Rudy must be stopped

*sigh* Fine. Be adamant about it.

Bill Simon on National Review, saying Rudy doesn't support taxpayer-funded abortion.

Here's Giuliani saying he does support public-funding of abortions.

Would it have killed you to actually follow the links?

>>>>>>Hee hee -- did you read the article?

Actually, I don't believe you read the entire essay. Either that or reading comprehension isn't one of your string suit. Frankly, I think you're just a liberal covering for another liberal.

I told you, this Manhattan Institute critique of Rudy`s record by Edmund J. McMahon was the good, the bad and the ugly record about Rudy`s eight years as mayor. Its about what Rudy accomplished early on, and about what he left behind for NYC and its new mayor to deal with. Not a pretty picture.

Bottom line:

"Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."

NYC was a high taxed social liberal hell hole when I lived there. It remained a high taxed social liberal hell hole when Rudy was mayor. And it remains today, a high taxed social liberal hell hole.

So, you can beat around the bush all you want. You still have offered nothing of substance to rebut the facts of Rudy`s liberal record.

You continue to demean social conservatives, even though they're the majority base of the GOP. You can deny it all you want, but you definitely have a strong disdain for both social and religious conservatives.

I suspect it is you with the disdain for all those who don't share your religious values.

So you say. But the only people on this forum who attack religious and social conservatives are liberals, moderates, centrists and libertarians.

I wouldn't throw around the word "attack" so easily. One might think you were afraid of an open and honest discussion of the various alternatives in the coming election.

Reagan built this grand coalition and it has survived until today. But its slowing coming apart at the seams. If it does fly apart, a Democrat will become the next POTUS.

The social "conservatives" from the Democrat Party had already moved to the Republican Party well before Reagan. The blue collar Democrat still believed in a strong national defense and had tremendous disdain for socialism and communism. They still exist today, and can be brought into the Party with a strong leader who does not put the RR agenda ahead of the security of the Nation. The strength of the left today in the Democrat Party can be Hillary's undoing, but not without a mainstream Republican candidate with nationwide appeal who can recognize the real threats to our Nation, not those perceived social threats.

Reagan compromised ONLY as a last resort. He negotiated from a position of strength.

He negotiated at every point. He did so to get the tax cuts, and again to get the defense appropriations. He gave up much, including the spending cuts he proposed which even today labels him as a deficit creator. He gave in to Congress by not holding fast to his threats and signed a continuing resolution even though it contained the now infamous Boland Amendment. There was much give and take by both sides.

The Founding Fathers were God fearing freemen.

Not nearly as much as many here on FR would have us believe. It is one reason few here want to admit the only mention of religion in the Constitution before the amendments was a ban on religious tests for office.

Not with the pro abortion on demand liberal Democrats.

Most conservatives disapprove of abortion but recognize it is simply not a presidential issue. They recognize that in the future the USSC will reevaluate Roe, and are content to wait on that, knowing there are far more important issues for the president to concentrate on.

The Founders would look at Rudy Giuliani and his demand for more gun control, and denounce his policies as unConstitutional.

Everyone thinks the FF are in their court on every issue, but in fact, the FF were all over the board on about every issue that existed at the time. A look at the Anti-Federalist Papers shows just how much disagreement and confusion existed at the time. As for gun control, again, the president will have precious little to do with gun control since it remains a state issue, and any major changes to the status quo will come through court decisions, such as the recent DC Circuit decision.

The Founders would never support open borders nor would they condone special rights for homos, or anyone else for that matter.

Well you may be right about the special rights. In fact, the FF didn't believe most Americans had any rights. Their moral compass permitted the ownership of other human beings, no rights for women to vote, own property in some cases, or testify in court. The only free Americans in the time of the FF were white male Christian landowners. Doesn't sound terribly moral to me...

So do I, just not at the expense of every issue we conservatives have been fighting for over the last 30 years! All the major candidates will continue fighting the good fight in the WOT, continue to help defend Israel and continue protecting the homeland.

All of the 4 major Republican candidates will, but I see none of the Democrat candidates who will.

As I indicated earlier, mainstream Republicans understand the need in our Party for the social right to come to the polls and vote Republican. We also understand that we need those who walked away in 2006, the moderates, center-right and liberal Republicans. We also feel we are going to need the conservative and moderate Democrats and independents. But somehow, the social right doesn't believe it needs anyone but the social right to win an election. So be it. Political suicide is still an option, but such a position will do little more than marginalize the RR even more than it has become. That would be unfortunate for all of us who want to stop the Hillary machine.

