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
That last point is a sound one, no question about it. I have noted on FR, for example, that there is nothing particularly 'conservative' about what many Freepers think about divorce policy. I've seen people have a complete disregard for property rights, for example, in their zeal to punish a cheating spouse by taking away all of their interest in marital property.
That may be some social values reflected there, but to call that particular flavor 'conservative' is tenuous, at best.
Oh, cmon, you know the answer to that; that's .00000009 of all cases, and all the rest are murderin' sluts.
smile. America is NOT a religion. It is a country. But you can't tell them that. They want to control everyone - and it's clear that they also hate everyone. They hate us and no doubt fear us and so they want to control us - and it's not working(s). So they are getting vicious. It's all very predictable - what is so tragic - is that it is allowed here. So someone checking out this site - thinks that what conservatism is all about - hatred and control.
Oh, man, I know exactly what you are saying! I feel the same way!
From RedState blog:
I'm not here to convince you that Mayor Giuliani is a longstanding full-scale, across-the-board conservative; we all know his record. But his remarks in this 1999 tribute to President Reagan, back while Rudy was still mayor of an 80% Democratic city, provide a glimpse of his fealty to (most of) the basic principles of the GOP and its greatest modern leader:
On the rule of law and the Constitution:
President Reagan's philosophy is traceable directly to the Framers of the Constitution. When one of his foes accused him of having a "19th century attitude" about politics, President responded: "That is a totally false charge. I have an 18th Century attitude." [Laughter.] And he continued with a long discourse on the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers.
After all, it was the Framers of our Constitution, our Founding Fathers, who designed a system of checks and balances between and among the three branches of the Federal government-and between the federal government and the states. And they did that to preserve our freedom, because they understood, as Ronald Reagan reminded us, that the power of government, can be for the good or it can be for the bad.
President Reagan did more than any President since Lincoln to restore the checks and balances instituted by the Framers. He appointed judges faithful to the Constitution and the rule of law-many of them-and that's one of his great legacies. And he almost single-handedly resurrected the 10th Amendment to the Constitution-that had been ignored for many, many years. That clause says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Because Ronald Reagan put people before government.
On federalism:
"State sovereignty," he argued, "is an integral part of the checks and balances designed to restrain one group from destroying the freedom of another."
He pledged that he would "return authority to the local communities-and he kept that pledge. He once said that "the people of San Francisco know better than anyone in Sacramento where a freeway in San Francisco should go." He said that when he was governor. The same thing is true of New York City and Albany, I should say . . . and of New York State and Washington.
As President, President Reagan returned to governors, to mayors, to local officials, the powers that had been denied to him as the governor of California, and I believe that's how the great American comeback of states and cities began.
For example, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and Michigan Governor John Engler have completely reformed their state's welfare systems and turned them in an entirely different direction from dependency to self-sufficiency. In my state, Governor George Pataki has cut taxes more than any other governor in our history. And when you cut taxes in New York, that is a total change in direction.
+++
And what began in the state houses eventually reached city halls.
+++
Ronald Reagan didn't accede to those requests in looking for a federal handout. Instead he gave them something infinitely more valuable: the means to tackle their own problems, and to take charge of their cities' destinies by handing power and accountability back to them by reducing the role of the federal government.
It would take a new generation of mayors assuming office before the potential of that gift was realized, but that new generation came. And now cities like New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and Philadelphia and Indianapolis are enjoying a reawakening. And it's a reawakening that was made possible by the power that Ronald Reagan helped to devolve to governments-to state governments and local governments, the mayors and the county executives, and the council members . . . a reawakening made possible by a great deal of confidence in people and in local government.
On taxes and school choice:
I think the former-the expansion of freedom at home-is probably best reflected in the amount of money he returned to people in tax reductions. Wherever possible and reasonable, he always preferred to reserve to individuals the choice of when, where and how to spend their money, rather than have the government make that choice for them. You all remember, I'm sure, the first year that he was in office, the tremendous battle over the major tax reductions that were necessary. And I think you all remember the tremendous ridicule that took place in some parts of the media and elsewhere of "supply-side economics" and "trickle-down economics."
The reality is that what Ronald Reagan was doing was expanding freedom for people. What he believed is that you will make a better choice about the spending of your money than government will make, and that when we give some of that money back to you, we're trusting you more. We're saying that you will make a better choice than government will make. And if you can release that kind of creative energy in society, there's no telling what it can accomplish.
What it's accomplished is a major revision of our economy, including the budget surpluses that we see today.
It's even convinced a city like my city that we should reduced taxes. When I came into office, we had the highest Hotel Occupancy Tax in the country. We were driving people out of the city by charging them 21-and-1/4% over and above . . . no, we don't charge it anymore, don't get upset. [Laughter] I don't want you to be driven away. So don't get upset.
I fought very hard the first year that I was in office to reduce the tax. And we've reduced it by 30%. And now we collect $90 million more from the lower tax than we did from the higher tax. So who says that "supply-side" economics doesn't work? Of course it works.
+++
I wish that we followed that in dealing with American education, which is going to be a major challenge of the next century . . . that we follow the notion and the idea of giving people more freedom: giving them more freedom of choice about the education of their children rather than having the government dominate that decision; giving them the freedom to have more alternatives for an education; putting the performance of children ahead of the job protection of the people in the system. [Applause] These are all ideas and thoughts that have been introduced into the agenda of American politics by Ronald Reagan.
On Reagan's impact in changing the political debate:
There can be no doubt that Ronald Reagan's election and presidency were a driving force behind this realignment of America, of American politics.
And I don't think the success of his own party, the Republican Party, my party, is the full extent of the Reagan Realignment. The impact of the change wrought by President Reagan-much like Franklin Roosevelt-has dominated the politics of even the other political party.
President Clinton is still reacting to what President Reagan accomplished almost 20 years ago. Remember he ran for election in 1992 as a "New Democrat" . . . a moderate Democrat. He ran for reelection in 1996 claiming reforming welfare and moving toward the middle. None of that would have happened without Ronald Reagan and the effect of Ronald Reagan.
In fact, it was Bill Clinton who made the Reagan Realignment official when, in January of 1996, he famously declared to a standing ovation to the joint Houses of Congress that "the era of big government is over." [Laughter.]
Well, he said it. [Laughter.]
And we believe it. Well, when even a Democratic president is forced to say that, you know things have changed.
On the Cold War:
Remember that when President Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was on the march. Its leaders were flush with all the confidence that the West seemed to lack. President Reagan realized that it was crucial that we deploy intermediate missiles in Europe in order to reduce the threat of the Soviet Union.
He was met by tremendous criticism at home. I remember, the week before that was done, ABC had a mini-series called The Day After that was so bad that teachers had to ask that their children not watch the mini-series. It was about the destruction of the world, creating the fear that if we deployed the intermediate range missiles toward the Soviet Union, that the world would be destroyed.
A lesser man, a lesser president would have stepped back in the face of the criticism. But Ronald Reagan didn't budge. He went ahead with the deployment. And the Soviets learned that it wasn't just his rhetoric that was strong. So was his will. So were his convictions. So was his ability to convince others that he was right.
+++
So he proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative-and he was laughed at for it by some. But he stuck to it. And he stuck to it when Congress tried to oppose it, and he stuck to it in negotiations with the Soviets.
On the lessons of Reagan's foreign policy:
All of the things that Ronald Reagan fought for and all of the things that he made part of the American political agenda are just as important today: a missile defense system is as vital now as it was when President Reagan first proposed it fifteen years ago-maybe more so given the proliferation of nuclear weapons under President Clinton, many more nuclear weapons and nuclear capacity for China, India, Pakistan. So the concept of defense against nuclear weapons that Ronald Reagan first announced to the American people is just as important today as it was then.
And Congress needs now to look at revitalizing our armed forces. I truly believes that when President Clinton leaves office, he'll be one of the few presidents in this century-not the only one, but one of the few-who will hand off the American military to the next president less developed, less funded, and with much lower morale than it was handed to him by President Bush. And the next president is going to have to rebuild much of what is needed for our military in the same way that President Reagan had to do that in 1980. It's a shame that we forgot that lesson. And it's a shame that the Clinton Administration took a peace dividend so soon and at such great a price. But the problem has to be addressed, and it's important that we remember the principles of Ronald Reagan in doing that.
President Reagan had a clear vision of America's place in the world. He knew that we are truly the "indispensable nation"-and he wasn't afraid to say it, and he wasn't afraid to articulate it. His foreign policy had a sense of precision and principle, and even for those who disagreed with him, they knew the direction America would take. The next president is going to have to rebuild a foreign policy similar to that, because he's going to inherit a sense of confusion and a lack of purpose about America. And like President Reagan, he's going to have to rebuild that. But at least the next president will have the example of Ronald Reagan to follow.
Conclusive proof that Rudy is a Reaganite? Of course not. Words and deeds both matter. But it's all part of the picture that we have to get of all our candidates.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1794002/posts
Some of these are a hoot. Pro-states rights? Rudy had NO PROBLEM backing a liberal gun control seeking to impose federal guidelines on states.
Pro-freedom? His gun-grabbing speaks to that lie.
Pro-low taxes? He's refused to sign the tax pledge.
Pro-fiscal responsibility? He massively increased NYC's debt load.
Pro-going after the terrorists? He pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country. Pro-conservative justices? Not backed by his history as mayor.
Rudy gives conservatives at most 20-30 percent. He probably offers more to Dems.
I've been called worse. :-)
When are you planning to grow up?
Do you think Jim enjoys your tattling pings?
Whenever I want to post to Jim or write to Jim, I do so.
Don't whine to me about Rudy supporters. Some happen to be good and long time friends of mine. At least they're FOR their candidate and don't waste their time bad mouthing others.
If it's a total lie, why did he 'quit' saying it? You can't 'quit' saying something you never said.
I see the Dubya brand of mental clarity and logic is infectious in some pockets of FR.
Stop trying to make a big deal out of this.
abortion isn't a social issue, unless you think that we should handle mass murders starting within our own families.
Abortion is a law-and-order issue, it's a freedom of life issue, it's a profoundly legal issue. IT's not some question of sin where we can debate the relative morality of doing one thing or another.
There is NO morality in killing. If you wanted to debate the fine points of whether we should oppose contraception, or if abortion is only a sin after implantation, or after the heart is beating, or if we should support embryonic research or not, or if in-vitro fertilization is a form of abortion, that I could understand -- there's some interesting lack of clarity in some of those issues.
But on the broad concept of abortion, there can be no doubt that supporting abortion-on-demand, supporting partial-birth-abortion, is not a moral question.
No, I just don't care for posters who seem to possess this childlike mentality.
Wikipedia. Gasp. No, anything but that.
Dirtboy goes nearly hysterical with fright when someone posts from Wikipedia.
No doubt about it, but that will be true no matter who the GOP nominee/president is. We have to play our best hand, and work at undermining these liberal MSM tactics.
The evidence shows this is not particularly helped by a pro-life President; we've had Reagan and both Bushes - though they did try, to their credit, this has not created the necessary political movement to get rid of abortion entirely.
I will tell you what has created an outcry for revising abortion legislation in Britain, and it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister; when the new, detailed pictures of babies in the womb were released, even the author of the legislation which liberalised abortion in the first place (in the 1960s) called for the time limit to be revised down from the standard 24 weeks.
In America, the people who are best in a position to change policy is the Supreme Court; conservatives can make a deal with Rudy. He has said that he will appoint a Scalia or Alito to the Court - very well then, if he wants social conservative support, he should keep his word.
Now, as for the world after Roe vs. Wade. Because of the Tenth Amendment, this is not a matter that will be finally settled on a federal bench - rather like gay marriage, it will be decided on a state by state basis, and like gay marriage, likely throttled. It is not just I who says this, it is in Rush's "The Way Things Ought to Be".
Ivan
You and I both onyx.
The reporter quit saying it. It was quite clear in my post who I was referring to.
It's mentally impossible for ANY of them to say anything positive about anything.
We don't call them The Unappeasables for nothing.
Why on earth are you being so rude?
Some people believe in a loving God. Imagine that.
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.