Posted on 04/03/2007 6:29:03 PM PDT by LdSentinal
The addition of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) to the list of candidates shakes up the race for the GOP Presidential nomination.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) remains on top, but his support dips below the 30% mark for the first time in seven weeks. With Thompson in the mix, Giuliani’s support tumbles to 26%, down nine points from a week ago. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Giuliani in any Rasmussen Reports poll this year.
Support for Arizona Senator John McCain remains steady at 16%, but McCain’s hold on second place is threatened by Thompson. The movie star turned Senator turned TV star weighs in with 14% support among those likely to vote in a GOP primary. Among Very Conservative voters, Giuliani attracts 20% support followed closely by Thompson at 19%, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 18% and McCain at 14%.
While I support Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy, I am not hardened on that position. It is still early.
For instance, I heard Duncan Hunter on Sean’s radio show earlier this week. He sounded strong in my opinion. This morning I heard Tommy Thompson on Fox and Friends, he too impressed me with having a clear vision of what should be done in Iraq.
I am looking forward to the debates next month at the Reagan Presidential Library. A long campaign will test all the candidates.
The primaries continue.......
And I’ll repeat:
And Hillary would never decrease taxes 23 times like Rudy did. And Hillary wants to cut and run from Iraq. Hillary hates the military and law enforcement. I could go on but you get the idea.
Rudy is pro-abortion. Do you consider that something to overlook, or a plus?
I’ve stated this a gazillion times.
1) If social issues were so darned important to the Republican party, maybe Newt should have taken the time to write just a few short sentences about those issues in his Contract for America. He found the time to write about welfare and other issues that Republicans were working on and that are part of the party platform with regard to personal responsibility.
2) The states have had better luck dealing with abortion issues than the feds have had in 30 years and Rudy is all for state’s rights which, last I knew, is what conservatives WANTED.
3) Ted Olson has known Rudy for over 25 years and says they’ve talked about this matter and Olson is convinced Rudy will appoint strict constructionists if he gets to make SCOTUS appointments. I know that freepers are throwing everyone under the bus if they say a kind word about Rudy or endorse him in any way (which Ted did) but I refuse to dishonor Barbara’s memory by talking about Ted in such ugly terms and I take him at his word.
4) There are many kinds of conservatives. Fiscal, law and order, social, etc. I don’t consider someone who is pro choice to be a plus to the party, but I hardly think it should disqualify someone as qualified as Rudy from the presidency, nor do I think it should result in such a meltdown among socons and others on this forum.
And I’ll repeat. Socially, they are very much alike.
You need to respond to the substance of the argument, or apologize for your outrageous posts.
That was the most pathetic, most desperate attempt to avoid an issue that I've seen in a long time.
There were thousands of us who did not renew because Giuliani CHANGED THE RULES. There was not ONE case of a legally armed NYer breaking the rules and losing his/her license. Only the connected could renew. Form 30k in 1980 to 3k CCW holders in 2000.
No one has yet to explain the New York City paradox. If the theory is (ala John Lott): More guns equals less crime...then why if Mayor Giuliani “the gun grabber” took guns out of law abiding citizens hands...did the crime statistics go down — not up, as the theory would hold.
Hard to explain as far as I could see. Anyone care to try?
Wow, you’ve never posted that before. Neither has areafiftyone or Fair Opinion. Good thing none of you have or I would think you’re all operating off the same “Talking Points”.
RudyRINOs don’t need “evidence”. They operate on pure emotive response. Explains why his biggest serial posters here are women, typically northeastern women. He makes them “feel” safe.
Actually, I have have posted that before. But keep pretending I have.
s/b never have
Why bother even having a primary? Anyone who would consider voting for a candidate other than Giuliani is obviously not a Republican. All trolls who support someone other than Giuliani should be kickec out of the GOP and off Free Republic. I am so sick of people on Free Republic shilling for these other candidates. All this debate about any othe candidate besides Giuliani is just helping Hillary.
“So are you going to address GTP’s referenced facts or not?
You need to respond to the substance of the argument, or apologize for your outrageous posts.
That was the most pathetic, most desperate attempt to avoid an issue that I’ve seen in a long time.”
Don’t hold your breath. Peach has no intention of responding. She’s too busy playing the victim. It’s easier than responding. Facts are an anathema to her.
NYC has 8 million people. In 1980, there were 30,000 with pistol carry permits. Nowhere NEAR enough to make a difference. Going from 30k to 3k permits means nothing as far as crime prevention. We would need CCW laws similar to TX, FL and VA in order to make a difference in crime.
But, as the Geico Neandertal says, do a little research. Essentially EVERYWHERE carry permits are eased, crime goes down. NYC never authorized the average citizen to carry; I had mine for good reason for 19 years.
The main factors responsible for the drop in crime in NYC was simple: they arrested more people and kept them in prison longer. How did they do this? Mainly through more aggressive policing, and, instituting a computerized neighborhood system of felony monitoring. Before computers, it could take 6 weeks for the cops to see a pattern emerging to B&Es, rapes, armed robberies, auto thefts, etc. The new system allowed them to place manpower quickly where the crimes were being committed.
I have two first degree relatives who are and were NYPD, in case you want to know how I know this.
See post 87 et seq.
Anyway, here are the links on Rudy's record on the issues I mentioned. This is long -- my apologies. There's a lot more info out there, but this is a start:
***
Forfeiture for those acquitted of a crime --
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1DB103DF930A15751C0A96F958260
Key excerpt: The seizures came as Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani hinted at how tough the crackdown might be, saying that even those ultimately acquitted of drunken driving in criminal court could still face the prospect of losing their cars through proceedings in civil courts.
''Let's say somebody is acquitted, and it's one of those acquittals in which the person was guilty, but there is just not quite enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,'' the Mayor said. ''That might be a situation in which the car would still be forfeited.''
This is a huge red flag for me. In our system, the executive has no authority to declare the guilt of someone who's been acquitted by a jury, and then levy punishment.
***
Support for collecting DNA from every newborn --
While not actually proposing it here, he defends the idea (and demonstrates a truly flawed view of how the Constitution works in the process):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF103DF934A25751C1A96E958260
Key excerpt: When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: ''I don't know that that's the proposal, but I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children. We go through a massive effort to try to fingerprint large numbers of children'' now, he said, ''so in case they are lost they can be found again or in case if they are kidnapped they can be found again. There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified.''
-snip-
''It's not invasive,'' the Mayor said. ''It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified.''
(Yikes! He was a prosecuter! He should know intimately that the Constitution doesn't give us rights; it limits government.)
Later, he does propose that the state legislature mandate collection of DNA from all newborns:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/11/32617
Key excerpt: Many experts believe the FBI's database will be expanded in the future. The International Association of Police Chiefs has asked Congress to require DNA samples from anyone arrested, and New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani has requested that the state legislature require DNA samples from every newborn baby.
***
Support of eminent domain for the benefit of private developers --
Here’s an example where Giuliani and Pataki teamed up and used eminent domain to seize land for the New York Stock Exchange (a private organization):
20 Failed Projects Involving Eminent Domain Abuse
(PDF document, page 12)
More on the project:
Here’s a FR thread about the project:
Here’s an article about the deal Giuliani and Pataki made with the New York Times to seize private property from small business owners for the NY Times’ new skyscraper:
Key excerpt: The property’s present owners charge that the Times used its clout as a powerful newspaper publisher to grab the valuable land away from them through a sweetheart deal with city and state government.
“You just don’t think things like that can happen in this country,” said Scot Cohen, who runs his family’s B & J Fabrics, a garment district fixture since 1958 in a 16-story office building that the Times wants to demolish. “You work hard to build something up, and then someone who is bigger than you can take it away.”
Here’s some more information on how Pataki and Giuliani invoked “blight” to condemn and seize property for the NY Times building, even though the Times Square area was at the time booming:
Key excerpt: At the request of the New York Times and developer Forest City Ratner, Empire State has initiated condemnation proceedings against ten businesses on the proposed site for the newspaper’s new headquarters, the block between Seventh and Eighth Avenues and 40th and 41st Streets.
