You're right about Giuliani's low level of support. I took my national polls data and made a new chart that shows Rudy vs. the sum of all other GOP candidates (ie. Not Rudy). Here it is:
Posted on 10/28/2007 5:57:38 AM PDT by shrinkermd
I find it ironic that in Giuliani's speech at Regent University (as shown in the video at the link you provided), he goes after Bill Clinton for responding poorly or not at all to terrorist acts against us. While Rudy Giuliani himself responding disturbingly bad to the first terrorist act committed by a muslim terrorist while Giuliani was Mayor of NYC.
Here's the truth about the first terrorist attack in New York City during Giuliani's term as mayor. On 23 February 1997 an Islamic terrorist opened fire on the observation platform of the Empire State Building in New York City. This was a terrorist attack and is even listed as a "significant terrorist attack" on the U.S. State Department's website. How did Giuliani react to the first Islamic terrorist attack while he was mayor? He took the opportunity to immediately and openly politicize the event to advance his and the Democrats' agenda for national gun control and to praise Bill Clinton's gun control efforts.Here's the relevant info and quotes:
U.S. State Department - Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2003
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."Archives of Rudy Giuliani, Mayor's Message, 2 March 1997:
"Good morning. It has been a week since the terrible tragedy that happened last Sunday at the Empire State Building. And even as we grieve for the families and our hearts and prayers go out to them, perhaps we can use this senseless tragedy to re-energize the fight for gun control."Archives of Rudy Giuliani, Major Addresses, Citizen's Crime Commission, 6 March 1997:
A couple of weeks ago, all New Yorkers and people throughout the world were appalled by the senseless and horrifying act of violence that occurred at the Empire State Building.Days after the terrorist attack, Giuliani wasn't assessing further Islamic terrorist threats or preparing the city against terrorist attack or publically denouncing Islamic terrorism. No, instead he was in a press conference at City Hall with a Democrat gun control nut (Rep. Carolyn McCarthy) by his side calling for national gun control.[snip]
Because of this transformation of perception, when this latest tragedy occurred, instead of having to defend New York City, we were able to focus national attention on the real problem, which is gun control. And even as we grieve for those who lost their lives, and our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, we may be able to find some sort of meaning in this tragedy by using it as a catalyst to revive national gun control efforts.
[snip]
Yesterday, President Clinton outlined his proposals for more stringent, federal gun licensing requirements. ... I applaud the President's proposals, and I will support them any way I can.
I only hope that he is right, and that Congress is finally ready to recognize that the vast majority of Americans want more gun control. It makes sense. It is time. And we can no longer let special interests dominate this vitally important issue.
[snip]
I know many people argue that keeping and bearing arms is federally guaranteed right as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. But even in the Second Amendment, it refers to firearms in the context of a well regulated militia, and well regulated is what we're trying to accomplish.
This is the TRUTH that must be told about the February 1997 terrorist attack in New York City. This is how Giuliani deals with terrorist attacks. He blamed the guns, called for violating constitutional rights for EVERYONE, and wanted to take away our own individual defense against further terrorist attacks. More disturbing is that he would openly politicize a terrorist attack to advance a liberal agenda.
Even if Giuliani didn't have all of the other 100-ton social liberal and personal baggage he would carry as the GOP nominee for President, his reaction to this terrorist attack is more than enough reason for Republicans to seriously consider looking for a better candidate.
So he couldn’t serve on the 9/11 Commission and wanted to give speeches instead.
And despite basing his whole campaign on 9/11, he seeks to sequester all the testimony he gave about 9/11 just like he sequestered all his mayoral records in that private warehouse.
What a phony. What’s he hiding while he keeps telling us his record is an open book?
This kind of secretiveness reminds me of the Xlintons.
“One is that 9/11 and terrorism fears trump everything”
Democrats won’t like it, but the War on Terror is THE central issue of 2008, which is why Rudy will win.
Oh, F-r-r-r-a-a-n-n-k, you're having those wet dreams again. Keep in mind, Rich wrote this after a 4-martini lunch with the Rooty Tooters peppering him with agit-prop. MORAL OF THE STORY: Frank and Rooty's wishing will not make it so.
=====================================================
Paramount reason to send Giuliani packing: he is the obedient lapdog of the Everything-For Us-Nothing-For-You types who are bent on transforming America into an irrational Mideast-type satrap.
Rooty and his neopukes are obsessed with religiously cleansing the Repub party and dumping so/cons off the party lifeboat. They would decimate our system of checks and balances and give liberals control of the entire US government.
A religiously-cleansed America, erased of The Founder's principles, would unleash an irrational, valueless mentality that has no relevance to American traditions.
The idea of Rooty's irrational, religiously cleansed mindset, degrading America into a Third World Mideast satellite, is repulsive.
