Posted on 03/27/2007 6:32:11 AM PDT by pissant
Play along with me this morning. Would you vote for the following candidate? This person supports parental notification laws and a ban on partial birth abortion; is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and believes mariage is between a man and a woman. Don't look any further. In your mind, does this candidate seem attractive? Yes or No?
Guess what. That's how Rudy Giuliani describes himself. If you go to his website, that's how he lays out his positions on three very sensitive topics. What about this bleeding heart socially liberal Republican. As you might imagine, it is nowhere to be found on his website. The Brody File has pulled the three parapgraphs from his website that lay out his position on abortion, guns and marriage.
Abortion:
"Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God."
Guns:
"Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."
Marriage:
"Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not - and has never - supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That's why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."
If you were an Evangelical who just stepped onto this Earth from Planet Pluto (oh wait,sorry, Pluto is no longer a Planet. I thought scientists were "always" right?), after reading that, you may not understand why a large segment of Evangelicals may have a problem with Rudy. But the religious conservatives who live here on Earth might think those paragraphs on his website are just a tad bit disengenous. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm sure others have a much different word for it. Does the way he portrays himself on his website bother you or do you just chalk it up to political spin just like every other candidate out there? Comments?
Mr. NavyCanDo posted some interesting counter-information to that earlier . . . I'm at work, and can't do any serious research right this moment. Besides, maybe he's already got the info right at hand?
But I like this approach. If you can make the case Rudy is a big-spender then you'll be able to seriously crimp this campaign.
Someone posted a good graph showing NYC spending under Rudy. I'll see if I can find it, or maybe someone can remember it and post it here. It's quite telling.
Only by including a whole host of things that political conservatives don't care about . . .
Typically, "political conservatives" only look to the specific things required for a Prez to do a good job of the day-to-day management of the country. Spending. Taxes. Defense. Local v. Federal control. Accountability. Good management.
The things govt has proven are the big problems with govt.
These 'political conservatives' were the basis of the two big landslides in recent history . . . Reagan and the Contract with America.
Hunter needs *selling*. He has significant weaknesses to us. A lack of executive experience being most important. Y'see, to me, voting for prez is a 'hiring' decision. The first, biggest deal-breaker is a lack of experience.
I'd like to humbly suggest that Newt has the best combination of skills and experience available . . . altho he comes with vice baggage the Social Cs may not care for.
If these mythical "political conservatives" do not care about the 2nd amendment, raising hell with the armed forces by allowing gays to openly serve, about the disgusting anti constitutional hate crimes laws, falling victim to global warming nonsense, etc, etc, I want THEM out of the party of Reagan.
Reagan yanked the damn party away from such milquetoasts and we ain't giving it back to them.
That's exactly the kind of thing that would be persuasive.
These pics of Rudy being funny, dressing in drag and such, merely make the anti-rudy folks look like people who do *not* get life!
And those kiddy-looking 'Rino' cards . . . I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks those look like they're being done by a 12 year old, but dang, those hurt your case something aweful! :-D
I don't see him dressing in drag as a major issue for me. But there will be Dem false-front 527-type groups who will exploit it to the max should Rudy win the nomination. He really shudda thunk through that one, just as Kerry should have though twice about donning that bunny suit.
Reagan's "Big Tent" played to those 'milquetoasts'. He played to them, and to the 'Reagan Democrats'. Socially liberal folks who want lower taxes, efficient govt, etc.
It's that "Social C or bust!" exclusivity that risks making social Cs the next 'Buchannanites'.
If Rudy's broad appeal *does* get him the nomintion, and if he does indeed take the prezidency without Social Cs . . . yall run the risk of being politically irrelevant for a long time to come.
No way, to most folks, the vast majority, him in those getups for comedy routines is an awesome thing! Like Uncle Milty, Monty Python, Jonathan Winters, and on and on . . . dressing like a woman for comedy makes a person seem very cool, very interesting, very fun, like they aren't so full of themselves.
