Posted on 03/16/2007 5:05:33 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Yes, GO RUDY: to Naples, that is.
Boy oh boy. WHY do you think Romney and McCain both are trying to pass themselves off as anti Roe crusaders? Why do you think Rudy has been twisting himself into a pretzel saying now he supports the Hyde amendment, changing his stance on PBA and ASSURING us (as you are doing) that Scalia and Alito are the cat's meow of judges? Why do you think such stalwart pro lifers like Santorum and Allen where beaten by...you guessed it, pro lifers. Why do you think a staunch anti-Roe gal like the gorgeous Michelle Bachman could handily win in Minnesota against a media darling candidate. Sure there are counter examples, but they do not make your compelling case. And for the record, Bush is THE most pro life candidate we've had in a long time. He uses the words "sanctity of life" and the "value of life" instead of the term "abortion". But everyone on both sides have been very clear since 1999 where he stands.
I noticed you didn't address the 2nd amendment part of my argument. How many senators and congressman ran on anti-gun platforms in 06? 04? 02? It has become a dem albatross, so they quit doing it, even going so far as to tell the congresscritters from safe big city seats to not chirp about it, so as not to affect the party nationwide.
And Bush is not pro civil union. He is anti gay marriage, and wants to amend the constitution to enshrine that. And he says he is OPPOSED to civil unions, but its not the feds job to interfere with other arrangents short of marriage that the states pass.
1) Anything bad he did before doesn't matter. It's in the past. Quit talking about it.
2) Anything good he did before does matter. It should be celebrated daily.
1. Iraq . . . I'll consider this a "Not Applicable," since Rudy Giuliani has been steadfastly silent on this issue in recent weeks and will make every attempt to go through the entire campaign without even mentioning it at all. Iraq is going to be a huge albatross around the neck of any GOP candidate in 2008,
2. Iran . . . You can give him a 1 if you'd like, but nobody has any idea about what his specific ideas on this issue are. Anyone can stand up there and say that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons without giving any particular points about how to deal with the issue effectively.
3. Gun control . . . I'd give him a -1 if possible (since he is one of the most radical anti-gun zealots ever to hold public office in the U.S.), but a 0 will have to do.
4. Limited government . . . No way he deserves a 1 on this, since New York City's government was even bigger when he left office than it was on the day of his inauguration. I'll give him a 1/2 on this just because his ability to reduce the growth of NYC's bloated government ran against the grain of history in that place.
5. Crime . . . You've given him a 1, but I'll be generous and call this "Not Applicable." No candidate who has proudly violated a Federal law for the sake of political expediency can ever stand up and be a credible "law and order" candidate. For a former Federal prosecutor to take a position like this is disgraceful and idiotic.
6. Health care . . . He may talk a good game, but you never heard Rudy Giuliani do anything other than champion the notion of government-paid health care -- especially when the "government" doing the paying was either the State of New York or the Federal government -- when he was mayor of New York. I'll give him a "Not Applicable" on this one just to be generous.
7. Domestic terrorism . . . Give him a big, fat 0 on this one. I can't even be generous on this, because he fails on two specific points: A) his sole contribution to the effort against domestic terrorism has been the recommendation for political hack and convicted criminal Bernard Kerik for the U.S. Homeland Security post; and B) in the one specific pre-9/11 case in which he was faced with an act of "domestic terrorism" while mayor of New York City (the attack against tourists on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in 1997 by a Palestinian terrorist), he refused to even call the attack an act of terrorism -- and in fact immediately built it into a campaign prop for his anti-gun crusade.
8. Freedom . . . I'll give him a 0 on this one, too. Even many of his strongest supporters will privately (or even publicly) admit that he's an authoritarian A-hole.
