Posted on 03/14/2007 4:21:46 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Bill Simon, an unsuccessful 2002 California gubernatorial candidate, former federal prosecutor under Giuliani and bedrock social conservative, delivered a spirited intro.
"He comforted us. He inspired us in what was one of the darkest moments in our history," Simon said, extolling Giuliani's leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "Extraordinary times cry out for extraordinary leadership, and these as such times."
"It would be fair to say that Bill Simon is using his personal cachet to vouch for Giuliani," said Jon Fleischman, a conservative Republican activist and publisher of the Flash Report political newsletter. "Giuliani is a moderate on social issues, yet Simon has been a champion to conservatives on those same issues.
"When I talk to conservatives supporting Giuliani, many of them say, 'I'm putting my faith on what Bill Simon says.' "
First he told a hotel ballroom crowded with conservative GOP delegates that his former boss was "a fellow Ronald Reagan Republican," who cut taxes, cleaned up New York and put "countless career criminals behind bars."
He said Simon explained that Giuliani opposes partial-birth abortions and tax-funded abortions and _ though Giuliani supports domestic partnerships _ he believes marriage is strictly between man and a woman.
"If he (Simon) is endorsing Giuliani, it makes some members of the conservative wing of the party feel safer," said Gaines, a Giuliani convert. "I did have concerns. But with the explanation of how he (Giuliani) would view Supreme Court appointments, I have a level of comfort."
(Excerpt) Read more at scrippsnews.com ...
You trust your own judgement, and that's your right. But I prefer a source with a better track record, like the "liberal media polls". They were spot on last year, especially the Rasmussen polls.
But you, who believes Hunter is leading Rudy 50-4, are living in reality?
I'll grant you that one of us is on the inside of the asylum and one is outside. We'll leave it to the viewers at home to decide who is where.
That's the problem. They really believe that. They believe that if you put up a candidate with zero money, zero positive name recognition, zero charisma, but with conservative principles (Hunter, supposedly), he will win the election in the poisonous political climate of today, like Ronald Reagan did in the favorable climate of 1980. Unfortunately, Duncan Hunter is no Ronald Reagan. He's about as charming as a brick.
Yeah, replacing Sandra Dee O'Connor with Alito -- that really destroyed the Republic.
It's amazing. You stay home and do everything you can to make Rudy lose, and in the end, you'll blame mainstream Republicans for nominating Rudy. That's not how a party is supposed to work.
Then there are those people who believe that Reagan won big in 1980 and 1984 because all those 44 and 49 states wanted conservatism. Uh, no, they didn't. Massachusetts voted for Reagan and against Mon-Dull not because they agreed with Reagan's ideas and disagreed with Mon-Dull's but because Reagan set the economy rolling and Mon-Dull was a complete loser who made Carter look good.
Being the most likeable candidate helps a lot in American Politics. Issues are not necessarily controlling for the swing voters.
If they really believe that - they are in worse shape than I thought(s). Hunter is a liberal - a sell out. He's a big spending, big government liberal.
We were about a hundred miles out of Barstow when the last of ether began to take hold. My attorney was pouring beer on his chest to facilitate the tanning process.
"Jesus" I thought. No sense telling him about the bats. He'll see them soon enough.
What's this about Rudy's law firm lobbying for CITGO (CHAVEZ)?
Precious...
The only thing I was angry about was one poster calling NYC garbage. Regarding the election, I have no reason to be angry because my candidate is leading while the anti-Rudy faction is conducting the Gong Show in a frantic attempt to find a viable candidate. Tancredo was gonged some time ago, and Hunter will be the next to be Jaye P. Morganed once Thompson gets in.
We'll know the race is over when the canaries here start singing that they will support a third party candidate. I suspect Ron Paul might do that. If not, there's always Pat, although with the demise of Willie Green Pat's support has falled 33 percent.
Having said all of that, that does not mean smaller government is not important to me. You make a huge mistake if you presume that.
Frankly, I do not like any of the repubs who are spending like there is no tomorrow. But, as I said, the issues I listed are the five fundmental issues that are my own stop gaps. Those issues just get people into the ball park for me.
For example, I believe Thompson probably has a better spending record than Hunter. Others as well.
