Giuliani campaigns in Newport Beach (and outlines his positions)

Daily PIlot ^ | March 24, 2007 | Amanda Pennington and Alicia Robinson

[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.

[airborne]

See post # 85.

[Dick Vomer]

thanks for the chart....I think the way to frame this is that if you want a lib/rino/compromiser...vote for Clinton...the last time we had a Clinton we got back Congress, state legislatures and made money, decreased welfare...

The foreign policy will hurt us but only after the cycle can we shuck off the Clinton "legacy". We can't even fight a war without the "lawyers" and wannabe kerry's in the JAG corp with the limp wristed support of the media and the demcocrat congress stabbing our warriors in the back.

The funny thing is that all the whining about tax reform, tort reform, social security reform, immigration policy, etc... is bull-sh#t. we never got it from the Republicans....it's all the same....

As the "Who" said awhile ago...

"Here's the new boss....

same as the old boss

won't get fooled again...

[narses]

"Yes, we know you are working hard for Republicans to LOSE and Democrats to WIN. "

How ugly.

[calcowgirl]

You pretty much nailed that one!

[calcowgirl]

No, FO.
We had a chance at a Conservative in the Recall campaign.
You and the "conservatives can't win" or "Arnold is the only one can win"
crowd sold a Trojan Horse.

Thanks loads. You must be proud.

[calcowgirl]

Name calling is all she's got.

She doesn't understand folks who oppose LIBERALS!

[FairOpinion]

Yes, I am proud.

I and others kept you and your ilk from electing Bustamante and Angelides and saved California!

[floozy22]

plenty of people I know, including members of my own family, fall into the "independent" voting block. My 6 relatives in Florida all voted for Bush, they could care less about social issues. just because everyone here on FR is wired into politics, that is far from the norm amongst americans at large.

True. Elections can be a study. If the dems don't offer a liberal enough candidate, some of them will vote green or socialist party. If republicans don't offer a properly conservative candidate, they say they will just stay home. So the swing voters decide - the ones that aren't "wired into politics." And if each party ends up nominating candidates that fit their respective agendas perfectly, it still comes down to swing voters. If Ronald Reagan could come back and run again we'd all be delighted. But he can't, and the world isn't what it was back then. We've had 9/11, and up-and-coming generations of younger voters that are not as concerned about certain social issues as their parents and grandparents. Rudy has stated clearly that he would appoint justices like Roberts and Alito - knowing how they interpret Roe v. Wade. He may not get the nom, and if we field an electable candidate, that will all be good. But he has a lot of appeal to the non-idealogic voter.

[airborne]

And not one Rudy supporter has denied it or proved it false.

I think it deserves to be repeated.

____________________________________________________________ "Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.

The reason you Rudy folks keep saying "only Rudy can beat Hillary" is because you're trying to distract others from the fact that, when compared to the other Republican candidates, Rudy looks just like the liberal he is.

So you stand him next to an even more liberal liberal, Hillary.

And then you repeat "the mantra". It's all you have.

But we are not fooled by the deception.

[calcowgirl]

No, FO--you and yours kept McClintock from winning, pushing instead for Arnold, someone you continue to support.

Now you want us to have Rudy--No Thanks!

[calcowgirl]

In California, we've had 4 years worth of those posts justifying Arnold's liberalism as being "Better than X*."
The fact is, when given a chance, they still supported the most liberal candidate(R).


*Insert name of leftmost Dem candidate.

[floozy22]

I posted #228. It strikes me that while the "true conservatives" are not at all smitten with RG, they're pretty much accusing those of us who would consider him as a valid candidate to be socialists. If he somehow manages to get the nom and they make good on their threats to stay home on election day, they'd likely help him win. His appeal to swing voters is solid right now, and will stay the same or increase as he campaigns in a national election.

[airborne]

I remember when Republican candidates used to campaign on their conservative values and policies, and not on contrived media poll numbers.

Are we so desperate for power that we allow ourselves to be blinded by the media, and by those who would have us put our values aside?

Ronald Reagan once said, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me."

I sometimes feel that way about today's Republican Party.

[sitetest]

"Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.

Not if it's pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-gun control, pro-statist Mr. Giuliani.

I won't vote for him for president.

[SoConPubbie]

According to a recent Rasmussen, Thompson (who hasn't even declared yet) can beat Hillary.

Why don't we concentrate our efforts to convince Thompson to run and then we would actually be able to vote for a candidate that reflects the GOP's platform and values vs Hillary-Lite such as Rudy?

[calcowgirl]

Are we so desperate for power that we allow ourselves to be blinded by the media, and by those who would have us put our values aside?

Apparently some are, yes. Either that, or they want to advance liberalism.
I suspect it is a combination of both at FR.

[airborne]

Got up this morning,and checked to see if any of the Rudy supporters had thought up a response to my assertion (Post # 85).

Not surprisingly, there was nothing.

So I'll post it yet again, on the chance that someone (Rudy fan) can read it and try to deny the truth.

_________________________________________________

"Nothing will unite the Republicans more than a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton," Curry said.

The reason you Rudy folks keep saying "only Rudy can beat Hillary" is because you're trying to distract others from the fact that, when compared to the other Republican candidates, Rudy looks just like the liberal he is.

So you stand him next to an even more liberal liberal, Hillary.

And then you repeat "the mantra". It's all you have.

But we are not fooled by the deception.

[Steel Wolf]

Well, despite all your hard work, Angelides got defeated and Hillary will get defeated too.

Fortunately, the "Nader right" isn't as strong as the real Naderites. The ones who are so fanatical and ideologically pure that they defeated the Democratic candidates twice, and let W into office.

The difference being, many now realize that they traded major envirowhacko Al Gore for no-Kyoto George Bush, all for the smug moral satisfaction of voting for eco-whackjob Ralph Nader. In retrospect, Gore wasn't nearly the sellout or corporate pawn that they made him out to be. In fact, they'd have been far, far happier with him than with GW.

The people on this forum who start foaming at the mouth at the mention of Rudy are simply the right wing version of Ralph Nader supporters. They'd be happy to sink a tax cutting, tough on crime, tough on his enemies (foreign and domestic), anti-socialized medicine, pro-school choice Republican over guns, gays and abortion.

Fortunately, I think most of the "third party or none of the above" types on the right got burned badly enough by Ross Perot. Punishing GHWB only brought them Bill Clinton. It's really that simple.

[airborne]

The people on this forum who start foaming at the mouth at the mention of Rudy are simply the right wing version of Ralph Nader supporters. They'd be happy to sink a tax cutting, tough on crime, tough on his enemies (foreign and domestic), anti-socialized medicine, pro-school choice Republican over guns, gays and abortion.

Horse hockey!

We'd rather nominate a candidate that has our principles.

Your premise is based on the "only Rudy can beat Hillary" nonsense, and we're just not buying it.

[wagglebee]

Your premise is based on the "only Rudy can beat Hillary" nonsense, and we're just not buying it.

If that had any truth, then why didn't Rudy run against Hillary last fall? If he had won her Senate seat, she would have been dead politically. THAT would have been a demonstration of genuine party loyalty.