RUDY WILL SPEAK AT REV. PAT U (conman Rooty ditching conservatives off Repub party lifeboat)

NY POST ^ | April 16, 2007 | MAGGIE HABERMAN

[pollywog]

Stunning. Rudy has tossed aside all pretenses of being good for the pro-life agenda. He would be the most divisive GOP nominee ever.

He is dangerous, and most conservatives who find moral values at the top of the list, won't vote for him. A Third party is going to emerge!!

[Mr. Silverback]

Would you hold this same view if the issue was "should we keep executing 4,000 ten year olds per day in America?"

Accusing people of of being Ross Perot because they object to millions of small children being ripped limb from limb is pretty crass behavior. I expected better of you.

[Mr. Silverback]

Rational analysis of the abortion issue does not mean pro-abortion.

You're correct. However, supporting the most pro-abortion GOP candidate in years and accusing people who don't of being Ross Perot-style election spoilers does mean pro-abortion.

[Mia T]

Rudy is many things, but liar is not one of them.

[Mia T]

See 117 and 122.

[airborne]

In the end, will the base come to its senses? Or will it place its de facto vote for the Stalinist?

I don't know. The base has been burned before,and may not respond as you would like.

Perhaps just as important, your analysis neglects to factor in the loss of message control by the campaigns and old media, witness the web-based viral ads.

I don't neglect the point so much as I just don't put the same amount of importance there as you.

And which R will do better than Rudy anyway?

If you are asking from a philosophical point of view, practically all of them.

But if you only wish to consider poll results,you're going to dismiss most any answer I give, as most of the Rudy supporters do.

You can close your eyes to Rudy's policies if you choose, (why you would this early puzzles me), but I prefer to support conservative values and those who promote them.

[Mr. Silverback]

Even if it totally alienates the vast majority the minority WILL have purity.

First, it's a big ol' hoot if you think that the way to gain "the majority" in the general is to run a Northeastern lib against a Northeastern lib.

Second, you act like we're threatening to sue the restaurant because there wasn't quite enough ricotta in our lasagna. You're talking about a candidate who is pro-gay marriage, an abortion extremist, anti-2nd Amendment and in favor of amnesty and breaking the law to help illegal immigrants.

That's not too little ricotta, that's ordering lasagna and getting a steaming plate of dog crap with a parsley sprig on the side. And when you act like we conservatives are throwing a tantrum because we don't like that, you souns as silly as a restaurant owner demanding that diners pay their check after he served them dog crap.

[airborne]

I never said he was a liar, did I?

I contend, however, that he may very well change his position.

[Mr. Silverback]

Because you won’t vote for the ‘liberal’ who will appoint strict constructionist judges, you will help to elect the Stalinist who will surely appoint pro-abortionists to the bench, and who will pick up where she left off decimating the Constitution, betraying our country and losing the war.

I know this will sound over the top, but I am really, really tired of hearing this crap.

Pay attention to this question please: WHAT FREAKIN MONTH IS IT? BECAUSE i AIN'T SEEIN' OCTOBER OF 2008 ON MY CALENDAR. IT'S FREAKIN APRIL OF '07! gOT IT? APRIL. OF . 2007.

Supporting a liberal in the primaries is selling out. So unless you're in a time warp, cram the lectures.

[ellery]

Your implication, that raising and indexing the hard money limits somehow mitigates the gutting of the First Amendment by McCain-Feingold reminds me of the expression, 'you can't be just a little bit pregnant.'

I did not intent to imply that -- Thompson's past support of McCain-Feingold is a mark against him for me. I simply make the point that he did support raising individual contribution limits, against the wishes of the dems and McCain himself; he explicitly called these contributions free speech on the Senate floor. So, while I absolutely don't agree with his support of the bill, his lapse was less egregious than McCain's, and indeed than Giuliani's (since Giuliani has stated strong support of the bill).

I believe Thompson's demonstrated leadership on limiting fraud, abuse and unConstitutional federal government overreach makes him vastly stronger on the Constitution than any (other) candidate. For example, here's a partial list of Giuliani's record as it relates to the Bill of Rights:

------

BILL OF RIGHTS

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Giuliani supports campaign finance "reform." He also banned the New Yorker's ads on public buses because the ads poked fun at him.

