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
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.
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: 1 2 Next »
I believe the operative phrase is, “Won’t get fooled again.” That having been said, if the choice does come down to Rudy Romney versus Ronnie Paul-nut versus any DhimmiRAT, I’d have to hold my nose while voting for the “Pubbie” banner.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that the decision to roll cameras is more a decision of the hosting group than the campaign.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 5:09 PM
combover rudy is a democrat loser. comb-back or bald rudy is a republican winner. :D
lorien1973 on October 16, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Allahpundit do you seriously beleive that Giuliani is going to put another Scalia on the bench? Tha man that thinks every poor woman deserves a federally funded abortion is going to put the nail in Roe’s coffin? Especially given his “I got elected and now I’ll do what the hell I want” leadership style. He backed a Democrat for Governor for goodness sake. did bush and the border teach you nothing?
Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2007 at 5:14 PM
It’s really too bad we don’t have video of Ronald Reagan as a high-tax, Hollywood Democrat union boss before his transition to low-tax, pro-life Republican.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Complete nonsense….what else is new. At least when he wins the nomination, all the skeletons would be out. He’s not the most conservative, but he’s the only one that can beat Hillary, so he has my vote.
Chudi on October 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I can’t stand anything he said in that clip. Strangely enough, isn’t what he said in that clip exactly what he is saying now, only without actually saying it? “Vote for me, I’m the fusion candidate that can beat ‘HER’” Rudy supporters can justify the necessity of his candidacy any way they want, but please don’t try to convince me that he is conservative. The question becomes are there more republicans out here than conservatives. We’ll see.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Rudy’s praised Scalia on numerous occasions, as he has Roberts and Alito. He supported them.
On abortion funding, he supports the Hyde Amendment. That amendment provided for funding in cases of rape, incest, or where delivery of the baby would be harmful to the mother. That amendment was passed in 1976 and was not repealed under Reagan, Bush 41 nor Bush 43.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
In general, this is true, but we better be ready to crack down and be ready to oppose our own when they go RINO, Bush was given way too much clearance after 9/11, and its cost us dearly. The age of Trust, but Verify is dead, and the age of Distrust and Certify has started, I operate on the assumption that the GOP elite are out to sell out and screw us over, until its certified that they aren’t.
Bad Candy on October 16, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I believe both Rudy and Mitt are similar. I believe both of them are more right leaning then they appeared while running for office in blue states. Here in MA, I know for a fact, that once elected, Romney drove liberals CRAZY here. They hate him with passion to this day. I’m not sure but I think liberals in NY don’t hate Rudy quite as much as liberals in MA hate Mitt, but, I think that is mainly a result of the way Rudy handled himself on 9/11. It was difficult for anybody, no matter what their political beliefs to find fault in the way he handled things on that day. Also, in the case of Rudy, you can only hate someone so much who, without question, delivered results to the city. Just his battle against crime alone is very recognizeable and even the liberals are forced to admit he did a good job in that regard. Mitt, like Rudy, also brought results to MA. Particularly financially. When he entered into office the Commonwealth was in financial crisis, taxes were out of control, and the deficit was intimidating. He left us with a surplus and taxes far lower then what they once were. I think Mitt had a tougher time battling the most liberal legislature in the nation. Overall though he battled successfully. Now that Mitt is gone its clear how valuable he was. The liberal joke of a governer we have now is a tragic desaster.
Regardless, I think both would make very good presidents and I think both had no choice but to tack left in order to become elected in their respective blue states. I think both will govern as conservative republicans for what its worth.
Zetterson on October 16, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Yea, but a REAL conservative beats Hillary AND furthers the conservative cause. And can we really trust that Rudy or Mitt will name Scalia/Thomas/Roberts type judges? I’m not sure we need to take that chance. Bush 1 ran as a conservative and governed as a moderate. Bush 2 ran as a conservative and governed as a moderate. And they were much more conservative (at their core) than Rudy or Mitt.
edgehead on October 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM
So Allah- that what you thought about ole George W. Bush too??! You real happy with how he pulled the wool over our eyes are ya??! He*l, they only pretend in the campaign- they don’t BOTHER preservin’ their viability!!
Ex-tex on October 16, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Fool me once…shame on……shame on you……
Fool me can’t get fooled again!
