Video flashback: “I’m really not” a Republican mayor, says Rudy; Update: “Major endorsement” tomorrow for Rudy? Update: Texas Gov. Perry to endorse Rudy?
posted at 5:03 pm on October 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From 1996. Newsflash: Rudy used to be more liberal while mayor of NYC but has tacked back to the right on issues like gun rights and immigration for his presidential bid. Film at 11. There are endless clips of Mitt in this vein too. Either you believe that they’re closet liberals who are perpetrating a grand fraud on the base in the secret hope that they’ll be elected and can enact their left-wing agenda, or you believe they’ll do whatever they need to in order to get elected, including becoming stalwart conservatives (on most but not all issues in Rudy’s case) and sticking to those values while in office to preserve their viability for a second term. I’m in the latter camp. It ain’t ideal but it beats Hillary.
Now, someone explain to me why a campaign that’s flush with donations can’t provide video of its candidate’s appearances. Exit question: Given that this was handed to TPM instead of to Marc Ambinder or Mark Halperin or some less partisan news source, is it safe to assume that it came from the Democrats? Click the image to watch.
Update: Rudy’s last “major endorsement,” which everyone thought would be Mark Sanford, turned out to be Tommy Thompson, but he’s promising an even more major one tomorrow. Any guesses?
Update: Right of Texas says tomorrow’s “major endorsement” will come from Dubya’s successor, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. That’s nice and it’ll help him in the south.
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: « Previous 1 2
I’m guessing it isn’t Larry Craig since he’s too busy talking to Matt Lauer. Yeah, going on TV with a rabid leftist will prove your innocence! Not!
highhopes on October 16, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Actually Rudy did exactly that. He took hell from the left for making those on welfare work for their checks and cleaned up the entire city from Time Square, squeegie guys to ferret owners.
See Here:
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 8:04 PM
‘I’m not the most partisan of Republicans’
BUT he’s expecting Republicans to be partisan for HIM. Really this whole election cycle is making our founding fathers roll over in their grave for one. And two, it’s reaffirming that how we do democracy in America now isn’t such a great idea.
It is nothing like how the founding fathers set it up.
ThackerAgency on October 16, 2007 at 8:18 PM
So now ‘Rudy is like Reagan’?
Wow, he must really be a Superman. Why would someone with such superpowers even want to be the lowly president?
I can think of many reasons Rudy won’t win over conservative republicans across the country. If I were Hillary, I’d be salivating for a race with Rudy.
ThackerAgency on October 16, 2007 at 8:20 PM
All weak pandering core deficient candidates do it. So you think Rudy and Mitt behaving like Hillary is a … good thing?
Reagan NEVER compromised his core beliefs. He compromised on policy from time to time, but he always had the big picture in mind and was always a conservative first.
edgehead on October 16, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Wow, such a juggernaut.
He’s got my vote.
/s
Maybe his son hates him now because he was a ferret lover.
omnipotent on October 16, 2007 at 8:25 PM
And we have no one to blame but ourselves.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 8:26 PM
I think you guys are overestimating Hillary’s national appeal. She’s a polemic, like Newt, and there will be many who will not vote for her under any circumstances.
Rudy does NOT have the same polemic appeal across the political spectrum. Rudy is liked, across the political spectrum, much more than Hillary is.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 8:30 PM
I did not say that Rudy was like Reagan. jaime made a point about Reagan and how he proved he was conservative by making the welfare bums in CA go back to work. I just pointed out that Rudy has an even more impressive record in that regard. Let’s stop holding up Reagan as some unassailable idol. He cerainly had many good qualities, but so does Rudy. The haters will disagree, but frankly, Rudy is more of a fighter and has a much more active mind. He may not be the great communicator, but most people think he did pretty good off the cuff on 9/11.
By the way, read the article I cited. Sure, it is a Rudy puff peice, but it is chock full of information and shows a huge list of impressive conservative accomplishments. Unless you are just going to spew talking point, look at the other side for a change
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Problem with your scenario…
Republican B was anti gun, pro illegal alien, by 8:1 appointed Dems judges (given to him by a commitee HE appointed), Taxed people he didn’t represent (commuter tax), sued to get rid of the line item veto….
and basicly did a LOT of unConservative ACTS.
Politicians say a LOT of things… but I for one judge them by their actions, and records… Rudi is good on crime… and does a good soundbite looking tough… but thats about it.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 8:33 PM
So Bush’s amnesty plan and big spending ways would be more forgiveable if he had previously governed a blue state?
