Video: Rudy Giuliani discusses candidacy on H&C
posted at 10:42 pm on February 5, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | regular view
America’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on Hannity & Colmes tonight to discuss his candidacy for President. The war in Iraq, terrorism, gun rights and gay marriage were just some of the topics Hannity and Giuliani talked about.
Part 1:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
is guiliani the only presidential candidate from either party who has actually run a government on a state/city level?
lorien1973 on February 5, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Our next President.
Vincenzo on February 5, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Mr. Giuliani was complimentary toward all candidates, on both side, and not at all stern and shrill.
Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 10:52 PM
My party ‘faithful’ will scream RINO. Of course the ‘faithful’ think all the candidates are RINOs. Gonna be a long road to Nov 08.
Limerick on February 5, 2007 at 11:04 PM
He’s doing well. He comes off as likable and, unlike some candidates, he’s defending his past instead of covering it up. I think he’s a genuine federalist. But I don’t like his answers on the “technological” fence and the second amendment.
If he is willing to support encroachments on the second amendment “tactically”, to solve problems in New York, what other rights is he willing to overlook?
see-dubya on February 5, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Nope…Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts.
asc85 on February 5, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Hannity: Are you in it to win it?
This is why Hannity gets the big bucks? What kind of stupid question was that? Is Guiliani going to respond to that by saying, “Actually Sean, I’m not entering the race to win. Just to blow through millions of bucks, be held under intense media scrutiny, and I’ll have a rip-roaring time!”
Jeez…I’m sure even Kucinich would say he’s “in it to win it.”
Just a pet peeve of mine these kinds of ridiculous questions that mean absolutely nothing.
asc85 on February 5, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Rudy really is a breath of fresh air. I would LOVE to see him debate the likes of Breck Girl or Shrillary. Personally, I think he’d tear them apart. Unfortunately, I also think my conservative brothers and sisters feel he’s too liberal to ever give him the nod. Too bad. He has a real chance.
thedecider on February 5, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Ummm…How can Giuliani be officially endorsed by the GOP (should he become the presumptive nominee) when the Republican Party platform specifically does not endorse abortion?
Since Rudy is pro-chioce…
JetBoy on February 5, 2007 at 11:22 PM
So who’s in the Republican race folks? Giuliani, Gingrich, Romney or McCain?
thedecider on February 5, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I’m pretty sure this was just a dig at Hillary. Whether or not a candidate is “in to win” is indeed a ridiculous question. That’s why Hillary’s incessant repetition of this little tagline is so asinine.
flip on February 5, 2007 at 11:27 PM
I hadn’t watched the videos when I left that last comment; glad to see him repeat the promise to appoint strict constructionist judges and justices. I can’t wait for the debates to watch him mop the stage with Shrillery.
bdfaith on February 5, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Shillery? What about the new little darling of the left, that guy with the ears?
I don;t think Rudy would even break a sweat debating that fledgling politician.
bbz123 on February 5, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Like thedecider, I too, would like to see him as the candidate for 08 but am afraid that he won’t make it. I know that I won’t agree with 100% of anything any candidate stands for but if I agree with him on 80% that’s a start. However, I would love to see him take on the Shill. Unlike her hubby, he knows his dirty laundry is out there and as others have said, isn’t trying to cover it up.
Catie96706 on February 5, 2007 at 11:34 PM
I will not vote for a Republican who is not Pro-2nd Amendment or Pro-Life. I’ll find a 3rd party to vote for before I vote against two issues that are among the core reasons for my being a conservative.
Yakko77 on February 5, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Yakko77, I understand what you are saying, however if the votes of the Right get split ,the possibility of a Shillery or Obama getting in increase horrifically.
bbz123 on February 5, 2007 at 11:39 PM
You’ve got to be kidding with this guy. Martinez gets everyone flipping out but a guy who cheerfully quotes him sneering at supporters of a wall is the big national security hero? I’ll pass over the new euphemism, “regularization.” This party is screwed.
Alex K on February 5, 2007 at 11:49 PM
He ran Mel Martinez’ straw-man about the fence up the flag pole; that dog won’t hunt. As nice as a Hi Tech fence would be, it won’t actually stop anyone from crossing. And he talked about a law that wasn’t working, well, laws you don’t enforce don’t work to well now do they…..
liquidflorian on February 5, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Honest answers and real solutions. I love his response to the fence. He knows it won’t work, so let’s do something that does work. And America won’t be able deport the millions that are here. What’s Giuliani’s answer? “Let them earn citizenship.”
