Posted on 03/17/2007 6:58:02 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Republican Rudy Giuliani is the most appealing presidential contender in the United States, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 31 per cent of respondents say they will definitely vote for the former New York City mayor if he runs for president in 2008.
Democratic New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a close second with 30 per cent, followed by Democratic Illinois senator Barack Obama with 28 per cent, Republican Arizona senator John McCain with 21 per cent, and Democratic former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 20 per cent.
When asked which candidate they would definitely not support in the 2008 presidential ballot, 46 per cent of respondents mention Rodham Clinton. Edwards is second on the list with 39 per cent, followed by Obama with 37 per cent, McCain with 34 per cent, and Giuliani with 28 per cent.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
Look, Giuliani demonstrated, as Reagan did, that tax cuts and unshackling the private sector is the secret to growth. That IS fiscal conservatism, whether you acknowledge it or no.
I suggest you read the long post above when you have time, and really ponder it. I saw firsthand what Giuliani did, and I will assume that your inability to grasp its true nature is due to being exposed to only part of the story.
"...actually the consistent posting of SPAM and the visceral hate of the anti Rudy folks kind of pushed me into supporting Rudy."
A few years ago that occured in California. The tone during that rather short campaign was beyond shrill.
Tom McClintock's supporters were so over-the-top that they indeed helped Arnold. I seriously doubt Tom would approve of the tone of results given his campaign.
Until Fred Thompson came along, there was no viable alternative to Rudi/Mitt/John. I am positive that whichever of the three is in the lead, the same opposition tactics would show up here on FR.
If Mitt was leading FR would devolve into an anti-Mormon thing. If McCain was leading, he would be trashed.
FR is unmatched for this sort of thing.
The culmination of this positive trend came in 1999 and 2000, when New York City outpaced the nation’s private sector job growth rate for two consecutive years - the first time that ever happened in a post-World War II economic expansion.
This is the same time frame your graph portrays. Your graph is accurate; but it provides only expenditures - and conveniently omits ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WAS COMING IN.
Growth in expenditures is happening at the same time that there was an even greater growth in city treasury inlay - due to Giuliani's fiscal policies.
I would point you to the Reagan experience, which was parallel.
"To a true fiscal conservative, tax cuts don't matter much, and neither does the national debt. That is because the real problem is spending. Even the best and most necessary public spending comes with a harrowing price: the percentage of a nation's goods and services controlled by its government is the percentage of freedom and independence taken from individuals and given to politicians." --P.J. O'ROURKE
And you're back to your red herring. Rudy rapidly increased the size, expense and expenditures of government, but he's still a "fiscal conservative" because there was enough money available for him to get away with it.
You're resorting to trolling mentality - demand a source, provide your own, but only partially quote it so as to make it fit your opinion. I can quote the same editorial you do and have it say exactly the opposite. Your so-called quote wasn't in context - and neglected this statement, also from your article: "But he points out that during Giuliani's tenure as mayor, the number of abortions fell in New York City by more than the national average, and Giuliani did not actively promote policies that would have led to an increase in the number of abortions."
No, no, this reporter got it all wrong, Giuliani is ahead because he isn't nice. No more Mr. Nice Guy!
However, Murdock's implicit effort to credit Giuliani with the declining number of abortions during his tenure as mayor goes too far. As Murdock acknowledges, the number of abortions was declining nationwide during this period -- obviously for demographic reasons -- and New York City merely reflected that trend. Unless Murdock can show that there was something special about Giuliani's public policies that reduced the number of abortions in New York City, which I doubt, I think he has over-reached in his efforts to prop up Giuliani's "social conservative" credentials.
But where did that money come from? His astoundingly successful fiscally conservative policies.
Look, if you just looked at the increase in my personal spending over the past ten years, with your half-of-the-picture view, you'd be arguing that I'm bankrupt. But my INCOME has increased exponentially in that same time frame, so my spending is totally responsible. One is intellectually dishonest to examine spending absent an examination of income.
Rudy, as did Reagan, employed fiscally conservative policies to unleash growth, which increased the take to the treasury. Business exploded, hirings exploded, the tax revenues poured in. That's how fiscal conservatism works.
What kind of leftist drivel is that? The money that fueled his wild spending and governemnt expansion came from taxpayers.
I'm sure Giuliani is solidly backed by La Raza, since he's an open border guy.
Clearly, the only reason you refuse to acknowledge that Rudy's policies were textbook fiscal conservatism is that you don't understand what fiscal conservatism is. What do you think happened under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s? Exactly, precisely the same thing.
I'm still waiting for you to "prove" where this supposed lie of mine is posted on another thread.
You can't do it, because it isn't true - yet you won't admit you completely blew it with that bogus charge.
You mixed me up with someone else, and you don't have the class to say so.
I'm still waiting for you to "prove" where this supposed lie of mine is posted on another thread.
You can't do it, because it isn't true - yet you won't admit you completely blew it with that bogus charge.
You mixed me up with someone else, and you don't have the class to say so.
Here's the part you like: "However, Murdock's implicit effort to credit Giuliani with the declining number of abortions during his tenure as mayor goes too far. As Murdock acknowledges, the number of abortions was declining nationwide during this period -- obviously for demographic reasons -- and New York City merely reflected that trend. Here's the rub, though.
"Unless Murdock can show that there was something special about Giuliani's public policies that reduced the number of abortions in New York City, which I doubt, I THINK he has over-reached in his efforts to prop up Giuliani's "social conservative" credentials.
Sounds like the author is posting his opinion, , not facts.
You are no match for him.
"Third way": Combining the openness and wealth creation of
capitalism with the redistribution and safety nets of
socialism.
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.