Bill Simon (CA conservative) soothes conservatives' concerns over Giuliani

Scripps News ^ | March 14, 2007 | PETER HECHT

[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."

[garv]

Yes, I read it the first 10 times it was posted. Where does he say he is supporting Giuliani for the Republican nomination?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

When did Rick Santorum announce his support for Giuliani? I hope you're not referring to his two sentence compliment about Giuliani's performance as mayor, but you wouldn't do that, would you?

Give FO time, the poster has to search in his/her Word database and do a quick cut-and-paste. LOLOL

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

That sounds like a personal attack on a fine fellow FReeper. Run out of talking points?

Whom did I attack?

[LtdGovt]

The situation in Ohio is absolutely horrible. Both the Democratic and the Republican establishment are in favor of higher taxes & spending. Terrible, terrible. One pro-tax party is bad enough, but two?

[You Dirty Rats]

Let's ask the following:

Assume that the next President will get to replace Stevens and Ginsberg. Of the following choices, who do you want to make the picks and then battle the Senate to get them confirmed:

- Obama
- Hillary
- McCain
- Rudy

We can trust the first two to nominate Euroactivists and we can be pretty confident McCain will stab us in the back -- because that's what he does. McCain's litmus test will be to appoint Justices that will agree with his CFR and other Congressional assaults on the First Amendment.

Rudy is a better choice than the other three. We might get disappointed, but if he even gets one right we'll have a majority.

Now, would I rather have President Jeff Sessions making those picks? You bet!! But we have to be realistic about our true options.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Abortion and the Second Amendment no longer exclusively dominates the conservative agenda nor do they exclusively define what a conservative is.

So the Constitution should be dumped in the name of fighting terrorism, eh?

[garv]

Evidently, any public figure that does not call Rudy vile scum is now a "supporter".

BTW, welcome back from the dark side.

[aligncare]

That's what I so most like about Mr. Giuliani. He never let the New York liberal press define the issue. He always corrected the record. A necessary leadership skill that poor president 'Deer in the headlights' Bush has yet to learn.

[LtdGovt]

If Reagan himself was resurrected and endorsed Giuliani, it still won't change Giuliani's liberal record.

Would you vote for Barry Goldwater if he ran as a fiscal and national security conservative, but with pro-choice and pro-gay rights positions?

[You Dirty Rats]

We're screwed in Ohio. We had a solid conservative candidate for Governor and he was crushed by over twenty percent. Rudy would be an improvement over practically every elected Governor or Senator we've had here in forty years.

Half a loaf? I'll take two slices and be glad I got a sandwich.

[Sunsong]

Now what's immoral? In my view, paying yourself a $80,000 salary from campaign contributions by pious supporters is immoral. In my view, it's immoral to treat your daughter like sh*t.

Man, now here you are selecting your own principles. The Keyes folks aren't going to approve of that(s). You're supposed to believe whatever they tell you to believe. What are you some kind of freedom loving conservative or something(s)?

[dmw]

"Please define the term 'liberal'. Most liberals in NYC would be surprised to hear that some consider Rudy Giuliani to be a liberal."

That's kind of funny that you say that "most liberals in NYC would be surprised to hear that some consider Rudy to be a liberal". He got voted in by a good many liberals, he supports abortion, he believes in regulating guns, he nominated mostly liberal judges. How could they not know that some consider him to be a liberal? Doesn't make sense.

You want me to define liberalism? You could ask 100 people what liberalism is and you'll get 100 different answers. It's the same thing with conservatives. I have seen so many different definitions of what conservatism is here on FR lately my head is spinning from it.

I can simply tell you what I believe represents the values that I have as a conservative. I believe that the republican party at one time was a conservative party. Today, it is veering more and more to the left, thanks to people like Rudy and many of those in the republican party who don't believe that moral issues should be a part of the conservative agenda.

You can tell from a number of the Rudybots here that socons are viewed very negatively. We are called purists, extremists, right wing wackos, religious zealots, and on and on. More and more the liberal wing of the republican party is saying that they no longer need the socons in our party. Several Rudybots have said this here on FR, and they go so far to say that Rudy doesn't need our vote. All I can say to that is--let's see how that works out for you. Write the socons off, welcome Hillary to the White House in 2009.

I believe the best definition of conservatism is how Jim Robinson describes it on the FR home page....


Statement by the founder of Free Republic
Free Republic ^ | Jim Robinson

Posted on 03/22/2004 6:22:17 PM PST by Jim Robinson

I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.

--Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.

Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.

May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.

Jim Robinson

Nothing more to say. Time for me to hit the sack. Good night!

[You Dirty Rats]

I think GWB has done a decent job under very difficult conditions. He's a better man than 90% of Congress IMHO.

With Congress you need a ruthless SOB as President who can appeal to the voters. Reagan was good, but he was not as ruthless as he needed to be. We need someone with the attitude, popularity and stick like TR to kick ass and take names. It's not so much a question of policy; it's more a question of winning influence over the pork kings in Congress (who are just as bad now on the 'pub side).

[Repub4bush]

i can understand what you are saying... but i am not seeing a candidate right now that truly espouses Reagan's values.

i see all of them claiming to, but past records show otherwise. I know you don't agree, due to social issues, but I am leaning to Rudy.

I don't think he can afford to be the monster some of you are portraying him to be.

If he is the nominee and turns RINO, then he will be gone in 4 years anyway.

if not he might just do the job and do it right and we would all be proud.

That is all I am saying, at this point... who really knows.

i can tell you this much...There is not one person here (to my knowledge) that wouldn't vote for Hunter,Romney,Newt,Thompson, et. al., were they the nominee.

All with their flaws, but our voices against issues will make a difference.

I am not talking about settling, but think about it.....

Do you want hitlery, who we can't control or have any input in, Or Any one of our candidates, that we know after the myers fiasco, might listen to us.

When it is a possibility vs a definite "NO" (hitlery)..

I go with the odds.

[aligncare]

Pardon me. You misstated something...I think you meant Mr. Giuliani's record of "conservative" governance.

Just wanted to correct the record. I wouldn't want to let stand any false impressions left here by mistake.

[aligncare]

There was no substance in your post to advance your point on the issue. You simple disparaged the poster. Check the |To number| of my post to see I am right.

If we are going to get through the next umpteen months before the primaries we all had better keep our arguments on point.

Other than that, you are doing a fine job in countering the Rudy folks.

[texicali]

these 2 guys have been very good friends for 22 years now...

[aligncare]

I said nothing about the Constitution.

I said those two issues, abortion and Second Amendment, are not the only issues motivating Republican voters today. That is why Mr. Giuliani is gaining traction even among traditional socially conservative republican voters.

It's called situational awareness. The war on terror is extremely (and you should certainly understand that concept) important to me and millions of other conservative republican voters.

I won't be told by others how to prioritize my issues and still be considered a conservative here on Free Republic.

[Sir_Ed]

I don't see how they can be real conservatives if they don't object to supporting a politician that believes in banning handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and supports abortion!

If you think we should vote for him because he is a liberal, but less liberal than Hitlery, fine...support him, but don't expect us to deny reality and call him a conservative, as he's NOT!

In fact, if Bill Richardson was running as a Dem and Giuliani was the Pubbie candidate, I'd vote for Richardson...and in 32 years of voting I have NEVER, ever, one single time, voted for a Dem!

Ed

[TYVets]

Have you heard the sound of a slinky going down a stairway? (the toy for kids)

That is the sound I hear as the RINOS campaign goes downhill.

In fact I think I hear three slinkies named Giuliani, Romney and McCain.