Posted on 04/16/2007 9:09:11 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Rudy must be stopped
By Joseph Farah
In case you hadn't noticed, Rudy Giuliani is leading all the polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
This is scary to me.Given the likelihood of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, Americans like me would have no choice. We'd be completely disfranchised from the presidential election. We would be morally prevented from voting for either major party candidate.
The good news is there's still time to stop Rudy.
My objections to Rudy are hardly confined to the issue of abortion. In fact, besides our shared passion for the New York Yankees, I can think of precious little on which I agree with Giuliani. But let's examine his extreme position in favor of killing unborn babies for any and every reason imaginable.
Giuliani began his campaign for the presidency by attempting to moderate his position on the life issue. He told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity he favored parental consent laws, he opposed public funding of abortion, he opposed partial-birth abortion, he favored the appointment of strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court.
All of this was meant to tickle the ears of soft-headed Republicans. It was meant to portray Giuliani as something other than an extremist, a zealot, the same so-called "Republican" who refused to support a moderate Republican candidate for governor of New York in favor of Mario Cuomo.
Giuliani even suggested his positions on the abortion issue had been consistent all along – that he was not modifying his stances in an effort to attract pro-life voters.
But, in this age of the Internet, there is just no hiding past positions on issues.
Indeed, Rudy has been consistent – consistently pro-abortion.
While saying he is personally opposed to abortion and thinks we should discourage it, he advocates every imaginable incentive for women to have them – discouraging laws requiring women to see ultra-sound images of their in utero babies before crushing their skulls, discouraging any cut in taxpayer funding of abortions and describing this hideous, abominable procedure as a "constitutional right."
I don't believe Rudy Giuliani is really personally opposed to abortion. I don't think he cares a whit about unborn babies. And, even if I am misjudging his heart, it really doesn't matter what he thinks. What matters is what he does, how he acts.
What would you think of someone who said he personally opposed slavery, would never own a slave himself, but fought fervently for the right of others to own slaves.
Would you believe that person is really opposed to slavery? Would you care that he was "personally opposed"? Would you grasp that this person was trying to have it both ways on one of the most crucial moral issues men can possibly ever face?
Here's what Giuliani said in 2000 on he subject of banning partial-birth abortions: "I would vote to preserve the option for women."
I believe that was the real Giuliani. That was a reflection of his heart and mind on this issue. He would preserve the option for women to kill their babies even at the very moment of delivery – when the child is "viable" in every sense of the word. This is a position even more extreme than the one taken by the muddled thinkers who gave us Roe v. Wade.
This is why I can never, under any circumstances, cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against.
He's unfit. He's immoral. He's got no standard of right and wrong guiding him. His positions are indecent, disgusting and abominable.
If he can't be trusted on a relatively simple issue of life and death, he can't be trusted on anything in my book.
We still have time to ensure that we have a real presidential contest in 2008. We still have time to ensure that Republicans offer us an alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2008. We still have time to find an alternative to Rudy Giuliani in 2008.
Let's get busy. We've got our work cut out for us. It's time to jump off this Giuliani bandwagon.
Take the pledge with me: "Under no circumstances will I cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against."
Right from your last post.
>>>>>Your friends and you will spend as much time as you can to destroy each of the three ...
A baseless charge. No one is destroying anyone. Some FReepers don't care for Mitt Romney and others don't like John McCain. Some of us have ruled out Rudy Giuliani. BFD! That's American politics, bucko. We are CONSERVATIVES first! This is the weakest field of GOP candidates in my lifetime. Instead of working to split the 30 year old Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives, you should be working to hold it together at all costs. If not, a Democrat will win the WH in 2008.
Another example.
>>>>>The distinction between them and the radicals here on FR...
A senseless charge. JimRob purged FR of rightwing extremists years ago. The only radicals on FR today are the moderate-centrist-liberal contingent of Republicans who keep promoting liberals like Rudy Giuliani for POTUS!
>>>>So one should not conclude that the self destructive extremism that is evident here on FR....
