Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani

Your correct - I am saying he is no different then Hillary.

81 posted on 10/14/2007 7:23:17 PM PDT by gscc

To: stephenjohnbanker

This just means we can’t sit out the PRIMARIES!

The second and third tier candidates must be skipped. We have to focus on the first tier candidates.

82 posted on 10/14/2007 7:33:45 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)

From the article: “For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.” which I don’t think anyone doubted.

But for Rooty it’s still important enough to him as his record clearly proves.

I used to agree w “the lesser of two evils” in this type scenario but Post # 11 outlines serious reasons why Rooty may actually be worse than the hilldabeast.

Please see 11 and let me know if you at least respect the premise.

83 posted on 10/14/2007 7:35:42 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)

And until recently, the "illegal immigration is good for the US" lobby.
Aside for his tough talk and leadership in the wake of 9/11, there aint much else I can support him on.
Actually, I believe illegal immigration can and will do far more damage to America than alQaeda ever could.

We (the US) is far too strong militarily for the backward Islamo nutjobs to invade and destroy our American lifestyle.

You are correct. The US is, indeed, far too strong militarily for the Islamo nutjobs to ever defeat us militarily. But the fact is they don't have to.

All they have to do is defeat our will to win -- which, you have to admit, they've made substantial progress in doing. Thanks to their allies in the MSM and the Democrat Congress.

Osama bin Laden is on record as favoring a Democrat President. Given that, you really think electing Hillary Clinton is a good idea?

I'm with you on illegal immigration, the Second Amendment and the pro-life issue.

I can't really find a whole lot to support Giuliani on -- except I would trust him to prosecute the War on Terror and to keep taxes from going back up.

But that is a damn sight more than I would trust a Clinton administration to do.

84 posted on 10/14/2007 7:36:02 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)

Your correct - I am saying he is no different then Hillary.

So, Roe v Wade is the only issue you care about? You don't care about the WOT or taxes or federalism or judges on anything else?

And you are convinced that, under no circumstances, would the country be better off with Giuliani than having a committed socialist totalitarian in the White House?

Understand that all of your answers to the above questions have to be consistent for your stance to make any sense.

85 posted on 10/14/2007 7:43:12 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)

To: longtermmemmory

Speaking of candidates and tiers, here is the AP/IPSOS Poll of Oct 9th...

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071009-1topline.pdf&id=3673

86 posted on 10/14/2007 7:45:09 PM PDT by billmor

If you are so sure of that do you also know who WILL be the nominee?

LOL-Do you also know who will win the election? It would save many people from many gray hairs.

87 posted on 10/14/2007 7:47:52 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)

You are once again correct. Giuliani would mean the destruction of the Reagan legacy and the conservative movement, so long term it would have a much greater impact on principles I hold dear.

88 posted on 10/14/2007 7:47:59 PM PDT by gscc

To: 49th; Jim Robinson

A noble but dangerous idea. Right now it looks like it will most likely be Hillary v. Giuliani in 2008 and, if so, the Conservative movement in the United States risks tearing itself apart.

Conservatives won't tear themselves apart. On the contrary they are as sure about their principles, as evident by conservative comments on FR, as they socialists are about theirs. The difference is socialists, such as Giuliani, have to deceive the masses to further their agenda while conservatives aren't afraid to say what they believe. Anyone who considers voting for Giuliani is not a conservative.

It's a very big assumption to assert they will be the Presidential candidates considering conventions for both parties are several months away.

We can be reasonably certain that Democrats will vote as a solid block.

Based on what hard evidence? You have apparently not been listening to reports outside the socialist media of many socialists not being pleased with Hitlery's veiled attempt to play the centrist, specifically regarding the war in Iraq. The reason being the socialist media doesn't want you to hear this fact.

We can also be reasonably certain that a large percentage of independents and even ‘moderate’ republicans will vote against whoever the Repubs nominate, simply as a repudiation of the Bush administration. It’s looking more and more certain that whoever the Dems nominate will take the White House.

This is all mere conjecture absent any facts. Everyone assumed right up to election day Dewey would defeat Truman but nobody told a majority of the voters.

If we conservatives are going to hope to remain in a position where we will have any chance of stopping the liberal agenda, it’s going to require us to act as a group, not tear ourselves apart over our candidate.

