The Full Rudy: The Man, the Mayor, the Myth

The Duncan Donuts crowd went bonkers when I posted ONE anti-Hunter article from a left-wing source, just an example of what is out there about him (his connections to Randy Cunningham).

Just keep posting it all. We need to know before all the political money and the nomination are committed to a very vulnerable candidate.

Scrutinize all of them. We have quite a few choices. There have to be at least a few that measure up and aren't too vulnerable because of their record.

I don't blame you one bit for your principled stand, and wish you the best of luck as you decide who to support. If your candidate wins the primary, I'll be happy to support him. I am committed to Rudy and make no apologies for compromising my principles a bit to back the only guy other than McCain who the polls indicate can win in November. Like most Republicans, I smell Hillary's blood in the water, and I am not going to abandon the guy who put it there.

Dear massadvj,

Well, my post was actually about your statement:

"As I said. Imagine someone turning Washington DC into a financial stable, relatively peaceful urban oasis."

I was principally pointing out that in recent years, Washington, DC actually had taken a turn for the better, much better.

It was a secondary point that I don't vote for liberals for president.

"I am committed to Rudy and make no apologies for compromising my principles a bit to back the only guy other than McCain who the polls indicate can win in November."

Today's Rasmussen poll indicates that former Sen. Thompson, he of little name recognition - according to some, and unannounced status, holds up well against Mrs. Clinton and certainly shows he's in the ballpark against Mr. Obama.

As well, I suspect that as much as you smell Hillary's blood, so do many Democrats. My friends who work in low positions in high Democrat places tell me that the Democrat elite are, at best, unenthusiastic about her potential candidacy. Given the opportunity, they will throw her over.

Mrs. Clinton may yet win the nomination, but I wouldn't bet on it.

sitetest

As well, I suspect that as much as you smell Hillary's blood, so do many Democrats. My friends who work in low positions in high Democrat places tell me that the Democrat elite are, at best, unenthusiastic about her potential candidacy. Given the opportunity, they will throw her over.

I am well aware of this. The biggest reason for their dissonance is her showing in the polls versus Giuliani and McCain. I am not going to abandon a guy who gets 50 percent of the vote in the general without spending a dime and runs 4-7 points AHEAD of Hillary in the polls, as opposed to BEHIND her. Call me stupid... but 2006 woke me up to political reality, and I am not going to back losers just because they agree with me more.

Call me when Thompson says he is running, and Rasmussen says he beats Hillary. Then we might have something relevant to talk about.

Dear massadvj,

"I am not going to abandon a guy who gets 50 percent of the vote in the general without spending a dime and runs 4-7 points AHEAD of Hillary in the polls, as opposed to BEHIND her."

Well, give him a few more weeks, and perhaps Mr. Thompson will go from being merely a point ahead to being significantly ahead of Mrs. Clinton, as well.

"Call me stupid... but 2006 woke me up to political reality, and I am not going to back losers just because they agree with me more."

I won't call you stupid. It's not really my style.

However, I don't see why I'd want to "win" an election with a fellow with whom I disagree on nearly all the issues that are most important to me. I don't see why I'd want to "win" an election with someone who, as a result of winning, will unavoidably and dramatically change the Republican Party, all for the worse, making it no longer a vehicle for conservatism, especially on social issues.

If the Republican nominee is Mr. Giuliani, then a liberal will be elected president, no matter who wins.

But if the house is going to be on fire no matter what you do, it seems prudent at least not to burn down the firehouse.

sitetest

Well, give him a few more weeks, and perhaps Mr. Thompson will go from being merely a point ahead to being significantly ahead of Mrs. Clinton, as well.

Wake me up when that happens. I think he will hit an unsurmountable ceiling at about 45 percent of the vote versus any Dimwit nominee. He is too far to the right. We lost in 2006 because our candidates were too far to the right and that allowed the Dims to occupy the political center in the swing states of VA, MO, PA. We can't make that mistake again.

I am certain Thompson cannot win here in PA, and also certain Giuliani can. If that changes, I'll rethink it. But I haven't seen enough to get off the Rudy Express just yet.

Dear massadvj,

I don't think that the problem with 2006 was that Republicans ran too far to the right. I think the problem is that too many Republicans on the right hadn't been acting much like conservatives over the past few years.

As well, Dems woke and smelled the coffee, and realized that they could win by running folks who were socially moderate, or even conservative, at least on some issues.

You may be convinced that Mr. Thompson can't win in Pennsylvania, and that Mr. Giuliani can, but I'm not.

The reason why Republicans get close in Pennsylvania is because of folks like my relatives. Often socially conservative, nonetheless most of them are pro-union, economically and fiscally liberal. Some of these folks have been willing to vote Republican in recent decades because of issues like guns and abortion.

Take away some of those reasons to vote for the Republican and frankly, Pennsylvania gets tougher. Remember that Mr. Casey ran as a pro-lifer, thus negating Mr. Santorum's advantage. This takes away some of those socially-conservative Democrats who might otherwise vote for him. As well, in supporting Mr. Specter so staunchly, Mr. Santorum gave away a big chunk of his credibility as a conservative. Supporting the free-spending ways and liberal approach to immigration of our president didn't help. Thus, he did things to alienate his actual conservative base, as well.

However, even if he's the most electable person, I just don't see where the victory is in electing someone who is diametrically opposed to my own views on so many important issues.

sitetest

You may be convinced that Mr. Thompson can't win in Pennsylvania, and that Mr. Giuliani can, but I'm not.

