Is Rudy a “friend the social cons haven’t met yet?”
posted at 4:25 pm on October 29, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
That’s David Frum’s pitch (disclosure: He’s one of Giuliani’s national security advisors) to get social conservatives to take another look at Rudy.
If Giuliani captures the Republican nomination, it will be precisely because Christian conservatives will have come to the same realization as economic conservatives, national security conservatives, etc.: the guy who cleaned up Times Square, and broke the Mafia, and saved the lives of 1,500 New Yorkers per year, most of them minorities, can do the most to implement a conservative agenda nationwide after 2009.
Some social conservatives have qualms about Giuliani, I know that well. But it’s very wrong to suggest that there is some kind of reciprocated feud on the other side. I think it’s rather more accurate to describe the relationship in the old slogan of the Irish tourist board, as one of friends who haven’t met yet.
First, all of this Rudy speculation may be moot: He’s running a national campaign, and he’s ahead there, but he’s way behind Romney in Iowa and in New Hampshire. If he doesn’t pick up wins or at least compete in the early states, he could still crash and burn, especially if he doesn’t do well in southern states on the super-duper primary schedule.
But supposing he doesn’t and he gets the nomination, I won’t deny that there’s something to Frum’s analysis. Rudy took on the entrenched liberal interests in New York, a city that was nearly written off as ungovernable before his tenure, and won. He took on the press and won. He took on the criminals and the race hustlers and all the other miscreants and troublemakers and won.
I also won’t deny that Giuliani makes for a compelling national security leader. He is the mayor who kicked out Arafat and returned the Saudi donation, and he’s the big city mayor and major political figure who seemed to comprehend the threat of terrorism before most other political figures did. Giuliani’s the quickest and best at refuting Democrat nonsense, meaning he’ll be a formidable opponent for the likes of Hillary Clinton. There’s something about Giuliani’s mayoral career that’s suggestive of Teddy Roosevelt’s brief run as New York’s police commissioner. Well, to me anyway.
So that’s the good. Then there’s the bad, which consists of the obvious breaks between Giuliani and the Republican base’s core social concerns. There’s Giuliani’s consistent record of undermining immigration law and sneering at those of us who favor enforcement. There’s his personal life, his liberalism and along with all of that the possibility that he’ll end up governing more as a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican regardless of the party label he happens to carry into office. There’s the possibility, which some in the party will think of as a feature rather than a bug, of his ascension marginalizing the socially conservative wing of the party. Before the libertarian wing celebrates that, it ought to consider its ramifications. The social cons are one of the GOP’s more energetic factions; they’re motivated, they vote, they donate and they door knock. The GOP without them may attract more independents temporarily, but it could lose one of its cornerstones in the process.
So what am I saying in all this rambling? Beyond “I’m not sure about Rudy,” well, I’m not sure. Giuliani gives us reasons to think he’ll govern as a tough conservative who’ll win the war, he’s given us reasons to suspect that he’ll govern as a sort of tough liberal who could go in almost any direction, and he has given us reasons to fear that no matter how conservatively he may govern, he’ll derail himself and let us down with some kind of personal scandal.
With all of those scenarios competing for our thoughts, it’s nearly impossible to get enthusiastic about his candidacy, and some social cons will resist it no matter who he’s up against. That by itself is a legitimate reason to question his viability. Maybe Rudy is a social con’s friend. If so, he has some courting and convincing to do yet.
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: 1 2 Next »
I’m not sure about any of them. I certainly don’t trust Rudy on any of the social issues because he has proven to be far too leftist for my beliefs. While I am not even close to choosing “my” candidate is that Rudy’s message is clear. “I may not agree with conservatives on everything but we do have common ground” Specifically: The type of candidate that should be nominated to the SCOTUS and national security.
I simply don’t know if these very important commonalities are enough to outweigh Rudy’s desire to circumvent the 2nd amendment, commitment to legitimize homosexual “marriage,” and character lapses.
highhopes on October 29, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Simple solution: promise to work to end abortion as birth control. Then convince the socons that you mean it.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 4:42 PM
The only thing certain about Rudy is that he is for Rudy. I’ve read some other articles favoring Rudy and the comments were pretty damning (I didn’t comment). Maybe Rudy could be National Security or some other prominent post. I just think that selecting him as the nomination for the R party is just as bad as the D party selecting Kerry last go around.
I don’t dislike Rudy. I just don’t understand why the R party does not put up a true conservative and win. Rudy was a former D and how he governed is in question other than the statements people in his camp make (like this one). I really hope he does not get the nomination because the election will get very interesting at that point. . . but Mitt would present almost the identical problems.
There is a big country outside of the North East.
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 4:42 PM
ohh lets hope social issues (which, by the way, no republican president would ever be able to effect in a meaningful, proactive way outside of weilding the veto pen…see: democratic congress) don’t cloud everyones judgement
ernesto on October 29, 2007 at 4:43 PM
he’s running what amounts to being effectively a pro-life candidate, this is good.
