Replies

“That is utter nonsense. We know what happened when Bill Clinton reached office with a Democratic congress — the Republicans filibustered Hillary’s health care plan and other radical legislation. Such radical socialism resulted in Republicans winning a landslide election in 1994 and retaking Congress. That, in turn lead to welfare reform and balanced budget under Clinton.”

The country and the Congress as well as the Democratic party is far different than it was in 1993. All have moved to the left. People have become much more enamored of big government, and it wasn’t Republicans who filibustered Hillary’s healthcare plan. It never made it out of the Senate finance committee thanks to Senator Moynihan. Well guess what, there are no Senator Moynihan’s left to stand up to the radicals, because the radicals rule the roost in Congress. Moveon.org controls them as Pelosi and Reid go to kowtow to them at every turn. The few Democratic moderates left have been driven out or independent, whether Zell Miller or Lieberman. Even Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, an anti-war liberal, is being targetted by Moveon.org and has been completely black balled by the Democratic caucus merely for asserting the Surge is working. Sorry, the Congress now is under the control of radicals and there are enough REAL RINOs in the Senate who will go along with Hillary’s toned down government health care that there will be no filbuster of it, esp. with the fact the Dems. are likely to gain seats in the Senate in 08.

“It’s also absurd hyperbole to assume someone as unpopular as Hillary Clinton could get reelected.”

We said that about Bill Clinton in 1992. How did that work out for us? But dammit, we were just so mad at George Bush 41 we were going to show him by voting for Perot! And how do you know Hillary will be unpopular? She actually has the highest favorability ratings of ANY candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat. And after she buys the country off with big govt. schemes, she’ll be plenty popular. I really think you underestimate the extent to which big govt. is becoming an opiate for a country that’s deeply spoiled and inexplicably feeling like they’re in the depths of misery.

“And, where do we get the idea Giuliani is a liberal? FROM HIS RECORD. He was radically pro-abortion,”

No, Giuliani is pro-choice, personally opposed to abortion who wants it to go back to the states to decide, which is what will happen if Roe is overturned. His is a 10th amendment argument on abortion, which by the way Thompson announced last week is his position as well. Thompson took it even further than Giuliani though saying he opposes the GOPs anti-abortin plank, something Giuliani has not said. Funny how so many on Free Republican were extolling Thompson’s “federalism” for having the same governing opinion of abortion as Giuliani. But when it’s Giuliani, he’s “radically pro-abortion.” Too funny.

“pro-homosexual,”

Being for civil unions is not “pro homosexual.”

“pro-gun control, coddled illegals, left New York with the second highest debt in the nation,”

Rudy has said there will be no new gun laws as president. He did what he had to do to get a liberal city council to go along with his tough anti-crime measures. It was a position he took as mayor of a violent city that he says he would not need as president. I accept that.

As for illegal immigration, he opposed the Kennedy-McCain amnesty, and he has outlined a tough position on controlling the borders and illegal aliens. Go look up what he’s outlined. Here is the statement from his 12 Commitments “-I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation” — He has a strong plan to make that happen.

From CNN, October 27:

‘Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that if elected president he would end illegal immigration in as few as three years by employing the same police tactics he used to reduce the crime rate as New York mayor.

Stopping illegal immigration ‘is not impossible,’ presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday.

‘It can be done. It is not impossible,’ Giuliani told his audience at a town hall-style meeting. ‘You can do this, you can stop them at the border.’

Giuliani said he would boost the number of border security agents to 18,000 from the current 12,000, and build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border with technological monitoring to reduce illegal immigration.

He also would deploy federal agents along the border at 50-mile intervals, using high-tech monitors to detect people trying to enter the country illegally.”

And what do you mean he left New York with the nation’s second highest debt? You’re talking about Governor Pataki. Mayor Giuliani balanced the budget.

“supported affirmative action, supported McCain-Feingold, opposed school choice and appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margin. HE’S LIBERAL. DENYING OTHERWISE IS DELUSIONAL.”

Fred Thompson is the big supporter of McCain-Feingold. McCain even said of Thompson’s support “We couldn’t have done it without him.” Giuliani says it was a mistake.

For that matter, Thompson voted AGAINST denying welfare benefits to illegal aliens and against toughening employer verification. Talk about coddling illegals. But pre-911 I think a lot of our leaders underestimated the problem of illegal immigration. I think what’s important is that both Rudy and Fred have awaken to the dangers of illegal immigration and they’re now on the right side of the issue.

And as for liberal judges, sorry, you’re leaving out key facts including the fact the mayor of New York appoints judges from a choice of 3 given him by a liberal judicial panel. He cannot just chose whomever he wants. He did the best he could to get tough on crime judges, but his hands were tied and the best he could do was choose the least worst among the 3 given him each time there was a vacancy. From the Politico, Feb 28:

“Giuliani’s judicial appointments continue to win good reviews in New York legal circles for being what conservatives sometimes say they want: competent lawyers selected with no regard to “litmus tests” on hot-button social issues. Many of these people were in the mode of Giuliani himself: tough-on-crime former prosecutors with reformist streaks and muted ideologies.

‘He took it very seriously — he spent a lot of time with these candidates,’ recalled Paul Curran, a Republican and former U.S. attorney who chaired Giuliani’s Commission on Judicial Nominations. ‘He was looking for judges who were willing to enforce the laws.’

The mayor of New York appoints judges to three of the state’s lowest courts, the Criminal Court and Family Court, which deal with lower-grade crimes than the state’s Supreme Court, the main trial court and the Civil Court, which deals in relatively small financial disputes.”

As I pointed out, Giuliani has Ted Olsen advising him on judge appointments and will continue to do so if Rudy wins the White House. Ted Olsen isn’t going to advocate for liberal judges.

You’re ignoring key facts and the overwhelming preponderance of Giuliani’s record to focus on a few things where he went off the reservation. Every candidate we has either now or in the past have taken liberal positions on things. The only way you can get a candidate who perfectly reflects your views is to run yourself.

Again I invite you to read Rudy’s REAL record. This is from a news publication, not a campaign source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html