Posted on 03/21/2007 5:04:50 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Yes, I've already told you right here in this thread that I'm not supporting any one candidate right now. It's too early and not everyone is in yet.
What I am doing is trying to expose a liberal and keep him from getting the GOP nomination and leading the party and the country further to the left.
I oppose liberals no matter what letter is next to their name. It would be hypocritical of me to ignore, or even worse, promote a liberal just because they had an (R) next to their name.
You want a retraction for a joke that you knew was a joke? Get the hell over your self. God knows I have.
Hi xsm.
I know we agree on a lot of things and I respect you too.
What you see as divisive, I see as leadership.
I'm a bit tired of GOP leaders not standing up and going along to get along.
Yup. You'll never hear any of the other Republican candidates supporting those. < /sarcasm>
Compared with the rest of our choices, at best Rudy is a wash on some conservative issues and an extreme lefty on others. We can do better.
This is condescending. Go ahead and champion your candidate - who is???? but don't presume to define Giuliani supporters.
Setting aside the semantics, that thread displays exactly the opposite of your statement. It was no "Rudyphobe" that made the claim that Giuliani is the inevitable Republican nominee (and I disagree with that sentiment), but a RINO Rudy supporter.
Both have extensive legislative and policymaking experience. If you're limiting it to combat/law enforcement experience, then you limit yourself to Hunter and McCain. I'll include Rudy based on his prosecutorial career, Mayor brings him back into the policymaking realm, which puts Gingrich back in the race.
And I have an understanding of Gingrich, Hunter, McCain policies based on their actions in Congress. In Newt's case multiple position papers since he left.
I really haven't a clue as to Rudy's plans for Iraq. Or Iran. Or frankly for anything. That's a political strength of course, as he's not tied to the war. He's been the race long enough that he needs to present a viable platform. It would give him an opportunity to confront social issues as well, rather than being associated with decades long positions.
no what i see as divisive is his consistently liberal positions on issues important to conservatives. not a SINGLE issue, but multiple issues, so that he splits conservatives 9 ways to Sunday. I see absolutely no reason to believe he will appoint strict constructionist judges when he is personally prochoice [i have seen it said he isn't prochoice, but that is clearly erroneous-- he is on record many many times as advocating a woman's right to choose]. Understanding the 2d amdt is not the same as respecting it and vowing to uphold it. What i see is far more conseratives either NOT voting for him, or merely pulling the lever and nothing more. And i think there is an overestimation of how many moderates/liberals he will bring in. i see him as a loser against Hillary, and that makes him divisive, not a leader, IMO. and i see the attempts to morph him into a conservative as an insult to intelligence.
Well, let's see what they have. Let's see what they've done. Let's see if they're capable of winning the general election.
The pro-Rudy crowd reminds me of Terrell Owens fans. They all are just dying to have a superstar on their team--never mind that he's poison to the rest of the team. And they will turn back-flips to set aside his very obvious character flaws...
I'm waiting to see who can hold the White House for the right and have coattails in Congressional races.
I believe Rudy will appoint Conservative Justices and that Roe will be overturned and abortion will be handed back to the states.
I believe Rudy will help fight union control of public education.
I believe Rudy will not be cowed by the media or by race hustlers, the UN or environmentalists.
I do not believe Rudy wants to take guns away from lawful citizens.
I believe that Rudy knows what is in Putin's heart and it isn't good. You can substitute any anti-American leader for Putin.
Maybe the rest of the team need a kick in the butt.
i believe almost nothing of what you believe, unfortunately, and it is my fervent hope that he is NOT the republican candidate for president.
You're right, Hunter isn't going anywhere. And neither Newt nor Thompson are in the race. My only point was that it's too early to throw social issues aside, since Rudy isn't the only Republican candidate with WOT credentials. IMO not even the best, but I admit he's qualified on that issue. And head an shoulders above anyone the dems will put out. I'd simply suggest keeping an open mind. A viable socially conservative candidate may still emerge. And as I frequently note, the test of a viable Newt or Thompson can be demonstrated by defeating Rudy, rather than by focusing on personal issues or "electability" in the polls. I think the candidate who wins the Republican primaries can defeat Hillary.
There's tons of information on the different candidates here on FreeRepublic (and elsewhere on the internet) for all to see and compare.
Let's see if they're capable of winning the general election.
Some would have a better chance than Rudy, IMO. Just because Rudy scores higher in name recognition right now is no reason to think he'd do better against Hillary than Thompson or Romney.
"He was intransigent in dealing with state-controlled entities such as the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey."
Gee, I wonder why?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE0DF143DF93AA15750C0A960948260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FG%2FGiuliani%2C%20Rudolph%20W.
i agree with this and i do think they can and will beat Rudy, should either of them enter the race, Fred more so than Newt/.
Oh yeah! Rudy fought the mob and won.
Thanks for the link.
A year and half before the '92 presidential election you could have walked by Bill Clinton on the street and you wouldn't have known who he was. If you have to be Hillary Clinton to win, what's the point of nbeating her.
"This is condescending. Go ahead and champion your candidate - who is???? but don't presume to define Giuliani supporters."
They define themselves.
I've seen two main points for their support for rudy:
1. Only he can beat rudy (nothing to support that claim, no track record).
2. He can will make a great "wartime president" (with no military or foreign policy experience.
When pressed for answers, they will point to how he kicked arafat out of concert or talked tough against terrorism. No actual action or record to point to.
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.