Politically, I think he could actually govern pretty socially conservative. Because to get elected, the Social Cons will have to vote for him, that same group can cause him hell once elected. If they abandon him, he wouldn’t have the political capital to accomplish the bigger stuff.
I just don’t think Rudy’s social liberalism personally, is of much interest to him to advance. I think he wants to kick terrorist butt, piss off the democrats and drive them nuts, and articulate Capitalism and how the Dems are Socialist……….on these points he excites me. as a Social Con for most part, I’m cautious.
the proper vote is ABH – Anyone But Hillary. Giving hillary the Whitehouse with a Dem Congress is insane. Pragmatism is a virtue in 2008
jp on October 29, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Hate to say it… but Romney is the one who impressed me in the last debate…
His line that he is the only one who has run a lot of things… small company, large company, state, Olympics… while most of the rest have been profesional politicians there entire life…
I wouldn’t mind having a business man in the White House, and by that I mean someone who ran a real business, not a baseball team… I certainly don’t think we need more lawyers there…
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Sorry, not buying the “courting” after his record of having such extreme liberal positions on immigration, gun control, federal funding for abortion, supporting a liberal for governor and opposing the tax cuts of the winning Republican candidate, etc.
Republican candidates always try to shift right for the primaries- unfortunately they tend to shift back to their default positions once elected… and Rudy’s default positions are far too leftist for me.
Given that his foriegn policiy rhetoric is practically identical to what the other candidates are saying I can find no reason he should get my support. I remain completely baffled that such a RINO is doing as well as he is; I can only assume that most voters don’t know exactly how liberal is record is.
Win or lose, a Rudy nomination would do what Hillary could never in her wildest dreams accomplish- fracture and de-legitimize the entire Republican party.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 4:46 PM
He said he’s going to appoint right wing judges. Other than that, what more can you ask for? A President can’t take our guns away, he can’t force gay marriage on anyone, and he can’t criminalize abortion. I get the impression that you social cons just don’t like Rudy because he’s not one of “yours.” Well, he’s not, and he never will be, which doesn’t mean he’ll be a bad President or that God will hold it against you if you vote for him.
I understand a lot of social cons aren’t sure about Rudy. But would you kindly stop making such a spectacle of it? It’s a vote in an election, it’s not life and death. In fact, given the state of our election laws, your vote is practically meaningless. Despite that, if you are going to vote, vote for the guy who can beat Hillary.
Enrique on October 29, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I’m not sure what more social conservatives are expecting from Rudy in terms of courting and convincing at this point. Short of pulling a Mitt Romney and reversing all of his positions there’s isn’t much left for him to say.
sublime on October 29, 2007 at 4:47 PM
If he wasn’t a mormon, he’d be the next president I beleive. he’s a republican Bill Clinton, slick.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Its not just abortion…
He’s used the courts to override the will of the people..
He’s tried to use the courts to bypass the Second Amendment…
He’s used the courts to sue to keep a nonrepresentational tax in place (commuter tax)…
He thinks like a Lawyer… and thats somthing I don’t trust.
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 4:48 PM
well, i don’t see why people are so up in arms about rudy, yet have no problem with romney’s flip-flopping. to me, it makes now sense. romney seemed to me at least as liberal or more liberal than giuliani in the 90’s
its vintage duh on October 29, 2007 at 4:51 PM
This is the problem. The fact that he has to ’say that he is a conservative’ is the problem. The fact that he spends his time trying to convince people that his positions in the past are actually positions in the past is the problem.
Our candidate should be providing vision for the future. We should KNOW where our candidate stands without having a dancing act concerned with assuring everyone that his past has no bearing on his future.
Why can’t the R party put up a conservative? If you are depending on an Anyone But Hillary vote, it won’t work. Kerry was the anyone but Bush candidate. At least he won his home state. Rudy won’t win NY.
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 4:51 PM
No, but as we’ve seen, he is the cheif law enforcement officer…
So even though late term abortions are illegal… and underage abortions are as well in many places… the Feds don’t even investigate.
Border enforecement? You’ve seen Bush destroy that… he does tell the DHS what to do you know… and appoints the head of DHS…
Judges? he appointed 80% Democrat judges in New York City… even when he appointed the “indepenent” board who sent him nominations.
Hey… make him Atorney General if you want… I just don’t want him as Pres.
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I am a Rudy supporter because of all that was mentioned about the incredible turn around of NYC under Rudy. And it was incredible. A plus not mentioned is all the most liberal factions simply hate him. This is probably the only thing that can endear him to the Social Conservatives.
For all the socially conservatives out there I have a question: What has eight years under a born again given you? I know the first answer is the not insignificant additions to the SCOTUS…
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 4:53 PM
That’s what I keep asking.
amerpundit on October 29, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Honestly, Romney has everything working for him except the Mormon thing. I don’t think the evangelicals can get past that.
I think Rudy can come around on the abortion issue. It’s not like the government is going to stop funding Planned Parenthood. PP is too deep in the “comprehensive sex education” department. They’re clinics are everywhere dispensing birth control and condoms.
gabriel sutherland on October 29, 2007 at 4:58 PM
He most certainly can affect those things- he can sign a gun control bill (he’s always been in favor of strict gun control, including outright bans), he can sign pro-gay legislation, he can sign bills reducing abortion restrictions or providing federal funding for it.
As much as you’d like us to ignore the man behind the curtain, it ain’t going to happen. But feel free to come back and remind us how he was the most electable against Hillary when social cons either sit it out or vote 3rd party should he get the nomination, resulting in a Hillary win.
Abortion isn’t a top priority for me personally, but you can still count me in the anti-RINO “stay home if Rudy wins” camp. The cronyism, extreme authoritarianism, the eccentric personality, the liberal record… he’d make Bush look good in comparison.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Yeah- that’s the problem; more so than his religion.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 5:02 PM
As an addition, is this the beginning of a trend or a blip?
Rasmussen Link
sunny on October 29, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Bush’s faults have nothing to do with his social conservativism; the problem is that he hasn’t upheld Republican principles like limited government, securing the borders and fiscal restraint.
Nominating someone who has an even worse record of upholding Republican principles isn’t exactly the best way to turn things around.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM
there’s something to be said for political skills, especially when viewed from pragmatic point of view. Its part of the game.
I think Mitt probably really is Socially Conservative, I base this mainly off his religion and long marriage. But, if he had taken those stands in Massachusettes(same for Rudy in NYC), he never would’ve been elected and we would not be discussing him right now. It’s Machevellian.
Clinton was the reverse of that in Arkansas, where people are more Socially Conservative. Heck, Al Gore was socially conservative at one time.
anyway, if he has political skills like Clinton, he has the potential to do alot for the Repub. party and Conservatism in the long run.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Key point that many are missing is that its NOT JUST THE SOC Cons!!!!
He is NOT a Conservative. So you’ll loose many folks like me, who are not religious, and are not single issue abortion voters!
All these things will be brought out in a general election cycle… if its Rudi vs Shrillary it will be the nastiest election ever…
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I fear Rudy will win the primaries.
I think he or Mitt (as the Rep. nominee) would guarantee a Hillary presidency.
omnipotent on October 29, 2007 at 5:13 PM
He’s wishywashy on immigration. That scares the heck out of me. He may backstab conservatives once in office just like Bush has done. I don’t want another fake conservative like Bush.
RW Wacko on October 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM
A dishonest panderer who changes posistions with the wind of opinion polls isn’t exactly what we should be looking for in a President. The Democrats might love that type of candidate, but Republicans shouldn’t- and hopefully don’t.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Although it’s not like we have much of an alternative, either.
RW Wacko on October 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM
If Republicans nominate Rudy, at some point many of them will “wake up in the morning”, maybe before the election, maybe after, and say to themselves, “My God how drunk did I get last night to have gone home with this? What in God’s name was I thinking?”
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I attended Rudy’s campaign event in Peterborough NH yesterday. He introduced Judith who was pleasant, personable and looked very nice. He was articulate, sincere, explained his positions clearly and handled audience participation very well. The room was full and the aura was positive. I came away with the opinion that even though I may not agree with all of his positions—-I think, over all, that the country would be in good hands if he became president not withstanding that his principles may be more liberal than the right would like. I suspect that in the end, the race between Mitt and Rudy will be very close here.
jeanie on October 29, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Ouch…. meanie head…
Now I got that stinkin Rudi in a dress picture stuck in my brain….
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 5:19 PM
John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
That’s better than both Reagan (Scalia and Kennedy) and Bush I (Thomas and Souter). At this point, I can’t imagine Rudy nominating anyone more conservative than a Kennedy, even if he had a choice. All but two of the hard-left contingent in the SCOTUS were nominated by Republicans under the auspices of a Democrat-controlled Congress. The Congresses of ‘08 and ‘10 will likely be blue. Rudy, a self-styled Ford Republican is going to buck that trend and nominate conservatives to the SCOTUS and appellate bench? I have to reason to be confident of that.
Illegal immigration is destroying our culture. Gun control is destroying our collective will. But abortion is destroying our soul.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Err.. “no reason to be confident of that.”
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Buchanan – A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.
Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power [maybe] at the price of one’s soul.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:25 PM
There isn’t a mayor or public official in this country that’s more strongly pro-immigrant (You know he means illegal) than I am, including disagreeing with President Clinton (Who is a conservative compared to Rudy)when he signed anti-immigration (You know he means illegal) legislation two or three years ago.
- Rudy Giuliani
What more does he have to do, unzip his pants and pee all over both of your legs?
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Yeah, lets think about that, Clinton lived by polls. What was arguably “Clinton’s” biggest accomplishment? Welfare reform, I hardly remember it cuz I was a kid, but I know that much of the left screeched the whole time.
Now lets take something like, oh, Universal Health Care for example, and reverse that, what would Slick Romney do there, the polls say Socialist Medicine would be a winner.
No thanks, I’d rather not have a GOP version of Clinton…
Bad Candy on October 29, 2007 at 5:27 PM
How much credit does Rudy deserve for New York City’s crime rate going down?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
Note that crime rates were dropping for the three years before Giuliani took office. And they continued to drop after he left.
Crime in New York peaked in 1990. Giuliani did not take office until 1994.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 5:30 PM
In the real hardcore down and dirty of the national election, the Clintonista machine will make Rudy LOOK LIKE A NEW YORK LIBERAL in DRAG! They WILL use EVERY unflattering and liberal thing that Rudy as ever said/done.
They will run Hillary to the RIGHT of RUDY- and HE WILL LOSE.
It really doesn’t matter what is happening now- IT’S ALL ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
Ex-tex on October 29, 2007 at 5:52 PM
NYC was a sh*thole until Giuliani took over, regardless of that statistic. Doesn’t mean he should be Pres,but is the case.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Even as it were as bad as you claim, Rudy CREDITS taking guns out of the hands of citizens for the turn around in crime.
It would be like someone fixing the budget deficit by raising taxes. So they fixed the budget (fiscal conservative) – but did it by raising taxes (not conservative).
So if there is a crime problem nationally, he’ll impose gun bans because ‘that’s what worked in NY’. He actually brags about taking guns off of the streets and tries to convince a New Yorker who called into a radio show that he was right to do it. . . Rudy can’t even contemplate why violating the city’s second amendment rights is a bad idear.
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 6:04 PM
And the economy was in a recession before Clinton became president, during which it was in good shape- does that mean he deserves the credit? Of course not.
Rudy’s appointee did a good job addressing crime, but the dot.com boom had more impact than anything Rudy personally did. Crime would’ve went down whether he was mayor or not, just as it did in other big cites- perhaps not quite to the same extent, but Rudy doesn’t deserve sole credit for turning things around.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 6:12 PM
This is why I fear Rudy or Mitt as our nominee
[Hillary will be able to pull out all sorts of liberal quotes from these 2 guys and then we're (conservative Republicans) f*cked.]
I’d like to vote for someone I’m proud of, not “hold my nose” and hope the GOP gets it right (pun intended) in 2012.
omnipotent on October 29, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Don’t agree.There was plenty of $ in NYC during Dinkins’ time. But the trains broke down several times during one ride, the streets were filthy, there was aggressive panhandling, the unions were ruling the roost, the parks were dangerous and dirty, people crapped in the streets, the schools were at their absolute lowpoint, housing projects were lawless, etc. etc. Was my take on things. I lived there then.
The day Dinkins left and Rudy came in was like Carter leaving and Reagan taking over. Night and day. Don’t vote for him–I don’t care.
JiangxiDad on October 29, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Exit Question Number One:
What kind of cockamamie system is it when voters in Iowa and New Hampshire get to determine who the NATIONAL party nominee is??
Why the heck is winning in these two relatively unpopulous states more important than winning in Calif, NY, Fla and other HUGELY populous states a week or two later??
Pardon me if I still dont get the logic, and I have been following elections since the 1970s. Never made sense to me before and still doesnt.
Always Right on October 29, 2007 at 6:29 PM
What Rudy are all you guys listening to? Rudy is against gay marriage, has credibly committed to end all illegal immigration within 3 years, has stated in no uncertain terms that he agrees with the DC Circuit Court that ruled that the Second gives an individual the right to bear arms, has promised to appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Alito and Roberts, has promised to veto any bill increasing the number of abortions or reducing the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment on abortion and abortion funding, has agreed to support any reasonable legislation that promises to reduce the number of abortions, and has promised to keep us on the offensive in the war against islamic terrorism. Of course with Rudy you also get an effective leader, a brilliant advocate, and a street tough brawler of a politician. That is a pretty nice package of promises for the social cons.
You also get a man with an impressive lists of accomplishments — unlike Fred — while Rudy was breaking the backs of the five families of the costa nostra, Fred was chasing the Dukes of Hazard around the Appalachian mountains (about 25% of his cases over his three year terms as a US Attorney were against moonshiners selling illegal hooch… what a riot, Fred the Federalist prosecuting toothless banjo players for doing nothing but running an illegal still!)
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 6:30 PM
I’m not saying that Rudy doesn’t deserve any credit, but that he doesn’t deserve all the credit as he’d have us believe- the economy had something to do with it too.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 6:30 PM
The assurances of Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada mean a lot to me.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 29, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Come on, you know if it wasn’t Rudy that reduced crime, it was the abortions of all those unwanted babies that would have been in their late teens or early twenties at that time and committing crimes.
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 6:34 PM
You know- the one who was mayor of NYC at the time, and hasn’t shut up about it since. The anti-2nd amendment, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-liberal Democrat, pro-federally funded abortion guy.
The one you’d have us believe is endowed with supernatural powers, since that’s about the only way he’d end all illegal immigration in 3 years. Well, unless he just opened the borders; he’s already said that illegal immigration shouldn’t be a crime.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 6:36 PM
How many are there?
End all illegal immigration within 3 years? How, by redefining what is illegal? Yup.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Actualy I’m NOT LISTENING to Rudi… I’m judging him by his past actions.
We all know Politicians lie… but you can’t really lie about your record.
Fact is his past rhetoric does NOT match his present rhetoric… and his past actions support the ole Liberal Rudi!
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Most Presidential candidates are afraid to even think about advocating taking Iowa and New Hampshire off their undeserved lofty perch as the voters there would retaliate against them and they would hurt their own chances of ever becoming President. They are in a real box.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 6:48 PM
You sound like one of those liberals in NYC that thought the city was ungovernable and could not be turned around. Rudy has a nasty habit of setting goals, determining accurate metrics to measure those goals, and moving heaven and earth to achieve those goals. I have no doubt in my mind that if he promises to end illegal immigration in 3 years, that is exactly what he will do.
Fred, on the other hand, has a nasty habit of making people think he is an idiot. Nixon thought he was “dumb as hell. The judge Freddie actually tried his moonshine cases in front of also thought he was and idiot.
Can you imagine anyone thinking that of Rudy???
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Until you start spelling his name with a “y” I’m just going to assume you are just an arse-hat that doesn’t know shiite from sinola.
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I’m beginning to get the impression that Hollowpoint isn’t a Romney fan.
sulla on October 29, 2007 at 7:01 PM
After saying something as naive and idiotic as this, I’m not so sure you should be trying to characterize others as being dumb, duder.
There exists one and only one way to end illegal immigration in 3 years- open the borders, making all immigration by anyone legal. Is that what you’re suggesting he’ll do?
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Ha ha ha… good one. I may have made that impression once or twice. Maybe more.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 7:08 PM
lol.
That reminds me of when Wesley Clark said that if he became President, there would be no more terrorist attacks.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Exit Question of the day, for all of the Rudy post here.
Not that he is the holy of holy, but—
If Rudy gets the Rep. nod will this site back him or will this site try to derail his run just like it did Senator Allen in Vir.
Just wandering, when yaw don’t like something, you realy don’t like something. Black and White, no grey.
ross
kara26 on October 29, 2007 at 7:28 PM
LOL… well reasoned opinion there…
You do know his name is Rudolph William Louis Giuliani? So Rud… for Rudolph… and I for the last part of his last name? ITS A F’N KNICKNAME!!!
Last bastion of arguement for a failing opinion…
Are you now going to put your fingers in your ears and go “LA LA LA” like my daughter used to do?
I love it when an unreasoning person dismisses my reasoned opinion… not by arugueing fact… but by attempting to change the arguement…
Wow… you sound a lot like my X wife….
BWa haha hhahaaa …
Romeo13 on October 29, 2007 at 7:42 PM
He said he would appoint constructionist judges. But how good is his word? Sorry, I do not trust him. The man has no respect for the constitution IMO. I cannot trust a man like that. I reach that conclusion beause of Giuliani’s actions (suing gumakers) for example. If we are going to beat Hillary, we better select a real Conservative, Social AND Fiscal. And, we better select the candidate who will be proud to espouse the ideals of Conservatism. Consrvatives DO NOT WIN by going moderate!
There is no secret I think Thompson is that man. But, I would gladly support Romney, who I like a great deal. McCain, and Huckabee I have some reservations about, but those two are much preferrable to Rudy.
Yes I would, if Rudy is the nominee, vote for him, but he would be the ultimate nose-holder! Trust me on this, a significant number of Conservatives will NOT vote for Rudy.
You better think why the media wants Rudy vs Hilary. Yes, sure there is the fireworks aspect, but never forget the media WANTS Hillary elected. Would they try to push the “one guy that can beat Hillary”.
Gatordoug on October 29, 2007 at 8:23 PM
No, Rudination
ballz2wallz on October 29, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Actually he has been very specific. A physical barrier in high traffic areas and technological barrier in more rempte parts of the border that will alert the border patrol of intrusions. A significant increase in the number of border guards all along the border so that when the sensors go off there are guards available to intercept the invaders and turn them back. Eventually, they will get the hint that the border is closed and will stop trying. He figures it will take them three years to get the hint.
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 9:15 PM
No, his nickname is Rudy, not Rudi, and you know it. And trust me, if I bothered to address the content of your posts, it would merely demonstrate that it is true that you do not know shiite from shinola.
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I’m just repeating Nixon’s impression of the man, and that judge too…
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Fmr. Governor Blanton probably thought Fred was an idiot too after Fred helped send his ass to prison for corruption.
Bad Candy on October 29, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Dobson is right about Rudy, no matter how many false accusations and out-of-context quotes and childish names are hurled at him by AP and HA readers.
jgapinoy on October 29, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Yeah, and how smart was Nixon? Let his paranoia get the best of him and dug himself into a pit he couldn’t get out of. I haven’t seen Fred do that, even if he lost, Fred’ll never fall as far as Nixon.
Bad Candy on October 29, 2007 at 9:30 PM
OT but waaaay too much personal insight
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 9:32 PM
No one with even the slightest clue about the nature of the problem would believe that would end all illegal immigration. A shill for their preferred candidate might say it, but no informed, intelligent person is going to actually believe it.
Barriers don’t stop those who overstay visas, walls don’t stop those who don’t come in across the Southern border, “virtual fences” don’t guarantee every illegal will be caught. Any candidate who promises to completely end unauthorized immigration to this country is a shameless panderer and shouldn’t be believed.
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Nope Rudy’s plan for ending illegal immigration is to make it legal while putting up a pandering wall that he thinks will satisfy the 70% of the voters against amnesty. Nothing except for taking away their jobs, welfare handouts, free services, and deportation will end illegal immigration / visa overstays and everyone with a lick of sense knows it. Rudy’s just following the Hillary / Bush plan for a sweat shop America. Personally I’m not buying it and I’m not voting for it.
Buzzy on October 29, 2007 at 10:29 PM
You are setting up an absolute strawman. Of course he cannot stop each and every illegal alien at the border or before they over stay a visa. But he will accomplish the following (from his web site):
Now telling xenophobes that you will deport every illegal alien or force them through attrition to self-deport is “shameless pandering that shouldn’t be believed.”
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 10:34 PM
That actually is heartening. Especially this.
Honestly, I like Rudy. He has moxie and a sharp wit. The fact that he’s been forthright about his views (well, mostly forthright) is a credit to him, but he’s just not Reagan. At all. I don’t think I could vote for the man in a primary. I could easily vote for him in a general, but only for pragmatic reasons. As one person put it: “Saving the unborn and restoring the Constitution are more important than sending a message.”
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 10:49 PM
That’s just Fred taking credit for others hard work. He represented Marie Ragghianti as a tort lawyer and won her a wopping $38,000 — 33% of which was probably paid to Fred as his contingent fee. Others prosecuted and convicted the governor. Here is another interesting tid bit:
Fred, the scumbag tort lawyer, filing frivolous lawsuits by a plaintiff found to have no standing, because he was not injured by the conduct. GLUP
tommylotto on October 29, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Hollowpoint on October 29, 2007 at 11:30 PM
TommyLotto open mouth, insert foot! And repeat, and repeat, and….
Gatordoug on October 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Or lobbyists.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 1:20 AM
I suspect you live in a different state. It wouldn’t matter. The first two states, regardless of size would set up the eventual nominee.
Besides, with two small states going first, even if one candidate wins them both, there are still enough states out there for a different candidate to win and take the nomination.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Bwahahahaha!!!! No kidding? When did this come to light? And, did Fred release the info himself? That $8 million might be burning a hole in his pocket.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Hollowpoint is a single issue voter (2nd amendment) and a Fred shill. Now that it’s clear that he is wrong about “What’s a dollar?”, he seems to be lashing out at the other candidates out of his frustration. Having said that, I still think Rudy, Mitt, and the rest need to be scrutinized as fully as possible so as to leave nothing for the Clinton machine to surprise us with.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 1:45 AM
I think Fred already did the minute he gave legal advice to terrorists.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Please… with your OH so great knowledge… enlighten me…
Cause according to you I seem to be clueless…
Now, if you could just argue FACTS…
From your own post… from RUDI’s site… do you really think we need MORE IMMIGRATION???? When we can’t even support the ones who are already here????
His plan is empty platitudes full of nothing.
Hmmm… seems RUDI’s plan to make 20K border agents is 1000 short of what Congress has already said we should have… but has not given the money for… do you really think RUDI will get this from a Democrat controlled congress after a NASTY election???
But don’t worry… I’m just clueless….
BWAA HAA HAAAAA
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Foremost among our ruminations should surely be: how could Romney or Thompson possibly expect to beat Hillary, once her Death Star really gets revved up and her media flying monkeys are given their orders to destroy. Either one would be the equivilent of nominating Dole again – good guys, but with no reasonable chance of pulling it off. Giuliani’s flaws (most of which are being exagerated, I feel) must be viewed in this context.
Also a factor, the Dems, after 8 years of Bush and still seething about Florida 2000, are going to be out for some serious revenge. Does either Thompson or Romney strike anyone as the kind of street fighter needed to repel the coming attack of the zombies?
Halley on October 30, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Last debate, Fred and Rudy went at it, and Fred came out on top in the exchange. Enough said.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 2:30 AM
Problem is that you then give Conservatives a poor choice…
We can have a New York Liberal…. or a New York Liberal…
Between Social Conservatives, and Conservatives like myself, you’ll loose a large voting group, while pandering to the Middle which Hillary will also be competing for…
And she’ll run to the RIGHT of Rudi.
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 2:32 AM
At this point it’s all about skeletons in the closet. If we can expose all of Rudy and Mitt’s flaws, we can nominate the best candidate to challenge Hillary. Moderate voters are about perception. If we can deny Hillary any ammunition in the form of October surprises etc, we can run on a pretty solid image. Something she has serious issues with.
This is why Fred is a no go candidate. He should drop out and donate his $8 million to Rudy or Mitt.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Rudolf will split the Republican party.
A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.
- Abraham Lincoln
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 2:33 AM
This is why
FredRudolf is a no go candidate. He should drop out and donate his $8 million toRudyMitt orMittFred or just give it to me and I will know what to do with it.MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 2:37 AM
I have no problem with that, except we have already vetted Fred out. As a lobbyist and adviser to terrorists, he will never get elected. We are still in the process of Vetting Rudy and Mitt. Goodness help us if both of them turn out to be as bad as “What’s a dollar?”.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 2:48 AM
What bothers me about Fred is not “adviser to terrorists” as that seems to have been a minor roll that he played at his law firm although I am not so sure about his lobbying. What concerns me about him is where his son got a lot/most? of money that was donated to Fred’s campaigns as that goes to his character. Also that one of his advisers is an islamo guy.
My first choice Sessions is not running, Tancredo and Hunter are not going anywhere fast or slow, McCain is out (if I could separate the man from his policies it would be different), Huckabee is out and Rudy is completely out (I might even vote for Hillary before him), Mitt may or may not be going anywhere so I can not rule out Fred or I may be “sitting home alone on prom night” (or going to the “prom” with, yuk, Hillary).
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 3:06 AM
The more I “Peel the Onion” with this man, the more disttrubing I find him to be.
Authority Figure
Giuliani’s seemingly insatiable appetite for authority was evident, first and foremost, in the way he ran his administration. Obsessed, as always, with loyalty, he demanded that power be centralized in his hands and that he receive credit for any of the administration’s achievements. Even the Department of Environmental Protection’s daily reports on the water level in the reservoir had to be cleared through Giuliani’s press office before being released. He also replaced Dinkins-era officials with loyalists, some of whom had little preparation for their jobs. Tony Carbonetti, the grandson of Harold Giuliani’s friend, was put in charge of the Office of Appointments, even though his previous experience consisted mostly of running a bar in Boston. According to Kirtzman, “one agency estimated that, of patronage hires, 60 percent were qualified, 20 percent had no experience, and 20 percent were ‘dirtbags.’ ” Among these hires was Carbonetti’s father, who was named director of the Community Assistance Unit. He was forced to resign after admitting that he had two driver’s licenses and had failed to pay $156,000 in liens and judgments against one of his businesses.
The most important casualty of this process was Bratton, who, besides Giuliani himself, was most responsible for the administration’s early success. Whenever the press gave too much credit to Bratton, the police chief and his spokesman John Miller would be called into city hall to be bawled out by Giuliani loyalists. Miller was finally forced to quit. After Time put Bratton on its cover in January 1996, an enraged Giuliani had City Hall attorneys begin investigating his personal expenses. That was enough for Bratton. He quit two months later.
This man is dangerous. He is the epitome of an anti-Reagan, an anti-Jefferson. He should run for President of some third world country. If he is the Republican nominee, I will not stay home, I will vote for Hillary as she is less dangerous to America than he is.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 4:56 AM
Giuliani in 1994;
If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being a fugitive.
Giuliani in 2007;
We need a way that people who are working in this country can come forward, sign up for the tamper-proof ID card, get in the database and start paying their way.
He’s an open borders loon, more so than Bush or McCain.
- Jon Sandor
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:27 AM
I’d rather vote for Reagan. But Reagan’s not running. Until I see a better prospect for winning 2008, I’m betting on Rudy, even though I disagree on a few important social issues.
Yes, I believe in principle. But I also believe a half loaf is better than none. (With Hillary running, a half loaf beats food poisoning.)
petefrt on October 30, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Those things about Fred bother me also, but some of those are complicated issues for political junkies to be concerned with. Regardless how minimal his connection to terrorists is, THAT is very simple for the regular Joe to understand and I know for a fact that this country, rep, dem, or indy, has zero tolerance for people who have associations with terrorists. The funneling cash is a huge deal also.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 8:45 AM
Anybody ever notice that the ONLY Anti-Fred voices on this site are csdeven and tommyllotto? oh yeah-and Allah.
Fred(because Duncan Hunter can’t get noticed) is the BEST chance to BEAT HILLARY. But the same GOP Elites that gave us Geo. W Bush and ’shamnesty’ DON’T WANT FRED because he is anti-illegal.
Just for fun -watch how STRONG FOXnews, the Beltway Men, Townhall, Wall Street Journal, Sean Hannity, etc. are PUSHIN’ Rudy and Mitt at us like they’re the ONLY two choices. (and then ask why?- illegal immigration folks)
Ex-tex on October 30, 2007 at 10:01 AM
This stuff kills me.
I think Republicans have no clue as to who makes up their party.
The religious right have completely obscured the fact that the
R party is not made up of “value voter” types.
Look at the “value voter” straw polls and compare them to the national Republican polls and you have a party that’s out of touch with itself.
mylegsareswollen on October 30, 2007 at 10:17 AM
“What’s a dollar?” has a poor record on immigration. He also gave legal advice to terrorists that helped them avoid justice for 11 years. ANYONE who thinks that is acceptable behavior and that the American people are going to poo-poo it like they do, is being intellectually dishonest.
My proof? How do these same people react about Hillary’s campaign funds fiasco? They are much more vociferously outraged by something that comparatively harmless to the life of our citizens as terrorism. Those 11 years, that Fred helped those guys stay free, just allowed them to pass on their knowledge and become a symbol of success against the west. He also funneled campaign funds to his son. He lobbied for a dictator and against victims of asbestos poisoning.
Hillary cheats and Fred screws over the little guy and makes the world more dangerous by helping terrorists and dictators.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I think a lot of people use the oft vilified ‘religious right’ to obscure the REAL PROBLEMS with the positions of the candidates.
Apart from the Abortion (which will keep the ‘religious left Catholics’ from voting for him), Rudy is also pro gun-control (as mayor of NYC ‘we got guns out of the city’), pro amnesty (if you come here to work hard, we don’t care if you are illegal), pro gay marriage (Rudy is a Catholic that doesn’t care what the Catholic Church says).
Now, in years past, Gun Control ALONE would be a deal breaker with the R party.
In years past, Abortion ALONE would be a deal breaker with the R party.
Reducing crime is supposed to be an R party concept too (but illegal aliens for some reason in the R party aren’t considered ‘crime’)
Pro-Gay agenda used to be a deal breaker ALONE with the R party.
What Rudy says at this point is irrelevant. His own security firm billed the government for services related to security detail in his campaign (cronyism equivalent to Hillary to me).
Blame the religious right if you want to. But Rudy has too many deal breakers for the USA outside of the North East. I don’t think Rudy knows what the R party is made of either. He used to be a D – you could make the argument that he still is.
ThackerAgency on October 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I have my own opinions about Giuliani, after having lived in NYC before and during his administration. I would be the last person to deny that he has an authoritarian streak a mile wide, and can’t dispute from many previous posts that he is soft on illegal immigration, gun issues, gay marriage and a whole host of things. There is also NO DENYING HIS AMAZING AND NEAR MIRACULOUS ACHIEVEMENTS AS MAYOR OF NYC. HIS LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11 ARE UNDENIABLE. Nevertheless, by the time his mayoralty was finished, even I was tiring of his high-handedness and was ready for a change. But I’ve felt that way with ALL politicians, including the ones I’ve liked. After a while, they’ve done their thing, perhaps all that they can, and I want some fresh blood. All that being said, I think that anyone who can’t distinguish between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani is out of their mind! Hillary may be slick enough to try and run to the right of Giuliani, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny, and Giuliani is more than capable of fighting back.
You have every right to vote for the socialist candidate Hillary Clinton, and would not surprise me at all– more power to you. But you have no right to call yourself a Conservative or Republican if you do so. That is fine too. It’s a big world. But nobody who votes for Hillary is on my side of it.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Question… and one I’ve asked before, but no Rudi supporter has been able to answer…
For Rudi to get elected President, he is going to have to go after both the Clinton legacy and name… thus a very bitter negative election. He won’t have Conservative support, and MUST run as the anti Hillary.
Now… IF he wins… with both houses of Congress probably in control of the Dems, just how does this move the Conservative Agenda forward?
He will have contributed to the fracture of Politics here in America, and will have so polarized and angered the Left, that he will be the new Bush (as in BDS)….
He won’t get the Judges HE wants (they would never get out of commitee). He won’t get legislation passed. He will be given Liberal Social agenda Items, which he will then sign….
We’ll do nothing but change BDS… for RDS (Rudi Derangement Syndrome).
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Bingo…..we have a winner!
omnipotent on October 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »