Posted on 03/25/2007 11:44:12 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led off with his strongest card, his terrorism-fighting credentials, before touching on healthcare, immigration and energy policy in a speech to a welcoming crowd Saturday.
"Sept. 11, 2001, taught me — and I believe it taught a lot of people, including President Bush — that we have to remain on offense," Giuliani said. "That means that we have to use our military. We can't show weakness."
Giuliani seemed to hit all the right notes Saturday, getting applause when he criticized Democrats' stance on healthcare and advocated vouchers for schools.
On immigration, he told reporters he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he could support a guest worker program if there were adequate border security and tamper-proof ID cards. He said that even if illegal immigrants "can demonstrate that they are lawful, that they are paying taxes [and] that they'll pay penalties," they still shouldn't be put ahead of people who go through legal channels.
"And citizenship here, if it's earned, should be premised on being able to read and write English and understand American history, so we restore assimilation to the process of immigration," he said.
"Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypilot.com ...
"And they refuse to answer what I posted in #60"
Prolly because it's stupid...not true and and nobody wants to waste there time on it?
Oh, I've paid attention.
It's not hard to spot the hard core Rudy supporters.
And maybe you "don't remember" saying it (like Hillary kept saying, but if I had time to waste going back and reading all your posts, I would not be surprised to find that you had.
Be that as it may, there's no denying (honstly) that my post is true.
Please explain how a hypothetical scenario can be untrue.
It's interesting that Rudy supporters alternate between dimissing Evangelical Christian voters as out of touch and claiming they will not be missed, what with all the "moderate" and crossover votes Rudy will be getting and fervently trying to convince us that Evangelicals have seen the light and will put aside their objections and vote for Rudy anyway.
Don't count on it.
AlGore is enjoying his Hollywood celebrity status and the big money that comes with it.
He won't risk all that to risk losing.
Nice side step of my original point, though.
Questions about positions are "stupid"? Wow, how liberal of you.
Lets just get hillery to run with a r by her name .... then we won't need rudy.
the r's can win .... right ?
I'm a little surprised how many are suddenly denying the "only Rudy can beat Hillary" manta, now that I've pointed out the obvious deception.
I expected to be ignored again.
You know, "If you can't answer a question, ignore it".
And hypotheticals are somehow "untrue." Go figure.
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor
Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch
The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.
# # #
http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/2001b/champlunch.html
Yup.
If you can't answer a question, ignore it.
I take it you don't think FR is representative of the preferences of the Republican base, albeit better informed. If so, tell that to the owner and see what kind of response you'll get.
Conservative refusal to turn out for Rudy will sink his candidacy once the MSM turns on the jets to inform them of his history. Of course, the mediots will wait until he's nominated to get really cranking and if you think they're anti-Rudy now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't even think this is true of Americans in general, much less Republicans.
The Reagan Democrats were sick of the liberalism of the Democrat Party, they viewed Reagan's principles as more in tune with their own, so they were content to put a Republican in office.
Why would Democrats in 2008 vote to put a Republican in the White House when they can vote for a Democrat WHO BELIEVES EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS RUDY.
He is hard left and I place greater weight on the social issues as a whole.
There is no way I will vote for a liberal statist like Rino Rudy.
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.