In order to condemn the land, Empire State invoked the 42nd Street Project, a plan from 1984 designed to rid Times Square of “urban blight.” Though office space around Times Square is now some of the most expensive in the city, the 42nd Street Project still applies, and the state agency says that the specific block in question is still “blighted, deteriorated, substandard, insanitary [sic] and underutilized.”
Sidney Orbach, who owns a 16-story office building that has been condemned, disagrees. In 1984, “there was blight,” he conceded. “But there certainly isn’t anymore.” His building has prestigious tenants including the fashion designer Donna Karan, and before condemnation proceedings began, it was fully occupied. (Since the condemnation, he complains, brokers have been wooing tenants from his building). Orbach believes the newspaper could build elsewhere. “Plenty of space is available on the free market,” he said.
Finally, here is an article written by Giuliani’s Commissioner of New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development(titled “Eminent Domain is a Tool, Not a Conspiracy”):
Key excerpt: In many projects eminent domain is not being used to eliminate “blight” like urban renewal projects of the past, but to generate jobs and taxes into the future. We don’t live in a country where the federal government supports all of these local uses, like schools and police. We have to come up with those dollars ourselves. I agree that there has to be constraint on eminent domain decisions, just as there has to be constraint on anything that government does. But we shouldn’t think that these projects are “bad” just because they are the work of private developers. We need to have these kinds of uses to generate jobs and taxes.
Rudy personally appointed her:
Here’s an example where Giuliani and Pataki teamed up and used eminent domain to seize land for the New York Stock Exchange (a private organization): 20 Failed Projects Involving Eminent Domain Abuse http://www.castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/Redevelopment%20Wrecks.pdf (PDF document, page 12)
More on the project: http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/redevelopment-wrecks/new-york.html
Here’s a FR thread about the project: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810670/posts
Here’s an article about the deal Giuliani and Pataki made with the New York Times to seize private property from small business owners for the NY Times’ new skyscraper: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0225,moses,35773,1.html
Key excerpt: The property’s present owners charge that the Times used its clout as a powerful newspaper publisher to grab the valuable land away from them through a sweetheart deal with city and state government.
“You just don’t think things like that can happen in this country,” said Scot Cohen, who runs his family’s B & J Fabrics, a garment district fixture since 1958 in a 16-story office building that the Times wants to demolish. “You work hard to build something up, and then someone who is bigger than you can take it away.”
Here’s some more information on how Pataki and Giuliani invoked “blight” to condemn and seize property for the NY Times building, even though the Times Square area was at the time booming: http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/condemned/
Key excerpt: At the request of the New York Times and developer Forest City Ratner, Empire State has initiated condemnation proceedings against ten businesses on the proposed site for the newspaper’s new headquarters, the block between Seventh and Eighth Avenues and 40th and 41st Streets.
In order to condemn the land, Empire State invoked the 42nd Street Project, a plan from 1984 designed to rid Times Square of “urban blight.” Though office space around Times Square is now some of the most expensive in the city, the 42nd Street Project still applies, and the state agency says that the specific block in question is still “blighted, deteriorated, substandard, insanitary [sic] and underutilized.”
Sidney Orbach, who owns a 16-story office building that has been condemned, disagrees. In 1984, “there was blight,” he conceded. “But there certainly isn’t anymore.” His building has prestigious tenants including the fashion designer Donna Karan, and before condemnation proceedings began, it was fully occupied. (Since the condemnation, he complains, brokers have been wooing tenants from his building). Orbach believes the newspaper could build elsewhere. “Plenty of space is available on the free market,” he said.
Finally, here is an article written by Giuliani’s Commissioner of New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development(titled “Eminent Domain is a Tool, Not a Conspiracy”) : http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20051212/200/1677
Key excerpt: In many projects eminent domain is not being used to eliminate “blight” like urban renewal projects of the past, but to generate jobs and taxes into the future. We don’t live in a country where the federal government supports all of these local uses, like schools and police. We have to come up with those dollars ourselves. I agree that there has to be constraint on eminent domain decisions, just as there has to be constraint on anything that government does. But we shouldn’t think that these projects are “bad” just because they are the work of private developers. We need to have these kinds of uses to generate jobs and taxes.
Rudy appointed her personally: http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2000b/pr356-00.html
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.