A mindless charge that holds no substance whatsoever. Again. The only destructive extremism I see around these days on FR, comes from the moderates, centrists and liberal FReepers who keep advancing a leftwinger named Rudy Giuliani to be the next GOP noiminee for POTUS. Look at the current FR poll. Rudy is below 10% support among FReepers. Rudy is also losing support with conservatives nationally. His liberal record is being exposed and Rudy is losing his conservative supporters.
>>>>>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.
You don't get it!!! Free Republic is the internets premier conservative website. Most FReepers don't give a rats arse about moderates, centrists or liberals! McCain is a modetare, Romney is a centrist and Rudy is a liberal. Those candidates aren't gonna be received with open arms around FR. Nor will they be given much support within the conservative community overall.
So you say -- and when a smart conservative like Mr. Forbes says otherwise, you simply call him names and declare victory, I remember. Your idea of debate -- don't read your own links, then insult anyone who disagrees with you. Good luck with that!
That article is written to and about Bloomberg, as I pointed out earlier. The conclusion makes that clear. hehehe.
So your biggest complaints, the ones you put in bold, are that yes he cut taxes, but not *enough* (bwahahaha!) and yes he made govt more efficent but Bloomberg is just spending it all!
Dude, your own article proves the exact opposite of what you claim. You've been pwned.
It's a good day.
Very interesting indeed.
Steve Forbes puts it pretty well.
Some quotes:
He did a good job running NYC with politically conservative values. He is a political conservative.
:-D
Now certainly I disagree with him on some issues. But imagine, if he does win the Presidency. Imagine if, as might make sense, he continues and does this for our country.
He could end up being one of the greatest Presidents of our age. And ya'll are calling him names, and predicting disaster . . .
It'll be interesting, to see what happens, eh?
In addition, I’ve not editorialized anything connected with Rudy`s liberalism. I posted the facts and the truth from the Manhattan Institute. The facts about Rudy`s social liberalism is well documented. The problem you’re having is, the facts and the truth don’t jive with your attempts to obfuscate Rudy`s past liberalism. Publicly pronouncing Rudy a conservative without facts to back it up, is nothing more then creating falsehoods. Falsehoods that are meant to hoodwink certain Republican voters into unknowingly support Rudy`s candidacy.
Right now Rudy is sitting at 8.9% support among FReepers. I’d say your efforts to spin his liberal record into a conservative record is failing on Free Republic miserably. In the end, conservatives throughout America will also reject Rudy. Bank on it, dude! LMBO
i’m saving my energies for against hillary.
Ah, so now you say tax-cutting and budget-cutting *isn't* conservative, and then you tell ME not to redefine conservatism? :-D
And your article still proves you wrong, if you'd read it. Your idea of 'debate' has been to call Forbes a 'jackass'. You have been totally, completely pwned. It just makes it funnier for you not to have the class to fess up.
My friend, if you're an example of the type of person in Rudy's way, he's a lock.
We'll just have to wait and see, eh? If I'm wrong, I'll still be here, and I'll be eating plenty of crow.
And I'm sure so will you.
BINGO!!!...we have a winner....
No, we're saying you're grossly ignorant if you think RINO Rudy is budget-cutter or fiscal conservative:
Government spending
Mr. Giuliani said the surplus from the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, is projected to be $856 million, a record amount caused largely by higher-than-expected tax revenues from robust profits on Wall Street. He said for the first time that he wanted to use $99 million of that money to help the city adapt to the new strict Federal welfare rules by paying for child care, job training and other programs.
Source: New York Times, Clifford Levy, 5/9/97
Giuliani allowed spending to increase significantly faster than inflation during four of his last five years in office - and another big increase was in store for fiscal 2002 before the World Trade Center attack forced the city into an austerity mode.
Source: FISCALWATCH MEMO July 20, 2004
Not all that well. According to New York's Independent Budget Office, total budgeted expenditures grew from $31.8 billion in 1995 (Rudy's first budget year) to $44.6 billion in 2003, an increase of 40.3%. By comparison, the inflation rate from January 1995 to January 2003 was 20.89% according to this inflation rate calculator. Thus, New York City's spending under Rudy grew at a rate twice that of inflation.