MadisonConservative on October 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM
One difference; by the time Reagan ran the first time in 1976, he had built up a body of conservative work. Giuliani and Romney, not so much.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Hey now.. that’s what we need. Someone who drives the liberals absolutely crazy.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I certainly hope your right.
doriangrey on October 16, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Giuliani, Scalia, Alito… See anything in common? Don’t worry the SCOTUS will be in good hands.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Trust me, if the NYT took a hit out on anyone, it would be Rudy.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 5:34 PM
……………………..HEAR, HEAR, HEAR.
:::::::::::::::::::This is a public service announcement:::::::::::
Rudy and his better half (you know the one that needs a spare seat for her louis vatton) will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 5:35 PM
We’ll see. I hope so too my friend. Truthfully I’m rather pessimistic about the Republican’s chances in general in this upcoming election but I think if we could start with a blank slate, and go into the election with a true 50/50 shot at winning, these candidates are better then we often give them credit for. I am certain that a few months down the road I’m going to be working passionately for whichever one of the big three emerges from the primaries. And I’ll be happy to support any one of them (Rudy, Mitt or Fred).
What I wouldn’t give for a blank slate for our team right now. Perhaps we should ask Hillary how she’s managed that.
Zetterson on October 16, 2007 at 5:37 PM
As late as 8 years before his run, he signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act sponsored by Anthony Beilenson. Due to some of the provisions, abortions actually significantly increased in California. He later regretted it.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Hahaha. Honestly, nothing makes me happier then to hear that.
Zetterson on October 16, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Slandering Reagan with invented scenarios in support of your candidate is a little unseemly, don’t you think?
I like Rudy, and will support him in favor of any of the Democrats running. He doesn’t need you to make Reagan, or anyone else, look worse in order to make him look acceptable, imo.
Jaibones on October 16, 2007 at 5:38 PM
And the crux of the matter is do you trust Rudy in spite his prior statements? Rudy is socially liberal period you know this and I know this.
Supported them how exactly?
Rudy praised Scalia. So. Is everything he says gold now? Rudy put as many liberals on the bench as conservatives during his time in office. So praising Scalia means squat when every social position Rudy has would be trounced by another Scalia on the bench.
The Hyde Amendment prevents abortion funding. That is why it got support from Reagan and both Bush’s. Rudy’s position is not incest only. He clearly stated that any poor woman should get federal funds for an abortion. The exact position the ACLU has on the matter. And you believe Giuliani is going to kill Roe with another Scalia on the bench. I was born at night, not last night.
We won’t even talk immigration…
With Rudy you simply cannot square the circle. He saying what he needs to say to get the votes he needs. Onnce in office and autonomous, who knows what the heck happens. We saw it with Bush and he did not give the slightest hint that he would attempt to use identity politics to screw the American people. Giuliani is covered in red flags, red flags I cannot ignore.
Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Heh. Paisan!
Jaibones on October 16, 2007 at 5:40 PM
PLLEEEAASSEE!!!!!
Did you go through the public school system? Reagan was a Democrat but not the high tax, Hollywood union boss you suggest. Reagan was always a JFK, low tax, strong military type. He always hated communism/socialism and only left the Democrat party when it veered so far left. As Reagan himself said, he didn’t leave the Democrats, they left him.
Face it: Rudy and Mitt are liberal Republicans trying to appeal to the base during the primaries. If either of them gets the nomination, they will surely veer leftward for the general.
edgehead on October 16, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I grew up in Kansas City and new a few people named like Giuliani, Scalia and Alito. Their neighborhoods were the safest in town. ;)
Harpoon on October 16, 2007 at 5:40 PM
What are you talking about? Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild and a registered Democrat working in Hollywood. That’s not slandering him. I voted for him. I loved the man. My point is that people change and this video is from 11 years ago.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Yeah well, that might explain the Cuomo thing to.
tommylotto on October 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Yeah, too bad he had absolutely no power to choose his own candidates. An “independent” panel picked the list he could choose from, so the judges were never his in any real sense.
Enough with this talking point – it’s dishonest.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Wow, I wasn’t aware of that. That is very interesting. I’m sure most people accusing Rudy of appointing liberal judges are not aware of that either. Very good point and thank you for that info Sublog.
Zetterson on October 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Yes.
