Posted on 02/26/2007 7:08:07 AM PST by areafiftyone
Sadly for all of us, there isn't one politician running who actually has a chance of winning who is willing to address the immigration issue in the manner in which you want it addressed.
"Happy to" is commonly interchanged with "willing to".
Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.
He is still a hard core abortion supporter, and thinks that stabbing a baby in the head and sucking his brains out is perfectly acceptable, since he said he would not support a partial birth abortion ban. (And don't give me the old it was because there was no "life of the mother" clause mantra. That has been disproven.)
He once said the right to an abortion was so important it should be taxpayer-funded, so poor women would be able to exercise that right. That's not a distortion, and he hasn't recanted that yet.
It's not a conservative position, a constitutional position, or even a consistent position. I do not recall Rudy ever pushing for the 2nd Amendment rights of poor women or anyone else to be subsidized, and that is a right that definitely and specifically EXISTS in the Constituion.
I do apologize; I thought I was on another thread where we were discussing how the new talking points coming from the so-called pure conservatives is that anyone who supports Rudy is a treasonous liberal, and I thought you were someone else.
Jim "Equal Distribution of Wealth" Webb?
Certainly not. At least not fiscally or in the fight against terrorism.
I never stated how I want the immigration issue addressed. I was merely making the point that Rudy, by making N.Y. a sanctuary city, was flaunting his violation of immigration laws and that this belies any pretension that he is a "law and order" candidate.
Rudy's not shying away from his position.
The bottom line for me is that I don't think it's a relevant issue at the Presidential level. We'll never win the abortion fight in that arena.
Then there isn't a single Republican who can run as a law and order conservative, and I don't believe that for a second.
Rudy went after the mob, was Reagan's #3 man at DOJ, wouldn't meet with race pimps, kicked Arafat out of a concert hall at a time Arafat was the most frequent visitor in the Clinton WH, and stood behind the police strongly and without wiggle room when the police were wrongly accused time and again of being racists and bigots.
Rudy stopped the social work of the police departments and returned them to law and order priorities and made the city safe once again to visit.
Because he did nothing about one issue, an issue that no other candidate who has a chance to win is willing to address appropriately, it seems you are unwilling to consider seriously the other law and order issues that he did enact, and so there's really nothing more to say to each other.
I'm not a Rudy supporter. I listed two reasons given by pro-lifers supporting Rudy, and noted neither were based on them being liars or fools.
I noted you certainly have disagreements on SOME issue with your candidate, disagreements which you likewise dismiss for some reason, probably one of those two reasons.
If you have no interest whatsover in discussing facts or using reason in your arguments, I can't force you to, but it certainly makes your posts much less valuable.
And how many elections has Alan Keyes won?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/98a/lulac.html
Nice spin. If Rudy really "did nothing" about illegal immigration it would be one thing, however, Rudy did do something about illegal immigration, N.Y. was a sanctuary city under his "leadership". Rudy took the side of the criminals against the law of the United States. He actively supported criminal activity. If that's "law and order" to you, you're right, there's really nothing more to say.
What we are witnessing is the redefining of conservatism...
It is when a president's DOJ uses RICO statutes to go after anti-abortion groups, or when a ban on a particular abortion procedure reaches his desk, or any other federal expansion or restriction of abortion "rights" or funding for same comes up. A lot of ground can be gained or lost in that area, depending on the inclination of the president.
It's fine if that's the way you see it, and if that's the most important issue for you. But I don't base my decisions on that alone. Yes, I'd like to see it elimated, but not I don't believe it will be. I think more good is done working at the local/personal level.
As for my choice for President, there are other considerations 1) electability, 2) fiscal responsibility, 3) the war on terror. I think Rudy carries the day with those.
Do I agree with him on every issue? No of course not.
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."
Bringing up a 11 year old quote again I see.
Tell me, what taxes dis clinton cut? What affirmative action programs did he eliminate?
I was also unaware that clinton's spending averaged almost 1% under the inflation rate like rudy's. I was also unaware that clinton hated arafat like Rudy and kicked him out of the country like he did in NYC. How many agencies did clinton do away with or privatize? The list could go on and on.
Yep, like two peas in a pod.
Sounds like you want someone like Duncan Hunter! He understands military and defense matters far better than someone who actively avoided military service.
http://www.gohunter08.com/
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.