You are assuming everyone in the GOP is Conservative. Socialism has crept into the GOP incrementally over many years to the detriment of conservatism. Many such as George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Arlen Specter and John McCain just to name a few have latched onto socialism in order to appease the socialist Democrats under the misguided notion of compromise. Ironically the socialist Democrats have never compromised their beliefs. Consequently the GOP has sacrificed its conservative ideals. It is the appeasers in GOP who are tearing the party apart.

I’m not saying that people should vote against their conscience, however, if the issue of abortion does cause the right-wing to split into two parties, one of them occupying the far-right and the other the center-right, the almost certain outcome is both parties being whoppingly defeated by the single left-of-center party.

This is center, left of center, right of center is a bunch of politically correct garbage. The center are those socialists attempting to disguise themselves as Conservatives in order to deceive Conservatives of their true socialist ideals.

:If the schism were to get severe enough, the Democrats could be looking at a solid eight years of dominating both the executive and the legislative. Imagine how entrenched they could become in that time?

Then it is imperative for the GOP leadership change its course by spending much more time appeasing the Conservatives by supporting conservative principles instead of appeasing the Socialist Democrats.

Don’t vote Giuliani if abortion is a make-or-break issue for you. But don’t fool yourself into thinking that making a moral stand on this issue will definitely result in positive change for the conservative movement.

The Republican party has been fooling itself for many years thinking appealing to the masses by supporting some socialism will eventually result in more conservatism. The Conservatives have been honest, forthright and consistent in their principles. The same can't be said for the rest of the GOP. It is reprehensible the Republican party spends more time castigating Conservatives that used to be the base of the Republican party instead of castigating the socialist Democrats.

89 posted on 10/14/2007 7:56:23 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)

To: cpforlife.org

Dilemna??? Try, Nightmare. Or maybe ‘quagmire’ (that’s old school for FUBAR in liberal parlance).

Hey, I have an idea. Lets just tell the 40,000,000 or so Christian conservatives in the country that we don’t find them to be all that useful anymore and that they should either find their own party or simple stop voting for the next four years. Yeah, that’s a freakin’ brilliant idea. (and i’m not a Christian Conservative).

If 50% of the country thinks that abortion ain’t a great idea and 80% think that gay marriage isn’t right and 90% think that partial birth abortion is immoral, why are we tripping over ourselves to create a general election where BOTH candidates will be AGAINST American voters on these issues? I cannot, for the life of me, see how this turns out well. I just cannot. I see us wandering around in the wilderness blind, lost and hopeless until at least 2012 when the Senate seats realign themselves towards our favor and we get another shot at the White House and there will be a handful of candidates who will be clearly, obviously and overtly socially conservative candidates.

Can you guys imagine the DNC nominating a Pro-Life candidate? Or one who was pro-choice on schools or FOR teacher testing? Or even a candidate who would support a fence on the Border? It would be freaking suicide and the Dems would never do it. But apparently, we would. I have no idea why.

90 posted on 10/14/2007 7:56:31 PM PDT by bpjam (Harry Reid doesn't represent me. I'm an American!)

To: cpforlife.org

Please see 11 and let me know if you at least respect the premise.

Yes, I respect the premise. But I don't agree with it.

Hillary will make little progress because there will be tremendous Republican opposition. Rudy would do much to advance the leftist agenda precisely because, being a Republican, he’ll get more support.

When the Clintons were in office before, we saw what the usual checks & balances meant: absolutely nothing.

If they are re-elected, they will have the support of a Democrat Congress -- who, this time, will share their primary goal of never losing power again.

If we lose this next election, there will never be an another opportunity to re-gain power...or to reverse Roe vs Wade ever again!

We need to understand that. The fun and games will be over. There will be a National Health Care system. The "Fairness Doctrine" will be back. It will extend to the internet -- and FreeRepublic will be regulated. We'll be out of the loop when it comes to politics.

And the Republicans you expect so much of will be cowering in a corner. Again.

Our elected officials are not the backbone of the Republican Party. We are. And a Clinton administration in '08 runs a very strong risk of our teeth being pulled.

If we lose in '08, we may lose...forever.

So, yes, I respect your premise. But I believe it is, in all practicality, totally wrong.

91 posted on 10/14/2007 7:57:14 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)

To: cpforlife.org

liberal verses liberal light. No damn thanks.

