With all the talk about Rudy Giuliani being a functionally pro-life candidate – saying sweet nothings about strict constructionists and supporting the Hyde Amendment, he still views Roe vs. Wade as a good law and opposing overturning it. Indeed, in 1993 he campaigned against the Hyde Amendment:
Leaflets distributed by the Giuliani campaign at the morning program said that he opposes restrictions to Federal Medicaid financing for abortions and opposes the Hyde Amendment, which is intended to deny support for that financing.- New York Times 6/18/1993
Well, today the other shoe dropped with this revealing YouTube video from 1989, where Rudy forcefully advocates for public funding of abortions. Yikes.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0[/youtube]
I can only imagine the kinds of ads that Terry Nelson will come up with, given something like this. It’s going to be a long 10 months.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
The operative phrase for me isn’t abortion…it’s “public funding.”
March 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Indeed, Nusrat. It’s one thing to be pro-choice, but it’s an entirely different thing to support public funding of abortions.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Social issues are going to be a problem for the big three. All three candidates are weak on this. Social conservatives really have no viable candidate and will split their vote over several unelectable choices.
Rudy is the only candidate that can build a consensus on the number one issue, National Security.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
It should be very clear what Rudy’s stance is regarding abortion. I have not heard anything recently to refute this. If he did refute that past statement, or if he did have a conversion to the side which respects life, wouldn’t he be labeled a flip-flopper?
He is what he his, take it or leave it. If the right to choose life is not high priority, then this should matter very little. That is not the case for most conservatives as we do care about this issue.
This give credence to the notion that once conservatives get to know Rudy, they may bail on him. Sure, we respect him for his service post 9/11 just like we respect McCain for his actions which have certified him a war hero. However, I will not support Rudy just for his 9/11 mayorship tenure anymore than I will blindly support McCain for is war time service.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“Rudy is the only candidate that can build a consensus on the number one issue, National Security.”
I disagree, I think both Romney & McCain can do this. McCain has considerable credibility with security not only as a Veteran, but also as one in the past who has earned the title of “Maverick” Republican. As for Romney, well – I just like his hair
so that is why I support him.
If either Romney or McCain couldn’t build a consensus on this issue, then a consensus could not be built.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Rudy is not pandering to get the pro-life vote like McCain and Romney. According to the polls, social issues came in at 6th place and Security was number one.
For those who are solely concerned about abortion, they will have the option to vote for one of the many 3rd tier candidates.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
GOP Activitst,
Rudy is not pandering to get the pro-life vote like McCain and Romney.
Exactly what makes him dangerous to the 1 million pre-born babies aborted every year.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Most Republicans see it this way:
Rudy has made a commitment to appoint judges like Alito and Roberts.
Hillary has made a commitment to absolutely NOT to appoint judges like Alito and Roberts.
Rudy can defeat Hillary.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
You want to talk about Rudy’s commitments? Nah, I won’t go there – that is too low and would be considered attacking. Besides, I certainly don’t want to quote a NT times against a fellow Republican.
Let me just say that most Republicans don’t trust Rudy. I base that argument on the fact that Rudy has not a majority, but a plurality of support.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Hooray to GOP Activist! I am so glad that there is at least ONE guy on this blog who speaks with common sense and realism. All you others that are so hyped=up on the abortion issue…..enough already, GET OVER IT. be men. where is your macho side??
March 11th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Most Republicans see it this way: there are pro-life candidates, and then there are liberals. If we wanted a liberal, we’d vote Dem.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
That straight forward enough for you, KT?
March 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Or maybe I misunderstood you. Is it macho to think abortion is OK?
March 11th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Thanks KT,
I think there is this unrealistic hope that if we just post one more abortion YouTube video, voters will flock to McCain or Romney.
Sorry guys, it’s not going to happen.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Standing up for the rights of unborn living babies is not macho? Wouldn’t “macho men” fight for the rights of others? Or is it “macho” now to father babies then bail out of paternal responsibilities by encouraging and supporting abortions? If that is true, than I am certainly not “macho” and would never want to be.
I’m beginning to think that there are more liberals here than conservatives? It is getting harder for me to differentiate the arguments & statements between many Rudy supporters and full fledged liberals on this site recently. Rudy supporters have been propagating liberal talking points against other candidates. Do you think the Democrat candidates use RNC talking points to bash each other up?
Isn’t this supposed to be a conservative site for the most part? Not that liberals should not be welcome.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I hear ya cwpete.
