Posted on 04/17/2007 6:25:48 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Rudy Giuliani would make a superb president. he combines Reaganesque vision with extraordinary attention to detail. He is strong on national security and also has the principles and policies to strengthen the economy. He is a tax cutter and a foe of the federal income tax's complexity.
He is a fervent free trader, much needed, as global protectionist pressures are rising. He has also demonstrated an antipathy toward unnecessary regulation. If Sarbanes-Oxley hasn't been amended by the time Giuliani takes office, he will push hard to remove its counterproductive elements.
While I disagree with him in certain areas--I am pro-life, and he is pro-choice--he has made it abundantly clear that he would appoint John Roberts/Samuel Alito-type judges to the federal bench.
Giuliani cut or eliminated 23 taxes. The top rate for the city income tax, for instance, was knocked down by 21%. The overall tax burden for a New York City resident went down a remarkable 17%.
During Giuliani's tenure the Big Apple's economy blossomed: 423,000 new jobs were created. More people were moving into the city than leaving it. That he achieved so much going against a generations-old spend-tax-welfare political ethos is astonishing.
(Excerpt) Read more at members.forbes.com ...
“Feel better now?”
Only if it opens your eyes to the truth. I think you are deceiving yourself to think that Rudy will fight for conservative values as president. He never talks about those issues, that’s because he is a one issue candidate. We need a president who will not only fight the WOT, but fight for principles that are important to conservatives. Of course, if you are not a conservative then this means nothing to you.
Actually, if being labelled a Swine would mean that the rudy folks would stop casting their “pearls” of repeated and senseless articles before me, I’d be happy to adopt it as my new screen name.
:-)
So we change the charter of the Republican Party so it looks more Democrat than Republican? What difference does it make who wins the election if both candidates stand for the same BS? You Rudy supporters are insane!
"Blah blah blah...conservatism bad, liberalism good...blah blah blah...less conservatism, more liberalism...blah blah blah." You morons are like broken records. You may have come to the conclusion that the Republican Party needs to become more liberal and less conservative. And you may feel that it is your mission to come onto this conservative forum and preach that trash. Well, we don't want to hear it. We utterly reject it. The mission of this site is to promote MORE conservatism, not less. Go peddle your liberal junk somewhere else. We're not buying.
Kinda like Rooty, His campaign will wind up being scraps for the dogs or just something you throw in the garbage.
It’s just that the Fiscal Conservatives really, really, REALLY want to have that fight. It’s “my way or the highway” with them this time around - Rudy or bust! No one else is acceptable unless Rudy falls next February.
SoCons are trying to hold the party together in 2008 - Fiscal Conservatives want to blow the whole thing up and try reshaping the party markedly to the left, in an attempt to create a new alliance that seeks to take Democrat-leaning votes in, while purging the SoCons and Gun Conservatives.
You can read it here from the Rudophiles themselves - many of them are downright pissed-off that we got Roberts and Alito on the Court, especially in lieu of Gonzales and Miers, and are trying to demand now that such concessions should damn well be enough to compel subjugation to whatever candidate they put forward this time - even if that candidate is downright hostile to their views.
It’s about power for the Rudophiles - just like Rudy. Power at all costs, victory at the expense of any combination of principles, and a new-look, progressive GOP if they have to burn the house down to do it.
After all, there’s always room for them in other folks’ houses, so no need to value this one all that much anyway.
SoCons like myself will continue to try and put forward a candidate who pleases both sides of the GOP, Fiscal and Social. Unfortunately, the Fiscal have simply no interest in doing the same in 2008 - or at least not the Rudophiles.
The thing that really bugs me - and I assume others like me - is that I'm a social AND a fiscal conservative. I've taken slings and arrows, even though this is a conservative forum, for my criticisms of some Republican elected representatives on both issues. I get slammed every time I post the graphs and charts demonstrating how much our recent Republican Congress and our Republican President has increased discretionary domestic spending. I also get slammed for criticizing them when they vote for or promote socially liberal positions. The one-issue fiscal cons are so intolerant to social cons that when I ALSO espouse a social con position, along with my fiscal con views, they attack me.
While I disagree with him in certain areas--I am pro-life, and he is pro-choice--he has made it abundantly clear that he would appoint John Roberts/Samuel Alito-type judges to the federal bench.
Steve Forbes uses lots of words to explain his position, but when you cut through the bull, Steve Forbes is NOT pro-life. He is for a few more restrictions on abortion, but in the end as long as it's not for sex selection he is for giving a woman choice in the 1st and 2nd trimester. That is NOT a pro-life viewpoint. Steve Forbes is pro-choice.
Here are his own words. Like I said, cut through the bull and you can see he is pro-choice with a few more restrictions.
I want to help make abortions disappear, where it’s just something that people don’t do unless it’s a real emergency. In a democracy, that can only happen if there’s a change of heart, a change of conscience. To move the issue forward, I would oppose abortions in late pregnancy, barring emergency. I’d oppose abortions for purposes of sex selection. I’d oppose mandatory government funding. I’d support parental notification. Beyond that, we have to persuade. We’ve got to do it one on one.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Steve_Forbes_Abortion.htm
Riiiiggt!
And his wife is going to sit in on Cabinet meetings, too!
Or not.
That’s cute!
Which one are you?
I bet he has no problem moving to the left though.
And if Congress remains relatively unchanged in it’s composition, he will have a ready made excuse to “compromise” his position, and our values along with them.
And with Rudy we can continue not working.
So what if he'd be the most liberal Republican nominee ever?
We deserve Rudy, to punish ourselves for being lazy!(sarcasm?)
I voted twice for President Bush who I thought would implement a conservative agenda. However, other than on taxes, judicial appointments and the war on terror (and ever there he could have been more of a hawk), his administration has been a disappointment to me as a conservative.
Seems like whether we're talking about Supreme Court nominees or presidential candidates...ya' rolls the dice, and ya' takes your chances.
So it's important to take notice ... with Rudy, the dice are loaded!
Snake eyes! Craps!
I knew I set myself up for that one...LOL!
Yeah you did!
Looks like he has made a "typical RINO move".
Look here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819425/posts
I fall under the Fiscal Conservative/libertarian leaning side. Not to say that someone can’t be an Evangelical and a fiscal conservative. You can be both.
I’ve even seen some Evangelicals who are libertarian in the sense that they still love the sinner but hate the sin, but believe that God is stronger than Gubmint. Unfortunately, there are also some whackos out there who Jesus would look at and say “What the heck are you saying? I never taught that.”
You pretty much summed it up neatly. The only part I question is the idea that Rudy backers have a problem with Alito and/or Roberts. I’ve never seen that. Only a left wing ideological loon looking for a judicial activist would have a problem with either of them, they’re obviously more than qualified to say the least.
What would make you say that?
I wouldn’t have a problem supporting Rudy and voting for him myself. But I certainly do understand SoCons anger.
Everybody has a candidate that they would absolutely never, ever support. If Huckabee were relevant, I would be screaming out against him as loud as you are about Rudy. (You haven’t seen cheesy graphics until you’ve seen the Huckster “Nutty Professor” one that me and Honolulugal will break out if he ever gets more than 12 supporters nationwide)
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.