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Edited.
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Easy … Hands down … there are more Republicans than conservatives.
If it were the other way around … phrases like “universal healthcare” or “gun control” wouldn’t be discussion points.
AZ_Redneck on October 16, 2007 at 8:44 PM
You said it!
Gatordoug on October 16, 2007 at 8:45 PM
I read a story about some folks in similar circumstances. They wrote this document and it started out like this …
AZ_Redneck on October 16, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Speaking of impending endorsements:
I can’t remember, is it Romney can’t win because Evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon? or Romney can’t win because the Evangelicals will vote for him.
Sebastian on October 16, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Actualy I think you are incorrect. Problem is that Conservatives no longer have anyone representing them.
I know the Republicans don’t represent my views… except on paper.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 8:56 PM
I actually don’t. Reagan was at least fairly conservative with a Democratic Congress. He did good against the Soviet Union. But comparing Reagan and Rudy is laughable. It would be easier to compare Rudy with Hillary.
America needs a CONSERVATIVE party. If it’s not the pubbies, maybe it can be a third party. Now, what they call the ‘right’ ain’t.
ThackerAgency on October 16, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Realclearpolitics has the polls out for Ia, NH, SC, PA, Fl, NJ, CA and SC
Of those Rudy is comfortably ahead in Pa, Fla, NJ, and CA
He is ahead by a couple of a tenths of a point in SC
Romney is ahead in Mi, IA and NH
Fred no lead in any, close in SC
That means 494 delegates for Rudy and 126 for Romney. It takes 1259 to secure the nomination.
Rudy should be happy with those numbers.
Bradky on October 16, 2007 at 9:03 PM
I think California will award delegates by Congressional district — meaning winning in Pelosi SF gets you one and winning in Hunter SD gets you one. Fred might pull a delegate or two out of Bakersfield…
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Damn straight. Get me my gun! I aint gonna be governed by no Eye-Tie…
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 9:18 PM
With Romney beginning to pick up major Evangelical endorsements, SC could go his way. Romney could win everything up to Florida.
Sebastian on October 16, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I eagerly await this headline:
Deval Patrick presides over gay marriage in resort casino.
Five bucks says he’s pushing this gambling crap so he can wear a flashy purple pimp suit with a feather tophat and “cruise the scene, yo.”
After all, this empty suit of a man ran a campaign with the slogan “Together We Can.” Apparently the object of that slogan was either “Destroy any and all remaining morality in Massachusetts” or “Get me a Cadillac.”
BKennedy on October 16, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Reagan never compromised, he just changed his mind and followed through…
Funny, that sounds a whole hell of a lot like Mitt.
And nothing like Fraud! Thompson, who refuses to tell the truth even about his last three occupations.
BKennedy on October 16, 2007 at 9:31 PM
This thread is about using what they said long ago to winover liberal voters as proof they must not be concervative. If you look at the record and don’t like it then fine, but that is different then what is happening here. I like Mitt, not Guilini, who has a better record. yet they get lumped together in this argument by naysayers.
Who is making excuses for Bush? The point here is do you want a repeat of Bush? Everyone here bitched and moaned about those issues yet you advocate repeating the same mistake that put Bush in office. Bush was seen as one of the most concervative candidates in 2000 but had little experience putting a concervative agenda in action. What did that get you? Someone concervative on paper and thats it.
That is probably the worst possible outcome -Someone who on paper the liberals bash as an evil concervative and yet ineffective at policy. You really prefer this to someone who is actually effective at enacting concervative policy while mainting a moderate aura? Strategic suicide.
Resolute on October 16, 2007 at 9:41 PM
The governor of Texas would be a nice pick up. Also, Hannity just conducted his version of the KO/Clinton interview with Rudy, but I liked the answers that Rudy gave. I was pretty undecided as little as a month ago, but I’m moving closer and closer to setting up a tent in Rudy’s camp.
BadgerHawk on October 16, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Marc Ambinder is confirming the Perry endorsement.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Puff Piece is right. And inaccurate as well.
I remember the Congressional welfare reform debates quite well. Wisconsin was used as an example of the right way to reform welfare. New York City was used as an example of how bad the problem had gotten.
Welfare reform was accomplished by the U.S. Congress, not Rudolph “Eddie Haskell” Giuliani.