>>>>>I suspect it is you with the disdain for all those who don't share your religious values.

You can't be serious. You don't even know what my religious values are. LOL

>>>>>I wouldn't throw around the word "attack" so easily.

You have attacked in one way, shape or form, social and religious conservatives in every post you made to me on this thread.

>>>>The social "conservatives" from the Democrat Party had already moved to the Republican Party well before Reagan.

Before Reagan came along most social conservatives were Democrats. Reagan was successful in getting them to become Republicans and join his grand coalition.

You need to read this speech by Reagan. The New Republican Party. Reagan carefully and thoroughly explains his proposal to make the GOP the majority party in America. Here's a snippet:

"The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people."

~~~ Ronald Reagan, Speech to the 1977 CPAC Convention: "The New Republican Party"

_________________________________________________

That's enough. Most of the rest of your post is more of the same nonsensical, anti-conservative screed. One last specific response.

>>>>>Most conservatives disapprove of abortion but recognize it is simply not a presidential issue.

That is pure bunkum! Read on.

Many misguided FReepers keep repeating this canard that the President doesn't have much to do with the Abortion issue. That statement is simply FALSE.

Let's review SOME of what each President has done for or against abortion from Reagan to Bush II:

President Ronald Reagan 1981-1989:
“My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have meaning.” -President Ronald Reagan

President Reagan supported legislation to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand.
President Reagan adopted the “Mexico City Policy,” which cut off U.S. foreign aid funds to private organizations that performed and promoted abortion overseas.
The Reagan Administration cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) because that agency violated U.S. law by participating in China’s compulsory abortion program.
The Reagan Administration adopted regulations to prohibit federally funded “family planning” clinics from promoting abortion as a method of birth control.
The Reagan Administration blocked the use of federal funds for research using tissue from aborted babies.
The Reagan Administration helped win enactment of the Danforth Amendment which established that federally funded education institutions are not guilty of “sex discrimination” if they refuse to pay for abortions.
President Reagan introduced the topic of fetal pain into public debate.
The Reagan Administration played a key role in enactment of legislation to protect the right to life of handicapped newborns and signed the legislation into law.
President Reagan designated a National Sanctity of Human Life Day in recognition of the value of human life at all stages. President Reagan wrote a book entitled Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, in which he made the case against legal abortion and in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

President George H. W. Bush 1989-1993
“Since 1973, there have been about 20 million abortions. This a tragedy of shattering proportions.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.” -President George H.W. Bush

The Bush Administration urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass laws to protect unborn children, stating “protection of innocent human life -- in or out of the womb -- is certainly the most compelling interest that a State can advance.”
President Bush opposed the “Freedom of Choice Act,” a bill which, he said, “would impose on all 50 states an unprecedented regime of abortion on demand, going well beyond Roe v. Wade.” The President pledged, “It will not become law as long as I am President of the United States.” President Bush vowed, “I will veto any legislation that weakens current law or existing regulations” pertaining to abortion. He vetoed 10 bills that contained proabortion provisions, including four appropriations bills which allowed for taxpayer funding of abortion.
President Bush vetoed U.S. funding of the UNFPA, citing the agency’s participation in the management of China’s forced abortion program.
President Bush strongly defended the “Mexico City Policy,” which cut off U.S. foreign aid funds to private organizations that performed and promoted abortion overseas. Three separate legal challenges to the policy by pro-abortion organizations were defeated by the Administration in federal courts.
President Bush prohibited 4,000 federally funded family planning clinics from counseling and referring for abortions.
President Bush steadfastly refused to fund research that encouraged or depended on abortion, including transplantation of tissues harvested from aborted babies.
The Bush Administration prohibited personal importation of the French abortion pill, RU-486.
The Bush Administration prohibited the performance of abortion on U.S. military bases, except to save the mother’s life and fought Congressional attempts to reverse this policy.

President William Clinton 1993-2001
President Bill Clinton said he has “always been pro-choice” and has “never wavered” in his “support for Roe v. Wade.” “I have believed in the rule of Roe v. Wade for 20 years since I used to teach it in law school.”

President Clinton urged the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade.
The Clinton Administration endorsed the socalled “Freedom of Choice Act,” (a bill to prohibit states from limiting abortion even if Roe v. Wade is overturned). FOCA was defeated in Congress.
