Posted on 10/28/2007 4:43:03 AM PDT by libstripper
You wouldn't know it from reading the papers, but the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination is a confirmed right-winger. On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
That candidate is Rudolph W. Giuliani.
As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Your posting #41 is well said.
If anything can be said in Rudy’s defense, however, Rudy seems to be more forceful and communicative, less Politically correct and with more backbone than the current Whitehouse occupant.
I do not care, no matter what I will never vote for the liberal statist elitist SOB.
I can now hear the black Helicopters way before they even come into sight.
“Rino rudy a liberal statist. I will never vote for the pro abortiion, anti gun, pro gay worthless SOB.”
I heard last night somewhere he somehow pioneered the sanctuary cities (illegal immigration) idea a few years ago. Would be interesting today to ask him what he thinks about the anchor baby concept now on national TV.
Who knows? He two faced.
Pioneered sanctuary cities? Nope. He just continued city policy started before he was elected. Sanctuary cities developed in the 1980s in response to the lack of Federal enforcement of illegal immigration laws. The Feds expected the locals to carry the load, and eventually the locals refused because of the lack of support.
I’m not saying I wont vote for him if hes the nominee,...obviously I will. I’m just saying he’s not my first choice,
So you admit he help violate US law in supporting the policy of sanctuary cities. And he is a pro illegal invader.
I told you to keep your head down.
Rudy has not gained the nomination yet and likely will not do so. Isn’t it a bit early to be condemning those who have retained their honor, integrity and principle and refuse to vote for an immoral, pro-abortion, flip-flopping media creation?
If one does not vote for Rudy, one does not vote for Rudy. For it to be truly said that one elected Hillary, one would have to cast a vote for Hillary. These separation by degree arguments and least smelly turd comparatives are contemptible and dishonest. I for one, am sick of them.
To all those capitulating camp followers who dare suggest principled conservatives somehow want Hillary because they refuse to vote contrary to their beliefs; I invite you to participate in the osculation of my posterior and those of whom you have insulted.
I know there are some who don’t care that the last vestiges of conservatism seem to be circling the drain, but I do. So, take your “Hillary as bogeyman” fear-mongering and best ordure comparatives to someone who gives a damn.
I am not impractical, but firm in my beliefs and my resolve as are many others on this forum. I realize, and it looks likely, the GOP will again be represented by a posturing and pandering creation of the media. As long as candidates “promise” some seem content to believe them. That is always worked so well before, why not, right? Everyone knows a candidate has never lied or broken a promise. They do it every time and do you know why they do it? They do it because we vote for them and are complicit in their dishonesty, because we were ignorant enough to trust them. Did you ever wonder why the candidates with impeccable credentials and a history of doing things to move conservatism forward and that have consistently been socially conservative never seem to be “electable”? I am far more interested in the answer to that question because I already know why a conservative wouldn’t cast a vote for Rudy.
If Rudy's nominated that's exactly what's going to happen.
Presidents are elected to single 8 year terms now? When did this happen?
Ain't gonna happen. Hillary would have to deal with a revitalized GOP in Congress and public. All of this has to go through Congress anyway, unless Hillary will receive magical dictatorship powers upon taking the oath of office. And ask King George back in 1776 what happened when he tried to pull that.
Rudy's nominated = 3rd party
No, it's called sticking by our long-held principles and refusing to compromise on them by voting for POS pro-abortionists.
No, it's called going down with the ship after blowing a whole in the hull AND tying everyone on board up to ensure they all die along with you.
Understood where you are coming from...when I was young, I used to believe everything was just black and white as well...
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.