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Non-renewal of gun permits for law-abiding New Yorkers whom even Dinkins allowed to remain armed; lawsuits against gun manufacturers; pushing national gun liscensing; responding to a terrorist attack during his watch (attack at Empire State Building) by calling for more restrictive gun laws; stating that people should have to demonstrate a good reason to have a gun.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I know of nothing that Rudy has said or done on this front. It's possible that he supports Amendment III.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

He supported unreasonable searches based solely on anonymous tips (and was overturned by the courts). He proposed collecting the DNA of all newborns. That's just off the top of my head -- Rudy does not have a good record on Amendment IV.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Giuliani supports seizure of property from those acquitted of a crime. He used eminent domain for the benefit of private developers. It's a big NO on Amendment V.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Many people whose property he seized in NYC did not receive trials at all; the city later had to return many of the vehicles because the courts ordered immediate hearings and backlog made it impossible to satisfy the ruling. I believe there may also be some problems reconciling Rudy's use of RICO and his support of a more extensive PATRIOT Act with Amendment VI. This requires additional research.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Need more research on this one. There may be problems both with property forfeiture and with RICO similar to Amendment VI.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Losing one's property upon being accused of a first offense, even when acquitted, can be considered imposing excessive fines.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See my tagline. Rudy doesn't believe you have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can do (i.e., his understanding is the complete opposite of the way our Founding Documents actually work).

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Federal gun laws are just one example of his antipathy to federalism and states' rights, not to mention individual rights.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS

Article I, Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

He supported seizure of property belonging to those acquitted of crime, which is the definition of bill of attander.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

-snip-

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

-snip-

AND

Article 6. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

He defied the feds on immigration, and violated his oath of office when doing so. The Constitution clearly defines anything related to naturalization as a power of the federal government; and anything that is explicitly declared a power of the federal government in the Constitution trumps state and city action via the Supremacy Clause (the Supremacy Clause is greatly abused, but in this case naturalization is explicitly mentioned in the Constituion, making it the lawful responsibility of the feds).

---------

This is not meant as a criticism of you for your support for Rudy. This is merely meant to compare Rudy's record to the Constitution and to illustrate why for me, Fred is by far the best choice on Constitutional grounds.

[airborne]

Just curious.

Do you personally think that a judge who is, by definition, a “strict constructionist”, believes that the Constitution allows for federal funding of abortions?

[Mr. Silverback]

,I>This isn’t going to mainstream Rudy, it’s going to drive the final nail into Pat “I prayed for the hurricane to go away and it did” Robertson’s coffin.

From your lips to God's ears...

[ellery]

Ping to 150 — updated Constitutional list vs. Giuliani’s beliefs and actions. Please let me know if/when you want to add anything.

[Mr. Silverback]

Let’s say it’s November, 2008. Rudy is the Republican nominee. Hillary is the Dem nominee. Do you vote? Who for?

My calendar says April 2007. Just because Rudy's better than Hillary doesn't mean we trip over ourselves to vote for a lib in the primaries.

I'd rather eat dog food than cyanide crystals, but that doesn't mean I'm going to my favorite restaurant and ordering dog food. Supporting a lib in the primaries is selling out.

[Mr. Silverback]

Rooty's a triple threat---he's dumb, power-mad AND the obedient lapdog of the Endless War maniacs.

Though I agree with you that Rudy's no prize, Mr. T. has a response to your war cooments:

[Mr. Silverback]

I would vote for the man who can defeat the Quisling socialist pacifist Dem like BO or Her Highness.

I'm still waiting for Rudy supporters to show me a reason he's the only one who can win. Y'all say it all the time, but I've yet to see it backed up with anything reasonable.

[Mr. Silverback]

Sure, Rudy’s better than Hillary. So’s Bill Richardson, so let’s nominate him.

[ellery]

I get the sense that strategically, he has decided that he can’t win social conservatives anyway, so his best bet is to publicly repudiate them in the hopes of picking up independents from the left. I’ve been meaning to go back to that leaked strategy document of his to see if that’s what it recommended — I just haven’t had the chance yet.

I think this strategy is faulty, for two reasons:
1. After being out of power for so long, the donks are likely to be motivated to turn out and vote for the (D) candidate, no matter who it is.

2. By that reasoning, Rudy’s going to have to make up for the social conservative and the libertarian conservative votes he loses mostly out of the pool of independents (who are up to 25% of the electorate). Those of us in the Republican party who are willing to vote third party may by definition BE part of that 25% — and we’re not voting Rudy. So his potential pool gets smaller. I just don’t see how he can win it without two major GOP constituencies.

[Mr. Silverback]

We nominate at our own peril someone whose only executive experience and achievement is playing a president onstage.

So in 1860 you would have backed Fernando Wood over Lincoln?

[Mr. Silverback]

... In the meantime, to protect the children—ALL the children—we must make certain the clintons do not retake the White House.

We already ran someone from the squishy wing against a clinton. See 1996.