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 ...
yeah sure, Rudy is going to solve the immigration problem by persuading Mexico to do something about it. Are you seriously telling me that Rudy is going to smash the Mexican oligarchy so their economy can produce internal jobs for their own people? tell us, how is he going to do that?
Some people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between Fred Dalton Thompson's SHORT political career and his much longer acting one. I don't recall anything he did that was worthy of such enthusiastic support, and his positions on many issues seem ambiguous. But if he gets the nomination, I will vote for him.
"You already know that a large fraction of the Republican base won't support Rudy, even against Hillary."
You already know that a fraction of FR won't support Rudy, even against Hillary.
There fixed it.
Conclusion: Rudy supports amnesty.
(1) A guest-worker program is putting the cart before the horse, and besides, the entire system needs to be overhauled
(2) "Adequate" border security sounds a lot like "virtual wall" promoted by the Bush admin and Dim Congress
(3) His statement that "even if illegal immigrants can demonstrate..." means that those illegals will still be permitted to enter the country at the end despite the fact of having broken the law to begin with
(4) His record as NYC Mayor showcased his disregard for our nation's immigration laws
Rudy is a liberal, there's no sugar-coating it, the man is a liberal, and smart conservatives aren't going to vote for him in the primaries and I don't care if you Rudybots drag out the Hillary card.
Go Hillary! Let's get that Universal Healthcare going! Take all my income for the poor and minorities yeah baby!
Not one poll yet shows even a bare 50% of GOP support for Rudy, so you're efforts at being cute fail factually. Most in the GOP do NOT support Rudy. His liberalism will make that true throughout his short and corrupt run.
Would this be a bad time to point out that we're in a war? Or that Hillary would be worse on the economy, socialized medicine, foreign policy, and pretty much everything that doesn't revolve around guns, gays and abortion?
Rudy maybe to the left of us on those three issues, but he's hardly hard left. To say he's a flaming liberal simply doesn't square up with what territory the left is occupying these days.
Santorum and Allen lost because of the general anti-GOP climate in last year's midterms. People are uncomfortable with a single party holding power in Washington for too long.
independent voters decide these elections. the conservatives can either be part of a winning coalition, or they can be spoilers and toss it to the Dems.
There's no such thing as an independent, moderate, or "undecided" voter. It is a totally fabricated ruse the MSM and Dims use to force the GOP candidate to become more liberal so the lines can blur & the voter will just vote for the Dim. Whatever beliefs they hold fall within the majority of either party. All the GOP has to do is draw a sharp, clear contrast to the Democrats and the voter would draw his/her own conclusion that conservatism would be the best for him/her after all.
Can I point out that the primaries are months away & yet there is a cabal of Giuliani supporters who believe he should be annointed immediately? There are other candidates, such as Hunter and Thompson, who would execute the WOT much better than Giuliani and even President Bush. There is no need to rush and get behind Giuliani. Why even have the primaries then?
He's been leading in all the polls for almost a year now.
That's why all your spamming smells like desperate .........FLOPSWEAT!
The comment was from Fred Thompson in the context of the billions of dollars Mexican nationals send back to Mexico, not Rudy. Rudy's position on illegal aliens is completely wrong in my view.
Thompson served on several high-profile government committees, including Watergate. He was a Senator for 8 years, which is longer than Obama, Hillary, and Edward's length of time in the Senate, longer than Mitt's 4 years as Mass. Governor, and tied with Rudy. He has the experience.
I don't recall anything he did that was worthy of such enthusiastic support, and his positions on many issues seem ambiguous.
He has a solid conservative voting record. He has conceded that CFR hasn't turned out the way it should and should be changed or scrapped. He helped Bush with getting Roberts and Alito confirmed.
But if he gets the nomination, I will vote for him.
And if Rudy gets the nomination, I'm staying home or voting 3rd party! BA-ZING!
"He's been leading in all the polls for almost a year now."
On name ID alone. RINO's cannot win in primaries. He is losing support among those who are informed at a rapid rate. He peaked.
Who's saying he should be anointed immediately?
(HINT: Not me).
I'm just pointing out that he's not the liberal caricature that some people on FR are trying to paint him as. A quick perusal of this thread shows people claiming that they won't vote for him no matter what, not demands for a Rudy coronation. How is that respecting the primaries? How is automatically writing someone off any different than demanding they be anointed without debate?
(HINT: It's not.)
So, let's have our debate, and be open to whoever wins. Fair?
I was mocking the other guys point. Sorry.
Yes; I've seen those words. About a 100 times from your spam alone.
This is the same guy who called Bush a cokehead and said he wouldn't vote for him no matter what, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't follow his advice on which candidate to support.
The Real Rudy Giuliani:
From Human Events:
Rudy's Strong Pro-Abortion Stance
As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:
"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...
Donahue: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.
Giuliani: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:
"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?
Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.
An Anti-Second Amendment Candidate
In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.
Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.
Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?
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.
It's naive to assume that Hillary will win the nomination. It is far more likely for the dims, who vote only on emotion, to nominate someone else.
Thankfully, many serious Republicans vote on serious issues.
I would vote for him too of course.
but you and I are not the problem. if he does get the nomination, he is going to have to attract independents to win the general. and he doesn't have any built in well of support and an image/persona already in place to attract independents (like Rudy does) - he is going to have to develop one, in the face of the MSM casting him as "an actor who dabbled in politics from a small state".
Okay then here's a new one for you since you seem to have stooped to disparaging Jim Robinson as you attempt to establish a bleeding heart liberal should have conservative support. This is simply a question, there is no opinion in it. So, let's see how you do.
I'll ask a question I asked the other day that the Rudyites have been unable to sufficiently respond to:
If I referred to an anonymous candidate and I did not give you their party affiliation and gave you the following information:
- The candidate believes in the "right" to abortion, including partial birth abortion.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of homosexuals to have a legal union that resembles marriage.
- The candidate believes in the "right" of illegal aliens to illegally enter and remain in our country.
- The candidate believes government has the "right" to modify the Second Amendment of the Constitution at will to curtail the right to keep and bear arms.
If this was the ONLY information you had, would your conclusion be that this unnamed candidate was a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat?
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.