hes far from perfect but Id rather have him than McLame or Hitlerly
We WILL keep the White House!!!
What are his greatest failings with conservatives?
I am not intimate with the details on this.
Man has the party of Ronald Reagan got NO one better then this?
Has he seen the light regarding at least 2A yet, or do his hopes need to be dashed now?
Now that the 06 elections are over...
...It has begun.
A lot of die-hard "we hate Rudy" social conservatives are going to be very surprised at the stances Rudy believes in and the conservative viewpoints Rudy will bring to the table. It is gonna be a long campaign and all that we Rudy-ites ask is that you LISTEN to what the man says on all the issues and then decide if you'd rather have Rudy or McCain or the Hildebeest as your next President in '08.
Coz all the wishing in the world aint gonna make Tancredo or Geo Allen viable nationwide, no matter how congenial they may seem to the "I hate Rudy no matter what" crowd.
It's kind of like Tyson-Holyfield, there was supposed to be this big fight, then it gets called off and comes back years later.
Hillary vs. Rudy 2008 - This time it's personal.
Forget it. If he wins the nomination, he'll go down like Dole or Bush-41
Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani
by John Hawkins
Posted Aug 30, 2006 Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention. That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated. However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake. Here's a short, but sweet primer on some of Rudy's many flaws.
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
His thoughts on the gay-marriage amendment? "I don't think you should run a campaign on this issue," he told the Daily News earlier this month. "I think it would be a mistake for anybody to run a campaign on it -- the Democrats, the president, or anybody else."Here's more from the New York Daily News:
"Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.Although Rudy may grudgingly say he doesn't support gay marriage (and it would be political suicide for him to do otherwise), where he really stands on the issue is an open question.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani..."
"While McCain has taken heat for his support of comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy is every bit as pro-immigration as McCain - if not more so. On the O'Reilly Factor last week Giuliani argued for a "practical approach" to immigration and cited his efforts as Mayor of New York City to "regularize" illegal immigrants by providing them with access to city services like public education to "make their lives reasonable." Giuliani did say that "a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security" needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border, but his overall position on immigration is essentially indistinguishable from McCain's."That's bad enough. But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:
"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
Not just no, HELL NO!
Republicans Should Stay Optimistic and On Offense
By Rudy Giuliani
RealClear Politics, Nov 5 -
For the past six months, I've been traveling across the country campaigning for Republican candidates. Conventional wisdom from Washington predicts a tough year for the party. By playing offense, solidifying our ranks and reaching out to Reagan Democrats and Independents, I believe that Republicans have reason to be optimistic. Because on the big issues Americans care about - from national security to the economy to the Supreme Court - Republican leadership has delivered time and again on its promises.
Republicans are united by our belief in going on offense to win the war on terror. Five years ago, our nation learned a painful lesson about the dangers of an inconsistent approach to dealing with the evil of terrorism. In his speech to Congress on September 20th, 2001, President Bush declared that we would go on offense against terrorists, and he has made good on that promise. Terrorists have been destabilized and put on defense around the world - including Afghanistan and Iraq.
Americans should remember the positive impact of tax cuts on our economy. Most Republicans agree with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush that tax cuts are a powerful stimulus to the economy - that's why I cut taxes 23 times as Mayor of New York. Most Democrats disagree with that philosophy - it's an honest disagreement. But let's look at the results: Today, we have a 4.4% unemployment rate in our country - lower than the average in the 70's, 80's and 90's. The stock market recently hit 12,000 - an all-time high. And the lower tax rate is generating more revenue than the higher rate did before - $250 billion more than last year. Republicans stand for lower taxes; Democrats stand for higher taxes - it's as simple as that.
Finally, let's look at the Republican record on judges. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are models of what judges should be in this country. They are principled individuals who can be trusted to defend the original intent of the Constitution rather than trying to legislate their own political beliefs from the bench. The successful appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito are signs of promises kept.
But there is still more work to do: more promises that need to be kept.
When I talk to people across America, I hear their frustration with the gridlock and scandals from Washington. As a former U.S. Attorney, I spent much of my career bringing corrupt government officials from both parties to justice. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice - but we do have legitimate differences in terms of our ideas and vision for the future. And those principled differences should guide Americans' decisions on Election Day.
