Rudy’s a No-Go

National Review ^ | 2/6/2007 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[WillT]

His track record in NYC is fantastic, in case you want to check out what he did there. The libs hated him while he was mayor. Nuff' said about that.

[WillT]

He DOES oppose partial birth abortion, or you didn't hear him on Hannity and Colmes? And you can say the same thing about any candidate, such as Romney, who has flip flopped on several issues now. So much for talking a good game...LOL !!!

[markch]

Seems to me that tolerating "deviant behavior" like abortion and gay marriage can have the same effect. How much of those behaviors you'll tolerate can also be unknown until it is too late and things are out of hand.

[dmw]

"Point being that the primary is the time to sort out this kind of stuff. The disgruntled ones who sit out general elections because the nominee doesn't rise up to their high standard are the ones who lose elections to the REAL bad guys, like Hillary. Is that what you want to happen, should Rudy happen to get the nomination?"

I know you can't possibly read every post on every thread, no doubt haven't read all of mine, but had you read any of them you would know I will vote for the Republican nominee no matter how difficult it might be for me. In the mean time, once I decide who I am gonna support I will work hard to get them nominated as I assume you and your wife will do as well. Hope that answers your question.

[TitansAFC]

But Will,

Rudy considers himself to be "strict Constructionists." A man who believes Roe vs. Wade is "good law."

Don't fall for carefully polled, intentionally vague political speak. He can appoint a Ginsberg type and still be true to his promise to appoint "strict constructionists" as he understands them to be.

Rudy thinks "strict constructionist" is a big-tent word that applies anywhere from Scalia to himself.

Rudy Giuliani CANNOT be trusted to make judicial appointments. He speak PROUDLY of his 100 appointments in NY City - a record that makes the ACLU proud.

[normy]

How many people does New York City have? More than New Mexico? More than Wyoming? How many states have less of a population than New York City and is as diverse?

[Amalie]

"Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy."


EXCEPT when they nominate justices to the Supreme Court, who have done more harm than all the DEM Congresses since the start of the Union put together. Trying to end the Ruth Bader Ginsburg factor is my goal in any election.

[muleskinner]

He sounds hawkish about terrorism, but that's probably also designed to play well in NY, which is heavily Jewish.

Yeah, the JOOZ like to hear all that anti-terror talk.

[caffe]

He won't get my support - a likable guy on a certain level - but definitely NOT a conservative!

[TitansAFC]

Thank you for admitting that the two statements were not inconsistent.

You're welcome.

I'll group you in with the "we support the troops, but not their mission" crowd of technical semantics liberals.

[WillT]

I don't recall Rudy ever saying Roe was "good law." Can you cite that? He said Scalia, Roberts and Alito were good choices. What's wrong with that? I guess you don't believe the man. One thing I've never heard about Rudy is that he is dishonest or a flip flopper. Romney, on the other hand....lol

[Fierce Allegiance]

Bumping a good article.

[wagglebee]

I've seen people who claimed they'd never vote for a RINO say it HAS to be either rudy or romney, because if we run a conservative, they're going to lose and put hillary in office.

And if you don't either support a rino NOW or declare who your candidate is 22 months before the election, and tell how in the hell they could beat the unstoppable hillary, well, you just don't love america and apple pie and you want the terrorists to win.

This nails it! Thank you for putting into words what a lot of us have been thinking here.

[TitansAFC]

Actually, Rudy Giuliani clearly stated he though Roe vs. Wade was good law on "This Week with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson" the week of February 6th, 2000.

He was asked the question directly, and directly answered that he thought it was "good law."

That is why, incidentally, you will never hear him say it's bad law, or that he has always thought it was bad law. He was asked it directly by Hannity yesterday, and he said, "that's for the COURTS to decide."

You can see the interview for yourself, or read the transcript. He knows he can't say it because he's already on record as having called it "good law."

[hellbender]

Well, when you're in a cesspool like NYC in those days, anything looks like improvement. Believe it or not, most RINOs actually are marginally better than Demonrats. But they get us to the same hell eventually.

Just motivating urban cops to do what they should have done all along is not grounds for electing someone President. It might be grounds for electing him governor. Will he secure the nation's borders? I doubt it.

And after these "23 tax cuts," by what % were taxes in NYC actually reduced? Did he get rid of rent control?

There is simply no reason the party of Reagan needs to stoop this low. We were told for decades that conservatives couldn't win, so the country-clubbers forced Ford, Nixon, and many others on us. It's a tired old lie.

[WillT]

Thanks for the info; I'll check out the transcripts. That doesn't jibe with his position on Scalia, Alito and Roberts, however. He cited those justices as good picks for the high court.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Yah, and southern conservatives are sure to vote for Obama or Hillary over Rudy because of this, right? /sarc"

---

Rural social conservatives (who tend to be more populist on economic issues, especially trade) won't vote for the Democrat *because* of social issues, they'll vote for them *in spite* of them; they only vote for the Republican when the candidate is socially conservative while the Democrat isn't. Of course, some rural social conservatives won't vote for a socially liberal Democrat no matter what, but if the Republican is socially liberal as well they'll likely stay home or vote third party.

[hellbender]

Every Republican and a few Democrats likes to HEAR anti-terror talk. Talk is cheap. When it comes to actions, a mayor has no track record on national security. Period. On most other issues, his stance is pure liberalism.

And yes, a strong pro-Israel, pro-Iraq-war stance does play well with many Jews. Why do you think Joe Lieberman risked the wrath of his party to back those issues? He too is a standard leftist on everything else.

People who back Rudy because of his (largely hypothetical) "hawkishness on security" are the real single-issue voters.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Rudy said last night on with Hannity that he supports a partial birth abortion ban."

---

Really? In 2000, he said that he did not support a PBA ban despite it being the only thing he had to do to obtain the Conservative Party endorsement. Did Rudy explain the reason for his apparent conversion?

[GrouchoTex]

If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary (and it looks like if it were held today,etc.etc.........)

I would vote Rudy.

Rudy sounds tough on terrorism but soft on illegals, even though he acknowledges that terrorism could come from the ranks of the illegals.

I would prefer that my candidate is tougher on illegals.)like Romney)

As far as the abortion question goes, RU184 (or whatever the heck you call it) will make this all a moot point eventually, even with the controversy surrounding that moring-after pill.

It'll be sold over-the-counter someday like condoms, before it is all said and done, and the question will go away (to a degree).

Abortion doesn't have the traction it used to, IMO.
Bigger fish to fry-Terror and Illegals.