Posted on 03/10/2007 5:42:54 AM PST by veronica
For the moment, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sits on double-digit leads over the rest of the Republican presidential-hopeful pack in several national polls.
Why?
"It appears to me that Rudy is going aggressively after the conservative vote," says Pennsylvania Republican and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. "He has not ceded that ground to anybody."
Santorum, known nationally for his social conservatism, says Giuliani does a good job of reminding people how he governed as a conservative on crime, welfare and taxes in New York City.
Santorum also believes Giuliani has scored points on social issues with his comments about judges and Supreme Court justices.
"Rudy understands that, on those issues, the courts are where conservatives have been losing the battle," he says. "If he is going to be appointing judges in the Scalia-Thomas (mold), then he is sending a very positive message to conservatives that he understands the importance of having the Constitution interpreted for what it says and not for what people want it to be."
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Bovine scat. Your thread jumping posts attacking Jim Robinson posts reek of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Peach was correct; I have proven it. The fact that you don't have the class to say so reveals a great deal about you.
OT: Every time I see those pictures of Rudy in drag they bring back memories of the 4 or 5 crossing the line ceremonies I went through while in the Navy were some of the Shellbacks, those who had never crossed the equator, would dress up in drag to entertain the rest of the crew. It was always a good laugh...
At least he didn't dress in drag when he married his cousin.
Correct to thread jump? Correct to attack Jim Robinson? Correct not to give him the courtesy of a ping?
Your hysteria is getting the better of you.
Big DH bump
The fact remains, Peach correctly noted Jim's words, as did I.
Clearly, you don't like being reminded of those 1999 words, and I don't blame you.
I've never hit the abuse button since I've been here, but if I could, I'd ban your sorry ass. Knock off your damn name calling.
"Peach was correct; I have proven it."
You've proven nothing.
Urbandictionary.com in it's many definitions of a troll says this:
"One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue."
Read her posts. The shoe fits rather perfectly if you ask me.
Post #310. Open and shut. Peach referenced what Jim said; I provided the reference. End of story, whether you admit it or not.
Standard name calling and hypocrisy. And ban Jim Robinson while you're at it.
Rudy-bots are delusional wannabe censors.
Hey- I'm a Bible thumper from Ohio :)
We haven't left the GOP, hopefully the GOP hasn't left us.
We can make a difference if we get the word out that we don't have to settle for a Democrat like Rudy as the next Republican Presidential candidate.
I'm telling everyone I know about Hunter. Most people haven't even heard of him. All they hear is RUDY, RUDY, RUDY. Spread the word.
You were previously claiming it was a word for word quote.
Truth twisters for Rudy.
Maybe the theme could be:
ANYBODY BUT RUDY????
Makes sense! We don't need two Democrats (Hillary OR Obama and Rudy) running for President in '08!
Rudy supporters don't dare discuss his history. They're even worse than Arnold-bots.
You know, it's amusing to notice that the Clinton Administration signed a groundbreaking free trade agreement - NAFTA - and signed a bill that "Ended welfare as we knew it".
These are both issues I'm confident a Giuliani administration would have responded to in very similar ways.
HillaryCare would have been bad news, but she was too inept to get it passed.
Furthermore, I remember thinking of Bob Dole as a bit of a mushy, compromising moderate, so I'm not sure if his administration would have been much different from Clinton's.
The Economist endorsed Clinton as President because they felt the country needed a fresh new face, and maybe it did.
I don't like Clinton because he was an ethical slimeball, but the funny thing is that he double-crossed his own party far more than us.
On that basis, to be honest, I think Rudy's judgement may have been sound.
Remember, foreign policy issues were unlikely to have been on Rudy's radar at that time, and I'm confident in his soundness on them now.
D
Let's not start introducing facts into this very entertaining argument!!!
Before you decide that this represents "disdain for the Constitution," consider the thinking of Timothy Dwight, revolutionary War chaplain, Friend of John Adams, later President of Yale(when it was a Christian college) and inspiration for the Great Awakening:
There is "...an inseparable connection between Liberty and good order,... genuine freedom is found only beneath the undisturbed dominion of equitable laws."
Dwight was a bit more eloquent than Rudy but they both express the understanding that the rule of law is the greatest protector of freedom.
"Rudy supporters don't dare discuss his history."
With a liberal record like Rudy's, I wouldn't wouldn't want to discuss his history either if I were them.
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.