How do you support candidates or nominees? By saying you think they’re the best for the job and possibly voting for them into office. Rudy told his supporters that he’d have picked Justice Scalia as his Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
No one is going to kill Roe V. Wade in the next term. Even if it’s killed, the decision rolls back to the states.
And the Hyde Amendment funds abortion in specific cases, as I said.
In addition, 17 states fund abortions for low-income women currently.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Here’s a great poll on the issue of immigration.
It doesn’t take very long.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 5:50 PM
OT, but according to ABC Pelosi is wavering on the Turkey genocide kill.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/pelosi-wavering.html
Sue on October 16, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Turkey genocide **bill** though I should have said resolution to begin with and I wouldn’t have had a slip like that.
Sue on October 16, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Did I say that Reagan was perfect? Nope. I also have the same complaint about Thompson, which is why I haven’t quite jumped on board the Fred! train, though I’m closer to that than either Giuliani or Romney.
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Chuck Hagel?
Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Michael Chertoff? Alberto Gonzalez?
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I’m gonna pick something crazy and say McCain!
Bad Candy on October 16, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Steve, I also agree Reagan wasn’t perfect. That’s part of my point; no candidate will really be perfect. It sucks to have to choose the least of the worst. Reagan was really the last candidate I voted for. The other elections (with the exception of Bush 2000), I voted against the other guy.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Hugh Hewitt…the kiss of death.
Slublog on October 16, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Sigh… this happens EVERY SINGLE ELECTION CYCLE.
The Republican candidates tack to the right before the primary elections making politically unfeasible promises, then immediately shift to the center for the general election, then just do what they want if elected- generally taking the centrist route (would anyone have predicted that Bush would’ve allowed for such dramatic spending increases in Feburary 1999?).
Dems do the same, except they tack left for the primaries, then to the center for the general election.
The frustratingly maddening part is that people who’ve been through more than a few elections- and thus should know better- still fall for the old bait-and-switch routine that gets played out every 4 years.
How many times have we been promised Social Security reform, abolition of the IRS, spending cuts, reduced bureaucracy, a constructionist view of the Constitution, etc and then failed to ever see those promises realized?
Am I really supposed to believe that Rudy will appoint judges who will vote in a way that contradicts his own political positions? Or that he’ll “end” illegal immigration after welcoming them into NYC with open arms? Or that he’ll respect the 2nd Amendment and veto an “assault weapon” ban after supporting the NYC handgun ban? Or that he’d otherwise govern so completely differently than he did when mayor? How naive would I (or you) have to be?
Ditto with Romney on his health care plan that has no chance of passing, or his pledge to cut spending when he’s also come out in favor of corporate welfare, ag subsidies, bailouts for homeowners facing foreclosure, expansive role in eduction, etc. Is he going to nominate judges who would restrict his ability to implement his big government programs that overstep constitutional bounds?
Rudy and Romney both have a history of being “moderates” (read: RINOs) who now will say what they have to in order to win the nomination because they know that the conservatives they’re courting now can be thrown under the bus come next Spring and they’ll still be rewarded with votes under the “lesser of two evils” principle.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM
What ever happened with the story about sources saying the SC Governor was going to endorse him? I remember his office said there wasn’t an endorsement coming last week, but I don’t recall them denying the endorsement.
amerpundit on October 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM
All candidates do that. Hillary is veering right. But the truth of the matter is that they are moving towards the center.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM
It seemed to me that a different candidate endorsed him that same day and I thought at the time that someone got their signals mixed up in the original report.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:06 PM
The same President who nominated Alito and Roberts also nominated Harriet Miers.
That would be GWB.
If a candidate wants to retain his credibility on the legal issues, he’d have to show it with their first nominee. Rudy thus far has surrounded himself with the right sort of legal experts – strict constructionists – that should make conservatives happy.
No Breyer patch there.
That’s not to say Rudy or Mitt couldn’t go against the grain and put up a full blown liberal, but I doubt that would happen, especially if such opportunity came early in first term (which is possible given current makeup of the court).
lawhawk on October 16, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Donald Trump
bnelson44 on October 16, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Good post. People really don’t learn.
2Brave2Bscared on October 16, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Another flashback video of Rudy. Fiscal Conservative?