It’s just getting weird in here.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
This speech was given almost 20 years ago. He said that there should be public
funding to the poor. I don’t find that troublsome considering this was after
Roe was decided. One point that has not been made: aboritons went down in New
York during Rudy’s tenure as mayor because he sponsored programs for adoption.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
cwpete , nobody is saying that we don’t care about the unborn. This is what the majority of Republicans believe.
1.) The polls indicate that Rudy is the strongest candidate to defeat Hillary.
2.) Rudy has made a commitment to appoint judges like Alito and Roberts.
3.) Hillary has made a commitment to absolutely NOT to appoint judges like Alito and Roberts.
4.) Rudy can defeat Hillary.
Nuff said!
March 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Abortion is not a good thing, we ALL agree. But to elect a president in these times based on that one signle issue is absolutely ridiculous. Now before you jump all over that, what is even more ridiculous is to elect a shallow, phony, pandering, flip-flopping, say-anything slick politician such as ROMNEY president, simply because he assumed a pro-life position.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
GOP Activist,
we heard ya the first time, big fella. And the time before that.
But do you think he can beat Hillary?
March 11th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Good point KT,
Those who are not satisfied with my comments in #18 and #8, are not going to vote for Flipper or McCain.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
cwpete and Fredo, conservatives of all brands are united under one unifying principle: smaller, less intrusive government with lower taxes. From there, you have many different brands of that same conservatism, including social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, national security conservatism, libertarian conservatism, et. al. Therefore, it’s pretty unfair to take a few social issues of Rudy’s and say, “Therefore, he’s a liberal.” No. Liberals see the government as something that is helpful, whereas conservatives do not.
Granted, there are a few liberals on this site, Tano being the first one that comes to mind. Tano and I agree sometimes and disagree others, and Kavon and I agree sometimes and disagree others. I consider myself to be one of those aforementioned conservative factions, as I am not a huge fan of the federal government (understatement), so I am in the same boat you guys are in. We all have different means for achieving this end of smaller government, but to label someone a liberal or a RINO just because he doesn’t agree with you on social beliefs is, well…childish.
I think it’s safe to say that Rudy is pretty conservative in terms of smaller, less intrusive government, and while I wouldn’t call him a libertarian at all, he leans that way in some of his social views. I bet if you took his fiscal, foreign policy/national security, and social views, lined them up, and put checks on which ones you agreed/disagreed with, you’d agree with him a hell of a lot more than you disagreed with him.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
But LJ,
Have you seen this guys polls. We need him because he was the bestess leader ever on 9-11! Only he can beat Hillary.
So much for federalism…
March 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Nusrat,
2 points:
1. Of course you’re right: “he’s a liberal” is an oversimplification. It was quite intentional. It’s always tempting to respond to oversimplifications (“Rudy’s the only one who can beat Hillary”) with oversimplifications.
2. It’s not oversimplifying to say that Rudy’s a liberal on an issue that is, for many conservatives and Republicans, the defining social issue of our time. There simply is a litmus test on the issue of life, and it will be difficult for Rudy to overcome it, despite the trimuphalism heard on this site. Ponnuru has an article up on NRO right now on the issue of the abortion litmus test in the GOP:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2MxN2M1ZGYyMWY3YmEwZWE1MTQ3YTg4NzZiM2Q0OTk=
March 11th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Rudy is not a liberal. Rudy is smart. Therein lies the difference.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Also, Nusrat, you’re right about one other thing: I agree with Rudy more than I disagree with him. And if you’ve read any of my several posts on the topic, you’d know that I already said I’d pull the lever for him willingly against a Dem. He’s simply not my first choice.
It’s the ridiculous arguments for Rudy from some posters here that grates. Not Kavon or DaveG, mind you, but the people who’s logic flows like this:
the polls (18 months before the election) say Rudy can win
therefore, Rudy is our best hope to win
or this one,
the polls (18 months before the election) say Rudy can win
therefore, Rudy will win
There are so many logical fallacies being employed by certain Rudy supporters at this site that it makes it hard to take the candidate himself seriously. Those Rudy supporters here who have serious arguments (Kavon/Dave) should put some of these jokers, like GOP Activist, on a leash.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Why Jason, thanks so much for pointing that out. I’ve been so blind! Boy oh boy, if we don’t nominate Rudy, we might as well just give Hillary the presidency. She’ll eat everyone else for breakfast.