9. Taxes . . . You give him a 1. I'll give him a 1/2 at best, mainly for personal reasons (I'd prefer to give him a 0). He may have cut 23 different taxes in New York City, but he refused to cut one specific tax that would have applied to me (and violated one of his key campaign promises in the process), and went to great lengths to challenge another New York State tax cut in court (the elimination of the commuter tax by the Pataki administration) that directly applied to me. Most New York City residents and workers did not see any real reduction in their tax burden under his administration.
10. Deficit . . . You give him a 0, but I'd consider this "Not Applicable." He had very little control over the revenue side of New York City's revenue/spending balance, and I consider Items #9 and #10 on this list to be a combined issue anyway.
. . .
So there you have it. As far as I'm concerned, on the issues YOU selected he grades at 1 out of 5, with 5 Not Applicables because of either a lack of solid information on a specific issue or because of radically different elements in his background and/or public statements on these issues.
If you want to add 1 point to his grade for personal "gut instinct" reasons on one or two issues (i.e., turn two of the N/A grades to 0.5, or one of them to 1), then you've got a guy who grades out at 33% at best -- and that's on the issues YOU selected.
I liked Rudy long before 9-11 for what he accomplished in NYC. 9-11 was just when the media stopped hating him as much.
Remember -- you heard it here first.
I do.
That may be so. I'm working, as are you to prevent him ever getting the opportunity to sniff the oval office.
I only support conservative hawks, not liberal ones. The libs are known to flip flop at the drop of a hat.
Newt, Hastert, Hunter and all their Republican and Democrat buddies in Congress(and the W.H.) should be so fiscally conservative.
Are you trying to be objective? Spending every year was about 1% less than the rate of inflation.
That's your interpretation of his statements. Of course, you try to be as negative as you can, while I did my best to be fair. Being President is very, very differnt from being a mayor. And I hope that in 2010, we can have a debate about what a good President Rudy has been. I think you'll be surprised.
Of course this is about abortion. People who oppose abortion and view it as murder, view Rudy as someone who is supporting legal murder. Thus, they are more likely to regard him as an evil person who is trying to trick conservatives into electing someone who will govern as a liberal. I don't think that's the case.
Mayor of the cesspool, good job for him. Leave the running of the country for men with slightly higher qualifications.
I don't support any "hawk" who can't clearly enunciate what this country's objectives in foreign military campaigns should be.
Or, I'm guessing, those who clearly annunciate them, but you don't agree with their views. Bush's objective is to turn two hostile states in the muslim world into domocratic allies, which he has done. The purpose for staying after the toppling of the hostile regimes is to give those allied gov'ts the ability to stand on their own two feet.
Reasoned arguments can be made that it is bad policy, but you cannot convince me the objective is not clear.
No, Rudy has demonstrated that he is the most effective roto rooter man in the country and so I say give him the job.
Gun control is another "indicator" issue . . . and perhaps an even stronger one than abortion in the minds of most conservatives.
Anyone who fails on these two issues -- especially someone who fails as badly as Rudy Giuliani does -- has no credibility as a conservative.
That's your interpretation of his statements.
I don't know what statements you're referring to, but everything I've ever cited in my posts related to Giuliani's campaign was spoken by the guy in plain English.
Of course, you try to be as negative as you can, while I did my best to be fair.
I didn't try to be negative at all. In fact, I went out of my way to assign "Not Applicable" grades on some issues where I personally would have given him a 0.
Being President is very, very differnt from being a mayor.
Of course. But don't ever use this excuse to whitewash a candidate's track record -- because it applies across the board. Being president is very different from being governor of Arkansas . . . being president is very different from being a Frankenstein-looking gigolo from Massachusetts . . . being president is very different from being a jug-eared Muslim senator from Illinois, etc.
Which country are you from? I live in the US. It's not a cesspool here.
But, generally, I think the country is a cultural cesspool of decadence, consumed by secular consumerism. That is the state of the urban and suburban majority, and they will not support a candidate like Rick Santorum, Jim Talent or George Allen. That much is as clear to me as the nose on my face.
I needed a shot of irony. Thanks.
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.