That isn't a "conservative poll" -- it's an self-selecting internet poll.
Do you believe Hunter is leading Rudy right now? That's a fair question.
In 2000 Bush ran and people here were up in arms, just as they are now ( I was here, just not posting). The Whiners didn't want Bush because of XYZ.Why, Because his fiscal policies are unacceptable for one.
I am really confused...
I am tired of being called a liberal, because I am considering supporting Rudy.
AS much as i respect hunter, he is not going to cut it.
When I think back on Clinton1 , I am left with a dilemma.. who do I trust?
Mitt has charisma and speaks really well. Hunter espouses views closer to my own but honestly, is boring. Newt the most intelligent of all concerning everything... But we can't vote for him... damn he cheated on his wife....
Fred Thompson, who I like,...well, we shall find out his faults soon,(Think McCain) courtesy of the msM.
What I am saying here is none of the contenders are Reagan, and never will be, no matter how hard some want to polish them.
So, I have to base my vote on who can handle the WOT and not cave in..So, until I see some debates, I am not sure who, other than Rudy IMO, that is.
you guys need to face the facts, that unless a case is brought forth to the SCOTUS on abortion, nothing will be done.
What did Reagan do? Nothing! Bush 1and 2 so far nothing.
Even if we stack the court with prolife SCOTUS, until a case is brought nothing will be done.
Will any of our candidates get SCOTUS passed that will do this?
Who knows.
Look at Kennedy,Souter, and O'Connor. The point is we don't know!
So why not go with what we do know....
Rudy says he will nominate strict constitiuonalist. Will he?
I don't know do you? All the others say the same.
Will they...?
The point is WOT. I want whoever is the nominee to tell the UN, NATO, and the appeasers, to go to He!! and do the right thing.
We won't have reason to support social issues without a country!
I also don't want a holier than thou socon attitude either.. AS i am a socon, who can read the writing on the wall for our future, if we don't handle terrorism.
In 2000 Bush ran and people here were up in arms, just as they are now ( I was here, just not posting). The Whiners didn't want Bush because of XYZ.Why, Because his fiscal policies are unacceptable for one.
I am really confused...
I am tired of being called a liberal, because I am considering supporting Rudy.
AS much as i respect hunter, he is not going to cut it.
When I think back on Clinton1 , I am left with a dilemma.. who do I trust?
Mitt has charisma and speaks really well. Hunter espouses views closer to my own but honestly, is boring. Newt the most intelligent of all concerning everything... But we can't vote for him... damn he cheated on his wife....
Fred Thompson, who I like,...well, we shall find out his faults soon,(Think McCain) courtesy of the msM.
What I am saying here is none of the contenders are Reagan, and never will be, no matter how hard some want to polish them.
So, I have to base my vote on who can handle the WOT and not cave in..So, until I see some debates, I am not sure who, other than Rudy IMO, that is.
you guys need to face the facts, that unless a case is brought forth to the SCOTUS on abortion, nothing will be done.
What did Reagan do? Nothing! Bush 1and 2 so far nothing.
Even if we stack the court with prolife SCOTUS, until a case is brought nothing will be done.
Will any of our candidates get SCOTUS passed that will do this?
Who knows.
Look at Kennedy,Souter, and O'Connor. The point is we don't know!
So why not go with what we do know....
Rudy says he will nominate strict constitiuonalist. Will he?
I don't know do you? All the others say the same.
Will they...?
The point is WOT. I want whoever is the nominee to tell the UN, NATO, and the appeasers, to go to He!! and do the right thing.
We won't have reason to support social issues without a country!
I also don't want a holier than thou socon attitude either.. AS i am a socon, who can read the writing on the wall for our future, if we don't handle terrorism.
Personally, I think that Mondale is more respectable than Carter. Carter is an abomination and a traitor, while I don't have strong feelings about Mondale.
Hunter is a liberal, yes, a fiscal liberal. But frankly, I don't think those issues are all that important for most Hunter-supporters. Hunter marchs in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha and Sherrod Brown when it comes to free trade. But do they care about his fiscal liberalism? I only see them talking about: abortion, gay rights, gun control and immigration.
Isn't it sad to see the GOP reduced to this state?
When are you guys going to listen?
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.