Oh wait…
March 11th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Nusrat, true, Guiliani is not a liberal. But can we also agree that someone who is a fiscal conservative, national security conservative, and social conservative is more conservative than someone who is merely a fiscal and national security conservative? Can we agree that there are Blue Dog Democrats that straddle two of those camps, and there are RINOs who straddle only one of those camps? It is, of course, everyone’s right to support the candidate he believes will best advance his causes. The problem with Rudy is that he opposes an entire third of the conservative movement, and that’s why I believe he’s not the best candidate. There are other candidates who respect all three major branches of the conservative camp.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
KT,
Rudy is not a liberal. Rudy is smart. Therein lies the difference.
Ah, the “nuanced” argument. John Francois Kerry is smiling somewhere.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Ah, thanks for elucidating, Fredo. I’m with you in that I’m not a Rudy guy, and I don’t mind the logical, reasoned Rudy supporters. It’s just the overzealous ones that worry me.
I’m torn. Although I defend Rudy often on here, I don’t even know if I could vote for him in the general, as I think he’d expand the power of the federal government way more than even Bush has done. I’m personally a Romney guy. I do, however, agree with you that reasonable discourse has to pervade on this site. Thanks for taking the time to discuss with me tonight and work out that misunderstanding.
If there’s one thing that irks me about political discussions, it’s fallacious logic. I know a die-hard Republican and a die-hard Democrat, and as an independent libertarian, talking to them is a great way to start my mornings (after my coffee, of course
). It’s not because I agree with either 100% of the time; I don’t. We just respectfully agree or disagree depending on the issue we choose to discuss that day, and we give logical reasons why we disagree, but at the end of the day, we’re still friends. I’d like to see more of that here. Zeal and virulence just does one’s argument a disservice, and I wonder why some people on here don’t see that.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Nice one Fredo.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Nusrat:
“but to label someone a liberal or a RINO just because he doesn’t agree with you on social beliefs is, wellchildish.”
Please re-read my post #15. I mentioned that not because someone disagreed with me, again, it is because certain “Republicans” routinely cites DNC talking points, or other liberal opposition research groups hit pieces against other fellow Republicans. Therefore, he/she is either a RINO or a liberal. That is an accurate assumption that I’ll hang my hat on 90% of the time. I certainly don’t consider that “childish” by pointing this out to the board. Nothing should prove this point more concisely than post #19 which was made *after* my #15 post:
“shallow, phony, pandering, flip-flopping, say-anything slick politician”
Reading stuff like I’d think that I was on a left-wing propaganda site (verses a right wing site).
March 11th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“Rudy has made a commitment to appoint judges like Alito and Roberts.”
Why do people believe this, and et accuse Romney of being a flip-flopper?
The Politico showed that Romney judges were far more “Republican” than Giuliani judges. Anyone would think Rudy made this commitment (a policy reversing his earlier practice) in order to win the nomination…
The key question is, if Rudy is faced with a Democratic dominated Senate (which is likely given the next two classes are heavily Republican) would he:
a) try and push through an Alito (against his personal views, and against say 55 members of the Senate) or
b) nominate a moderate judge, and win bi-partisan praise from the moderate wings of both parties. (and also be more in accordance with his personal views).
Romney can at least point to past experience to say “I’d do the former”. McCain, Brownback & co have reliable voting records behind them. Rudy can only point to a campaign promise. In my view, that ain’t good enough…
March 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
These fanatical Rudolphites are winning by making you discuss his candidacy. He isn’t doing much to campaign so it’s ridiculous to discuss him, he probably won’t even run.
Let’s look at the active candidates that are trying to win.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I’m looking at McCain’s schedule:
03/11/2007
Sacramento Fundraising Reception
03/12/2007
Fresno Fundraising Breakfast
03/12/2007
San Diego Fundraising Luncheon
Orange County Fundraising Reception
03/13/2007
Inland Empire Fundraising Breakfast
03/13/2007
Los Angeles Fundraising Luncheon
03/13/2007
Bay Area Fundraising Reception
03/15/2007
Senator McCain Holds Town Hall Meeting in Mason City, Iowa
03/15/2007
Senator McCain Holds Town Hall Meeting in Ames, Iowa
03/16/2007
Senator McCain Holds Town Hall Meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa
March 11th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
As a strong pro lifer, I seem to remember a great conservative named Ronald Reagan that was pro abortion as Govenor of California and ran as pro-life for President 12 years later.Rudy has already modified his stand on partial birth,promised to promote strict constructionist judges and has strongly indicated he will not promote abortion on the Federal level,but prefers to leave the issue to the States.
