Posted on 01/22/2008 4:51:53 AM PST by StatenIsland
Rudy Giuliani may have made a great mistake by not campaigning in New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina. But between Rudy Giuliani (and, for that matter, Mitt Romney) on the one hand and John McCain on the other, there is little question as to who more embodies mainstream conservative and Republican principles.
But Giuliani is not merely more of a conservative than John McCain. In fact, if it is Ronald Reagan that Republicans want, Giuliani is extraordinarily close to that venerated man. Ronald Reagan stood for two great beliefs: that big government is a big problem for a free society and that America must be militarily strong and lead the war against global communism.
Substitute "global jihadism" for "global communism" and you have Rudy Giuliani's twin pillars. His one major weakness in appealing to all conservatives is that he is for abortion rights. Let me, then, briefly address all those who, like me, consider nearly all abortions immoral.
Ronald Reagan was pro-life, and it mattered little to the pro-life cause. Concerning abortion, what matters most in a president is the type of judges he appoints to the Supreme Court. As George Will wrote on behalf of Giuliani, "The way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make." It is extremely unlikely that John McCain would appoint similarly conservative judges. After all, why would he appoint judges like Scalia and Alito who apparently differ with him on the constitutionality of McCain's own "campaign finance reform" laws?
Pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves: Will a Democrat or Giuliani as president render abortion less common in America? The best is the enemy of the better. And Giuliani is far better on abortion than any Democratic nominee.
Giuliani is for school vouchers, against bilingual education, for reducing taxes further, for reducing government spending. And he has well-thought-out positions on how to achieve these things. He also has the experience of cleaning up the most liberal major city in America.
I write this column aware that Giuliani may have lost his chance at getting the Republican nomination. But I could not live with my conscience if I did not articulate one week before the potentially decisive Florida primary why I believe Rudy Giuliani would make an excellent president of the United States.
He’s still pro-choice and I won’t vote for him.
Based on my assessment of his positions on various issues, I'd Rudy Giuliani would probably garner a rating from the American Conservative Union of about 20-25, which means this line from the article is so silly it hurts:
But Giuliani is not merely more of a conservative than John McCain. In fact, if it is Ronald Reagan that Republicans want, Giuliani is extraordinarily close to that venerated man.
Giuliani's well-documented track record is one of a big-government, nanny-state totalitarian. There is nothing conservative about him at all.
He is still a gun-grabber just like Hitlery... I won't vote for him either...
Resident removal: a modern long-term care saga
U.S. and State Assail City in Closing of Queens Nursing Home
Judge Rules On Neponsit Health Care
Nursing Home Demolition To Be Pursued Despite Ruling
Vallone Says: Reopen Neponsit Home
Neponsit Refugees Win $5 Million Settlement from City
$5 Million Settlement Reached With City Over Evacuation of a Queens Nursing Home
I’ve seen a ‘Guiliani’ administration. From January of 93 to January of 2001.
The only difference is we’ve never seen Bill Clinton, another guy that can’t keep his pants zipped, in drag.
Anyone that would even consider voting for a guy that thought suing gun manufacturers was a good thing cannot call themselves a Conservative.
Likewise, anyone that would even consider voting for a man that sued the Federal Government to block Welfare Reform cannot call themselves a Conservative.
Anyone that would vote for a man that routinely cross dresses, and LIKES IT...well, they’ve got some serious ‘issues’ of their own, and need therapy.
Just my opinion.
As George Will wrote on behalf of Giuliani, “The way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make.” It is extremely unlikely that John McCain would appoint similarly conservative judges. After all, why would he appoint judges like Scalia and Alito who apparently differ with him on the constitutionality of McCain’s own “campaign finance reform” laws?
Pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves: Will a Democrat or Giuliani as president render abortion less common in America? The best is the enemy of the better. And Giuliani is far better on abortion than any Democratic nominee.
Sorry, there is no case to be made for Rudy: I will NOT vote for Rudy. <-— Notice the period
FR may hate RG, but he does not hate us, has not vowed to work against us, hasnt stabbed the President in the back, has campaigned for prolife, social conservatives since 98, and certainly is not running a liberal campaign, quite the opposite.
If the Mayor opens up on McCain for his weakness in the WOT, torture, his pussyfooting with the ACLU about Gitmo, (RG does hate the ACLU,lol), and reminds voters that McCain is running with the NYT in his back pocket, he could make some headway. Who knows.
If Fred gets out of the race, I don't think a true conservative can vote for any of the remaining guys with a clear conscience. I am now convinced that the conservative movement would be far better off with a brokered convention where we could pick an acceptable candidate than to vote for one of the table scraps left.
Don't worry. If Giuliani is elected, most of the guns I have will be banned.
You forgot to put (Barf Alert). Where do I start, Abortion, Gun control, ethics issues. Rudy is a law and order liberal, but a liberal nonetheless.
Oh, please. Giuliani is up to his old tricks---manipulating voters.
He recently announced his top staffers are working gratis---Giuliani wants voters to think he managed to spend all his campaign money without having actually competed in any of the early primary/caucus states.
The truth is that Rudy spent all his money because he HAS competed in all those states, and lost dismally. The number of times Rooty went to New Hampshire to campaign was second only to Romney.
Rudy just CLAIMS he hasn't been competing because the results show he is a bigtime loser, rejected by primary/caucus voters.
Although Giuliani talks big, and tries to cast himself as a warrior/hero, he cuts and runs when he feels competitive pressure. He chickened out of the Senate race vs. Hillary. More recently, he cut and run in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and now South Carolina.
He's the gutless wonder....a talker, not a doer. He wins Florida or loses whatever credibility he has left (not much).
Great point.
Rudy will appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench, and the Democrats will not.
Ballgame.
Isn’t this special? The Rooty Roosters are back to make one last push for their limp wristed Chicken Hawk.
Exactly!!
Spent money in states he came in last place. Mr. Mayor we see through you.
Also, I so agree and have said/wrote it myself, he had the opportunity to run and possibly beat Hillary but he failed to do so.
Thanks but no thanks. Can’t wait till Saturday when he packs up his purse and leaves. Maybe he will be the VP for Obama or Hillary.
Rudy Giuliani wouldn't even know what "strict constructionism" was if it bit him in the @ss.
With all due respect to a fine fellow freeper, I'll have to challenge you on that point. I'm just about finished reading Giuliani's book "Leadership." He writes quite a bit about dropping out of the Senate race. He talks about when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and was looking at all the treatment options. He consulted with a lot of people and felt he just wouldn't have the strength to run a Senate campaign.
I tend to believe his explanation. I've seen other people go through radiation therapy, and it can be draining. There are fair criticisms that can be made of Giuliani, but his withdrawal from the 2000 Senate race was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances.
I believe it is an especially critical time in our history when many issues should not be the main issues in a Presidential race. It does not mean they are not important but that we should think of other ways of dealing with them and focus on our security.
I support Rudy now because, not only does HE GETS IT, he can also best articulate the most important issue of our time--our National Security! He doesn't have to think about it.
Romney certainly doesn't get it if he thinks you can just pluck someone out of the State Dept. I like to be able to talk shorthand with people on important issues. We need a President who KNOWS the history so experts can talk to him or her in shorthand and not have to provide decades (centuries!) of history to get him or her enough up to speed to address emergency situations. It's not even like the old days when the communications took days and months--everything is instantaneous today! Imagine the learning curve Romney would need if he can make such a ridiculous statement!
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.