Perhaps the biggest difference is on fiscal issues. Giuliani, who lost interest in curtailing the growth of city government in his latter years, left behind a fiscal catastrophe—a $6.4 billion deficit proportionately bigger than the hole that caused the 1975 fiscal shortfall. --- Jacob Weisberg, Slate magazine 2/21/07
Mr. Clinton is enthusiastic, and in August 1997 uses his tool for the first time to strike down a special-interest provision tucked in a bill. That provision gives New York hospitals a unique right to bilk extra Medicaid money, and the veto is expected to save federal taxpayers at least $200 million. Quicker than a Big Apple pol can say "pork," New York officials sue, challenging the line item veto's constitutionality. That suit, Clinton v. City of New York, goes all the way to the Supremes, which in 1998 put the kibosh on veto authority. The kicker? The guy who brought the suit and won--or, rather, the guy who helped stall one of the more powerful tools for reining in government spending--was none other than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Source: Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 4/14/07
You have a lot to learn. Reversing the Dinkins tax increase and handing out a modest tax cut to NewYawkers is called fiscal restraint by NYC standards, NOT fiscal conservatism. Big difference, mister liberal.
>>>>>Your idea of 'debate' has been to call Forbes a 'jackass'.
You're the one who keeps bringing up Steve Forbes and his jackass decision to support Rudy. NOT me. The issue is Rudy Giuliani, NOT me.
>>>>>My friend, if you're an example of the type of person in Rudy's way, he's a lock.
I agree. Rudy is a lock for the liberal Republican voters like you. Along with the moderates and the centrists. But Rudy is not gonna get the enough conservative voters to sell out ntheir principles, in order to push him over the top.
All you're doing around FR is spinning your wheels and wasting your time in a futile effort to promote a liberal on a conservative political forum. You've exposed yourself as a liberal, and done nothing to help advance Rudy's candidacy.
So he cut taxes, cut spending, turned a billion dollar deficit into a big surplus.
But your quote takes him to task for then spending some of that money?
Just like the other fella who's had the nerve to say, "yeah he cut taxes, but not enough!"
You give one quote that includes the post-911 numbers, as if that can count against him.
Boy . . . ya'll sure are making your case, yes-sir-ree. :-D
Do you at least agree that cutting taxes and cutting budgets does indeed make one a solid political Conservative?
"Sure he cut taxes, but not enough!"
Good luck with that. Obviously it didn't sound persuasive to me.
Maybe you'll have better luck with someone else then!
The really interesting thing will be long-term. You say I'm "wasting my time" -- well again, if Rudy gets elected Prez and if his past history repeats itself and he lowers taxes, cuts budgets, is tough on crime, is a strong leader like he has been in the past . . .
FR will praise him. And you'll be the one who falsely slandered someone who might end up the best Prez of our generation! You'll be just like the Buchananites.
I just can't *wait* to see how this turns out . . .
I really think your brain is fried from drug use. GIULIANI DID NOT CUT SPENDING IN NEW YORK. Are you too dumb to read and comprehend this?
Government spending
Mr. Giuliani said the surplus from the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, is projected to be $856 million, a record amount caused largely by higher-than-expected tax revenues from robust profits on Wall Street. He said for the first time that he wanted to use $99 million of that money to help the city adapt to the new strict Federal welfare rules by paying for child care, job training and other programs.
Source: New York Times, Clifford Levy, 5/9/97
Giuliani allowed spending to increase significantly faster than inflation during four of his last five years in office - and another big increase was in store for fiscal 2002 before the World Trade Center attack forced the city into an austerity mode.
Source: FISCALWATCH MEMO July 20, 2004
Not all that well. According to New York's Independent Budget Office, total budgeted expenditures grew from $31.8 billion in 1995 (Rudy's first budget year) to $44.6 billion in 2003, an increase of 40.3%. By comparison, the inflation rate from January 1995 to January 2003 was 20.89% according to this inflation rate calculator. Thus, New York City's spending under Rudy grew at a rate twice that of inflation.