If we could forgive Ronald Reagan’s pro abortion past,can’t we cut Rudy a little slack in these security threatening times?
March 11th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Can’t find Romney’s schedule.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I looked at Brownback’s schedule and it appears he is camping out in Iowa between visits to DC.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I’d like to know if Rudy still supports public funding / tax payer’s dollars to provide abortions.
OK fine, supporting abortions is one thing. However, using my tax dollars to provide abortions is another thing altogether.
Can any Rudy supporters educate me on what Rudy’s current stance is on tax payer’s funded abortion?
March 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
TennJoe,
Regans pro-abortion past was in the past. Rudy’s pro-abortion past is in the present and the future. Hence no pass on this topic.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
TennJoe, anyone who ever supported that monstrous procedure known as partial birth abortion is suspect, even if he claims to have changed his views. Did Romney ever support partial birth? I can’t seem to find anything on that.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
cwpete,
Bill Simon who is Rudy’s policy advisor has stated that Rudy would not overturn
the Hyde Amendment.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
the polls, the polls, the polls. Polls, polls, polls, polls. Hey did you guys see the polls. Look at the polls.
Is that all the Rudy-ites have to fall back on.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
“Hey GOP Activist, what about Rudy’s positions on…”
response- “look at the polls”
“Hey GOP Activist, what about when Rudy said …”
responce-”well … the polls and … national security and … 9/11″
“Yea, I know he was great on 9/11 but what about …”
response- “Have you seen the polls? … this poll … that poll … national securtiy, blah, blah, blah. ”
Its getting to be like groundhog day on this site with the Rudy-ites!
March 11th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I think now is a good time to say:
“It has never mattered to me that thirty million people might think I’m wrong. The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right…Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?”
~Frank Zappa
A good quote regarding popular opinion vs. being correct.
March 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
By the way, why is there little found on Romney’s schedule? Maybe Jason can tell us? Somebody obviously knows something because he speaks to large and captive audiences everyday. So why am I out of the loop and how can I get in the loop?
Also, did you see the recent polls about Rudy? Its been a few hours since new ones have posted, can we see them again? I love those polls. Did I mention that Rudy, and only Rudy can make America safer?
March 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Thanks for the info DB:
Just so everyone knows, the Hyde Amendment denies federal coverage for abortion, except in cases of incest, rape or life endangerment. Rudy is in this video stating the exact opposite of the Hyde Amendment 20 some years ago. At least he’s changed his mind regarding that.
Since many liberals believe that my tax payer’s dollars should go towards free abortions for all, how about federal funding of arms? After all, the right to bear arms is sooooo important that it is constitutionally prescribed as the 2nd amendment. If you are too poor to protect yourself, then you should have the tax payer’s dollar to provide that protection right?
A liberal’s reaction to a “free arms protection bill” as I’ve described may begin to illustrate how some conservatives react regarding a free for all – abortion on-demand at my taxes expense bill.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Nursat, you dont get it. According to a recent poll I took, I found that:
354 million americans find that Rudy makes our country safer
only 19 found Romney makes our country safer
21 believed it was McCain that makes the nation safer
3 believed it was Huck that makes us safer
Another recent poll (GOP Activist or KT could show you) found that 115% of Americans support Rudy, while Romney is supported by only 10% of the country. Doesnt anyone get it. LOOK AT THE POLLS GUYS.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
For a second, SunsFan, I didn’t realize you were being facetious.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Didn’t John Kerry have the *exact* same position regarding abortion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL29j08AlH0&mode=related&search=
March 11th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Jason,
Congratulations! You have posted the 100,000th comment on this site! I think Kavon should get you some sort of prize or gift certificate or something. I was aiming for it, but got lazy.
But onto other things. As sick as I am of hearing that Rudy owns the polls, hearing people imitate the Rudy-ites is just as bad. Give it a rest. I’ll concede that Rudy is owning at the polls of the general populace. His support is a mile wide – and an inch deep. All people are voting for right now is a name recognition contest, not whose politician’s values are you most aligned with at the moment.
The Democrats are doing the same thing with Hillary Clinton and Obama. Their names are ubiquitous but their stances on issues are either everywhere or unknown. Dem’s would have done well to support Vilsack, Richardson, or Mark Warner. They would have sucked up all the Rudy moderates and independents and the base would rather have a right leaning Democrat than a left leaning Republican. I personally believe that one of those three Democrats will likely be their veep choice.