Jay on October 16, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Does it bother anyone else that when it comes time for a general election (at any level), and the base is not satisfied with its candidate, we are lectured about how we need to support the candidate anyway, and that the time to go for gusto is in the primaries? Then, when the next primary rolls around and the base is not satisfied with the candidates, we are lectured that we need to support the more “moderate” one, in order to win the general election. Maybe we should start a fantasy league for politics.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
But it’s really good that Reagan proved himself as Governor of California before he ran for President. Plus, during Reagan’s run for POTUS, you could tell he was conservative by what he did as Governor. Rudy, not so much.
In Reagan’s campaign for governor, he emphasized two main themes: “to send the welfare bums back to work”, and in reference to burgeoning anti-war student protests at the University of California at Berkeley, “to clean up the mess at Berkeley”. I’m not hearing any of that from Giuliani.
Also, shortly after the beginning of his term as Governor, Reagan tested the presidential waters in 1968 as part of a “Stop Nixon” movement which included those from the Republican party’s far right.
Giuliani has nothing to recommend him from his term as NYC mayor, except “I’m not really a Republican”.
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Joy Behar
Dash on October 16, 2007 at 6:27 PM
That ain’t so good!
TheSitRep on October 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM
If you believe in Giuliani then so be it. I do not.
His personal opinions are at complete odds with his rhetoric. He said in no uncertain terms he thinks a poor woman should get a federally funded abortion. Not in specific cases. The point of the Hyde Amendment is to prevetn that from happening. You can nuance it all you want to but it will not change what the man said.
States funding abortion is irrelevant to Giuliani’s position. Another originalist kills Roe. Period. It goes back to the states and most states will keep their laws, if not limit abortion even further. It would officially take the federal governement out of the abortion game. That is not in concert with federally funded abortions for all poor women.
Giuliani is tilting right for the primary and will tilt left for the general and who knows what the heck he’ll do if he gets in office. Rudy calling Roe “okay” doesn’t give me warm fuzzies. If that enough for you then so be it.
Theworldisnotenough on October 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Well, that’s the point. What practical use does a candidate for the primaries have for a judicial nomination committee? Answer: one reason and one reason only- to court (pander to) conservative voters who’ve had good reason to doubt his conservative credentials.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 6:28 PM
In this cycle, it’s the lesser of two evils choice.
I’ll grant you this. IF Obama were to get the dem nomination, I MIGHT consider thinking about voting for a third party guy like Hunter. The thought of Obama as POTUS is much less nauseating than a Hillary presidency. The problem is: WHO will be running as a third party candidate that is better than Rudy or Mitt?
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Ed Koch
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
When was Rudy ever right on those issues? As far as I’ve heard he’s still not right even now.
FloatingRock on October 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Ed’s already gone Hillary.
G on October 16, 2007 at 6:32 PM
It can’t always be that. At some point it has to change. It may not be this election, but It simply cannot always be “the lesser of two evils”.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Al Gore
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 16, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Mayor McCheese
saint kansas on October 16, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Bumper sticker as designed for Rudy by Oddo F##king Graphics Ltd:
I need something a lot more reasonable than that argument to vote for II Duce. So do a lot of people, like the ones who decide elections.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM
When was the last time it was a choice between the lesser of two evils? To my recollection that would 1992 when conservatives voted for that crazy bastard Perot and gave us 8 years of the Clenis and gave a foot in the door for 8 years of the Hildebeast. The 06 election wasn’t lost because we ran liberals. We lost it because the incumbents, under the leadership of Bush, turned into fiscally irresponsible and morally corrupt democrats.
I do not see this becoming a trend. But because for whatever reason Hunter can’t get any traction (even in his own state) that is what we are left with. It wont be the end of the world if we elect Rudy, but it certainly will be a disaster for this country (through SCOTUS nominations).
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:48 PM
He also praise Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Also Kurik and Chertoff. Maybe he would nominate one of them to the U.S. Supreme Court.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Dishonest?
Uhhhh….
“When Giuliani took office in 1994, he inherited a system of judicial appointments created by one of his predecessors, Ed Koch, and designed to insulate the courts from political influence. Under the system, the mayor appoints members of an independent panel. Aspiring judges apply to the panel, which recommends three candidates for each vacancy. The mayor chooses among the three.”
The MAYOR appoints the people who sit on the PANEL!!!!
He then picks out of THREE they choose… and I’m sure that if he didn’t like any of em, he could throw it back to the panel!!!