He wants them speaking English and knowing American History. I love it. I just love when people give realistic answers that aren’t just “easy” answers to appease a group.
Vincenzo on February 6, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Rudy has a looooooooooooooong way to go if he hopes to capture my vote. Newt would be a much better choice if he runs, but if push comes to shove I think that Richardson could get my vote. It all depends on whether he would deal honestly with the ILLEGAL Alien debacle.
IMHO, the GOP is screwed unless the cut-and-run Republicans will get off of their ASSetts to do the hard work of getting a Republican Candidate elected. The last election made certain that many of the volunteers Will Not Be Coming Back. I was one of those volunteers so I know that for a fact.
DannoJyd on February 6, 2007 at 12:13 AM
“I also think my conservative brothers and sisters feel he’s too liberal to ever give him the nod.”
I’m a gun owner. He’s not my candidate. He gave “lip service” to the 2nd Amendment, yet he supported the AW Ban, Brady,and gun control when he was mayor. If elected, I have no doubt that he would sign any gun control package that the Congress would send him.
georgej on February 6, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Well, as it stands now, I’d vote for him, but not happily.
So far, Hunter is the only one that SEEMS to be a real conservative to me, and (barring further information), the only one that I’d be happy to vote for. But he has a heck of a long way to go before he would be competitive against even the least of the Dem candidates.
God, I’m sick of having to vote for ‘the lesser of the evils’.
LegendHasIt on February 6, 2007 at 12:31 AM
I was sceptical about Rudy , but the more I learn about him the better he seems. Anyone who can go into the belly of the liberal beast and cut taxes,cut city spending, crack down on crime, drive the smut from Times Sqare, and push for school choice, has gotta be considered just a little bit conservative.
All this right under the nose of the New York Times?
My biggest worry was/is the judicial nominations and he’s gone a long way on that.
Oh yeah, there’s that whole global war on terror thing.
billy on February 6, 2007 at 12:58 AM
lorien1973: “is guiliani the only presidential candidate from either party who has actually run a government on a state/city level?”
Haven’t kept track of who’s actually declared, but if you go by the PJM list, Huckabee, Richardson, Kucinich, Sanford, Pataki (skip him, he won’t try), in addition to Romney who asc85 mentioned.
Dusty on February 6, 2007 at 12:59 AM
I am VERY impressed with Rudy. He is articulate. He has the best expierence far a above any of the Dems for sure. He is very natural. He does have a plan and more importantly a plan that will work! I believe that Rudy is the best pic we have for President in 08. God knows we have to keep ANY Dem from ever reaching the White House. If they do we may as call it Washingtonistan. Go Rudy. Go Repubs. Go Base.
auspatriotman on February 6, 2007 at 1:03 AM
I’d liked Giuliani a lot even before 9/11, but that’s based on his generally being a conservative in NYS and ya have to take what ya can get up here.
That said, he’s got a long row to hoe if he’s gonna be that frivolous with his answers. For one, on both the immigration and gun issue, he played the ‘I was stuck with inherited (granted Hannity put that word in his mouth) rules/laws’ as well as ‘used them, tactically, as best he could’ game. Now he’ll have to answer wrt the new ones he’s gonna inherit and how will he use them.
On a similar but contrasting note, as Mayor he was in some respects stuck with those rules/laws. He’s now running for a position where he can change them. So what’s he gonna do?
I want to hear a lot more in that vein before I’ll commit.
But even if he doesn’t win me over, he can still use the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I sent him four days before he dropped out of the race against Hillary. And that little experience is why Hannity, nicely, asked him my question, “Are you in it to win it?” I think it might have gone over Giuliani’s head, however.
Dusty on February 6, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Rudy has my vote.
Babs on February 6, 2007 at 1:31 AM
I am officially going on record as a Giuliani supporter.
Give’em hell, Rudy!
x95b10 on February 6, 2007 at 1:35 AM
You are aware of the whole cancer thing, right?
Watcher on February 6, 2007 at 1:48 AM
He is my #1 choice because my #1 issue is national security. My 2nd issue…. there is no 2nd issue.
AndrewsDad on February 6, 2007 at 1:52 AM
I wouldn’t mind seeing him reach the top job. He’s even got international recognition and respect, so the other side could stfu with that ‘argument’ for once. And I think he’s got his priorities right – ‘gay rights’, for one, should not be a more important issue than the WoT. That being said, it’d be hard to believe any GOP candidate would be soft on that issue, but perhaps Giuliani’s competent track record on the issue might push him over the edge..