But back to the name recognition issue, it’s a big gamble to leave it up to the whim of the popular vote to decide who should run. The nation can be rather fickle as evidenced by Bush’s almost 70% spread in confidence. Rudy was well insulated during that time, but as he is getting involved in politics again, you will see the attrition build up against him.
I expect Rudy’s support to wane in the upcoming months leading up to the primary due to a more informed public. I will be very impressed if he can poll as well 6-9 months from now as he does now. Until then, I freely admit that Rudy currently polls better than any Republican candidate in general surveys and I do not need to be reminded of it every other post. That’s my stance. Wait and see.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Well all you guys that are looking for the perfect candidate may finally get him:Sen Fred Thompson from my great state of Tenn! Pro life, repeal Roe, pro-gun, anti amnesty,secure borders, tough on terrorists, strong on Iraq ,Reagan charisma and electability!
March 12th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Nusrat quotes Zappa: “It has never mattered to me that thirty million people might think I’m wrong. The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him rightWhy do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?”
Does that mean we shouldn’t support Rudy because he’s wrong on abortion, etc, even if more people think he’s right (i.e. “electable”)? If only politics was about picking yolur prefered candidate, rather than your most electable candidate!
March 12th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Wasn’t one reason we voted for George W. Bush was that he promised to put honor and decency back in the White House(and did)? Why should we vote for someone who judging from past performance would put scandal back in the White House(Giuliani)? I talked to a man once who oversaw the welfare of youth in his church during the Clinton years, and he said that he saw a lot more moral problems in the youth after the Clinton scandals than he had before. The example of leaders does matter.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:44 am
JF,
Did Romney ever support partial birth? I can’t seem to find anything on that.
This sounds horribly strange coming from me, but it appears that I have found the one issue that Romney has been consistent on (gasp!). Even when he tried to out pro-choice the pro-choicers in 2002, he told NARAL that he supported a ban on PBA. I’ve tried to find an older precedent, but LexisNexis doesn’t have anything before then. I don’t think the issue was raised in 1994.
Also, I wrote this post last month on Rudy’s PBA flips that you might find interesting.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Romney’s also always opposed federal funding for abortion. From a 1994 article “The two differed over whether they would require the states to provide public funding for abortion, with Lakian [Romney's primary opponent]saying he would and Romney saying he would leave that decision up to the states.” This nonsense about Romney being the most pro-abortion politician ever is just that. He’s supported PBA bans, parental consent, and opposed federal funding even at his most “liberal”. That’s the bare minimum in pro-choicedom.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Note, I think the main reason people like LJ have made absurd statements like “he tried to out pro-choice the pro-choice folks” is not so much to do with his actual words or even the positions he adopts, neither of which are remarkable for a pro-choice politician. But rather, his skill in articulating a position. It’s precisely this skill that make him so consumately electable.
March 12th, 2007 at 3:14 am
LJ and Matt, good to hear. I find it remarkable that Guiliani refused to support a ban on PBAs up until recently. I just don’t see any justification for PBAs beyond saving the life of the mother. If Romney is considered suspect for his shift, Guiliani is coming across as absolutely mercenary in his shift. No one goes from supporting PBAs to “personally hating abortion.” What BS. Ok, so Guiliani is dead in the water as far as his social conservative credentials. I guess we should focus on why he’s a better national security conservative than the others (I don’t really see how Guiliani can beat Romney on fiscal issues, but for sake of argument I’ll consider them equally acceptable). After all, as we’re reminded time and again, Guiliani’s entire argument revolves around his national security credentials. Can someone direct me to material on what he’s said about how he’d handle the GWOT, Iraq, Iran, the UN, and NATO?
March 12th, 2007 at 4:05 am
JF,
Well he won’t have good ol’ Arafat to kick around anymore.
I honestly don’t know how effective Rudy would be in the GWOT. It’s obvious what his position is regarding Jihadists and extremist sympathizers. I think a lot will depend on who he wants to appoint to a potential cabinet (particularly Sec of Defense). It’s still premature to talk about filling the cabinet though at this juncture.
Personally, I think retaining Condi will be key to maintaining continuity. Conversely, we need to clean house a bit and distance ourselves from KBR Haliburton and the Cheney Croneyism of yesteryear. The main way to accomplish this is opening up many of the no-bid contracts that are hemorrhaging money in our war effort. This will dispel many negative perceptions and also save tax dollars.
