wasn't satisfied with Anthony Kennedy.
Reagan did get to appoint Scalia to Justice and Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Two outsatnding picks. Reagan also made an attempt to get a solid conservative named Robert Bork on the SCOTUS. Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter fought him all the way and Reagan lost that battle. How Roberts and Alito will turn out 10-20 years down the road isn't clear. History has a way of fooling around with good intentions.
Great, you and I totally agree that it is indefensible to denigrate CPAC for being insufficiently conservative. So go argue with those on this thread — and in your camp — who are denigrating CPAC for being insufficiently conservative.
whatever the explanations, the results are not in dispute. A pro-life Reagan sent 2 of 3 pro-Roe justices to the SCOTUS, a pro-life Bush 41 sent 1 of 2.
republican presidents don't send litmus test justices up for SCOTUS - they can't be confirmed anyway. they send constitutionalists (when they get it right, as Bush 43 has, regardless of the case outcomes). and yes, pro-choice republican politicians can and do support constitutionalist judges.
Who gets to decide who the "true" conservatives are?
You're right!
ROFL. You said I didn't correct myself. I did.
You stated that no one said that Rudy's achievements were among the greatest urban and fiscal achievements in the 20th century. They did and I gave you the links. You still denied it (because clearly you can't read).
I don't expect you to admit it when you lie and get caught. Neither does anyone else.
I never said that a secular divorce is recognized by the RCC. But nice dodge and change of subject.
You lied when you asked if I found resolution to the objection I had to the traditional Catholic view of marriage. I never objected to any such thing and you know it. You've been caught in a lie of your own making.
It also speaks volumes that you're willing to fun of the Anglican churches which are affiliated with the Catholic church.
I shall ignore future posts from you with this comment: You are a liar, ill informed and a religious bigot.
Picking and choosing from Rudy`s career record as the liberal politico Mayor of NYCity, and attempting to morph him into a conservative won't work. So you can give up on that nonsense. You're never going to convince conservatives of conscience that Rudy is anything but a liberal. A liberal who, BTW, holds the same position on most of the major issues important to conservatives, that liberals Hillary Clinton, Algore, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy support.
As a life long conservative Republican, and a born and raised ex-New Yorker, when I look at Rudy`s politics and policies, I do not see what I what consider to be a record that qualifies him to be the GOP nominee. Let alone, POTUS.
"A liberal who, BTW, holds the same position , on most of the major issues important to conservatives, that liberals Hillary Clinton, Algore, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy support."
I never said that, Iron Lady!
Again. Saying someone or something is "insufficiently conservative", is not denigrating rhetoric. Criticism is at the core of our 1st amendment free speech and political dissent.
LOL ...
APredictable indeed!
Look, you're stuck on the word "denigrate." It is a synonym for "criticize."
If he was the "Liberal politico Mayor of NYCity," why was he hated by NYC Liberals? No one is trying to morph him into a 100% Conservative. You are trying to distort his record by painting him as a 100% Liberal. Rudy holds the same positions on fighting the Muslim Jihadists as Kennedy, Al Gore and Kerry? He wants to retreat the way the DemonRats do? That should be issue #1 for true Conservatives. Again, you don't need to belittle Giuliani's record in order to make your point. The New Yorkers you talked to must have been Liberals, since they saw him as an arrogant jerk and power hungry, authoritarian jackass. I was proud to have him as Mayor. He did a great job. No amount of denigrating nonsense will change that fact.
"Who gets to decide who the "true" conservatives are?"
We seem to have a lot of volunteer deciders around here, don't we?
I guess I am so used to seeing the same thing over and over and over again, I just pass them right by without a read. I mean it's not like they say anything new.
I don't know what sleazy stunt you are talking about, however, if anyone know's a sleazy stunt I guess that would be you.
I am not playing your game, I don't post negatively about the other candidates. I figure if people found their way here they can read up on all the candidates. It's not my place to spoon feed them or tell them how they should cast their vote. They are all big girls and boys more than capable of making that decision on their own.
Its not the results that are in dispute. Hindsight is 20/20. You make up your own rules to revise history. The implication you make is that Reagan purposely sent pro-choicers to sit on the SCOTUS. While an rational argument can be made for SDO, the same can not be said of J.Kennedy.
>>>>>republican presidents don't send litmus test justices up for SCOTUS - they can't be confirmed anyway. they send constitutionalists ....
Oh really now. LOL If you nominate an originalist to the SCOTUS, you're guaranteed to get someone who believes Roe v Wade is bad law. At the same time you're almost assured they'll be a solid conservative who thinks abortion on demand is an abomination and the right to life is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.
>>>>....(when they get it right, as Bush 43 has, regardless of the case outcomes).
Bush hasn't gotten it right. No one knows how Roberts and Alito will turn out years from now. Another attempt to build up Bush43`s record, at the expense of the Reagan legacy.
>>>>>and yes, pro-choice republican politicians can and do support constitutionalist judges
I know what an originalist is. One who believes in original intent or original meaning. I know what a textualist is. That is what J.Scalia calls himself, a original meaning textualist. I know what a strict constructionist is. What J.Thomas and J.Scalia are not. I don't know what a "constitutionalist" means. Maybe it means what Rudy Giuliani stands for. What that is, I don't know.
"Liberals prosecute the Mafia and vow to destroy them? "
Kennedy did, sort of.
NO conservative takes money from NARAL. No conservative sues gunmakers.
I believe an anulled marriage is with church approval, his divorce is not mine to judge. I'm sure there are many good Catholics who were caught up in bad marriages, as there are so many divorced these days. Same goes for his non Catholic wife, there are lots a good marriages out there between those of different faiths, and plenty of bad marriages between good Catholics. Judging people when you don't know the circunstances of their life or situation is very un-Christian like, wouldn't you say?
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.