Posted on 03/02/2007 8:40:17 AM PST by areafiftyone
All day today we are covering speakers and panels at the 34th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. This morning, we'll hear from Republican presidential hopeful former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He will be followed by Reps. Scott Garrett (NJ), Tom Tancredo (CO), and others.
CLICK ON THE MAIN CSPAN PAGE HERE
I know. My comment was about Giuliani, not you.
(I'm basing this comment on MichelleMalkin.com's blog entry about the speech.)
Good speech as far as it went.
But IMHO, Rudy missed a chance here to "hang a lantern on his problem," as the saying goes: He didn't address what he MUST KNOW are conservatives' misgivings about him. Nothing, that is, along these lines:
"You may have heard that I appointed liberal judges as mayor, but lemme tell you ..."
"Some have criticized me for suing gun manufacturers, but ..."
"As to border enforcement and illegal aliens, let's just get it out in the open. I support ..."
So I'm left wondering, wondering.
Now maybe he will address these issues, and soon. But he can't just act like the elephants aren't in the room.
Side note: Obviously I must think Rudy has great strengths, or I'd aleady have written him off. But he's gonna GET written off if he doesn't both address these kinds of issues AND do so in a substantively satisfactory way. The presidential campaign (and the presidency itself) is not a conservative PAC meeting.
I think they're the same ones who want to execute women who have abortions, right?
No, you're not; but you go WAY overboard; you are infuriated because people are chosing the way you want them to.
It is unbelievable how gullible some people on this site are nowadays.
Well, they seem to be seeing through you.
I believe Rudy is "conservative" on more issues than his loudest detractors will acknowledge.
He mentioned every one of them in this speech.
But the speech highlights through absense all of those areas where Rudy is not a conservative.
I can enthusiastically back Rudy in a general election, despite his liberal positions on a host of issues.
But I'm not ready to say that being a good speaker and having the right view on a few points is enough to win me in the primary. Hunter is much better on the issues, Romney is as good a speaker and more conservative, Gingrich is every bit as smart and has much better position on a broad range of issues.
Heck, Hagel is a lot more conservative than Rudy is. So is Brownback and Huckabee.
Clinton was a great speaker who could make people swoon by the way he spoke, if you didn't listen too closely to what he said, or if he was speaking on an issue where he was in agreement with you. I do think we need to pick someone who can speak more clearly this time around (Cheney does that very well, btw), but that's just the first step.
In the general, I can way two bad options, but in the primary I'm not ready to give up the entire abortion issue on a whim. If Rudy wasn't so completely pro-abortion, if his position was one indicating a tough struggle -- but he sounds like a man who has no respect for life if it means inconveniencing the sexual appetite.
Well, if he keeps that up, the "noisey right" will probably not acknowldege that Rudy exists in November 2008. One is much more important than the other.
Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything? No wonder some folks on here call you "Eternal Viciousness" behind your back.
What has killed more people, terrorism or abortion?
Maybe, maybe not. If Rudy were to win big over Hillary for example and we get back Congress, the attitude among a lot of people might be quite different than it is today.
I think I have heard that song and dance, too. Alan Keyes, in one of his most remarkable gaffe in the IL senate race, likened women who have had abortions to terrorists.
I believe abortion to be very wrong, but framing it like that is well into cocopuff conservative land.
All they're doing is making converts towards Rudy.
I wonder how that plays with the freedom conservatives, the truly strict conservatives who actually have trouble with the Patriot Act because of its strong blow to our individual liberty.
Like the liberal episcopalians are looking for a god who doesn't actually require them to sacrifice, or have any real rules they have to follow ?
Sure, I'm very positive about conservatism and conservatives.
However, if I'm known as "vicious" against liberalism, so be it.
Is it really necessary to always identify humor with a sarcasm tag? I think you are taking this far too seriously. In any event, I answered your question, even though the original statement was posted to someone else.
Hmmm. Not pro-life. Not pro-gun-rights. Pro-CFR. Pro-global warming. Pro-special gay rights. Pro-hate-crimes. Pro-Amnesty. Pro-sanctuary city. Anti-federalist.
Gee, I can't imagine why ANYONE would question how such a candidate JUST MIGHT NOT be a conservative. /sarcasm
I don't really care abut that --- I am more concerned right now at what they're doing to FR. GOOD posters have gone into lurk mode and that is an undeniable fact.
I can't argue with you. You make valid points. And you do it in a civil and respectful way. You're to be commended.
bookmark
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.