Perhaps the biggest difference is on fiscal issues. Giuliani, who lost interest in curtailing the growth of city government in his latter years, left behind a fiscal catastrophe—a $6.4 billion deficit proportionately bigger than the hole that caused the 1975 fiscal shortfall. --- Jacob Weisberg, Slate magazine 2/21/07
Mr. Clinton is enthusiastic, and in August 1997 uses his tool for the first time to strike down a special-interest provision tucked in a bill. That provision gives New York hospitals a unique right to bilk extra Medicaid money, and the veto is expected to save federal taxpayers at least $200 million. Quicker than a Big Apple pol can say "pork," New York officials sue, challenging the line item veto's constitutionality. That suit, Clinton v. City of New York, goes all the way to the Supremes, which in 1998 put the kibosh on veto authority. The kicker? The guy who brought the suit and won--or, rather, the guy who helped stall one of the more powerful tools for reining in government spending--was none other than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Source: Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 4/14/07
SO TRUE. I avoid this rag like the plague.....
Perhaps I'm the only one of us two able to comprehend your quotes. :-D
Your first quote talks about a $856 surplus. When Rudy took over, there was a multi-billion dollar deficit. So that's a 'plus' to Rudy.
Your second quote talks about the *end* of his career as mayor, after he had slashed budgets so much, then he started to spend a little of that. Again, a 'plus' to Rudy.
Your third quote is the funniest, it uses the 2003 (post-911) numbers! Yeah, sure, *that* is his fault, uh hunh. Heh!
And on.
It's simple. You are predicting gloom and doom if Rudy wins. At this point it looks like he will win. And if, as seems likely, he does a good job as Prez, you will be eating some crow.
Likewise, if Rudy turns out to be worse that Hilly, I'll be eating crow.
I can tell ya which one looks more likely, based on history . . . but who knows? Maybe you're right.
I can't wait to see how it all plays out!
I'm sure. LOL I don't know what to tell you, mister liberal. Conservatives around FR aren't persuaded with Rudy the liberal. In the end conservatives will not choose him to be the GOP nominee.
>>>>>FR will praise him. And you'll be the one who falsely slandered someone who might end up the best Prez of our generation! You'll be just like the Buchananites.
Anyone who does the right thing, will always get kudos from conservatives. But a liberal denouncing Pat Buchanan doesn't surprise me at all. OTOH. Posting the facts about Rudy`s liberalism, is not slander. Its called the truth. Something you know NOTHING about.
>>>>>I just can't *wait* to see how this turns out . . .
If you keep promoting a liberal for Prez, you might find yourself on the outside, looking in. LOL
Bucko? Cute. Well, I could probably count at least 1000 posts (if I had the time and motivation) showing the destructive nature of the attacks on all three, but as a participant of many of those, I suspect you understand all too well. It may be American politics, but it is hardly conservative to attempt to destroy every candidate who has any chance against Hillary and then threaten to go elsewhere if they don't get their way.
We are CONSERVATIVES first!
Then, you will not abandon the Party that represents conservatism's best hope of survival. To do so is anything but conservative.
This is the weakest field of GOP candidates in my lifetime.
Then you are quite a young man. I daresay 1996 was a loss from the getgo; Try 1964, 1976, even 1992 if we want to get technical about it. At least here, we have several candidates who possess strong leadership qualities with proven leadership records. There are others who show strong tendencies toward social causes and others who are linked to single issue causes. All in all, it is a field that almost anyone can choose from representing his or her political ideology. But its strength lies even more so in the fact that three of the candidates (4, if Fred runs) can actually beat Hillary.
The social right fears that their hold on the Republican Party will disintegrate even more than it has if any of the top 3 get the nod. It's not ideology with them, simply fear of the loss of influence.
Instead of working to split the 30 year old Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives, you should be working to hold it together at all costs. If not, a Democrat will win the WH in 2008.
I'm not working to split anything, since that coalition was fractured after 2000. It doesn't exist anymore. It only existed during the 1990s because we had a common opponent in the White House. But then, we conservatives take a far different view than does the social right. We know what is at stake. We know that even Hunter would make a better president that would Hillary. We know that most of the social issues of concern to the RR are pretty much irrelevant issues in this election. We also know that only those 3 (or 4) can possibly win in 08. There is no other candidate who can bring together the center-right and moderates of our Party and also the conservative Democrats and independents who fear the left at least as much as the far right.
