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 ...
Actually their behavior is best explained by the theory of Natural Selection.
I hope you're right. Keep in mind that the MSM will play up every division among conservatives to try to keep the GOP vote down. Every poster here who says they will vote third party will be portrayed as the voice of millions. They will do everything they can to keep us disunited. Will we let them?
That’s two votes for Hillary.
No matter what you do, you WILL be voting.
But, I suspect you’d chose Hillary just so you could pi$$-and-moan for 8 years.
“Bush-era conservatism” — kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it?
Did you actually ever read RONALD REAGAN? He passionately argued that he was always pro-life, and that his compromise on a California bill to permit “medically necessary” abortions was the gravest mistake of his career, but was done to diffuse demands for more abortions.
Krauthammer is a liar, and a left-wing JOKE. If there was ever a single soul in the world whom Reagan was identifying when he complained about liberal naysayers, it was none other than Charles Krauthammer. And you’re citing him to characterize Reagan. Nice.
That all depends on whether the Julie-Annie campaign convinces enough primary voters to accept the big con job...
Do you really believe Ronald Reagan was “passionately pro-life” when he signed that bill? If so, there is no debate. This is faith based political discourse.
Keep repeating it. Rudy is a lib, if he wasn’t he would not have been supporting Cuomo.
You’re logic is desperately ailing. Just because (some) liberals passionately hated him doesn’t mean he was a conservative. Liberals also tend to hate Adolf Hitler, AIDS, and Pakistani taxi drivers who refuse to drive them to north of Central Park. Giuliani was anti-crime.
For someone who was so hated by liberals, perhaps you can explain why he received the endorsement of the Liberal Party? And no, that name isn’t some reference to European-style paleoliberalism; it refers to people who found the Democratic Party of the Roosevelt-Truman era to be to moderate, but weren’t willing to become Stalinists. THEY supported Giuliani.
In many respects, Giuliani is a hero for NYC. His crime prevention saved thousands of lives, and helped rebuild NY from the hellhole he inherited from Dinkins, Koch and Cuomo. But he is not, in any stretch of the immagination, a conservative.
You have nailed the problem. You can get 70 to 80% of social conservatives to vote for Rudy if you raise the specter of Hillary. But, there is 20% that you cannot brow beat and of the 80% you get there will be few beating the bushes (energized) for the Rudy campaign. He is simply the worst candidate for beating Hillary. You just pull your gun out aim at your foot and blow it off. Rudy will neuter the party.
Giuliani would appoint Cuomo to the Supreme Court...
I like Giuliani. But I want an ironclad promise that a) he appoint strict constructionists to SCOTUS, b) that he fight and veto any legislation further restricting the 2nd, and c) that he fight against the forces of evil in this cold culture war.
The candidate who can best move this country from the left to the right and offer my grandchildren the American dream gets my vote.
As opposed to the current “conservative”? HELL YES!!
DO NOT expect Joe Sixpack back in “flyover country” to vote for Rudy.
No way.
It just ain’t gonna happen.
The arguement “vote for me—I’m lousey, but the OTHER GUY would be much worse” doesn’t fly anymore, if it ever did.
Joe will stay home, or go fishing.
He just WILL NOT hold his nose to vote for somebody.
Trust me.
DO NOT expect Joe Sixpack back in “flyover country” to vote for Rudy.
No way.
It just ain’t gonna happen.
The arguement “vote for me—I’m lousey, but the OTHER GUY would be much worse” doesn’t fly anymore, if it ever did.
Joe will stay home, or go fishing.
He just WILL NOT hold his nose to vote for somebody.
Trust me.
Spot on.
I simply can’t believe that some of the people here are deranged enough that they’d actually prefer to have the Clintons back in power than Rudy.
That’s like letting your house burn down because you’re pissed off that your kitchen caught fire.
Keep your heads down.
Exactly. If I recall correctly, that was the central theme of the Dole campaign back in 96.
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.