Posted on 03/23/2007 4:27:00 AM PDT by Liz
It's interesting to observe the evolving dynamic among the Rudy bashers. At the start of the campaign for the nomination, no one doubted that his main strength was his stand against terror. Now that he has built a sizeable lead, that strength is being attacked. The responses to my post all follow the same revised talking points.
I too will vote for Rudy over Hill / O Wanna B...
Interesting that the libs will jump on this, as they are the first to want no consequences for poor choices.
He's at least married each one, and if he can handle the alimony more power to him.................
This pair of freaks looks more and more like the Clintons every day.
From the very start of their marriage, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were "soul mates." He often called her "Mommy"; she called him "Ronnie".
History does not seem to support the contention that he was miserable when he married Nancy.
And this part of Reagan's life was 30 years before he became President. Not 4 years.
But I now understand why Rudy supporters have to tear Reagan down. They are trying to imply that Reagan was an immoral character who turned into a good President, so Rudy will be a Reagan because he is also immoral.
I doubt that argument will work with Reagan supporters, OR Reagan detractors. And being based on a fiction about Reagan, and a misunderstanding of the passage of time, it shouldn't work with Rudy supporters either.
Another voice of reason in a sea of "I'd rather see the other side win."
The Primary elections are where the party infighting should be limited to.
LOL, I see you have no answer, because Rudy does not posess any qualifications for leading the fight in the WOT. He's a frickin drafter dodger, too. Sick!
By the way, as an engineer, I must point out your tagline is incorrect.
He kicked Arafat out of a theater. And he showed he wouldn't back down to terrorists when he put the city's emergency response center right where the terrorists had attacked previously, daring them to do it again.
the rudyfans cannot use objective facts to refute the antirudys characterization of his record and his stands on issues, what they attempt to do is persuade people that they should FEEL DIFFERENTLY about them. that his sordid personal history doesn't matter, that it is MORALLY EQUIVALENT to what ronald reagan did, that fear of hillary should motivate us to vote for rudy bc he is the ONLY ONE that can beat her. rudyfans are all about feelings, because they simply lack facts to convince conservatives to vote for him.
I have been asking since Day One about this so-called "strength" for his stand on terror. WHAT stand on terror? He performed his Mayoral duties well, like a good mayor should. He was certainly not a dimwit like Ray Nagin in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but let's be realistic: WHAT DID RUDY ACTUALLY DO THAT QUALIFIES HIM AS 'STRONG ON TERROR'?
If anything, he showed his ineptness by not moving key personnel and agencies out of the World Trade Center after the first attack in February, 1993.
In his defense, he served his city well under a strong ledership against terror by President Bush. Nothing more.
It certainly does not qualify him to become Commander-in-Chief.
You keep saying this, like all the other Rutards, yet can't cite any specific reasons why he would be qualified. Buck up, and give some real answers. Oh yeah, you can't! LOL!
I bet that makes Al Qaeda shake in their sandals!
"And he showed he wouldn't back down to terrorists when he put the city's emergency response center right where the terrorists had attacked previously, daring them to do it again."
Oh, he showed them all right. He got lots of valuable people killed in the second attack on 9-11. And the NYC Firefighters are not exactly thrilled with him, either.
You forgot his other "strength". He returned a check to a Saudi prince. OOOohhhhhh, I bet that really scared the terrorists!
"By the way, as an engineer, I must point out your tagline is incorrect."
You're an engineer and you don't know Fudd's First Law of Opposition?
The entire idea of accepting a moral low-life as a nominee is repulsive.
It is his main, maybe his only "strength". Frankly, nobody really thought much about why he was considered "strong", or why he was thought to be so great on terror. He went around the country, talking a good talk, was well-respected, and we thought he was helping get republicans elected.
2006 was a real eye-opener. Rudy's coattails were nonexistant. For all his work getting republicans elected, we got beat in both the house and senate. For all his support for the war in Iraq, his personal popularity didn't contribute a bit to the cause, as the american people turned against war supporters.
And of course, conservatives didn't think Rudy would be a serious contender. But it turns out that if you let a guy spend 4 years telling everybody he's strong on the war on terror, people start believing it.
So we are looking more closely at his qualifications. It's clear his "leadership" and "strength" are the ONLY reasons for anybody to vote for him -- Rudy supporters have failed to provide any other positive reason to do so. The only OTHER argument they have is "he is the only one who can beat Hillary" which is also wrong but subjective enough we won't be able to prove it (hopefully we will NEVER get to prove it, as Rudy won't be the republican nominee).
And as we look at his qualifications, it raises questions as to how strong his leadership is, how smart he has been, whether he has the temperment to be president, whether he has the ability to be a good judge of character.
And we wonder what he has actually done to advance the war on terror, other than a couple truly symbolic gestures that cost him nothing personally and did nothing to advance the war on terror (unless you think kicking Arafat out of a theatre, and therefore provoking worldwide condemnation AND a statement of strong support for Arafat from our government, help stop terrorists).
We are waiting for a response from the Rudy supporters. Yes, we should have asked these questions earlier, but we who are not Rudy supporters didn't have to ask the question because we already rejected him. We assume the Rudy supporters have asked and answered these questions in their own minds, and could provide snap responses.
His personal life, his reign as Mayor, his actions after 9/11 -- they are things that the democrats will attack viciously in the general election, much harder than anything you are seeing here.
As I said, the responses are rapid, coordinated, and ad hominem. I expect this from liberals, not the people here.
And that's not all.
Freaky Judi ("the best unzipperer west of the Pecos) said earlier---now get this----SHE was also on the job "helping" Rudy the Zipless Wonder manage 9/11.
So I guess if Rudy ever gets to (gag) play president, Judi the Zipper will do her "part."
coordinated? i don't talk to the other people you pinged with me. i am espousing my own views and i am not the member of some pack. what in particular is ad hominem in what i have said? i have yet to see a single rudyfan refute the facts. we look at the same man, the same record, the same statements and see them differently. and yes THIS IS THE TIME to discuss this, it is a PRIMARY is it not?
If you want to get down to actual facts, the pro-Giuliani postings are "rapid, coordinated, and ad hominem."
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.