Reaps on February 6, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Jump ahead to the debates………. and a few more canditates have entered the race {paraphrasing, it is all mine, not any of it has been recorded, fictional, parody, an attempt at humor}
Commentator: “Canidates, hypothetical………….. we all have seen how President Bush’s “Surge” pacified the Iraqi insurgnecy, and victory in the war has been secured.”
“Iran has had the nuclear bomb for a year, and every month threatens to wipe Isreal off the face of the map……. in fact, they have stated just tonight, that they are preparing to fire………. the UN has been castrated. Our allies are exhausted and are looking to us as they rearm…”
“Panel, let’s say you are the President of the Untited States, what would you do?”
Ms.Pelosi …. “blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….blink….”
Ms. Clinton … “Well, I’m glad you asked me that, you know, we all have to get together and talk about what makes this country great, along with getting along with the rest of the world, and we need to talk, and study, and continue to work with our allies, and we really need to form a “village” to work out our differences, and you know, and you know what I’m talking about, Hmmmmm, Hmmmmmm, that we really need to have more children on the stage…………”
Mr. Kennedy ….” Ummm, Osama … Obamma …. Oblamma… Uhhh, bettter, bet…. ahhhh, Illegals, vote democrat…”
Mr. Dean ….”Yeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh”
Mr. Gulliani ….. “This is no joke, you would have to take this seriously. I would put the entire military on full alert, I would deploy the submarines, I would activate the Emergency Brodcast System, I would alert our forward Commanders to be ready for action, I would alert all States to prepare for War, I would alert all hospitals, I would have secured the borders, and I would tell that son of b”’tch to stand down, or pay the consequences.”
At least I can hope……
PinkyBigglesworth on February 6, 2007 at 2:06 AM
If you listened to Dick Morris after Rudy, he reported a poll he took at a conservative meeting of sorts and the group had an easier time getting past Rudys liberal leanings than those of McCains.
Toeing a hard conservative line is never going to get a candidate elected in a general election. Rudy has what another favorite conservative of mine (Reagan) had, the ability to communicate to folks. Rudy’s got that down…and short of Newt, the ONLY candidate from either side that has that ability. Rudy will nominate conservative judges. Judges who have a huge affect on the standards which we lives our lives now and in the future. Rudy did what he did as mayor of NYC….as POTUS he would make different decisions.
As Americans, we all have a patriotic duty to be flexible for the good of the country. If that means we have to give a little on a couple social issues, because the alternative is to give a lot on the social issues AND have national defense weaked by a liberal socialist like Hillary, well, then we owe it to ourselves and the future to be flexible. Remember, we have enough votes in the congress to stop ANY huge socialist agenda that Pelosi et al can try to pass. That is IF the dems still hold the congress. And if the conservatives hold the congress, not one socialist bill will make it to the Presidents desk.
Believe me, I’ve seen it….you vote for a third party candidate just to “make a point”, we’ll get just what we got in 1992 when the conservatives went for Perot to protest Bush’s tax hike.
Namely, 8 years of stuff like, Hillary care, BJ’s, a gutted intelligence community, the sowing of the seeds of 9/11, and lies from the Clinton white house.
csdeven on February 6, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Savage on February 6, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Yup, that I am, Watcher. And his NYC refuse imbroglio, his messy divorce because of an affair, the Diallo mess and the controversy over security guard who was shot in which he got too involved right before the primary.
Look, I don’t begrudge his pulling out after he announced he had prostate cancer, but it took like a month for him to decide after he announced it and he left a lot of us with the impression he was going to stick it out, primarily because he hepped its discovery at an early stage. Then he announced right before the primary (and a less than a week after I sent him the $$$$$$$$) that he was pulling out.
Yup, I remember. Of course it hasn’t help that Pirro pulled the same crap on me this past election, too. So remind me that, if I decide I do want him to stay in it to win it, then I should probably not give him money.
Dusty on February 6, 2007 at 3:26 AM
He just lost the gun-owner vote with his support of the AWB and supposed “common sense” gun control.
He’s getting slammed on the ar15.com boards and rightfully so.