=====================================================
Rooty and his Tooters offend the sensibilities of patriotic religious Americans nurtured by a democracy built on freedom of religion. These irrational religious-haters are lying in wait to subjugate conservatives to second-class citizenship.
Giuliani worships at the Church of Whatever Works for Me. He doesn't believe in anything-----or rather----he believes in doing and saying anything that will get him elected.
The thought of an irrational, religiously cleansed mindset controlling the levers of our government is repellent.
That's for sure---he's using the Clinton Campaign Playbook verbatim.
It’s Wayne Barrett (again) who reported about this leaked document. He annoys me because he gets documents like this and never shares the whole document, just the parts that he wants to highlight. I’ve contacted his staff before trying to obtain complete documents and they won’t give out anything.
“I’m not sure they had that much “clout” to begin with. What they had was creted by the media trying to discredit them. “
Some truth to that. The media has tried to demonize the Religious Right leaders as a way of marginalizing the RR. Ironically, that builds up the importance of the leaders.
At the same time, it was leaders like Pat Robertson who got many involved in politics.
“I seriously doubt that most Christians will vote for rudy (unless he is the only alternative to hillary). They won’t vote for him in the primary.”
75% of Republicans are picking someone else. He is rejected 3 to 1. If there was one strong conservative alternative, Rudy would lose to that candidate in the GOP primary.
Yikes and yuck. This is the kind of politicization of tragedies that the Democrats engage in. Just what we need, more regulation after every tragedy.
Suddenly, "9-11 Rudy" looks like another 'ride a tragedy to power' play.
I read the whole article and it seems mostly a hit piece on Christians, primarily because of our anti-homosexuality doctrine.
The question: “Is the political clout of Dobson et al declining is his question?”
has been well answered by others—they don’t really have political clout. They have persuasive influence as far as they are rational and scriptural with Christians. Ultimately Christians are motivated to please God. So naturally we would oppose abortion to save the lives of babies, and naturally we would oppose homosexuality to save the lives of homosexuals. Yes, we love homosexuals and want them to be saved, physically and spirituall—and many have been.
I am amused that people that these polls as some sort of entrail reading of the the future—the majority of the likely voters don’t know much about the candidates (even yet!) let alone the registered and unregistered voters they poll.
Rather, I go by the 2004 election—the war, and the character of President Bush, lead Christians to vote for him by a large majority over Sen Kerry.
Time, obviously, is the crucible here. If Rudy gets the nod (I predict he won't), it will prove that conservatives are but a minority in this country, and I am wasting my declining years fighting against that tide.
The fact that his peak popularity has been about 30%, it suggests his strength is limp wristed at best.
The field will surely narrow soon. Let's see where the Hunter supporters and that ilk go when the dust settles.
Rudy’s number one right now because of name value and some goodwill from 9-11.
Who knows? I’m a Catholic, so he doesn’t speak for me, yet I am a “social” conservative. This entire issue, it seems to me, is simply another way for the Left to try to divide us.
Get the Shovel, we need a hole over here to bury the Christian Conservatives...
Rich is only dreaming that this will happen. Like you and I might dream about winning Powerball.
As several have already said, all these television and radio preachers have never had the influence attributed to them by the MSM. Most Christians attend their local church and live their lives without ever tuning in to a television preacher. Many consider them a sort of weird, half-assed way to be a Christian.
It’s the MSM who’ve for years sought out people like the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to be a ‘spokesman’ for a group they never really spoke for except in small numbers. It’s due to the ignorance and bigotry of people like Frank Rich that such importance was ever given to the radio and television personalities. Christians hold their views on morality without the assistance of these ‘spokesmen’.
You're right about Giuliani's low level of support. I took my national polls data and made a new chart that shows Rudy vs. the sum of all other GOP candidates (ie. Not Rudy). Here it is:
He knows and the Republican hierarchy know this."
Yes, and it's exactly what they want to happen in order to elect their real candidate.
If the WOT didn't exist what would Rudy run on? Besides the WOT is fading as far as the main issue for a lot of conservatives. It's losing ground to the national debt and illegal immigration. The future of the U.S. is can no longer be seen strictly through the eyes of the WOT. The fact that Rudy is running almost strictly on the WOT tells us that he has no other issue to appeal to conservatives with.
Weird. I don’t know where that quote came from in my original reply. I guess I started to reply in another thread last night, quoting the poster of that thread, and it was still in my clipboard instead of a quote from your posting in this thread. Sorry if I created any confusion. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go to the post that I’m replying to right now and read what is in italics. It has nothing to do with this thread.)
Nope. It will be on the grave of the Republican party. Maybe something that needs to happen. But not during a war when HRC is the opponent.
Nice article, it’s A BUNCH OF BS: ~liberal wish fulfillment~, also I know many that respect those individuals.
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.