A senseless charge. JimRob purged FR of rightwing extremists years ago. The only radicals on FR today are the moderate-centrist-liberal contingent of Republicans who keep promoting liberals like Rudy Giuliani for POTUS!
That you do not see it is telling in itself. To call a moderate a radical is again quite telling. Oh, they are here and pretty much own the forum. They are the kind of people who refer to the moderates as treasonous cretins. You may not see the radicalism, but I guarantee you the rest of the world does.
Look at the current FR poll. Rudy is below 10% support among FReepers.
Exactly my point. But even though no more than 8 or 9 thousand out of 200 thousand members ever vote on these FR polls, they do show who is in control of the forum.
You keep referring to Rudy, and I continue to say that it is not just Rudy but all three of the leading candidates who are being smeared here with spam after spam. There is no discussion, simply attacks and insults to anyone who sees it differently. You know it. I know it.
You don't get it!!! Free Republic is the internets premier conservative website. Most FReepers don't give a rats arse about moderates, centrists or liberals! McCain is a modetare, Romney is a centrist and Rudy is a liberal. Those candidates aren't gonna be received with open arms around FR. Nor will they be given much support within the conservative community overall.
Well, as I've said before, calling all the Freepers here conservative is akin to saying the Democrats are supportive of our troops. They say they are, but their words and deeds belie them. Yes, many Freepers are conservative, but a social agenda that includes constitutional amendments to prevent freedom of speech or to prevent states from exercising their 10th Amendment powers is anything but conservative. Conservatives believe in a republican form of government and do not whine at the federal government to come in and force county courts to do their bidding when decisions go against them. Conservatives do not like abortion any more than the social right, but understand how our government is organized and respects the Constitution and our system of government. Conservatives do not waste congressional capital trying to argue prayer in school or the Ten Commandments. Conservatives can distinguish between the duties of the government and those of the citizenry, and know that culture and religion are the domain of the citizens, not the government.
And as I said before, conservatives understand what is at stake in 2008; some from the social right do not appear to understand. I take comfort in a recent poll I saw of the RR showing that a large percentage of them would vote for any of the top three should they be the candidate. I also know that talk is cheap, and even here where the vocal minority threatens a walk-out, it won't happen. Most of you folks are pretty intelligent, and may not like the candidate of our Party, but for the most part you'll be there on election day.
That's interesting . . . tell me, were you a Buchannan for Prez supporter? Were you, by chance one of the 'peasants with pitchforks' in 04?
Cuz that's the way you're going now. Folks like you said all this same kind of stuff: you're a liberal if you don't agree with them, predicting the end of the world if Pat wasn't elected. Then, when he lost, they got verrrrrrry quiet.
And that's what's likely to happen here again. Again, if Rudy is elected, and if he wins, and if his history proves to repeat itself and he turns out to be a great conservative Prez . . . you're going to look rather differently on this exchange.
Your behavior will bear re-examinination. :-D
Stop playing dumb games, mister liberal. This is not about Pat Buchanan or Steve Forbes. This is all about you running around this conservative forum promoting a liberal named Rudy Giuliani for POTUS. So stop trying to change the subject. Your arguemnts are weak and shallow.
You liberals are so transparent.
>>>>>Folks like you said all this same kind of stuff....
If you mean I use conservative rhetoric all the time, you're right!
Btw, let me correct one thing I posted. I said Rudy had 8.9% suport among FReepers. That was incorrect. Among FReepers its 5.4%.
This is very much about Pat and Steve.
Steve is a conservative like me who points out Rudy's conservative credentials. You insult him because you can't refute him, just like you do me and all the others here.
Pat is the best example of the 'peasants with pitchforks' kind of posters like yourself, and what is likely to happen to you. "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a blankety-blank-blank liberal! I predict anyone we don't like will never win election, and if they do it'll be a biblical disaster!" Never does work, and you folks always end up embarrasing yourselves. When your wild predictions prove false, you usually end up having to change screen names. Chicken little, call for you on line 1 . . .
It's so quaint. Your righteous fury just radiates off the screen. And just like the Pat brigades, you're insults and mistaken labeling of others as liberals is actually dooming your cause.
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.