The Clinton Administration urged Congress to make abortion a part of a mandatory national health insurance “benefits package,” forcing all taxpayers to pay for virtually all abortions. The Clinton Health Care legislation died in Congress.
President Clinton unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the Hyde Amendment, the law that prohibits federal funding of abortion except in rare cases.
President Clinton twice used his veto to kill legislation that would have placed a national ban on partial-birth abortions. President Clinton ordered federally funded family planning clinics to counsel and refer for abortion.
The Clinton Administration ordered federal funding of experiments using tissue from aborted babies. President Clinton’s appointees proposed using federal funds for research in which human embryos would be killed.
President Clinton ordered U.S. military facilities to provide abortions. President Clinton ordered his appointees to facilitate the introduction of RU 486 in the U.S.
The Clinton Administration resumed funding to the pro-abortion UNFPA, which participates in management of China’s forced abortion program.
President Clinton restored U.S. funding to pro-abortion organizations in foreign nations. His administration declared abortion to be a “fundamental right of all women,” and ordered U.S. ambassadors to lobby foreign governments for abortion.
The Clinton Administration’s representatives to the United Nations and to U.N. meetings worked to establish an international “right” to abortion.

President George W. Bush 2001-Present
“The promises of our Declaration of Independence are not just for the strong, the independent, or the healthy. They are for everyone -- including unborn children. We are a society with enough compassion and wealth and love to care for both mothers and their children, to see the promise and potential in every human life.” -President George W. Bush

During his first week in office, President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which prevents tax funds from being given to organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas. He threatened to veto an appropriations bill unless a provision overturning the policy was removed.
President Bush declared that federal funds will not be used for stem cell research that would require the destruction of human embryos. His threat of a veto stopped an attempt in the U.S. Senate to provide funding for such research.
President Bush has stopped many anti-life initiatives by threatening vetoes -- including proposals to allow abortion to be covered in federal employees’ health insurance plans, and allow abortions to be performed in U.S. military medical facilities and within the federal prison system.
The Bush Administration ruled that federally controlled substances cannot be used to assist suicides. When the decision was overturned in federal district court, the Administration appealed the case.
President Bush has strongly backed a U.S. ban on human cloning and helped defeat a “clone and kill” proposal in 2001.
President Bush has helped win U.S. House approval of pro-life measures including the Child Custody Protection Act and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act.
President Bush promoted and signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which protects all infants born alive, including those who survive abortion.
The Bush Administration’s representatives to the United Nations and to UN meetings and conferences have fought repeated efforts to establish an international “right” to abortion. President Bush promoted and signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which bans the use of the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure.
President Bush supported and signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes unborn children as victims of violent federal crimes.

This utterly disproves the false notion that abortion is not a Presidential issue and that he has no power at all one way or the other.

I am R E A L L Y getting sick and tired of this fricken abortion issue. You keep posting this crap and people who were tolerant (me) are going to rebell!

You are on a conservative website where we stand up against abortion. If you are sick and tired of the issue perhaps you need to find another place to post because we couldn't give a damn if you 'tolerant' people that support murdering babies rebel.

HATE SPEEECH

You can't be serious. You don't even know what my religious values are. LOL

Yet you seemed so sure of whom I disdained. I have seen the disdain and outright hatred of anyone who believes we are a Party that encompasses much more than a tiny agenda of the RR. We are treasonous cretins as some here put it.

You have attacked in one way, shape or form, social and religious conservatives in every post you made to me on this thread.

You are way too thin skinned. I attacked no one, but have expressed my opinion that the RR should not lead my Party around by our collective noses. I said I respect the values of the social right, but do not want the social agenda controlling the next election. If you call that an attack, you might look at what your friends here call all of us who want a leader, not a minister for president.

~~~ Ronald Reagan, Speech to the 1977 CPAC Convention: "The New Republican Party"

Reagan's promise of strong leadership, a turnaround of our weakness worldwide, the Iran hostage crisis, the terrible inflation and interest rates in the teens, and Reagan's promises to work across the aisle to rebuild the Nation's security and face its enemies brought around the conservative Democrats. He built a coalition because of his leadership and his willingness to put this Country above petty partisan politics.