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Is it just me or has the GOP candidate essentially been decided before even the first primary? Maybe not the name but it seems as if the party has decided the top of the 2008 ticket will be a social liberal from the part of the nation with “Republicans” like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Mitt or Rudy to counter Hillary or B. Hussein……
I’m okay with this certainty that Rudy or Mitt will nominate real conservatives to the SCOTUS. Jurists like Alito, Roberts, Thomas or Scalia- Not the so-called conservatives like Souter we got from the country club Republicans.
highhopes on October 16, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Guess what? Perry is one of the most unpopular polititians in Texas. I’ve been a Texan all my life and I can tell you that the death of the Democrat party in Texas has only led to mediocre candidates. Perry would have fallen to ANY “reasonable” Democrat candidate. I voted for him while holding my nose.
FYI: the Texas Attorney General and Land Commissioner (either of which could beat Perry in a statewide match) are both endorsing Fred.
Rudy WILL NOT WIN TEXAS! You heard it here first.
edgehead on October 16, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Wrong contest Edge. Fred might beat Rudy but…..
Who will win if Fred or Rudy faces off against Hillary or B. Hussein?
highhopes on October 16, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Wow … just wow! I don’t know what you deal is exactly tommylotto, well beyond your near hysterical support of Rudy that is. I can honestly say that until your post I never once ever in my life thought for a moment about what Rudy Giuliani’s national heritage might be. I don’t even know if Giuliani is an Italian name (I assume that “eye-tie” is a NY slur about Italians – as in EYE-talian – if I am wrong please correct me). Nothing anyone has posted in any thread I have read on hotair, except for your post, has made me even think about the heritage of any candidate except discussion based on news stories about Obama’s possible muslim heritage. There probably have been references I haven’t seen, but what AZ_Redneck posted didn’t even remotely suggest any Italian heritage issue to me and rereading it I can’t even figure out how you pulled that out of your *$$. Maybe I’m just slow tonight.
deepdiver on October 16, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Every woman in the country, legal & illegal, is going to go in the voting booth, and see the first WOMAN running for President, and you think they are NOT going to vote for her and Baracko (a good possibility for running mate)? Women out vote men over 2 to 1 in this country. The only way were’re going to get ANYBODY besides Hillary and ‘white trash Willy’ in there again, is to get ALL the men off their asses and vote, and especially not for Hillary.
countywolf on October 16, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Nonsense, Rot, Gibberish, and Nincompoopery. Retard.
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 10:32 PM
LOL.
The pure conservatives are going to have a rude awakening.
The Republican party majority is not a bunch of bible thumpers.
We are pro-choice through the first tri, and less concerned with gay rights as opposed to economic freedom.
The days of kissing the fundamentalist ring are now over.
mylegsareswollen on October 16, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Well, why don’t you pull your head out of your a$$, borrow someone’s sense of humor and re-read this very thread here, here, here and here
Seriously, what is wrong with you that you cannot see the humor of that post. The guy’s name was “AZ_Redneck” and he was proposing that real conservatives should declare a new revolution for independence if we elect Rudy. If you cannot make fun of a nut like that who can you make fun of…
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 11:03 PM
An endorsement from Rick Perry is not a Conservative endorsement. He may have an “R” behind his name but he is a Democrat who changed parties for political reasons when Texas went Republican. He learned his immigration/NAFTA/Trans Texas Corridor politics directly from George Bush. Rudy Guiliani is part of this cabal. The Dallas law firm of Bracewell-Guiliani are the ones who represent the Spanish company, Cintra, who managed to get the “bid” for the TTC through TxDot. All of this was done pretty much behing closed doors with almost no public input. Half of the Legislature didn’t even know what was going on until too late. To this day TxDOT has not released all the information on this deal. It should all be public information but isn’t. We do know that TxDOT came out with $1.3 billion dollars to spend “as they wish”. It doesn’t smell good in Texas right now—especially in Austin! Perry is a PRIME player and Guiliani is in it up to his neck. So unless you want someone who is as pro-illegal alien/open borders as Bush, you better think twice before you vote for Rudy in the primaries—cause you might have to live with it for four or more years. The only qualifier I will give is that I would hold my nose and close my eyes and vote for Rudy against Hillary The Socialist but I would probably barf once I left the polling place.
maxine on October 16, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Aaahahaha, yeah, no. Re-reading the posts you pointed out I see it now. I totally missed the eye-talian references before. I just don’t think that way and didn’t get that out of the posts the first time. Still don’t think your comment was funny in reference to AZ_Redneck’s post but to each his own.
deepdiver on October 16, 2007 at 11:29 PM
ya? where’s he at?
ernesto on October 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Ealier you said THREE to ONE… now TWO to ONE…
And I’m still waiting for statistics… cause I flat out don’t belive you.
In 2000:
• 105 million women were of voting age
o 69% of eligible women were registered to vote.
o 56% of eligible women voted, or 59 million women.
• 97 million men were of voting age:
o 62% of eligible men were registered to vote.
o 53% of eligible men voted, or 53 million men.
(US Census Reports, http://www.census.gov)
Women are voting a bit more… but certainly not TWO or even THREE to ONE
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Well, Romeo 13, I have to admit I currently don’t have the proof at my finger tips, but on Brit Hume’s show today he did mention a difference of 2 to 1 women to men voting before they ran a piece showing Hillary appealing to the female vote. I sure like your stats better. I shall do more digging on the matter.
countywolf on October 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Here is another one…
But maybe I’m just imagining things…
tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 1:32 AM
I know some swing voters who will view this as a major plus for Rudy. I doubt I’m alone.
Halley on October 17, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I’ve been watching all of this long enough to know three things: 1. Hussein aint gonna be the nominee. 2. Hillary is not so damn scary(politically). She’s beatable. She’s untested outside of a NE liberal state. She’s got HUGE negatives and she’s WRONG on all of the issues! 3. Either Rudy OR Fred could beat her. I think Mitt’s Edwardsesque beauty and phoneyness will be his downfall. Hillary might whip Mitt. I think Fred’s our best hope, both to beat Hillary AND to further the conservative cause. Contrary to CW, Fred will appeal to women, AND the long-thought-extinct Reagan Democrats. Rudy’s too liberal, to wierd, and has a lot of stuff in his closet that the Clinton machine can’t wait to trott out.
edgehead on October 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Fixed for accuracy.
Without the “Bible Thumpers,” The Republican Party is no different than the Democratic Party. If that’s the direction the Reps are going, then essentially America as we know it is lost: both of our political parties can be bought off by lobbyists and special interest groups, the American people be damned.
BKennedy on October 17, 2007 at 4:22 AM
In regard to immigration nobody got fooled. Bush ran in 2000 as a compassionate conservative pro-Mexican candidate. Everyone just assumed he was only pretending to be conservative-lite for electoral gain but he never actually promised to do anything constructive on this issue.
Rudy, on the other hand, has a good record of keeping his promises and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
aengus on October 17, 2007 at 4:42 AM
“When a child is hurting somewhere, government must move.” -G.W. Bush, October 2000
aengus on October 17, 2007 at 5:24 AM
Not with this Texan.
Texas Nick 77 on October 17, 2007 at 6:06 AM
Would the anti-Rudy Republicans please tell me how, and by whom, Clinton will possibily be beaten next year?
Calling Rudy a RINO is not a strategy for keeping the Clintons out of power.
Halley on October 17, 2007 at 6:28 AM
Clinton carpetbagged New York, while Guiliani ran and hid.
The question is: Which states will Hillary pick up that Bush didn’t. About the only candidate who won’t keep states in the north (I’m looking at you Ohio) is Fraud! Thompson, and Florida isn’t as dazzled by Southern hicks as the other states.
Essentially we need a candidate that keeps the North in play, and that fits basically everyone except Fraud! Thompson.
The idea Guiliani can woo middle America is laughable. Rudy is counting on Southern hatred of Clinton to force people to the polls instead of staying home. If people stay home instead of voting for the New York liberal over the New York socialist, Guilini loses.
Do also remember that Bubba Clinton is from the south, and you can bet your butt Hillary will be unleashing him to try and pull some of the southern states her way.
BKennedy on October 17, 2007 at 7:29 AM
Reagan certainly did appeal to the center. We aren’t living in 1980 after a nightmare like Carter. If anything, most of the country sees Bush as the nightmare. His approval ratings are in the 30’s. The republican party can state it’s platform all it wants, but if the people who would make up the party stop seeing the platform as representative of their views, then the party must change or die. The simple fact is that the country has moved away from the right because of the way republicans started acting like democrats. Well, they have lost faith in republicans. They trusted them and they betrayed that trust by showing that all they were interested in was lining their own pockets, having sex with pages, and calling people macaca.
If anything it’s hard nose stubborn idealists who create the atmosphere of division in the party. Pragmatism is the key word when your party has lost the trust of everyone except we in the base. The party has to go where the people are.