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM
That was supposed to read….
but it certainly will be a disaster for this country (through SCOTUS nominations) if we allow Hillary into the white house.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM
His son.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Right on the first point…
and lost the 2006 election on the exact same point.
I do see a trend… one that the Party is not paying attention too.
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 6:51 PM
It will be until a viable third party is established (e.g. the Independence Party for Independents and those who don’t want a political affiliation), and the rules of the game are changed to allow for such a party to grow throughout the U.S.
I think most die-hard politicos are missing the big picture here. The majority of the country is somewhere in the middle — between Democrats and Republicans; between Liberals and Conservatives. Most folks are in America are practical — at least for now, and if there really were an established thirdy party that was allowed to compete in our de facto duopoly political system, both the Republican and Democrat parties would be in trouble…
eanax on October 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM
What your analysis is missing, and many people don’t seem to understand, is the merit and experience that is built from a Rep. having worked in an overwhelming Dem. area. If all Romney and Guilliani cared about was getting elected then they would have run as Democrats not Rep. since this was a liabilty to them from the start. I am just amazed that you people dont realize they deserve credit for this, not derision.
Any incompetent can sit as the Govenor of Texas or North Carolina and claim to be ultra concervative. It means nothing if they never have to fight ideological battles in those states. That is the formula for a second G.W.B. Many of you claim to want a change from the current situation to leaders who actually fight for concervatism, yet you paradoxically support the canditaes you have the least history of and experience in fighting to move public discourse to the right.
Resolute on October 16, 2007 at 6:53 PM
That would be bigger than The Other Thompson. Then again, about the only endorsement not bigger than TOT’s would be mine, and I’m not about to give it to Giuliani (or Romney, or at least at this point, Thompson).
steveegg on October 16, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I am bothered by Bernie and I don’t like Chertoff. But here is the quote I found about RBG.
I do not see how that is an endorsement of her politics. This type of statesmanship language USED to be the norm. And Rudy would be diminished in my eyes if he were to attack her politics.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 6:56 PM
He has!!! Oh my Gosh!!!
BadgerHawk on October 16, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Could not resist.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 6:57 PM
A reasonable, rational post? Who are you and what have you done with csdeven?
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Like when Giuliani donated money to Planned Parenthood six times?
jaime on October 16, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Resolute on October 16, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Dot.
Bingo!
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM
In a city like NYC, a person who ran as a “Republican” would not get a job as a dogcatcher. It is just the way it is. I lived in NYC and voted for Rudy. He ran as someone who would fix the cities financial problems (which he did), someone who would lower crime (which he did) and someone who would increase the quality of life for all New Yorkers (which he did). In other words, he told the truth!
ukgoods on October 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM
True, not a ringing endorsement, but as I said praise. The very honest part is over the top for me as she makes her decisions on what she wants and not on what the U.S. Constitution says. Bad Rudy!
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 7:02 PM
thats cause no one mentioned he who should not be named… you know… VolderThompson….
Romeo13 on October 16, 2007 at 7:02 PM
You’re aware that the governor of North Carolina is a Democrat, right? And remind me again who the governor of Texas was before Bush?
I fail to see how someone who ran and governed as a “moderate” in a blue state is supposed to somehow boost their conservative credentials.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 7:03 PM
That’s what candidates do during the general. Bush did it in 2000, whoever gets the Republican nod will have to do it in 08 to get elected. Though the 4 frontrunners won’t really be pretending when they shift a little left I suppose…
BadgerHawk on October 16, 2007 at 7:05 PM
My last name ends with a “otti” and I love to get one of mine in there.
Maybe I can get him over for some red peppers and sausage.
We have the best food.
LtE126 on October 16, 2007 at 7:07 PM
A person can be honestly misguided. Which she certainly is. Look, I’m not an apologist for any candidate, but Rudy’s respectful remarks towards RBG are a plus in my book. There is plenty we can skewer Rudy on, and we should do so.
csdeven on October 16, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Or a Chicago style (the only kind) Italian beef with sweet peppers…or a combo (beef and sausage)
I gotta go to Roma’s. I’m hungry.
LtE126 on October 16, 2007 at 7:10 PM
G.W.B. Did not have to work for the conservative support either as running for Governor or as POTUS.