And the Socials attacking that make themselves look like real sticks-in-the-mud, modern-day Amish puritans who don't know how to laugh.
Hunter/Thompson
The "Gonzo" ticket
or vice versa.
The milquetoasts Nixon/Ford/Reckefeller GOP was the reason they were in shambles. Reagan did indeed appeal to many, but he fought that faction to get the nomination. The "USSR is here to stay" crowd was entrenched in both parties. Reagan new different.
The gun control crowd was predominant in the GOP at the time. Reagan new different and attracted huge numbers of hunter and shooters, many who were blue collar workers.
The tiptoeing around religion crowd was in power, Reagan, more than any president possibly since Lincoln, invoked God often and proudly. He had perhaps the best speech on the pro-life position ever given. Social conservatives flocked to him, GOP, Dem and independent.
The GOP had become as fat and lazy as the dems when it came to programs like housing, welfare, etc. Reagan ran against it all.
Reagan was not a "political" conservative. He was the redefinition of conservatism, period. Appealing to all factions of the GOP and sweeping many non-political religious people up by addressing the rot that socialism had visited upon our country.
Rudy is as far from that person to fill Reagan's shoes as is possible.
new = knew
!!!
Reagan was certainly a 'political' conservative. He was both a social and a political conservative.
Interestingly enough, the modern Social C movement is rather politically Lib in some ways, wanting bigger, more intrusive govt in many cases of vice (like gambling and porn).
Reagan was one of a kind, no doubt. Rudy is probably no Reagan.
But Rudy is a guy who, if elected eventually, likely will do a good job managing the country's govt.
Just beware -- the real risk you run is that all your 'gloom and doom' turns out to be dead wrong, and Rudy does get elected and then does a great job, going on to be one of our best Prez's ever.
And the social Cs then will be remembered as the folks who were so wrong about him that their judgement can't be trusted.
This so-called "security expert" tried to foist his ex-bodyguard and driver, Bernie Kerik, on us. So-called "security expert" Rudy never "knew" Kerik was a mobbed-up, government fraudster when he pushed Kerik on GWB for Home/Land/Sec. So-called "security expert" Rudy had the ummitigated gall to sic this shady guy on the nation to protect OUR security.
Believe it or not---Rudy and Kerik ran a "security firm." So-called "security expert" Rudy never vetted Kerik for illegal immigrant problems, mob ties, and other shady activities. So-called "security expert" Rudy never knew Kerik had problems way back, as NYC Correction Commissioner, a job given to him by Giuliani.
Last year, Kerik pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor corruption charges, one of them for letting an alleged mob-tied firm renovate his apartment at no cost. He was fined $221,000.
Fast forward to March 13, 2007: Ex-commissioner Kerik rejected a plea deal offered by federal prosecutors that would have required Kerik to serve time in prison. The deal would have Kerik plead guilty to tax fraud and illegal eavesdropping conspiracy charges in exchange for his guilty plea.
Investigators were willing to end the federal criminal probe into Kerik's alleged wrongdoing which includes allegations of mortgage fraud, tax fraud, conspiracy to eavesdrop and making false statements on his application to become U.S. Homeland Security Secretary.
As part of the investigation, officials want to know if Kerik received use of a midtown Manhattan apartment for sexual liasions after 9/11 from a prominent real estate developer without ever having claimed use of that apartment on any tax or disclosure forms.
I'm counting on Rudy NOT getting the nomination. But we shall see.
There's still a 50/50 chance, I think.
The problem I see is he really does have a ton of personal charisma. When he talks, he seems competent and intelligent, and he gives you the idea he'd do his very best to solve any problems that were put before him.
But you know how fickle fate is . . . one mis-step and his plans could go down the tubes. And it'll probably be something none of us could have predicted!
Oy, my mistake. I did not grasp quickly enough that you are a child or a puerile adolescent. Isn't there a special place for you? School? Juvenile Detention?