He and Mitt are both coming across as RINOS to gun owners/enthusiasts and folks are talking about NOT holding their noses and voting for an anti-gun Republican in the general election just because they are Republicans. Just another part of the conservative base left out in the cold again……they do it at their peril.
Of course, that seems to be part of the Republican strategy now.
quax1 on February 6, 2007 at 4:08 AM
No matter. There will be a dem in office in ‘08 either way. I hope not, but I don’t see another Republican in office after this administration.
robblefarian on February 6, 2007 at 6:25 AM
Not sure if I like his positions on immigration and the 2nd amendment; just don’t know enough detail yet. Based on his comments on H&C though, I have a queasy feeling that I just can’t explain. Just a slight churning of the gut right before that “oh crap” moment…
He’s either gonna lose or keep the gun-rights and strong-immigration policy folks in our party depending on how he explains his positions in more detail.
Regarding immigration, I’m not sure what “regularization” means, but it is a catchy “non-answer”. As for gun-control, he’s pro 2nd amendment, with caveats.
All I can say is he better be ready for hammering from both sides. Hillary and her kill team will smear him and the right wants answers.
BacaDog on February 6, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Few things I noticed. He wants to leave decisions on abortion, gun control and other controversial topics, up to states to decide. (State rights, a Republican Ideal). Let the people decide (democracy).
Giuliani is very strong (consistantly) on the War on Terror. I couldn’t count on most of the other candidates to be so. Quite frankly, I couldn’t vote for one candidate because he supports gun rights, but not the War on Terror. A judge can always declare legislation unconstitutional(violating the Second Amendment right). What about if the candidate is anti-war?
amerpundit on February 6, 2007 at 8:32 AM
George Will posed a great question. The seven minute question. When a terrorist act is about to be committed on our soil, the president will have less than seven minutes to act. A few to contact him, and several to make his decision. Who do you want to be in the White House to make that decision? Who has the experience to handle quick decisive death threatening decisions? The everyday stuff sorts itself out, congress, judges take polls and study (Ha!) proposals. But only one person is charged with the decisions that a president has to make. Take him out, or let him live? A decision that another presdident made about Obama. Take him out or let him live? Reagan with Kadafi, he lived but is living a quiet life. If my family’s life depended on one presidents decision…Giuliani or McCain, Gingrich, etc. I will take Giuliani, baggage and all. Other decisions can be reversed, laws can be reversed but, the real important ones…we get one chance, we better be right.
right2bright on February 6, 2007 at 8:51 AM
oops Osama, not Obama.
right2bright on February 6, 2007 at 8:52 AM
I cant vote for him. I understand that I wont agree on each & every issue with any candidate but watching him waffle on illegals colonizing parts of our country, parental notification & gay “rights”….I just cant do it. Rudy is a 1980s Democrat, not a conservative. I wont hold my nose & vote again.
DwnSouthJukin on February 6, 2007 at 8:53 AM
I think a lot of people will feel that way, my question is if it is between Hillary and Rudy, where is your vote? A non vote for Rudy is a vote for Hlllary. Do you vote someone who is 95% against what you believe or vote in someone who is 30% against what you believe? And if he solidifies his stand on some of those issues, doesn’t he begin to win your vote?
right2bright on February 6, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Can anyone name me a social issue that the present or former POTUS has personally implemented that has had a drastic affect on our lives?
Can anyone name a supreme court justice that the present or former POTUS has had confirmed that has had a drastic affect on our personal lives?
Can anyone name a foriegn policy decision a present or former POTUS has implemented that has had a drastic affect on our lives?
Abortion rights were given to women by activist judges. The AWB was passed through the votes of 535 locally elected congress persons. The same sex marriage issue will fought in local politics and if that fails, the gays will try to get it passed through activst judges.
Think about it people. If if comes down to a RINO whose is electable and a third party candidtae who is not, if you choose to make a “statement” with your vote, we’ll be living with Hillary Clinton for the next 8 years and everyone of your social issues WILL COME UNDER ATTACK and you’ll be hating life. If you win the battle and “teach the conservatives a lesson” by rejecting their nomination, you’ll lose the war You’ll be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The AWB was passed under Clinton. Clinton nominate Ginsburg, Breyer, and a host of liberal judges to the lower courts.