As old Fred would say: You use the bait that the fish like, not what you like.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 7:54 AM
That don’t matter to the groupies. They stick their heads up their a$$es about Fred’s lobbying for scum bags and giving legal advice to terrorists. They think because they want to rationalize it as conservative values that the general public wants to lie to themselves also.
They also refuse to accept the fact that given the choice between a guy who supported abortion and a guy who supported abortions AND gave legal advice to terrorists, the general public will choose the former and shun the latter.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 8:03 AM
Among other activities that are decidely anti-conservative, Fred gave legal advice to TERRORISTS. IF he got the nomination, he’d be dead in the water by August.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 8:09 AM
Rudy is also being wise in aiming most of his fire at the Left, which is the way it should be. There is always the chance one of the other candidates would be a possible VP pick for him, and all the bad-mouthing going round on our side may turn into crow-eating once its time to back our nominee.
All top 3 GOP candidates are good guys, and would make worthy presidents. But the only thing that matters is: who beats Clinton? Complaining and dissing about imperfections doesn’t answer that question or bring us any closer to the goal.
Halley on October 17, 2007 at 8:47 AM
I first came to HotAir during the Immigration battle last summer. I may be wrong but I thought Hot Air and Michelle Malkin were ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to GWB and the other RINOS!
Well- now the same powers that owned GWB (and the WSJ and FOXnews) and Rick Perry are pushin’ RUDY on us. Why??? It’s the Open-Borders, stupid!
AND IF ALLAH AND MICHELLE DON’T STAND UP NOW and help us elect a REAL Border Fence First Republican- Then they are just as much a part of the RINO culture. NO MORE OF THIS STANDIN’ ON THE SIDELINES FOLKS- THIS IS WAR!
DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN!
Ex-tex on October 17, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Don’t worry, we wont be fooled by a Perot type again. We aren’t gonna let people like you force an unelectable “conservative” candidate on us that Hillary will destroy in the general. We know the damage she will do to this country and Rudy’s down sides are nowhere near what Bill & Hillary’s are.
We are pragmatists.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Pragmatists??!
Well gee- I’m a Republican. And a Conservative. And Rudy is neither- just ask him.
Ex-tex on October 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM
And you are also misguided in your beliefs that standing on your principles, when your values will be relentlessly attacked for at least 4 years, will result in headway towards your ultimate goals. You are advocating taking one step forward and ignoring that you will take 5 backwards.
Zero net gain is not pragmatic. It’s stubborn and foolish. It’s cutting off ones nose to spite his face.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 10:59 AM
And your “pragmatism” will loose this election by ticking off the base Conservatives.
You really don’t get it. The Republican party has used the “Vote for us cause the other guy is worse” too many times. All we’ve done is gone further down a path we don’t like.
Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is a mess. The government is non functional. Blatant Traitors are using politics to destroy this country… but you won’t call them on it (the Party or those in Congress).
The Republicans were put into power in BOTH Houses and the Presidency by being the small government, moral, party.
Now they have prooven themselves to be neither. They had the chance to fix many problems (Soc Sec, budget, military, border) and even with both houses and the presidency, did nothing.
Now the only thing you tell us Conservatives is that we’re out of touch, and your going to run someone for the highest office who is NOT a Conservative!!! HE EVEN SAID IT HIMSELF!!!!
The Republicans are no longer part of the solution, they are part of the problem… and are not learning from past elections…
The Perot vote was about Fiscal responisbility… and they DID learn that lesson short term… but then forgot it in Washington… 2006 should have been a wake up call… but we see NO change in the Reps… except going MORE liberal.
And if you don’t stand for your principals, then nothing will ever get fixed. You know…. kinda like those founding fathers of ours?
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM
The stark choice is that in 2008, if we don’t have Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton will be president. That is a fact of life, like it or not. The thought of American soldiers and generals having to accept Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief is bone chilling. And we all know that the Clintons will constantly have dog and pony shows in which soldiers are compelled to go to White House parades and have Hillary be saluted by the troops. Bill Clinton did this 500 times. Would anyone really have that reality instead of Rudy? Would any serious or sane person want to sabotage Rudy’s campaign and elect Hillary Clinton and the Wellsley Class of 1968 merely because Rudy does not favor allowing purchases of assault weapons through the mail?
Larraby on October 17, 2007 at 12:18 PM
It’s way to early and the election season is way too fluid too be able to say that with such certainty.
Mcguyver on October 17, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Confirmed: Perry’s endorsement of Rudy is being announced in the regular news here in Texas this morning.