Obviously you lack the IQ to make it in the military. I got it! The DU could use someone just like you. You would fit right in, if you have not already done so.
Don't bother to respond. I will no longer waste my time with your childishness.
Here's background on mega-bridegroom Rudy----reported from public documents and eyewitness news reports.
Serial adulterer Rudy threw himself into the Playboy "Sex is Everything" lifestyle, early-on as he searched for perfect extra-marital sex (while he was mayor, and while he was still married).
Within six months of being elected Mayor, Rudy's photo was splashed on the front page of the New York Daily News buying clothing for Christyne Lategano, his "mayoral aide" (that's kinda like being a WH intern but with New York-style kneepads).
Giuliani in heat was anything but subtle. He took girlfriend Lategano to baseball games WITH his kids, until his wife had had it----news pictures still exist of Lategano and the married Mayor in restaurants across the city (not having sex, though. That came after the photogs left, and in City Hall, no less, according to Hanover's own eyewitness report after a surprise visit to her husband's Mayoral office).
Lategano may have been hot in a tight clinch, but she was widely disliked for her rank incompetence and arrogance. Giuliani finally dumped her for newer sexual thrills, but she got paid off for heating up the Mayor's libido with an apartment and a cushy city job, arranged when Rudy dumped his appointee and loyalist, liberal honcho, Fran Reiter, from the job so Lategano could run the city's Tourist and Visitor's Bureau at $250K a year.
By 1998, Rudy had a new mistress (now his wife) and apparently was in the throes of sexual Valhalla, getting sexually blitzed every chance he could as a busy big-city Mayor. He took his sexual plaything to a restaurant a few blocks from Gracie Mansion--so that his children and their friends would know about it.
By 2000, Rudy's sex life was getting lots of newsplay. Public records indicate married father Rudy was blatantly squiring his mistress Judi Nathan to city parades and other official Mayoral public events. (As one astute FReeper noted---goodness, gracious, great balls of fire. The thrills just never let up for the gun-grabbing mayor.)
Rudy then called a press conference to publicly announce his separation from his wife EXCEPT THAT HE HAD NOT BOTHERED TO TELL HANOVER BEFOREHAND.
Nice guy, eh?
Rudy then publicly announced to the press his separation from his wife WITHOUT EVEN TELLING HANOVER. At the time, Rudy was taking his mistress---not his wife--- to cancer treatment sessions. He never bothered to tell his wife about his illness. Rudy then decided he could not live with his sex playmate out of his reach, and planned to bring his mistress into the Mayoral home (on the spurious claim that Hanover wasn't helping him through cancer treatments---an illness he had not even bothered to tell his wife about).
Rudy publicly announced he wanted to "divide the mayoral home" in two, one side for his wife AND one side mistress---a transparent ploy to force his wife and children out into the streets.
Public documents indicate Hanover was forced to go to court to declare Gracie Mansion the marital home so as to exclude Rudy's sex playmate. The judge acquiesced to Hanover's plea.
Thwarted but not defeated, Rudy moved in with a happily civil unioned gay couple (apparently also in the throes of sexual blitz-dom), while his wife fended off Rudy's relentless efforts to ditch her. On Mother's day 2000, while still married, Rudy publicly paraded his mistress up and down Second Avenue for newspaper pictures. The evilness of this marital betrayal astonished even blase New Yorkers.
Giuliani's vendetta against his wife and children was still not sated. Public documents indicate he cut the security detail to the mother of his children......but he provided government security to his mistress Judi who had no {{ahem}} official duties unless you consider getting Rudy sexually blitzed an "official duty".
I disagree with you on "X" but I don't view you as a traitorous liberal.
However Rudy is no conservative in my opinion. He never has been and never will be.
Thus undeserving of my support or my vote.
Furthermore if this is what the Republican Party chooses to put forth as it's nominee. Then they will win or lose the general election without my vote.
I think alot of people feel the same way.
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.