Foriegn policy and court appointments are the real power that the president has that affects our lives.
csdeven on February 6, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Hannity asked about immigration and “amnesty”. Rudy says no, no, no, he does not favor “amnesty”, he favors “earned citizenship” and “regularizing”. Which is doublespeak for amnesty of course. Politicians, oy.
honora on February 6, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Don’t like his thinking on guns. To me, that’s an indication of a candidates belief in American freedom in general.
frankj on February 6, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I know what you’re saying & thats why Ive voted in the last few elections but no more.
Something is happening in this country thats different than before. I actually heard people in my doctor’s office Friday talking about how our government is turning against its own people & they are waiting for another civil war. These werent right/left wing nuts either, these are professional people. I had a neighbor in November who moved outside the Dallas/Ft Worth Metro so he could be in a “safer place once the shooting starts”. This guy is just some computer programmer who doesnt even pay that much attention to politics.
Things are different now. There are some core issues I will no longer compromise on. Our country’s sovereignty is one of them. No waffling will be tolerated, ever.
DwnSouthJukin on February 6, 2007 at 10:11 AM
quax1 wrote:
In case anybody needs to be reminded, the REPUBLICANS gained control of Congress in 1994 because of gun owners who got very pissed when the Brady bill and the Assault weapon “ban” were passed in 1994. Clinton himself acknowledged it.
The 4 or 5 million NRA owners, the 750,000 or so GOA members (some of whom overlap) and the 90 million gun owners that they represent ENDED 44 years of Democratic Party control of congress.
Unless Rudy come right out and says that he WILL NOT SIGN any gun control legislation that crosses his desk, he will NOT get the support of gun owners, and therefore, probably NOT the nomination.
Somebody get to Rudy and tell him this….
georgej on February 6, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I really like this man. I know he has some disagreeable personal stances on some key conservative issues, but what struck me is how much in the forefront he put the Constitution and states’ rights in his answers regarding those issues. I believe that conservatives really have little to worry about regarding what he will do with the 2nd amendment, Roe v Wade, etc.
Ed Koch would say something like, “Here are 12 things I believe. If you agree with me on 9 of them, vote for me. If you agree with me on all 12, get help.” I have to agree here. We’re all looking for the next Reagan. We need to give up that fruitless pursuit! Ronald Reagan was one of a kind, and anyone who tries to be like Reagan is going to fail… because Reagan was being himself.
I do not agree with Guiliani on absolutely everything he says. Then again, do we agree with our current president in such a way?!? I appreciate that I can know exactly where he stands; he was leveling with us. In the end, surely intellectual and personal honesty will win the day over quibbles with one or two issues that he wouldn’t have the power to change anyway. I agree outright with probably 80% of what he said, and he framed that other 20% in a way that I can respect if not join in agreement. Such honesty, integrity, real understanding of his own beliefs on the issues, and his candor in sharing them would make Rudy a far better leader and statesman than anyone we’ve had since Reagan.
Put this man next to Hillary, and such qualities will speak volumes. Rudy has got to be Hillary’s worst nightmare. He has the brains and the, uh, cajones necessary to be our next leader, and he has proven experience of results from leading 8 million people for 8 years to show that he is not an empty suit. I’m not saying I’m definitely voting for Rudy; I will wait to see the list of all the candidates and where they all stand. Having said that, he is the only announced Republican or anything else who makes me excited for our future, and, for me not to vote for him, somebody even more incredible will have to come along.
flutejpl on February 6, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I’d rather have someone more right them him, but I’ll take him over that First Amendment sellout McCain.
Besides we can at least count on McCain not bad mouthing you, before he kisses arse to you two faced BS ala Bob Jones….
Tim Burton on February 6, 2007 at 11:16 AM
BOTTOM LINE: What’s more important.
A. Rudy is pro-choice (to an extent), pro-gun control (in big city urban war zones), and pro gay civil unions – not gay marriage.
or…
B. Rudy is a tough, sharp born leader who will be a strong warrior against the Islamofascist threat. I live in the NYC area and he turned that decaying slum into Disneyland.
If all you care about is A, than you cannot see the big picture. The war is the only thing that matters now. Our survival is on the line. Rudy can lead us to Victory. Hillary will lead us to Ruin.
NeoConSnakePlissken on February 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM
For a rare change, I completely agree with you.
Oh, and for those doing the math:
High Tech Fence = no fence + no enforcement
Rudy’s weakness on the border undermine his national security bona fides.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Rudy filed papers to become Canadian?!!?? No wait, I heard that wrong.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Well he repeated th tried and true New York speak of the liberal Catholic…”I am opposed to abortion but a woman must make her own choice.” I always wonder if he would have felt that way about lunch counters serving blacks in the 60’s? Would he have been opposed, but a business must make his or her own choice? What? You say that another person’s rights were involved in that case? Well..need I say more?