That's enough. Most of the rest of your post is more of the same nonsensical, anti-conservative screed. One last specific response.

Hostility seems to be the only way the RR knows how to communicate. Try winning an election by running off everyone but the extreme right!

This utterly disproves the false notion that abortion is not a Presidential issue and that he has no power at all one way or the other.

Most Americans do not approve of abortion on demand. However, most Americans know that stem cell research, just say no programs and the continual concerns of abortion related issues are not the issues of importance to them. You put all that on the agenda, and kiss goodbye to future USSC appointments, any kind of reasonable abortion restrictions, and above all a secure Nation.

It's obvious from your posts and quite a few here, that you are as far away from the mainstream of America as you are conservatism and the Republican Party.

I hope most of the RR will come to realize how important this next election is and not opt for political suicide. For the rest, as I said before, don't let the screen door hit you in the a$$. But your days of completely controlling my Party with your agenda is coming to an end. The loss in 2006 may well have been a blessing in disguise.

>>>>>>Yet you seemed so sure of whom I disdained.

Your own public remarks have exposed the animosity you have towards social and religious conservatives. I'm simply defending social and religious conservatives from your baseless, mindless and senseless assaults.

>>>>>I said I respect the values of the social right, but do not want the social agenda controlling the next election.

You don't know what the word respect means. I've got news for ya, social and religious conservatives will have the final say on who will represent the GOP in 2008. And its not gonna be Rudy the liberal.

>>>>>Hostility seems to be the only way the RR knows how to communicate. Try winning an election by running off everyone but the extreme right!

LOL Social and religious conservatives aren't running anyone off. Social conservatives are still the majority base of the GOP. A fact you keep ignoring to your own detriment.

>>>>>It's obvious from your posts and quite a few here, that you are as far away from the mainstream of America as you are conservatism and the Republican Party.

Well, you covered all the bases. Problem is, I'm not the one attacking the mainstream conservative base of the GOP. You are. You're the one who seems to be out of touch with the agenda of conservative Free Republic. Wonder why.....

I can overlook anything else we disagree about.

You can overlook his agreement with 4000 babies a day being murdered?

You can overlook his views on taking away even more freedom than we have already lost?

Rudy is a 'conservative'. He's socially liberal, politically conservative.

Trying to redefine conservative again.

He's unfit. He's immoral. He's got no standard of right and wrong guiding him. His positions are indecent, disgusting and abominable.

Is this a reprint from somewhere between 1993 and 2001 when William Jefferson Clinton was President of these United States?

Is this a reprint from somewhere between 1993 and 2001 when William Jefferson Clinton was President of these United States?

not much difference is there?

I couldn’t agree more. National security issues outweigh any stupid social issues and may disagree with Rudy on.

*sigh* Fine. Be adamant about it.

I followed a link to a link to a link. That was a dead end.

Now you link me to a story about a pro-lifer who says Rudy promised to support one bill.

I'm still not seeing anything in those stories about flip-flopping on his abortion stance beyond one fella claiming he has an assurance Rudy will support one bill. :-D

That was the point, remember? You came in and used that story to accuse him of pandering? That article doesn't seem to say that at all.

"Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."

Dude, you didn't even read your own article, you won't even now go look at it to read what it says, and now your bottom line is, "Yeah, he cut taxes, but not ENOUGH!"

I got it, Rudy could never do anything good, and you'll fabricate whatever evidence it takes to prove that.

:-D

Trying to redefine conservative again.

He cut taxes, cut budgets, was strong on crime, etc.

"Politically conservative". Same old definition.

The ones redefining 'Conservative' are the ones saying "If you don't agree with me, you're a liberl blankety-blank-blank"!

Somehow, I'm guessing you're not going to take them to task for redefining 'conservatsism', are you???

Funny how that seems to work . . .

Your own public remarks have exposed the animosity you have towards social and religious conservatives. I'm simply defending social and religious conservatives from your baseless, mindless and senseless assaults.

Please quote these baseless, mindless and senseless assaults.

You don't know what the word respect means. I've got news for ya, social and religious conservatives will have the final say on who will represent the GOP in 2008. And its not gonna be Rudy the liberal.

