Posted on 03/15/2007 11:22:59 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Mayor Giuliani, considered a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, says America needs to expand its military and pitched himself as the candidate who would instill fear in the Iranian president.
"What I can do is get things done, accomplish things," the former mayor told a crowd of about 1,000 supporters at a baseball-themed fund-raiser at the Sheraton in Midtown last night. "People said New York was ungovernable. We governed it and it became the best example of urban renaissance."
Saying he is "impatient and singled-minded" about his goals, he told the crowd that he'd bring the same focus to the White House to lower taxes, reduce spending, achieve energy independence, and improve international relations. He said the country needs a "bigger military" that can handle both large attack and "multiple complex limited actions," and said it was time to capture Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Giuliani was introduced by comedian Dennis Miller, who used at least one expletive when joking about the lack of trustworthy evidence to back up claims of global warming. In a performance that felt something like an HBO standup special, Mr. Miller also called two Democrats, including the speaker of the House of Representatives, "morons" and "inconsequential people who don't take the threat to our culture seriously."
"When you watch morons like Nancy Pelosi and David Obey of Wisconsin discussing our pullout from Iraq, the other day, they make like eight errors in four seconds," the comedian said ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
If you're from Boston, you should know something about this. Boston had a big case up at the Supreme Court about their gpp.
Then, by all means, let's do it. What's the plan for getting [fill in the blank acceptable conservative] out of the bottom tier by February?
Boston, please.
Do you not know that Chuckie Schumer and the Hildabeast also have ALWAYS marched in these parades?
Should you not support the Republican nominee, if that nominee turns out to be Rudy Giuliani, you can be assured that not the Mayor of NYC, but possibly the President of the United States---MRS BILL CLINTON---just for old time's sake, will be marching in the NYC gpp.
Keep your eye on the prize, please.
Close, but no cigar.
"Almost identical"? Okay, let's say I give you that. Is that tiny margin of "better"---or even the potential that that margin will be better---worth fighting for? Of course it it.
Yet you throw up your hands, wail and quit.
Since you claim there would be "almost identical" policies in a Republican administration, headed by Rudy Giuliani, and a Rat administration, headed by ANY Rat running, please sincerely answer the following questions for me:
In any given choice between two alternatives, it is fundamentally impossible for one to not be better, even if by the tiniest margin.
Remember: it is not just a president we elect on Election DAy. It is an entire administration.
Do you really think the Rat Secretary of Defense would be anything like the Republican Secretary of Defense? What about Homeland Security? Education? EPA? Secretary of State?
Who would the Rats appoint for Ambassadors around the world compared to the Republicans? What about the Ambassador to the U.N.---John Bolton types or Sandy Bergler?
Attorney General? Commerce Department? Veterans Affairs? The Joint Chief? The service Secretaries? The Commandants of the service academies?
What types of individuals would be elevated to general officer and flag status under the Rats? Under the Republicans?
Who would head the FCC under the respective administrations?
Who would write rules and regulations for the military---Rat appointees or Republican appointees? Who would be the General Counsels of all the agencies, writing rules, regulations and executive orders by the reams, with no practical public oversight---Jamie Gorelic was the Clinton DoD GC!
Who would be the better Commander in Chief---ANY Rat running or ANY Republican running?
And that's just a start.
AMEN. See post # 144.
Now let's see if an answer is forthcoming.
You and Gilda Radner. It's always sumthin.
Um, because they would be better for the country than the Rats?
I agree that talk of compromise is premature. However, it was caused by the "stay home" crowd who immediately began to wail that they would NEVER support Rudy should he become the Republican nominee.
As I have said many times, if---before the game even starts---some of your teammates are telling you there's a good chance they're going to quit in the fourth quarter if they don't like the gameplan, the rest of the team better start thinking about making adjustments upfront.
I.e., NOW.
He also failed to find a cure for cancer.
This is the essence of common sense. And the honorable approach to doing one's duty for the country.
If---IF---we are presented with that choice, it will not be a choice of our own making. NO ONE of us can completely control the primary process. At that point, we have a responsible to do what's best for the country, considering the available alternatives.
The question is: who are these Republican candidates, period?
Do you honestly think they can overcome their name recognition problems at this point in the process?
If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
What else are to make of the "freepers" who claim they actually would vote for MRS BILL CLINTON rather than support the Republican nominee?
Does that sound DU-ish to you, or not so much?
Indeed!
yes, that lawsuit was about gay groups forcing their way into the Saint Patrick's Day parade without invitation by the parade organizers. It was not about the gpp they already had.
Agreed.
Suppose I were to grant that a President Rudy would appoint people more to my taste than a President Hillary would. Am I willing to trade that for the sure-and-certain destruction of the political party I support, the party Reagan forged out of the ruins of Ford-Rockefeller GOP? Am I willing to say that I just give up on the very idea of a pro-life, pro-family political party? Sorry, I think the culture war is more important than the WOT, and I would rather the enemy were "them" and not "us."