I think Romney is particularly well suited to lead in the GWOT. Romney is well read on the War, having read books such as the Looming Tower, or The Assassin’s Gate, or Cobra II, as well as numerous reports authored by current and retired generals. Unlike some certain members of the House ‘Intelligence’ committee, I guarantee you that Romney knows the difference between a Sunni and Shia muslim. Finally, as I’ve said before, it is who you appoint that will count most. Where ever Romney is, he surrounds himself with competent individuals who not only have well informed divergant viewpoints, but they also get things done.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:35 am
BarkTwiggs, thanks for the feedback. I already lean towards Romney since he does the most to satisfy all three pillars of the conservative movement, but it’s good to hear that he’s thinking seriously about national security (and I’ve read the bits of his speeches concerning Iran, which is a good first step). However, if GOP Activist and Luther Hardy will get off their high horses and consort with the rest of us great unwashed, perhaps they can provide some specifics on why Guiliani’s 9/11 performance will mean he will be a better wartime leader than his competitors. I visited what I thought was the official Guiliani website (joinrudy2008.com and solutionsamerica.com), but it makes no mention of national security. Either that’s not his official site, or he’s taking the high-handed view that he doesn’t need to compete in that area either. Again, let me emphasize that I’m asking these questions because I care, and I’m open-minded about potentially supporting Guiliani.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:39 am
I noticed Rudy was labeled as a Republican-Liberal candidate
not much has changed huh?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:22 am
BarkTwiggs,
Indeed, I trust Romney to create excellent team’s. Ironically enough, Giuliani on the other hand, has been accused of (just like Bush I might add), of keeping too close of a circle of advisers.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:28 am
JayPe:
I agree with you. We should pick who we think is most “right.”
March 12th, 2007 at 7:25 am
[...] Much is being made in the conservative blogosphere about Rudy Giuliani’s support of public funding of abortion during his first mayoral campaign. The McCain and Romney camps must be pinching themselves that this nettlesome YouTube clip has been “above the fold” on Drudge for more than 12 hours — despite the fact both of those gentlemen have their own problems on the issue. [...]
March 12th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Giuliani just puts it out there and you take it or leave it. He has thought this through for years.
Remember the second chapter from his
book – Prepare Relentlessly. I have to
believe that he believes it is not going to impede him.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Have I pointed out Romney can’t win and McCain is a complete jerk.
March 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
The big three are all pandering hacks that stand for nothing. My vote’s going with Huckabee.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Who’s the only one thinking about himself? If you want to vote for Rudy here’s a few things you
might want to think about 1. Abortion, kill innocent children and you live. 2. For the war,
make it longer + increase more troops. Now if you vote for Rudy you will help increase more
troops but, where will you get the troops from killing all those innocent babies?
Think about it….
March 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Fred…wow. Just…wow. That’s one of the hugest leaps of logic I’ve seen in a long time. And that’s saying a lot.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
No one on this thread has pointed out the obvious fact:
As Mayor of NYC, Rudolph signed 8 budgets that used public funds to commit the murder of tens of thousands of unborn fetuses.
This is BIG REASON #1 Why I LIKE MIKE HUCKABEE instead.
Not all of the abortions in NYC were at public centers. Still looking that number up — but many were.
OK Let’s add up the Rudolph down side for a minute here.
A candidate who has actually funded tens of thousands of abortions on the Republican side is going to depress the religious vote so much it takes away our advantage in the purple states!
Now add in the fact that during the Clinton impeachment, Rudolph was actually having 2 simultaneous adulterous affairs, with Chrystine Letagano and with Judith Nathan.
Rudolph knew Bernie Kerik hung with mobsters and was corrupt and did nothing but tell President Bush that he would be a stellar DHS Secretary!
Where is this all going?
March 12th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
First, to LJ’s original post,
My first rule in politics and elsewhere is that there is a ten year statute of limitations on stupidity. If the last time a politican did a specific thing was more than ten years ago, then it is irrelevent. It’s gone. It’s water under the bridge. We are not going back in time to vote on that person from ten years ago. We are voting on the person today. So I am inclined to toss out any and all video, written statement, audio sound bites, etc. from more than ten years ago.
Second, I am looking for the best candidate for 2008, not the least worse candidate. Whenever I see a negative blurb, I generally ignore it no matter who the target is. I don’t even read the hit pieces aimed at the Democrats. I have found that the negative hit pieces have an attrocious rate of accuracy. It takes very little effort to debunk them. So whenever I see some screaming advert, press release, or blog post using over-the-top rhetoric, I just tune it out. It is not worth getting worked up over something that is most likely in error, taken out of context, or is a bald-face lie.
You would think that some of our posters here would learn that simple lesson.