The people I've been talking with on the campaign trail want to see government get serious about fiscal discipline by cutting wasteful spending. American families want to see a revitalized education system with accountability, putting the focus on the students, increased school choice and higher standards, so that the United States can continue to be economically competitive throughout the 21st Century. They want us to do more to secure our borders while working to ensure that the virtues of legal immigration and assimilation are respected. They want us to move more aggressively toward greater energy independence.
But of course, the most important piece of unfinished business facing the nation is winning the war on terror.
In the era of President Truman and President Eisenhower, people used to say that "Partisan politics should end at the waters' edge." But lately some influential political voices seem to have forgotten this American tradition. The war on terror is not about "red" versus "blue" states - it is about right versus wrong; it is about good overcoming evil.
That's why these mid-term elections are so important. That's why we can't turn back. That is why Republicans need to solidify our ranks while reaching out with confidence. Because the issues that unite us as Republicans are the same issues that unite the vast majority of Americans: a commitment to winning the war on terror; a core belief in fiscal conservatism; and a faith in individual freedom. Advancing these principles, while staying on offense, can help keep the GOP a strong majority party in the United States
That said, if he gets the nod, I'm afraid that he'll lose New York to Hillary, and that would be a damn shame.
And the South would go third party, which will give Hillary the landslide.
The Midwest, Northeast is slowly but surely slipping permanently into Democrat Blue for electoral votes.
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Jersey may be permanently lost.
Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri, New Mexico are VERY dubious. Even Colorado is slipping away.
The electorate in the above states is really majority conservative regarding low taxes, reduced spending, limited government, pro-growth, pro-Israel and anti-Islamofascist and has its home in the GOP, NOT with the Democrats.
The GOP needs to LEAD with the issues that attract the rust belt voters who should be voting Republican, issues which are consistent with a government that LEAVES PEOPLE ALONE and doesn't preach to them.
I am not a member of the fundamentalist right, although I am a Christian. I think that bottom line, some of the fundamentalist hot button issues are "quixotic". Work for these values in your community. How are they issues that Congress and the President, the Federal government should be sticking its nose in?
Look at South Dakota. What happened to the abortion referendum there? If it can't win in S.D., where can it win?
As for 2nd amendment issues, if anti-gun laws are passed that are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will overturn it. I don't see the big paranoia here as something where there no compromises can be made.
Giuliani supports an originalist court, as a former prosecutor, his ideal justice is Antony Scalia, and he's praised John Roberts and Sam Alito as judges he would appoint. What else can the fundamentalist right ask for in a candidate as far as practical action?
The GOP needs to come to grips with losing MN, WI, OH, PA, NJ, NH, IA, NM, MO, CO, and MI or ALL will soon be lost.
Rudy Giuliani is a candidate who has great promise of turning those states red again on a consistent basis, and not with a "me-too" Republicanism of Arnold Schwarzenegger or of the 1950's and 1960's country club GOP of Evertt Dirksen and Gerald Ford, but with true Reaganite policies across the spectrum of issues that make the GOP the Less Government/ More Freedom party.
I'm an extremely conservative libertarian hawk. BECAUSE I am so extreme I'm determined to WIN in the long term and to create a PERMANENT majority with a conservative message that also sells/ suceeds.
Now is not the time to play around.
Hillary Clinton could easily win every state Kerry did, with Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado on top. Don't underestimate her.
I have to wonder if he's thinking that his way to the White House is through the VP slot. I guess he figures if he has any chance of being picked for VP he will have to keep his name in the news by running for President.
I dont like his gun control stance, but Im ok with all his other positions. Id be very happy with him being the nominee.
The Republicans better come up with somebody for 2008 besides McCain, Guillani, or Newt Gingrich. Unless we just want to surrender to the democrats like in 1996 with Bob Dole.
All 3 of these have been pushed as good candidates but all come with so much baggage that a large part of the Republican base will not vote.
McCain - Keating Five, think we won't hear it. Plus hes insane. Lots of folks can't stand him period, no matter what the media and his fans here at FR say.
Guillani - cheats on wife, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-gun and people HERE on FR are actually pushing this guy. By 2008, it will have been 7 years since 9/11 and hes been out of the public eye too long. The tales of the heroic mayor will be ancient history. Plus he choked and dropped out of running against Hillary twice.
Gingrich - cheats on not one, but two wives. That'll get the base going TO STAY HOME. Plus the book deal and other general crap, plus he choked and then quit also. Been out of politics too long. He has some good ideas but does anyone really think he is electable nationwide?