You earlier told me I didn't know what you believed, so how can you know what is in my mind. As for Rudy, I've not said a word in support of him. I've merely said that there are only three confirmed candidates who have the leadership ability and the broad appeal to win the election. Your friends and you will spend as much time as you can to destroy each of the three, and by doing so, the best you can hope for is a Hillary landslide. Sure doesn't sound very conservative to me.

LOL Social and religious conservatives aren't running anyone off. Social conservatives are still the majority base of the GOP. A fact you keep ignoring to your own detriment.

There are two distinctions you don't admit to. First is that most who support a social agenda also recognize its place in the upcoming election and concede that leadership ability, the war on terror and the security of our Nation come before prayer in school. The second is that almost all conservatives have some social concerns. Most do not want to see abortion on demand, nor do they want to see gay marriages. The distinction between them and the radicals here on FR is that they recognize that the courts will ultimately decide the abortion issue and we do not need a constitutional amendment to remove more power from the states. So one should not conclude that the self destructive extremism that is evident here on FR is in any way representative of conservatives in general.

Well, you covered all the bases. Problem is, I'm not the one attacking the mainstream conservative base of the GOP. You are. You're the one who seems to be out of touch with the agenda of conservative Free Republic. Wonder why.....

It is interesting to note that you wish to be associated with the mainstream of the Party yet you and most of your friends here continually attack the top three contenders in every way possible. Yet the polls show that the top three you folks claim are not in the mainstream of the Party garner between 60 and 85 percent of the total of Republicans among them. Add Newt, who cannot possibly be either nominated or elected if nominated and that leaves the candidates of the social right with about 6 or 7 percent among them. You were saying?

It's unfortunate you folks have chosen to make the majority of Republicans your political collective enemy. To believe you can win anything with the small group of social radicals you see here on FR is either the mark of the same misunderstanding the House Republicans of the 109th had, or simply an expression of desperation.

I hope all conservatives realize that any candidate on the Republican side is infinitely better for this Nation than a Hillary presidency, and will vote accordingly. Support your candidate in the primaries, but understand that if conservatism is going to survive, the Republican Party is its best hope in the long run. I will not turn away from my Party or my Country in 2008. To do otherwise would hardly be "conservative".

Take care.

was strong on crime, etc.

And ignoring the Constitution as he did that. NOT CONSERVATIVE!

I have not really paid attention to his cutting taxes, or budgets. Do mayors cut taxes?

Conservative is Conservative , one should atleast be conservative 1/2 way to be called conservative.

Rudy doesn't even call himself conservative. He calls himself a moderate and thats a huge stretch.

Conservative does mean everything anyone decides it should mean.

Why don't you liberals be true to what you really believe. Are you ahamed of it?

Rudy is proud of who he is, why do you want to desquise him as someone else.

I have not really paid attention to his cutting taxes, or budgets. Do mayors cut taxes?

Y'see, that's ironic then.

The single biggest part of being a 'political conservative' is tax-cutting and budget cutting. 'Smaller govt' is *the* single biggest way to recognize a political conservative.

Yet you're not even paying attention to this fella's past on those key issues? And yet you're rejecting him? You must admit, that is very interesting. Tell me, do you consider yourself a 'political conservative'?

:-D

He didn't "ignore" the constitution any more than Bush has with the Patriot act.

Still grasping at thin air. You liberals can spin, obfuscate and shill for Giuliani, give him all the political cover you can muster. You can deny his life long support for liberal issues and liberal causes. The fact remains Rudy is no conservative, never has been and never will be. His final fiscal record as mayor might impress you liberals, but for conservatives it was abysmal. Again, the Manhattan Institute critique of Rudy`s record is a devastating testament to his liberalism. It clearly spells out in no uncertain terms Rudy`s final fiscal record of big deficits ($2.0 billion), huge debts ($42 billion), spendthrift policies and out of control hiring practices that made liberal organs like the NEA and AFT overjoyed.

One more time. From the Manhattan Institute:

"The scope of government was not reduced at all. ..... money saved on social services has only helped to subsidize big increases in other categories. Today the array of social services sponsored and partially funded by the city—from day care to virtually guaranteed housing—is as wide as ever."

"In the final analysis, Mayor Giuliani sought to make the city deliver services more efficiently—not to make the city deliver fewer services. ..... the city instead failed to reduce spending."

"Even with the tax cuts of the last several years, New York remains by far the most heavily taxed big city in the country."