Posted on 03/05/2007 8:17:21 PM PST by Sunsong
I agree completely
I have no doubt that if he could Rudy would ban guns to the same extent that they are now banned in the UK. And if he gets his hands on the power of the presidency there are many under the radar ways in which he could severely restrict 2nd Amendment rights for all practical purposes without a formal gun ban or even any additional gun laws.
I think he’s acknowledged that already. I’m not a Bush fan on this, he would have signed an assault weapons ban renewal, but a Guiliani Justice Dept. would never recognize an individual right in the 2nd amendment. Something even liberals like Alan Dershowitz and far leftists like Lawrence Tribe recognize. They, of course, would differ with you and I about what regulation is reasonable.
But bad as that would be, and it would be very bad, I am more concerned with his stance on moral issues that will radically change the complexion of the Republican party if he wins the nomination. That change could bring about a 3-way split in party allegiance which would eventually shake out as one large, liberal/socialist party, the Democrats, one smaller, socially liberal/fiscally conservative party, the GOP, and an even smaller party composed of both fiscal and social conservatives and those who fit into both categories.
He’s not my guy, but imo an exaggerated risk. The I’m staying home folk aren’t in the battle, they have no party allegiance. IMO a Republican Presidential winner will own at least one house of Congress, a Dem likely two. Better Rudy with one house that Hillary with both. Personally I hope to cast a vote for Newt in the general election.
That situation might not be all bad if social/religious conservatives could parley their position into the balance of power and more influence on policy and lawmaking than we have now as a scorned, ignored, ridiculed, high-turnout segment of the Republican party. Of course that's the party which neither appreciates nor rewards our votes or our efforts to elect Republicans who we don't necessarily agree with on some points, even though many of them who we help elect forget why and how they were elected as soon as the vote tally is announced….Enough is not quite enough for me at this stage of the game, but if Rudy is the GOP nominee enough will finally be enough and I'll vote for the most socially conservative 3rd party nominee on the ballot after 50 years of voting straight Republican tickets. I don't remember ever signing a pledge to stick with the party even if it were to switch sides on the issues. I have a feeling that I'm not the only one here who is thinking along essentially that same line.
Third party is a half vote for Hillary, imo not sensible, but a legitimate position. Unlike “I’ll stay at home” .
This is a battle that will be won locally. Building from primary candidates for the House and Senate. Primary turnout is always low. If there as many social conservative as some here suggest, and they actually show up to vote, Rudy hasn’t a chance.
Cokie Roberts: "Would you vote in the senate in favor of Mccain / Feingold?" Rudy Giuliani: "Yes, I'm a big supporter of Mccain / Feingold. I have been for a long time."
You wrote;,much more likely to succeed than in trying to tear Rudy down.
Is quoting Rudy verbatim now considered "tearing Rudy down" on FR? If so, I didn't get JimRob's memo, did you?
To be perfectly honest, if my choices boil down to Hillary or Rudy in '08 I have no preference between the two. Either one would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation, and I would just as soon not be responsible for even the infinitesimally tiny affect that my vote would have on bringing that disaster down on the people of America.
Since I don't consider Rudy a given, let's argue that after the primary.
"Blasting liberalism is a time honored tradition on this forum."
Just as is blasting other Republicans. Another time honored tradition on this forum.
Mike Pence went from leading contender for the crown, to "rino" for one single mis-step.
Others called "rino" on this forum have included Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. To me "country-clubber" is intentionally derogatory. I suppose to others "single-issue" is too.
I think the Reagan coalition of "conservative" interests is unravelling. And if it does, America is the loser.
Not sure where you found that. This is from a survey by a pro-abortion organization headed by Faye Wattleton: "Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications." (See http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030701-115636-9509r.htm)
I haven't seen any more recent data trending the other way. If you look at the breakdown, it's not just over parental involvenment. It's abortion itself. Other surveys show that women consistently say abortion makes a woman's life worse.
Some time ago the "gender gap" on the life issues, as well as between Democrat and Republican, was revealed to be non-existent. It was a marriage gap. The 2004 elections showed this clearly.
Anyone who does not understand how conservatives win elections, would not say that we need to become liberals to win. What would be the point? Wave goodbye to 20% of the Republican electorate? And Rudy can still win?
You are the one hiding under a rock!
How did conservatives win the midterms?
And how is a tax-cutting, budget-reducing, Mafia-prosecuting law-and-order mayor, who has promised to appoint constructionist judges to the federal courts and hasn't spoken to the issue of gun control at the federal level, considered a liberal by the ignorami of Free Republic?
What would be the point? Wave goodbye to 20% of the Republican electorate?
I'll wave goodbye to your statistic, culled from thin air.
You are the one hiding under a rock!
Rudy is the Republican frontrunner. Guess again.
Sure he is, if you want to believe the MSM polls.
But the fact is that Rudy is a rumprunner, and he can't get the conservative Republican vote, and look what happened in the Nov. 2006 election when conservatives didn't vote. He can't win without them, and he'll NEVER get them.
What makes you think conservatives would vote for a liberal on the issues like Giuliani? You and all your Rudyite buddies are just dreamin', and if you fail to awaken, you will have played right in to the MSM plan for the defeat of the Republican party.
Birds have more brains than you bunch!
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.