This is a very hot subject here in Texas, and as such Perry’s endorsement is a net negative for Rudy. Perry could not get re-elected Governor here in Texas, because of his RINO actions.
Mcguyver on October 17, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Most conservatives are not out of touch, but you are in regards to the consequences of ignoring the political reality we are living in.
We will nominate a candidate. Unfortunately we do not have a consistent conservative candidate that is electable. THAT IS A FACT. And all your consternation about it doesn’t, and never will, change that fact. We are left with is the process of winnowing down the field into the guy that has the best chance to win. THAT is the priority because of the supreme court issue. We KNOW for a fact what Hillary will do. We have every reason to trust that Rudy and Mitt will nominate strict constructionist’s justices because they have records of keeping their campaign promises, both conservative and liberal promises.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Additionally look at how Bill dealt with the Somalia issue. He turned tail and ran and this was the behavior that Bin Laden used to rally his fellow terrorists into attacking the paper tiger.
Hillary will do the same thing and thereby fostering an atmosphere conducive to the insurgency of unopposed terrorism.
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Governor Perry endorses Rudy confirmed.
Mcguyver on October 17, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Bob Jones endorses Mitt Romney.
Who does this hurt?
csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 3:01 PM
First of all, one (aside from dealers) hasn’t been able to buy “assault weapons” or any other type of firearm through the mail for several decades.
Second, there’s plenty of reasons to dislike and distrust his conservative credentials besides his gun-grabbing past.
Third, this notion that ONLY Rudy can beat Hillary is Grade A pure B.S.- especially given the skeletons in his closet and the threat of a 3rd party pro-life candidate showing up should he be nominated.
Abortion is rather low on my list of priorities, but I have no intention of voting for another RINO in the general election after watching Bush and Congressional Republicans screw up so consistantly, and Rudy clearly is a RINO.
Hollowpoint on October 17, 2007 at 4:56 PM
this notion that ONLY Rudy can beat Hillary is Grade A pure B.S.
Ex-tex on October 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM
The solution to the RINO problem is to elect someone with a proven record of battling for concervative ideas. Choosing the canditate that is most concervative on paper, or in sound bytes, is nothing but the status quo (ie GWB).
Resolute on October 17, 2007 at 8:48 PM
(AUSTIN) Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson today criticized Governor Perry’s recent endorsement of former Mayor Rudy Guliani for President. Patterson is the Texas co-chair for Tennessee senator Fred Thompson.
“Texans supporting the Mayor of New York City? Get a rope,” said Patterson, mocking a well-known salsa commercial. “Texans would rather support a larger-than-life, strong-willed, plainspoken conservative senator with a history of doing what is right for his country and the experience to match.”
“Fred is the real deal. He’s the only conservative with a chance in 2008 and he’s gonna win Texas,” Patterson said.
Patterson points to Thompson’s established record as an advocate for individual rights, smaller government and the Second Amendment as qualities that will endear him to Texas voters.
“Like fellow Tennessean Davy Crockett, Fred Thompson will ‘be sure he’s right – then go ahead’,” said Patterson. “Fred Thompson is right for Texas and right for America.”
Patterson also said Thompson is reminiscent of another actor that ran for President and won Texas.
“Fred is the New Gipper,” said Patterson. “The quiet coalition of conservative, blue-collar democrats and middle-america voters who supported Ronald Reagan are waiting for the chance to return to the ‘days of yesteryear’. Fred will win this coalition and he will win Texas, with or without the support of an unpopular governor.”
“With all due respect, Governor Perry’s endorsement is all hat and no cattle,” said Patterson. “He has no base to offer a national campaign. He only got 39% in his last election.”
“Heck, even I got 600,000 more votes than he did in 2006,” Patterson added.
“I’m confused,” said Patterson. “Why would the most conservative governor in Texas history endorse a pro choice, rabidly anti Second Amendment, former New York City mayor who supported Democrat Mario Cuomo over Republican George Pataki for governor of New York?”
“Perry is the same governor who upstaged Arnold in California with a message that Republicans need to return to their conservative roots if they expect to win elections.” Patterson said, “I guess the red meat he was serving in California was “rare” as opposed to “well done”.
“What happened to Republicans using conservative principles as the first measure of who to support for elected office?” Patterson asked.
edgehead on October 18, 2007 at 9:34 AM
This is shocking! My naive view about “stanch conservative Rudiani” has been jolted. Who knew this was a liberal RINO?
saved on October 18, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2