He easily got support from the evangelical/conservative in 2004, in fact James Dobson said in his interview on the Laura Ingraham show yesterday, that was the only time he has supported any candidate.
Which is to contrast with Mitt Romney who has to work really hard for the evangelical/conservative support. And once he has gained it he can lose it really quick.
As opposed to Jorge doobly U. Boosch who became arrogant with the conservatives’ support, and lost us the 2006 elections.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 7:12 PM
csdeven,
I’ve got to work, but concerning the “lesser of two evils” trend, ill try to give a few examples. When I was in grad school in Louisville we were told by the RNC to support Ann Northup (sp?) even though many were upset with her left leaning tendencies. When I moved to Florida, I was told to vote for Mel Martinez, even though you could spot his immigration views a mile away, so that Bush would get his judges through the Senate. Then, last year when we moved to Houston, we were told to vote for Perry even though many in the base here were not all that excited about him. Then, rather than putting forward a real conservative to maintain Delay’s seat, the party put forward Shela-sekewla-jibberjabber-something-or-other. We were told not to support the Libertarian guy, otherwise Nick Lampson would win. There are more, but these tube-steel columns aren’t going to draw themselves.
Weight of Glory on October 16, 2007 at 7:17 PM
I am doing my very best to do just that!!!
I’m peddling as fast as I can!!!
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 7:22 PM
That’s funny. When I lived in NYC, the left (practically the whole city) called Rudy things like “fascist”, “Nazi”, “Ultra-Conservative”, “Right Wing”, etc. Now the left is calling him “liberal”.
MikeZero on October 16, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I don’t want any of “mine” in there. I am from the Portland, Oregon area, but I don’t want any politician from there in the White House! Actually if I could pick the next President, it would be Jeff Sessions from Alabama.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 7:26 PM
That’s true, they did. But you have to put it into context. These are the same idiots that scream the same things about the Hildebeast. Just because the far left don’t like somebody does not mean they are the next Ronald Regan.
conservnut on October 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Yeah, but there are liberals who call Hillary a neocon “DINO”, so I wouldn’t take them too seriously.
My impression of Rudy is that he does have an authoritarian streak in him, but clearly he wasn’t any kind of ultra-conservative facist Nazi.
Hollowpoint on October 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I didn’t say “far left”.
MikeZero on October 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I don’t trust Rudy on illegal immigration or 2nd Amendment issues. If he is the nominee, and if it is a reasonably close race with the dem, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. If he is getting trounced anyway I’ll vote for anyone besides him or the dem as a protest.
deepdiver on October 16, 2007 at 7:43 PM
I don’t think Rudy is electable outside the East or even NYC. He just has too much baggage – liberal baggage- from pro-coice to immigration to liberal preaching. I remember years ago people saying he should switch partys because of his wiews. Out West he just doesn’t play well. Although, if he can beat the Hildebeast/Bolshevik ——
countywolf on October 16, 2007 at 7:45 PM
We are truely screwed! It’s gonna be a bloodbath! Even if we win we lose big time!
Buzzy on October 16, 2007 at 7:48 PM
The way things are going, that is pretty much it in a nutshell.
MB4 on October 16, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Republican A governed a concervative state. They go with the flow of the concervative establishment.
Republican B governed a liberal state. They fought tooth and nail against the liberal establishment.
The conventional wisdom here, including by Allahpundit, is that A is more concervative by default. Why because of geography? They never had to work for it. I find this totally bizarre and naive. You are buying hook, line and sinker into the Republican ‘establishment’ and what it says on paper instead of going with someone who is ideologically battletested, so to speak. A should get less concervative points then B for saying the exact same thing.
Just think about GWB, his presidency, and where he came from to see the truth of what I’m saying.
Resolute on October 16, 2007 at 8:00 PM
No it doesn’t. I’m hunkering down and getting my finances in order for President Hillary because the Republican party can’t find a candidate to the right of her.
I guess you’ll blame Dobson. But he doesn’t influence anyone as much as he says what a LOT of people are thinking. I wouldn’t vote for Rudy for President because I don’t think he’d be a good president. Actually I think Hillary would be a better president than Rudy because she has 8 years of experience in the White House.
Sorry AP, but Rudy will never be the POTUS. Nominee, maybe. But President, never over Hillary.
ThackerAgency on October 16, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »