Posted on 03/02/2007 6:14:30 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
I seem to be detecting a trend. There's a current in the MSM that fears a Rudy Giuliani candidacy, perhaps sensing he might be best positioned to defeat the Dem candidate. They console themselves by clinging to the belief that the GOP won't nominate Rudy, or at least won't avidly support him if he is the candidate, given his liberal positions on some issues.
This evening's Hardball offered a perfect example of the phenomenon in the person of Craig Crawford. Time and again, the MSNBC analyst returned to the theme:
View video here.
"Maybe I've just covered these social conservatives and these Republican races for too long to believe they're suddenly going to forget about that stuff, no matter how much they like Giuliani otherwise."
You know, I've had that question thrown at me so many times - I feel like people that ask it of me are holding a gun to my head & saying "Vote for whomever you want - but if you don't vote for Rudy - I'm going to shoot you."
Thanks for giving me no choice.
I honestly don't know what I will do. If Rudy is the candidate - I've got a lot of thinking to do about the direction the Republican party is headed. I would have to do a lot of praying & soul searching before I would know what I would do.
But I think I'd prefer Duncan Hunter. From what I'm seeing, he is the Reaganite in this election cycle.
It's not that I mean to give you no choice, I'm just raising a reasonable hypothetical. Personally I would happily vote for someone who pledges to nominate people like Alito and Roberts over someone who pledges she would never do so.
On point. Hillary has 49% favorable, 48% unfavorable. The unfavorables aren't going anywhere, but many of the favorables probably also like Rudy pretty well. He could bleed off significant swing vote support from hillary or obama. If the Right takes its medicine and stays on task, 'rats could be looking at a bleak picture for 2008.
Bull.. Rudy McRomney will ensure Hitlery gets elected..
AND most know it.. Only republicans are oblivious..
I guess I just have a real serious problem trusting a candidate that thinks it's OK to murder innocent unborn babies & really, about 80% of what he stands for - I don't agree with.
I know. I know he says "he is personally against abortion, but doesn't feel it is his right to restrict someone else from it". The standard liberal cop-out. Abortion is one of the main reasons I became a Republican in the first place. It is one of my core principles & I just can't relate to a candidate that personally thinks a woman should have the right to do it. And it's even worse when he says he is personally against it, but would appoint judges that might help to return it to the states. That tells me he is a liar & would say anything to get my vote - that he is pandering to me & that makes me even madder than if he would just stick to his principles in the first place.
There are other issues I can bend a little on (but not much) - but abortion is black & white - there are no gray areas. It is murder in my book.
DUNCAN HUNTER 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!
Giuliani is big city liberal Democrat running in the wrong party.
I'm also pro-life. Rudy is saying that he would nominate to the Supreme Court people like Roberts and Alito, who would tend to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. In contrast, the Dem candidate would be sure to nominate people who would vote to uphold Roe. Isn't that significant to you?
Thanks for the link.
So are we stuck with a case of voting for who's the least evil in this round?
Fiscal/liberal social conservative....miniW. Worth 30% of the general.
Last years worn outlemon.
I don't believe Rudy. I don't trust him. Why would someone nominate judges that don't think like he does? What sense does that make? It is not consistent with integrity. That sets off alarm bells in my head.
"Why would someone nominate judges that don't think like he does?"
Good question to which there's a good answer. It is very possible for a good legal mind like Rudy to be pro-choice while at the same time believing that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Roe found that the Constitution created a constitutional right to abortion, and honest pro-choice people, such as Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, recognize that the Constitution created no such right.
So it would be entirely logical for Rudy to appoint strict constructionist judges who upheld the Constitution, even if it went contrary to his personal belief on abortion. And remember, even if Roe is overturned, that would not render abortion illegal. It would simply return the question to each of the states, which is the way things were for almost 200 years till Roe.
I think you're wrong about his social-issues stances anyway. He was the mayor of New York. I doubt very highly that he is any danger to conservative social values as POTUS. Foe one, he knows he'd never get reelected if he dicked around with the core issues. There's really only one major area that a president can affect social issues, and that's the courts. He's on the record saying he would appoint originalists. There's also the obvious point, that 9/11 changed a lot of how he tackles issues. (think Ron Silver).
Rudy is no monumental danger. I'm as right as they come, and I think when it comes down to brass tacks, he's the right person to make the hard decisions. McCain gets off on being the MSM's favorite republican, and he's their favorite because he takes potshots at the GOP all the time.
I don't think it's a compromise to support Rudy. I think he'd be a great chief executive. The important thing is to re-take the congress.
I think it's going to come down to Hillary and Rudy, and it would be just like some of those "can't see the forest for the trees" republicans to run some third party joker and deliver the white house back to the Clintons. At this point in time, it's important to have an indesputable leader...who can win. As much as I"d like to see Tancredo get in, I don't think he can. None of the GOP candidates have name recgonition except for Rudy and McCain.
And if somehow Obama beats Hillary...Obama is Jimmy Carter redux...a naive political amateur whose goofy idealism will be the death of us.
I'm not sure I understand this; I've had many a bright and level headed FReeper tell me that the MSM is Rudy's biggest ally . . .
Are you sure glgb, that you are not simply an MSM plant, a gun-grabbing, gay-loving, abortionist-in-training, traitorous liberal?
"If the Republican party nominates a pro abortion guy, I will drift away."
I'm sure a small minority will, but I heard this exact same talk on this board for many months before the Congressional elections. Posters thumping their chest saying "I'm so mad at the Republicans sell-outs because of (immigration, spending, etc) I'm going to vote 3rd party or stay at home."
And yet when election day rolled around, there was NO talk on this board about staying home. In fact, I recall some of the same posters who talked about staying home were loudly supporting the home team. It will be the same with Rudy.
As do I, and several others.
Of course, Rudy will put a stop to their plans of a Hillary/Obama adminstration.
It is very possible for a good legal mind like Rudy to be pro-choice while at the same time believing that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
***In that case Rudy is a liar. And he loses my vote.
From the video I posted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM
Culture of life:
ABC clip:
George Will: "Do you think Roe v Wade was good constitutional law?"
Rudy Giuliani: "Yes I believe, I believe it is."
Cnn Clip:
Announcer: "Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports."
Rudy Giuliani : "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing."
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.