Your thinking is the reason we lost. Suburban voters, especially women, are turned off by social conservatives' overreaching. You seem to think we lost because we weren't conservative enough.

Santorum was about as straight conservative as you can get. He campaigned as a strict conservative, refusing to give an inch on any issue. He spent $25 million. He got 40 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, in the same state Specter gets 65 percent of the vote.

You can't so disillusion yourself with your hopes that it clouds your good political judgment. The tides have shifted nationally the way they shifted in California a two decades ago. The demographics clearly show that Independents strongly lean Dimwit, that Republican registration is in decline, and that even VA is in play for the other guys.

We absolutely must have the courage and intelligence to adapt or we turn into dinosaurs. That's what is at stake here.

You can point to this particular or that particular until people get dizzy with information.

The problem is: in the case of New York City, "this particular" and "that particular" just happen to be egregious violations of God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

If results are all that matter, then let's just screw elections entirely and install a dictator.

The problem is: in the case of New York City, "this particular" and "that particular" just happen to be egregious violations of God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

You could be even more critical of Abraham Lincoln in this regard. He was a Republican as well. It didn't hurt his legacy. In the end, Lincoln was judged by the outcome, as all politicians are judged. So will Giuliani.

Lincoln's legacy is still a major point of contention, and has been largely established by northern liberals.

Lincoln's legacy is still a major point of contention, and has been largely established by northern liberals.

I agree. Do you think making a statement like this would get you elected in a national election? What I am saying is that Giuliani's record as far as trampling on rights is not really going to affect his electability. Like Lincoln, he will be judged on outcomes.

Even Bush recognizes that the Patriot Act is a political winner as far as the public is concerned. Heck, I doubt that you could get a majority ofAmericans to support the Constitution as written today if it appeared on the ballot. Most would trade five pounds of freedom for an ounce of security and have many times.

In spite of the truth in what you say, I doubt very much you would get a majority of Republicans to agree that Lincoln was a dictator. I think most Republicans are proud to have him in our stable of past presidents. They certainly invoke his name enough.

I suspect that the only difference between us is that you think the erosion of liberty can be stopped; whereas, I see it as inevitable. If I went with my heart, I'd vote with Ron Paul. But it would be a vote as wasted as the ones I cast last year for Santorum and Swann. I want to back a winner more than I want to be right at this point.

To some people, Lincoln's "outcome" was the destruction of the United States as it was established in the U.S., the loss of 600,000+ Americans in a stupid war, and 80 years of racial strife in the aftermath of his crusade to free slaves.

A pretty mythical idea, as I'm sure you know. Lincoln's war was to preserve the Union. While one could quote him on the subject or refer to his efforts to deport all blacks from the country, the single most telling thing he did was that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied in Confederate territory. It in fact freed no one. It most certainly did not free slaves in Union-held states. That came much later and Lincoln would probably have opposed that too.

Lincoln was a Clay Whig and only believed in three things: centralized banking, high tariffs, and corporate welfare (for things like building the useless Erie Canal). His objective in restoring the Union was so that these three centerpieces of his policy could continue and grow. The slaves were irrelevant and annoying to him.

He also gave some Cindy Sheehan antiwar moonbat speeches during the Polk administration's war with Mexico. Very nasty. He was crushed when Polk won the war a few weeks later and was too chicken to face the voters for re-election.

Most people don't understand Lincoln the man or his politics very well. They generally can recite a few slanted bits of history that the public schools instilled about him and the War Between The States.

Heck, I doubt that you could get a majority ofAmericans to support the Constitution as written today if it appeared on the ballot. Most would trade five pounds of freedom for an ounce of security and have many times.

It's too easy to be cynical. Liberty is still a great cause for us as Republicans. We just need to pick our fights more carefully. Look at our success with CCW. We need to move forward with other issues for liberty lovers.

In spite of the truth in what you say, I doubt very much you would get a majority of Republicans to agree that Lincoln was a dictator.

Well, only the ones that know anything about history.

It is kind of relevant, given the personal nature of the current GOP frontrunner.

It is kind of relevant, given the personal nature of the current GOP frontrunner.

As well as the current President who signed both the Patriot Act and McCain-Feingold, I might add. I supported Bush because I thought he was the best we could do given the political reality of the time, and I support Giuliani for the same reason.

If a candidate emerges who can both win and move us forward instead of backward in terms of advancing limited government, I'll be there. But I believe voting is a strategic act, and voting for a loser is as counterproductive on our side as the idiots who voted for Nader andcost Gore the presidency on the other side. Electability is the first test.

I agree with you about electability, but I doubt that the Republicans lost in 2006 because they were too conservative. IMO, they were not conservative enough on a lot of hot button issues.

If Rudy is whom the Republicans nominate, I will vote for him, despite our differences on some (not all) social issues. I will vote for any Republican running against Hillary or Obama Osama. It seems the only rational choice for a person who loves thier country. The "scorched earth" conservatives who you have been bantering with (If they are not DU trolls) are the people who gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton.

At this point in time, we need to find out who our best candidate is, rather than engage in ad hominem attacks against Rudy or anyone else. (OK, to be honest I don't mind so much when Freepers attack McCain).

Take me off your ping list immediately.

I know it's driving you to hysterics that this news came out today, but it doesn't excuse you putting me on a ping list I didn't ask to be on.:

Mayor Giuliani has a wider lead among social conservatives than he does among Republicans in general. Social conservatives already know who Rudy Giuliani is. In fact, more than 70% say they know “some or a lot” about him – these numbers are almost identical or better than other candidates in the race.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805638/posts

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.