When the argument was against the "stay-at-home" crowd, I was arguing for Rudy.
When it turned into a "you are all stupid for not supporting Rudy, because conservatism is dead and Rudy's the only one who can beat Hillary and you are all being selfish idiots for supporting other people", then I started arguing about Rudy's qualifications to be my choice.
While I could never vote for Hillary like madprof, that doesn't mean I would vote for Giuliani, either. I vote for conservatives, plain and simple. Does that make me a DUer too?
I'm actually more scared of a Giuliani presidency than a Hillary presidency. Giuliani is Hillary + StrongOnDefense (and better, although not great, on taxes) - RepublicansInCongressWillRollOver. Seriously. Look at his stances on social issues -- they're literally the same as Hillary's. In a number of cases, they're *worse* than Hillary's. However, if Hillary was president, we could at least count on a "Loyal Opposition". You know very well that half of the cowardly Republicans in congress will roll over rather than vote against "their president".
By the way -- if you thought the Clinton years were bad, as far as having an embarassment in the White House, just you wait for Mr. Cousin-Kissing Affair-Loving Exemplar-Of-Divorce to hold the office. Only, this time the president have an (R) after his name.
Any bets, all of you, any bets as to whether he'll return his Chavez money? ;)
Please.
By not voting for the Republican nominee, whoever that turns out to be, you are in fact helping the election of the other candidate.
That's just common sense.
In that situation, I don't see how you are one whit different than madprof and Hatband, who state they would *actually pull the lever for MRS BILL CLINTON* rather than vote for the Republican nominee, if that nomineee happens to be Rudy Giuliani.
And, yes, that makes them DUers, in my book, only less coherent.
And if you think Republicans would somehow have more power in a Klintoon administration, you are smoking the evidence, my friend.
Even by your own post, you admit that the one difference you see between Rudy and the Witch is that Rudy is "strong on defense."
HELLO.
I disagree with you ---because, see post # 313, I believe elections put ADMINISTRATIONS in power, and a Republican administration always will have the potential to be better for the country than a Rat administration---, but LISTEN TO YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.
Stronger on DEFENSE? Is that chopped liver?
I have certainly never thought, argued or advocated the "you are all stupid for not supporting Rudy" line, nor do I condone those who do.
I myself do not "support" Rudy at this moment. I am simply open to his candidacy, and I react strongly to the ridiculous notion that one has no personal responsibility to stop a greater evil.
That said, I think it's very important to be clear about WHEN one is advocating support. My focus is on the *general election.* Then, I'd have to say, it is quite selfish to refuse to support the Republican nominee, whoever it is, and thereby allow the Rats to gain more power.
That is when the "stay at home" crowd arguments take effect: on Election Day.
That says nothing about how to proceed in the primaries. No one, in my book, is "stupid" for not supporting RUdy in the primaries. However, many will be wary of supporting other candidates because they know---through the many loud pronouncements here---that those candidates' supporters will quit the game, or *even vote for Hillary* (as madprof98 and Hatband have declared they will do), on Election Day.
In that case, better to forget those jokers right now and, in a way, forget about the primaries and work directly toward the general election.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
I think you do agree that a President Giuliani administration would, overall, include more individuals attuned to conservatism and, at the least, Republicanism than those who would serve in a President Hildabeast administration.
Thank you.
Now you ask: Am I willing to trade that for the sure-and-certain destruction of the political party I support, the party Reagan forged out of the ruins of Ford-Rockefeller GOP? Am I willing to say that I just give up on the very idea of a pro-life, pro-family political party?
First, what is the purpose of the general election: to determine who will govern the nation for the next four years or to somehow preserve a *political party.?
(And most certainly, history proves that in such circumstances proclamations of "sure-and-certain destruction" are overly dramatic. )
If the Republican Party as it stands today is not viable, it's not viable. So be it and so what.
Do you not agree that the ideas of conservatism and morality are eternal? Do you not think they are powerful enough to survive and emerge in some other setting *if* it came to the point that the Stupid Party fell of its own weight?
Why the concern about preserving the party? Who cares! It will be what it will be.
Nothing can stop you and I from doing what we always have done and will continue to do to preserve *ideas.*
If this country will support a pro-life, pro-family political party, it will happen. Yes, we need to work for it. But I'm sorry, your one little vote on Election Day has nothing to do with the future of the party. It has EVERYTHING, however, to do wtih the immediate future of the country.
The culture war and the WOT are both important. The WOT cannot be fought without the White House. The culture war can.
There's an irony here that so many who claim they are not beholden to the Republican Party, that they have no sense of obligation to vote for the Republican nominee in order to stop the Rat nominee, so often explain their refusal votes in terms of saving the Republican Party.
Phooey. Let the Party save itself if it can. Our task on Election Day is to save the country.
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.