92 posted on 10/14/2007 7:58:40 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)

Also remember what we are trying to do here is to send a message to the Rep Party that we want some good choices, not some RINO goofball who just happens to lead in the polls..

What is a poll?—if only 7 or 8 people are running or are prominent enough, they are the ones mentioned in the poll..We are saying we want more names, and better candidates so we don’t have to make this a one issue vote..If the party pros insist on shoving a loser down our throats we can tell them try again- til they get it right...or go down in defeat. It’s their choice first, then we’ll make ours...

93 posted on 10/14/2007 8:00:07 PM PDT by billmor

To: Arthur McGowan

“Giuliani is a scumbag—a suborner of perjury (such as in the Michael Milken case), all-around prosecutorial abuser, and a license egomaniac. But Hillary! is worse.”

ROFLOL—You’ve just made the point of why it’s such a VERY BAD dilemma. And not just a pro-life one but essentially on every level. I read your accurate description of him and think WHAT A CHOICE!!!

We all know the hildabeat is evil but Rooty is only marginally less.

94 posted on 10/14/2007 8:00:08 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)

I may not get what I favor on the pro-life issue, but the country won't be dragged further into socialist totalitarianism.

Bull. The list below comparing Giuliani's position on the issues with Hitlery proves otherwise.

Giuliani/Clinton/Dem vs. GOP Platform Comparison
Issue	Giuliani	Clinton	Dem Platform	GOP Platform
Abortion on Demand	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Partial Birth Abortion	Supports Opposed NY ban	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Roe v. Wade	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Taxpayer Funded Abortions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Embryonic Stem Cell Research	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Federal Marriage Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Defined at state level	Supports
Gay Domestic Partnership/ Civil Unions	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Openly Gay Military	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Defense of Marriage Act	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Amnesty for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Special Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Tough Penalties for Employers of Illegal Aliens	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes	Supports
Sanctuary Cities/ Ignoring Immigration Law	Supports	Supports	Supports	Opposes
Protecting 2nd Amendment	Opposes	Opposes	Opposes Supports bans	Supports
Confiscating Guns	Supports Confiscated as mayor. Even bragged.	Supports	Supports Supports bans	Opposes
'Assault' Weapons Ban	Supports	Supports	Supports
Frivolous Lawsuits Against Gun Makers	Supports Filed One Himself	Supports		Opposes
Gun Registration/Licenses	Supports	Supports		Opposes
War in Afghanistan	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports	Supports
War in Iraq	Supports	Supports Voted for it	Supports Weak support	Supports
Patriot Act	Supports	Supports Voted for it 2001 & 2006	Opposes	Supports

95 posted on 10/14/2007 8:00:33 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)

For those of us that have core values it is a dilemma.

A conundrum, perhaps. A problem to be solved. But not a "dilemma".

96 posted on 10/14/2007 8:11:14 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)

All your arguments are very valid...when they are applied to the GOP primary.

But, should Giuliani win the GOP nomination, they become irrelevant.

Rudy's socialist beliefs won't suddenly disappear if he becomes the Republican nominee. He's held these beliefs for many years. It's ludicrous to assume otherwise.

The pro-life issue will survive a Giuliani. It will not survive a Clinton administration.

Even if your statement was true for arguments sake there are many more issues Giuliani takes a socialist position. Read post #95.

All your statements are vague and lack any credibility. I provide you with cold hard facts based on his record and yet you still deny they exist. It is this blind GOP loyalty that has caused the rift in the GOP party.

97 posted on 10/14/2007 8:11:26 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)

Your arguments are very valid. But I'm not asking you to vote for Giuliani in the primaries. I won't be voting for him either.

But, if he's the nominee, just the last two items on your list should assume some importance...

98 posted on 10/14/2007 8:17:29 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)

All your statements are vague and lack any credibility.

Thank you for your courteous response.

99 posted on 10/14/2007 8:19:50 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)

Thanks for that response. I respect your points and frankly I agree with most of them.

I think your good posts and the thread in general illustrates how terrible a situation we are in.

I’m nearly convinced that Rooty will cause many to stay home or vote 3rd Party giving it to Hildabeast. We DO NOT want that and that’s why he cannot win the nomination.

100 posted on 10/14/2007 8:22:42 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794