He really ticked me off when he said he didn’t think women should go to jail for abortion. Who has EVER said they should??? Certaintly no pro-lifer that I know of.
Bottom line….I can’t imagine Rudy getting through the primaries. Arguing about how social conservatives should just give up their passionate beliefs here isn’t going to change that, just like asking some of you to give up being mad at McCain for the McCain Feingold stuff.
It comes down to this. No matter who gets the nomination, Rudy or McCain (if it is one of them).. the other side of the Republican party is going to have to bite the bullet and vote for someone they are not fond of. That’s it.
Rightwingsparkle on February 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
He kinda strikes me as a warmed over Rockefeller Republican. He seems to lean toward government solutions instead of personal responsibility. There’s no two ways about it, he’s a social liberal.
I’m really disappointed in the way he fudged on gun rights and abortion. Shades of Clinton I’m afraid. If he had been forthright about his positions I’d have respected him more.
And he totally doesn’t understand illegal immigration. The real solution to it is forcing the Mexican economy to reform and become a free job creating economy. That’s the only true solution. That requires us to use a little tough love on the Mexicans.
I still want Santorum, but I think we’d better think of drafting Newt to run, if only to move the debate to where it should be.
Iblis on February 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM
No doublespeak on the Left. Oh, no, none, whatever!
Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
“Politicians” would include left, right and center. Chill.
honora on February 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I like Rudy myself, but let me ask: what national security bona fides?
honora on February 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM
honora, your completely calm/chilled friend just posted a message for you on the other Rudy thread :)
Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Here’s an interesting stat. Apparently there was a RW, top 150 operatives (the ones which give our leftie friends the crawlies) meeting recently. The questions were:
- How many could overlook Mr. McCain’s rightie transgressions and still vote for him – 25%
- How many could overlook Mr. Giuliani’s (honora listed them all) – 75%
Not good news for Mr. McCain.
Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM
The disturbing thing about Giuliani’s statement on abortion is not what it reveals about his policy preference — which we knew and could be persuaded to accomodate for reasons of expediency — but what it shows about his view of conservatives. The mere suggestion that conservatives would like to “put a woman in jail” for seeking an abortion is insulting and shows a disturbing lack of engagement with conservative principles.
This is precisely the problem that Bush had with the Miers nomination. He wants to appeal to conservatives but he does not have a clear idea about what conservatives find appealing or, more importantly, why. Similar remarks could be made about his views on gun control and imigration.
JackOfClubs on February 6, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Assuming he favors a vigourous prosecution of the war against islamic fascism, then I would probably be with him on that issue, and it’s issue #1. However, the border is issue 1A, because it is directly tied to national security – something Bush has missed by a mile, something McVain misses by a mile, and something I suspect Rudy misses by a mile.
That being said, we’ll have to wait if his national security polices are what I would assume them to be.
thirteen28 on February 6, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Very impressive. He would obviously be a kickass commander in chief.
He raises an essential question for conservatives (one that I, frankly, think pro-life conservatives tend to dodge, and which by its blaring omission in discussions about abortion tends to discredit or weaken pro-life arguments, unfortunately) which is: do we plan to put women in jail for having abortions? If not, what other punishment for this kind of murder would be appropriate? I read a whole lot, but I just don’t see conservatives talking about this, even though, it would seem to be the center of the issue. No?
Anyway, I bet al-Qaeda is thinking right now that Rudy is their worst nightmare.
Halley on February 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
The Republican party, as any other, will endorse whatever wins them elections and is overall good for business – relative morality and siutational ethics, you know.
Emmett J. on February 6, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Agree (this is getting scary). IMO opinion, and again, I like Rudy, a lot of people are getting all starry eyed and confusing Rudy’s stand-up performance post 9/11 with somehow being tough on terrorism.
I believe it illustrated a supererior leadership style and a great understanding of how to get stuff done (which is a rare skill!!); but national security bona fides? Hardly. Think of it this way: had the WTC gone down by way of a couple of meteors, 99% of Rudy’s actions would have been exactly the same as they were.
Mass wishful thinking.
honora on February 7, 2007 at 10:11 AM
And a good Rx for survival. Or go the way of the Green Party and wallow in futile purity.
honora on February 7, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Comment pages: