Reports: Pat Robertson to endorse Giuliani; Update: Video added

posted at 9:02 am on November 7, 2007 by Bryan

According to the WaPo:

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, will announce his support for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid this morning in Washington, D.C., according to sources familiar with the decision.

Robertson’s support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

It also slows any momentum for Mitt Romney within the social conservative movement. Romney had recently secured the backing of conservative stalwarts Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III — endorsements that seemed to strengthen his bid to become the electable conservative alternative to Giuliani. Romney had made no secret of his desire for Robertson’s endorsement and has to be disappointed this morning.

The Politico is reporting the same:

Giuliani has struggled to win support of social conservatives because of his moderate views on abortion and gay rights. But now he has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), meanwhile, plans to announce his surprise endorsement of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president on Wednesday, a campaign official told Politico.

The endorsement is to be announced in Dubuque, Iowa.

The alliance gives McCain — once a front-runner, now struggling — a crucial bridge to social conservatives, an important constituency that has remained suspicious of him despite his opposition to abortion.

If anything, the Robertson endorsement is more significant than the Weyrich endorsement that the Romney camp won earlier in the week. Both endorsements strike me as wiser than the threat to either sit home or support a third party bid if Giuliani is the nominee. I’ve written of my ambivalence about Giuliani, but the prospect of religious conservatives handing the Democrats victory next year by sabotaging the GOP nominee ought not be on the table. Robertson and Weyrich get that, even if they arrive at different places when it comes to endorsing a candidate.

Update (AP): Here’s the announcement.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

Do you believe that married couples should get special rights?

Loundry on November 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM

If by that you mean being married, explain to me how that is a right.

But if you’re going to go into the whole gay marriage thing, don’t. No, I don’t believe in gay marriage. But the issue, as I’ve been told by my gay friends, is about things like insurance coverage and such for their partners, which I have absolutely no problem with. One friend said she’d be happy with civil unions that guarantee insurance, death benefits, etc. to her partner should anything happen to her. And I happen to agree with her on the issue. SHE said to me that the problem was that “The damn gay rights activists don’t want to compromise. For them it’s all or nothing.” Her words, not mine.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Christians vote based on their personal idea of who they think should run the government. Say what you want about Hillary, but she’s still married to her FIRST husband, and her daughter adores her. That means a lot to many Southern Christians….
ThackerAgency on November 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Saw this yesterday – “An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce?” and immediately thought about Rudy. Funny that the endorsement comes out right after this too.

Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power. (The ever-active Barna folks have found that 57% of “born-again” Christians age 16-29 criticize their own church for being “anti-homosexual.”) It could also give heart to a certain twice-divorced former New York mayor who is running for President and seeking the conservative vote. But that may be pushing things a bit.

Brat on November 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM

I’m a Christian yet I would vote for Rudy in a heartbeat as would my husband, my in-laws and most Christians/Conservatives I know.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 11:43 AM

As will I if he’s the nominee. But only if he’s the nominee.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Called it!

Jim-Rose on November 7, 2007 at 11:48 AM

And ALL of them are eminently more qualified to be the POTUS than Hillary Clinton, whose sole qualification seems to be that she’s married to a former POTUS.

Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM

you really have to wonder if he’s aware of the hilarious irony of that statement. Probably not.

crr6 on November 7, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Once upon a time I considered Robertson semi-rational. For a few years now I’ve considered him senile. His endorsement doesn’t mean a thing to me.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Well then, todays endorsement probably wasn’t aimed at you. Endorsements only matter if you respect the person that is giving it. That’s by Sam Brownback’s endorsement of McCain doesn’t register with me (I have zero respect for other as a presidential candidate).

Just as an intellectual exercise, how do you suppose the media would have spun the story had Robertson come out and endorsed Hillary or B. Hussein?

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM

We want the Saudi’s to be our friends. Be very suspicious, but be friendly. Here is a more recent reaction to Yemen:

Rudy Giuliani made the following statement today:

“Yesterday, the government of Yemen set free Jamal al-Badawi, the al-Qaeda mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors and wounded many others. This is unacceptable. Yemen must turn over al-Badawi to the U.S. for trial in the Southern District of New York, where he already is under indictment for the USS Cole attack.

“Until al-Badawi is re-arrested, America should use all the means at its disposal to pressure Yemen to stop siding with terrorists. As a first step, I urge the U.S. Government to cancel the more than $20 million in aid scheduled to be delivered to Yemen.

“Terrorists must be held accountable for their actions and so must the governments that offer them safe harbor.”

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Just as an intellectual exercise, how do you suppose the media would have spun the story had Robertson come out and endorsed Hillary or B. Hussein?

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 11:55 AM

I see heads exploding as they try to go from “We hate Christians” to “We love Christians” in one fell swoop.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Brat on November 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM

This quote from that TIME story your linked to is nothing but wishful thinking, and there is nothing in the story to back it up:

Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power.

Typical MSM B.S.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Come out as pro-choice? That’s never been any secret – he always has been. Giuliani donates to Planned Parenthood, and he says that’s consistent with his policy. It doesn’t take any extra moral courage to say that – after all, all the Democrats have done the same – so I guess I don’t see how that makes him any more trust-worthy than ever.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM

He donated a few hundred bucks to a Planned Parenthood several years ago.

What makes him more trust-worthy for me? He’s running for the Republican nomination and remains pro-choice. He hasn’t tried to appease me. When he tells me 2 things I don’t like then something I do, why should I believe he’s lying about the third?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 11:59 AM

It’s like watching The Twilight Zone.

Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 12:08 PM

IF rudy does what he’s campaigned on with Social Issues, he’s effectively socially conservative. Not an activist trying to define when life starts in constititution, but a federalist. So any abortion legislation he would, in theory, veto on federalism grounds. Same for Gun issue.

Plus IF, he appoints judges like Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito, he’s very much effectively a Social Con.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Same for Gun issue.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM

He’s already said he’d turn the gun issue over to the states. Wrong answer. Gun rights is not a state issue.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 12:13 PM

He’s already said he’d turn the gun issue over to the states. Wrong answer. Gun rights is not a state issue.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 12:13 PM

its not, but gives him an out on the issue.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM

When he tells me 2 things I don’t like then something I do, why should I believe he’s lying about the third?

If you trust Giuliani to follow Olson’s advice to nominate conservative judges, based upon that stellar standard above, despite the fact that Giuliani himself is a stone-cold liberal and despite the fact that there’s no guarantee Olson will still be around during the nominations, I guess you’ve found a system that works for you.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I noticed talk about Rudy appointing another judge like Scalia or Roberts. Perhaps, we should remember who is likely to head the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009 and 2010, and get some realistic expectations.

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 12:17 PM

its not, but gives him an out on the issue.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I don’t consider trying to ignore the Constitution an “out”.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Arrrgghhhh! I am so tired of being told that Guiliani is a “stone cold liberal”.

Guiliani would appoint conservative judges. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Obviously Olson wouldn’t support Guiliani if he thought differently and Olson is way too smart to have the wool pulled over his eyes.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Rudy is the msm’s Republican candidate. If they can’t get hillary elected, they’d be almost as happy with Rudy.

Texas Nick 77 on November 7, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Rudy and Hillary have a lot more in common than I like to think about.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Ditto. And Ditto.

I’m it’s down to Rudy or Mitt… I have to go with Mitt.

If it comes down to Rudy or Hilary… I’m screwed.

Lawrence on November 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Arrrgghhhh! I am so tired of being told that Guiliani is a “stone cold liberal”.

Argh. I’m so tired of being told that Giuliani is the only candidate that can win against Hillary. He’s being shoved down our throats. And he most certainly cannot win.

Obviously Olson wouldn’t support Guiliani if he thought differently and Olson is way too smart to have the wool pulled over his eyes.

Again, that goes back to my original comment. I truly cannot understand why trusting an advisor of a candidate somehow conveys trust to the candidate himself. That’s just weird. You’re not electing Olson – and there’s no guarantee he’ll even be around for the nominations.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Ha, Robertson’s now a “backstabber,” “Judas,” and “hypocrite” according to some of the commenters? Rabble rabble rabble….

Vizzini on November 7, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Sorry, but his track record on Judicial appointments CANNOT be ignored… no matter how hard you try…

As Mayor of New York, he appointed over 80% Democrat Judges.

He appointed them from a pool of candidates that were handed to him by an “independent” board… WHICH HE APPOINTED!!!!!

Hard to spin that one once you know the facts.

He’s only a “strict constructionalist” when its convenient to HIS agenda. His Second Amendment stance shows that.

Sorry, don’t trust him.

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

As Mayor of New York, he appointed over 80% Democrat Judges.

He appointed them from a pool of candidates that were handed to him by an “independent” board… WHICH HE APPOINTED!!!!!

Hard to spin that one once you know the facts.

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Copy that.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Typical MSM B.S.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 11:59 AM

I agree there’s some BS in that story but the times they are a’changin’.
I hear a sound, have been hearing it for some years now. Chip, chip chip, chip. The chipping away of morals and traditions in this country. Which is why Rudy’s socially liberal views are more acceptable to some (not me).

Brat on November 7, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Guiliani would appoint conservative judges. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 12:20 PM

You mean like Bush #1 and Reagan did? (Souter, O’Conner, Kennedy)

omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM

I don’t consider trying to ignore the Constitution an “out”.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 12:19 PM

no, but if he see’s no role in the Federal govt. with Guns, that means he would in theory veto any Brady Bill type legislation.

politically its an out.

I also disagree that Rudy and Hillary are the same, that is crazy. Rudy is great on some key conservative issues, like Crime/terrorism, fiscally and the guy really understands capitalism which is a good thing. Hillary isn’t any of those. And one thing is certain, if Hillary is nominated she will absolutely nominate Activist Judges, try to ban guns and impose as much Socialist policies as she can get away with. With Rudy, some of that at a minimum will not happen and at best none of it will if he sticks to his campaign promises.

the idea of letting hillary win, while the Dems hold the house and Senate thus giving them all 3 branches is crazy logic.

pragmatism is thy friend.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM

As Mayor of New York, he appointed over 80% Democrat Judges.

He appointed them from a pool of candidates that were handed to him by an “independent” board… WHICH HE APPOINTED!!!!!

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

I’m not defending Rudy here but trying to get some clarity. Are you honestly suggesting that in a rabidly liberal city like New York that the Mayor should have only appointed conservative Republicans as judges? The real litmus test here has absolutely nothing to do with party labels but how they ruled as jurists. If they administered the law without trying to legislate from the bench, is there a real problem here?

When it comes to national elections, the stakes are different. First off, most appointments are lifetime so the consequences are greater. The jurisdiction is also broader and affects far more people than a NYC judge. Most importantly, the scope of the cases has far more importance than a city judge interpreting city law.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 1:04 PM

no, but if he see’s no role in the Federal govt. with Guns, that means he would in theory veto any Brady Bill type legislation.

politically its an out.

I also disagree that Rudy and Hillary are the same, that is crazy.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM

If he hands it over to the states he doesn’t have to worry about any legislation. And it also ignores the Constitution. Gun ownership is not a states rights issue. Period.

And I never said they were the same. I said they were too much alike for me. He’s a social liberal through and through.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 1:09 PM

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Uhhh, yeah, you kinda are defending Giuliani. If those same judges had been appointed by a Democrat, I hardly think you’d be so charitable.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths and depths people will go to to airbrush Giuliani. If you go back and reread through people’s excuses and explanations for Giuliani’s deficiencies as a candidate, it’s tiresome because there are so many.

I don’t understand. Why even bother with him? He cannot win. I can’t believe he’s even gotten this much traction – except for the slavish media coverage he’s been gifted with. Think about it. Why has the MSM already anointed Giuliani already as the Repub nominee??? Anything the media wants is bound to be bad for the country. The media likes Giuliani because he is most like them. It’s just icing on the cake that his nomination guarantees Clinton’s win.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:19 PM

He’s already said he’d turn the gun issue over to the states. Wrong answer. Gun rights is not a state issue.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Wrong again Kowboy. Like other rights protected by the bill of rights, it can be made subject to reasonable restrictions based upon a compelling state interest — and the interests of the state will arise to the point of being “compelling” in different ways in different localities. No one can take away the individual right to gun ownership, but that right can be restricted in a reasonable fashion. What is reasonable and what is compelling will depend on where you are. Just like your right to free speech is different on the sidewalk, in the mall, or in a crowded movie theater.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Giuliani has struggled to win support of social conservatives because of his moderate views on abortion and gay rights. But now he has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters.

Moderate views? Moderate views?? MODERATE VIEWS???
Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggg!!!!!!!!!
Partial birth infanticide is moderate??? Heavens to Mercatroid!!! Queue up Twilight Zone and Outer Limits and One Step Beyond music here.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), meanwhile, plans to announce his surprise endorsement of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president on Wednesday, a campaign official told Politico.

This makes a whole lot more sense. Question for the Rudy backers, including Robertson – if you are cool with amnesty and want somebody who is strong on the war, why don’t you support McCain?

McCain has some of the same weaknesses as Sanctuary City Mayor Giuliani, but he also has strengths which loud mouth pussy Giuliani does not even begin to have. For example, he is a genuine war hero, not a sniffling draft dodger. He believes in clean government, not government by crony corruption. And he is a lot more likely to nominate good judges than Rudy is.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:29 PM

omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM

No, like George W. Bush did with Alito and Roberts.

Considering what has been done recently as far as appointing conservative judges goes, one would think that the social cons would not be operating with so many sour grapes right now.

What the hell good does it do if the cons are going to whine and complain and hand it over to Hillary or Obama and put us back to a liberal majority on the court?

This is absolutely maddening…and mad, as in crazy.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

As Mayor of New York, he appointed over 80% Democrat Judges.

He appointed them from a pool of candidates that were handed to him by an “independent” board… WHICH HE APPOINTED!!!!!

Hard to spin that one once you know the facts.

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

First off, these judges were minor bureaucratic paper pushers who made insignificant decisions on minor issues totally unrelated to anything having to do with federal law or the Constitution. Second, Rudy was commended for his appointments by Republicans, because although 80% may have been registered Democrats — similar to the population of NYC — he appointed far fewer judges connected to the Democratic party. You do what you can do and you pick your battles. Why go to the mat to determine who decides cases involving parking tickets?

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Partial birth infanticide is moderate???
MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:29 PM

There you go again….

Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion—except when the life of the mother is at stake.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM

MB4

Rant on!

Here’s a headine for you:

GUILIANI OPPOSES PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.

Oh, and there you go again with the chicken hawk argument.

Your “arguments” are like moldy old cheese.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Partial birth infanticide is moderate???

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Rudy supports a ban on partial birth abortions.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM

There you go yet AGAIN defending your poco hijo Rudolfo like only a ciega madre could.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM

the idea of letting hillary win, while the Dems hold the house and Senate thus giving them all 3 branches is crazy logic.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Consider recent history. Enough conservatives stayed home in ‘06 to turn both he House and the Senate over to the Democrats, so it’s quite LIKELY to happen again. The Repubs have alienated the conservatives for far too long and can’t count on their votes anymore. Now they’ll have to EARN them, and that’s not something they are willing to do. Giuliani will fail to inspire enough conservatives to vote, and others will vote their conscience anyway – which won’t be for Giuliani, I can tell you.

pragmatism is thy friend.

Really? Because it rather reeks of compromise. I’d say PRINCIPLES are thy friend. That’s something the Repubs have forgotten. They paid for it in ’06, and ’08 will be a repeat, unless they return to the principles that brought the party together under Reagan.

Does no one here at all see the resemblance between the losing Democratic strategy in ‘04 (Anyone but Bush!!!) and what you all are saying we conservatives MUST settle for today (Anyone but Hillary!!!)? It’s a losing proposition, people.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Rudy supports a ban on partial birth abortions.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Just a vary small sampling of Rudy on abortion, including partial birth abortion, aka infanticide:

February 6, 2000 -

George Will: “Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?”

Giuliani: “All of my positions are firm. I do not think it makes sense to be changing your position to be figuring out, well you have the liberal party here, you have the conservative party here”

And from the 1997 NARAL/NY PAC, Candidate Questionnaire:

Support for Medicaid funding of abortions without any
restrictions
? Yes.

Oppose legislation requiring parental notification or consent for minors to obtain an abortion? Yes.

Support OB/Gyn graduate training hospitals to require abortion training? Yes.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Any word on the fact that you were wrong about Rudy’s abortion stance in the middle of your rantings?

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM

I’d point out that Bush was an incumbent President at a time of war, and we had John “Just Joking” Kerry as an opponent.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Your “arguments” are like moldy old cheese.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Your counter “arguments” are like apestan mierda!!!

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:47 PM

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM

First of all, that was 7 to 10 years ago. 9 years before running for the Republican nomination, Reagan signed a Liberal abortion bill into effect that actually increased abortions. The bill was crafted by California Democrats.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Uhhh, yeah, you kinda are defending Giuliani. If those same judges had been appointed by a Democrat, I hardly think you’d be so charitable.

You don’t even know me. Are you honestly claiming that you know what I’d say in a hypothetical situation? Sorry Red, but my opinions are based on the facts and not on what letter somebody has behind their name. Clearly, you don’t share that ability to critically analyze a situation without pre-formating the situation based on labels.

I don’t understand. Why even bother with him? He cannot win.

Sorry, but in America anyone can win. I refuse to follow your path of demanding we just hand over power to Hillary Clinton. It’s pretty dishonest of you Hillary supporters to go on sites like this and claim you actually care about the races. Clearly, you are simply campaigning for your candidate in an underhanded way. If you want to defend Hillary and her lack of experience as “the way forward” don’t do it by attacking other candidates do it by pointing out Hillary’s good points.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Oh, and there you go again with the chicken hawk argument.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM

He (Rudy) applied for a deferment but was rejected (first attempt to dodge the draft). In 1969, MacMahon (low friends in high places) wrote a letter to Giuliani’s draft board, asking (using and abusing his influence) that he (Rudy) be reclassified
as 2-A, civilian occupation deferment, because Giuliani, who was a law clerk for MacMahon, was an essential employee (It would be hard to think of anything LESS essential. Even DOD employees seldom got 2-A’s. Even civilian Army employess at a “secret” Army testing ground in Utah did not get them!). The deferment was granted.(second attempt to dodge the draft successful)

*
He was clearly a draft dodger. Very arguably times two. Text book case in plain fact. In order for him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger, except maybe for Ted Nugent. Arguing that Rudolfo was not a draft dodger is delusional.
*
You can’t handle the truth!!!
Colonel Nathan R. Jessep

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:56 PM

and we had John “Just Joking” Kerry as an opponent.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:46 PM

It doesn’t change the fact that merely voting AGAINST someone is not enough to win. Remember, Democrats don’t vote on principles, but conservatives DO. That means that the Repub nominee has to uphold and support the principles fundamental to the Repub core. Just fielding a candidate because he just barely has an (R) after his name and then saying, “Hey, anybody but Hillary!” will not work on conservatives the way it did on the brain-dead Left.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 1:58 PM

I see John McCain arising.
I see things may be going his way.
I see rumbling and hear noises.
I see better times for him today.

Chorus:
Dont go around writing off McCain,
Well, its bound to take your prognosticating life,
John McCain is on the rise.
- CCR

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 1:59 PM

MB4,

Let me make this easy for you since you have a habit of not providing links.

Here’s all the “dirt” on Rudy and abortion, courtesy of Democrats.org.

Here is Rudy’s campaign website which shows where he stands today.

He has moved to the right! Let’s rejoice that move and get on with defeating the Democrat candidate. It’s only the survival of this nation that’s at stake here.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:00 PM

I’m comin to ya on a dusty road
I’ll be debatin ‘em with a red pickup truck load
And when I debate ‘um you’ll really see something
So dont worry cause I’m Fred and I am coming

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Listen up America!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

I got what I got the old fashion way
And I’ll take it to that nasty crony loving draft dodging Rudy in each and every way
So voters dont you fret
Cause you’ve hardly even seen me knockin that Sanctuary City partial birth abortion Rudy yet

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Play it Jeri baby!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

Listen
I’m all wrapped up in the things America needs
I learned how to be an American almost before I could eat
I come from American heartland stock
When I become President things will really rock

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Take that you gun grabbing cross dressing gun grabbing Rudy Tootie!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

I’ll grab your rope and I’ll pull you in
Give you hope and be Americas best friend
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Im Fred man
Im Fred man
Youre a Fred man!
Im Fred man
Im Fred man

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:02 PM

You don’t even know me. Are you honestly claiming that you know what I’d say in a hypothetical situation?

Fair enough. I don’t know what you’d say. I assumed, based upon your extraordinary willingness to make allowances for Giulani’s choices, that you would not make those same extraordinary allowances for a Democrat. If you are intellectually honest, and you say that you would indeed make those same allowances for the other side, then I have to believe you. Ok, then.

I refuse to follow your path of demanding we just hand over power to Hillary Clinton. It’s pretty dishonest of you Hillary supporters to go on sites like this and claim you actually care about the races. Clearly, you are simply campaigning for your candidate in an underhanded way. If you want to defend Hillary and her lack of experience as “the way forward” don’t do it by attacking other candidates do it by pointing out Hillary’s good points.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Bahahahahahah! Now that’s my first laugh today. Thank you, dear. (Google Redhead Infidel.)

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Impossible! The stance someone had 10 years ago must be the same one they have today!

/sarcasm

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Redhead Infidel,

I am enthusiastically FOR Rudy. I am enthusiastically FOR Romney. I am lukewarm about Fred because his heart is not in it, and I oppose McCain.

There! I am for something, and I guarantee you that I am not alone.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Here is Rudy’s campaign website which shows where he stands today.

Buy Danish Rudolfo’s Ciegos Madre on November 7, 2007 at 2:00 PM

You can believe your poco hijo’s web sitio, I will believe my “mentir” ojos.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Whenever MB4 has no response he resorts to speaking Spanish, quoting Mark Twain or making up really stupid song lyrics.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

No one can take away the individual right to gun ownership, but that right can be restricted in a reasonable fashion.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Tell that to people in places like D.C. who have to take it to SCOTUS to get that right back.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

No, like George W. Bush did with Alito and Roberts.

Considering what has been done recently as far as appointing conservative judges goes, one would think that the social cons would not be operating with so many sour grapes right now.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM

My point was that you never know how or whom the next President will nominate to SCOTUS, and he may even then be fooled (see Souter, Kennedy, etc.) by his choice.

omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Tell that to people in places like D.C. who have to take it to SCOTUS to get that right back.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

How prominent of a role did Bush play in it?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Redhead Infidel,

I am enthusiastically FOR Rudy. I am enthusiastically FOR Romney. I am lukewarm about Fred because his heart is not in it, and I oppose McCain.

There! I am for something, and I guarantee you that I am not alone.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Danish, that’s great for you. But there are millions of us conservatives out here who are most definitely NOT for Giuliani. (I guarantee you I am not alone either.)

No offense, but you and the others like you cannot win ’08 by yourselves. The Repubs need the conservatives to win. And they will not get out the conservative vote by fielding a liberal. It’s that simple.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Rudy must be stopped by Joseph Farah

Indeed, Rudy has been consistent – consistently pro-abortion.

While saying he is personally opposed to abortion and thinks we should discourage it, he advocates every imaginable incentive for women to have them – discouraging laws requiring women to see ultra-sound images of their in utero babies before crushing their skulls, discouraging any cut in taxpayer funding of abortions and describing this hideous, abominable procedure as a “constitutional right.”

I don’t believe Rudy Giuliani is really personally opposed to abortion. I don’t think he cares a whit about unborn babies. And, even if I am misjudging his heart, it really doesn’t matter what he thinks. What matters is what he does, how he acts.

What would you think of someone who said he personally opposed slavery, would never own a slave himself, but fought fervently for the right of others to own slaves.

Would you believe that person is really opposed to slavery? Would you care that he was “personally opposed”? Would you grasp that this person was trying to have it both ways on one of the most crucial moral issues men can possibly ever face?

Here’s what Giuliani said in 2000 on the subject of banning partial-birth abortions: “I would vote to preserve the option for women.”

I believe that was the real Giuliani. That was a reflection of his heart and mind on this issue. He would preserve the option for women to kill their babies even at the very moment of delivery – when the child is “viable” in every sense of the word. This is a position even more extreme than the one taken by the muddled thinkers who gave us Roe v. Wade.

This is why I can never, under any circumstances, cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani as president, no matter whom he is running against.

He’s unfit. He’s immoral. He’s got no standard of right and wrong guiding him. His positions are indecent, disgusting and abominable.

If he can’t be trusted on a relatively simple issue of life and death, he can’t be trusted on anything in my book.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I think the notion thqt Christians are sheep amd blindly follow their leaders down any given path is coming to an end this primary. This blog is the sole place I have seen Christian support for Giuliani. I have yet to hear a Christian I know suppport Giuliani. Once I mention his views on gay marriage, gun control, immigration and abortion their faces turn sour. But that is just my experience.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I have yet to hear a Christian I know suppport Giuliani.
Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Visit Florida sometime. We’re having beautiful weather today.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM

How prominent of a role did Bush play in it?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:19 PM

In banning gun ownership in D.C.? To the best of my knowledge, none.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Washington Post 2004:

Supporters of gun limits said the proposed repeal shows gun backers at their most extreme and draws attention to a flip-flop by President Bush on extending a 1994 federal ban covering some semiautomatic weapons…

Bush has said that congressional Republicans know he would sign an extension of the federal ban if it reached his desk.

And he’s pro-gun.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Whenever MB4 has no response he resorts to speaking Spanish, quoting Mark Twain or making up really stupid song lyrics.

Buy Danish Rudolf’s Ciegos Madre on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

You have failed to respond to analysis, links, quotes, humor, parodies and to your poco hijo Rudolfo of course, basically the whole nine yards. You have failed to respond to every known protocol. You are way beyond blind. A blind man with his fingers in his ears could see and hear what you do not.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM

This blog is the sole place I have seen Christian support for Giuliani. I have yet to hear a Christian I know suppport Giuliani. Once I mention his views on gay marriage, gun control, immigration and abortion their faces turn sour. But that is just my experience.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM

That’s what baffles me. People who frequent this and other right of center blogs know (or should know) how liberal Rudy is on:

Immigration- He’s as bad or worse than McCain, being for amnesty and against interior enforcement and actively welcomed illegals to NYC as mayor.

Gun control- He teamed with the extreme anti-gun Brady Foundation to try and sue gun manufacturers out of existance, and advocated strict NYC style gun controls for the entire country.

Abortion- He’s pro-choice, was for federal abortion funding, and still won’t give a straight answer about his opinion of Roe v Wade.

Tack on his cronyism- which extends even towards those convicted of corruption- his authoritarianism, his campaigning for a liberal democrat over a Republican, opposition to tax cuts and overall lack of conservative record and I don’t see why he’s even still in the race much less the front-runner.

A win for Rudy is a loss for conservatives and the Republican party. If conservatives felt like they were fighting Bush more than supporting him, that would seem like a love-fest compared to what would happen if Rudy were to win.

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM

And he’s pro-gun.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Bush knew the bill would never make it out of the House of Representatives when he said it.

Still, a lot of us on the pro-2nd Amendment side were quite upset about Bush’s support for the assault weapon ban- it’s just one of several areas in which Bush has betrayed conservative principles. This from someone who’s far more conservative than Rudy, who was (and probably still is) among the biggest enemies the pro-gun crowd could ever have.

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 2:40 PM

This blog is the sole place I have seen Christian support for Giuliani. I have yet to hear a Christian I know suppport Giuliani. Once I mention his views on gay marriage, gun control, immigration and abortion their faces turn sour. But that is just my experience.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM

If Republicans nominate Rudolfo some of them are going to wake up with the biggest damned hangover when they open their eyes and see what they are laying next to.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Tell that to people in places like D.C. who have to take it to SCOTUS to get that right back.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Did the President do that to the residents of DC?

My point was that you never know how or whom the next President will nominate to SCOTUS, and he may even then be fooled (see Souter, Kennedy, etc.) by his choice.

omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM

I realize that! But we certainly know for certain that Hillary would appoint ultra liberal judges and there is no way that they would turn out to be conservatives.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I respond to analysis. You don’t provide any. Dittos for “humor”.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 2:40 PM

How about Reagan? In 1967 as Governor of California, he signed the Mulford Act, which “prohibit(ed) the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street”.

He also supported the Brady Law gun control as well as the Assault Weapons Ban.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM

And some of you believed the coronation and election was over, before it began. Right about now should be the beginning. Previous was a complete waste of time, effort, money, etc.

I’m just hoping Hitlary makes it to the general election. I want the Republicans to sacrafice her on the altar, not her fellow Dhemocrats.

Mojave Mark on November 7, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Also, she’d be much easier to beat in the general. The libs know this but can’t help themselves. The machine is just too big/strong.

And ALL of them are eminently more qualified to be the POTUS than Hillary Clinton, whose sole qualification seems to be that she’s married to a former POTUS.

Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM

you really have to wonder if he’s aware of the hilarious irony of that statement. Probably not.

crr6 on November 7, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Of course, because Harpazo assumed that she actually is/has been married to a former POTUS.

Entelechy on November 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM

As Mayor of New York, he appointed over 80% Democrat Judges.

He appointed them from a pool of candidates that were handed to him by an “independent” board… WHICH HE APPOINTED!!!!!

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

the process for nominating judges as mayor of NYC is totally different than POTUS. He had a list to choose from, and in most cases his only choices were Dems.

secondly, those type of Judges are totally different. Federal Judges interpret the Constitution, if he is what he says, and favors Strict Constructinist, then that is good news.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

He’s unfit. He’s immoral. He’s got no standard of right and wrong guiding him. His positions are indecent, disgusting and abominable.

If he can’t be trusted on a relatively simple issue of life and death, he can’t be trusted on anything in my book.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 2:22 PM

The pro-lifers sent me their endorsed candidates and so I went and voted against them in election yesterday. It made me vote Democratic more than I would have liked, but it was mostly about judges and I did get to vote Republican for mayor. While I voted against pro-lifers and while I do hold fetal idolatry to be a deeply anti-environmental position, I don’t hold that it disqualifies them from making good judgments on other issues. People are right some times and they are wrong some times. The demand for purity is the worse mistake we can make.

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Tell that to people in places like D.C. who have to take it to SCOTUS to get that right back.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Did the President do that to the residents of DC?

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Did I say he did? No. Nor did I ever infer that he could. It was a discussion about Rudy wanting to turn gun ownership rights issues over to the states, and a response to this.

No one can take away the individual right to gun ownership, but that right can be restricted in a reasonable fashion.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:23 PM

It was right there in the post you copied and pasted. He said that about states deciding the issue. I posted an example that proved it wrong. Get it now?

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Now that’s my first laugh today. Thank you, dear.
Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 2:03 PM

You are welcome but I gotta tell you that you come off sounding exactly like the Hillary supporters I know. They are never able to articulate why Rudy is so bad either.

Here’s something to consider. Could it be that Rudy is capable and/or intends to have an “inclusive” administration that accounts for the needs and concerns of social liberals and social conservatives alike?

I don’t agree with supporting Rudy or Mitt simply because they are the most “electable” against the Democrats. That’s how John Kerry beat out Howard Dean in 2004. Nevertheless, I think the situation is somewhat different with the GOP in 2007 than it was during campaign ’04. In the past campaign, Howard Dean probably did represent mainstream Democrat sentiments but people supported Kerry because he claimed to be a war hero. I suspect that Rudy or Mitt moreso than Sam Brownback represents mainstream Republican views right now. If that is true, wouldn’t Rudy or Mitt be a legitimate choice? Personally, the candidate that probably is closest to my views is Huckabee but I know that he isn’t going anywhere.

I want the GOP to front the candidate that is most representative of the party’s views on national security, immigration reform, the role of the SCOTUS, and like issues. I’m pretty sure there is broad agreement on these points within the party. That leaves the social issues and, with those, there needs to be some realism applied to very emotional issues. Abortion will not be repealed but it would be nice to find a candidate willing to send the issue to the state laws (where it belongs). Gay marriage isn’t going to happen but some version of “civil rights” is probably in the future no matter who has the presidency. It is hard to imagine that the 2nd Amendment will be tinkered with much either.

All this is a long way of asking what issues would actually split the GOP as you keep claiming. I’m just not seeing the issue(s) that would do so if one strips away the hysteria and emotion.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 3:02 PM

How about Reagan? In 1967 as Governor of California, he signed the Mulford Act, which “prohibit(ed) the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street”.

He also supported the Brady Law gun control as well as the Assault Weapons Ban.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Reagan wasn’t perfect; however it was a much different time, before the pro-gun side was effectively able to fight back. The Clinton gun ban proved to be useless in preventing crime, yet Romney wants to bring it back. Rudy previously endorsed very strict gun controls not only for NYC, but for the entire country. Most of us don’t have a problem with the background check provisions of the Brady law.

And of course there’s the obvious fact that Reagan isn’t running for the nomination.

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM

kcluva on November 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Why does everyone say he is best suited to take on terrorists? He did a great job pulling NY back together, but what else besides yelling at them did he do? Talking like a tough guy may sound right, but what military credentials does he have? Who would be more apt to throw the best counter punch

Rudy (talks tough)
Fred (talks tough)
Huck (talks tough)
Mitt (talks tough)
McCain (talks tough, but walked the walk)
Hunter (talks tough)
Paul (forget about it)
Tancredo (just Mexicans)

They all talk tough, just which one would really act, and act reponsibly? That is the big question.

right2bright on November 7, 2007 at 3:11 PM

jp on November 7, 2007 at 2:54 PM

He CHOSE the “independent panel” which chose the judges he had to pick from…

And as Liberal as New York is, it sure isn’t 80% LIBERAL!!!

I mean… come on… EIGHTY PER CENT!!! you know… FOUR OUT OF FIVE!!!

Considering that the electorate Nation wide is pretty much evenly split between Dems, Reps, and “NONAFFLIATED” to give 80% to ONE Party???

Spin it how ya want.. it sure does not make any sense to me.

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM

He isn’t running, but he is a hero in the Republican Party. Because the pro-gun lobby couldn’t sufficiently fight back, didn’t mean he had to actively support it.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM

The pro-lifers sent me their endorsed candidates and so I went and voted against them in election yesterday. It made me vote Democratic

So you are a single issue voter then.

I guess now you’ll have to vote against Rudy since Robertson is also a ‘pro-life’ supporter.

I do however appreciate the appropriate characterization as ‘pro-life’ instead of the new movement to call it ‘anti-abortion’. Abortion on demand is the worst and most barbaric use of technology ever. Why can’t people be responsible and either use protection or not have sex until they are ready to have children? Why is it OK to have children suffer for the mistakes of the ‘parents’?

Why set the limit at birth? I know a lot of people who should probably be aborted even in middle age because they are a burden on society. Why not just ‘abort’ people when they apply for welfare? They would then be ‘unwanted’ and a ‘burden’ too.

You call pro-lifers ‘single issue voters’ yet you fail to recognize that is exactly what you just did. . . vote against your other principles because of the pro-life position. I know you are prone to making poor choices thuja, but this takes the cake.

ThackerAgency on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I don’t have much respect for Robinson anymore, but I must say back in the early 80′s before there was a Rush or Fox News, I would watch the news segment at the beginning of the 700 Club for stories I never saw in the MSN – things like positive stories about the pro-life movement or a pro-Israel perspective. They had news people on the streets and overseas with reports that made me feel I was not alone in my conservative views.

deedledee on November 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM

While I voted against pro-lifers and while I do hold fetal idolatry to be a deeply anti-environmental position, I don’t hold that it disqualifies them from making good judgments on other issues.

And yet your are unabashedly a single-issue voter. None of the rest matters to you but how these candidates feel about the murder of unborn life. Whether or not the candidate supports letting teens kill off innocent life without parental consent. Whether or not we maintain a flawed SCOTUS ruling instead of letting the states decide as the Constitution requires.

In short, you are what is part of the problem here. A candidate could be for amnesty for all illegals, open borders, lax precaution against terrorism… etc. Just so long as they are not “fetal idolaters” you’d support them.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I have said it before and I will say it again, some Republicans seem to have drank more kool-aid than a lot of democrats have. Maybe some 190 proof Everclear. About a gallon? Can anyone even imagine democrats nominating Zell Miller. That would be the equivalent of Republicans nominating Rudolfo.

Oh is there ever going to be a hangover to end all hangovers in the Republican party in the morning if he gets the nomination.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 3:16 PM

I mean… come on… EIGHTY PER CENT!!! you know… FOUR OUT OF FIVE!!!

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM

CNN November 4, 1997:

Although Democrats outnumber Republicans 5-1 in the city, Messinger trailed in the polls and even had trouble wresting the nomination from her Democratic primary challenger, Rev. Al Sharpton. A member of the city’s liberal establishment, Messinger unsuccessfully tried to focus the race on education and job creation.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Democrats had quite a significant advantage, AYCS.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Considering that the electorate Nation wide is pretty much evenly split between Dems, Reps, and “NONAFFLIATED” to give 80% to ONE Party???

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Do you think the NYC electorate is “evenly split?” Not even close. If you are going to rail against Rudy on this point, you can’t be intellectually honest if you use the national breakdown numbers. I’d venture to say 80% “rats” to judgeships in the city of New York is low compared to the number of “rats” that live there.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Tell that to people in places like D.C. who have to take it to SCOTUS to get that right back.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

And Rudy agreed with the appellate court decision in DC. What’s your point?

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Can anyone even imagine democrats nominating Zell Miller. That would be the equivalent of Republicans nominating Rudolfo.

I think Michael Bloomberg would be a far more apt comparison than Rudy. I’d be far more comfortable with Rudy as the GOP candidate than many so-called Republicans including Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, McCain*, or any of the other RINOs.

*People complain about Rudy’s record on the social issues but let’s not forget that McCain is the one that brokered away many of our First Amendment rights for virtually worthless campaign finance reform. McCain also supports amnesty for illegals even BEFORE closing the lapses in border security. So, which is worse, Rudy’s record as a social liberal or John McCain’s record as a “maverick?”

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 3:26 PM

And Rudy agreed with the appellate court decision in DC. What’s your point?

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM

My point is that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place. And whether he agrees with it or not, as POTUS he’d still be avoiding the issue. Or in your words, taking an “out”.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

The demand for purity is the worse mistake we can make.

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM

I don’t demand purity at all, I just do not want too many scops of $hit in my milkshake and especially when some people tell me it is really scoops of butterscotch.

MB4 on November 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM

He isn’t running, but he is a hero in the Republican Party. Because the pro-gun lobby couldn’t sufficiently fight back, didn’t mean he had to actively support it.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I’m still unclear how any of that is relevant regarding the current contest.

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM

It was right there in the post you copied and pasted. He said that about states deciding the issue. I posted an example that proved it wrong. Get it now?

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Technically DC is not a state. Nevertheless, the point I was making was that reasonable restriction on the right to carry firearms are permissible so long as they are narrowly crafted to protect a compelling state interest. By state, I mean state. One state will have a different interest from another. The murder capital of American may have a more compelling interest in stricter gun laws than a rural hunter’s paradise. So, Rudy was right in that gun control is up to the states to determine what is in their best interest — then the SCOTUS will be their to safe guard your rights to make sure each state’s restrictions are reasonable, narrowly crafted, and only to protect that compelling state interest. Our Government at work.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Whenever MB4 has no response he resorts to

speaking

butchering Spanish, quoting Mark Twain or making up really stupid song lyrics.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Amended.

The Race Card on November 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Don’t you hate when you snark turns dork?

The Race Card on November 7, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Reagan, as strong a Conservative and as popular a President as he was, supported several instances of gun control, including a very strong gun control measure in California. Therefore, why should Rudy’s stance on gun control disqualify him?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 3:36 PM

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM

I see your point now. And I do agree there are different circumstances. However, I do not believe that any state, county, or city government has the right to prohibit gun ownership. I think you and I agree on that much.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM

In short, you are what is part of the problem here. A candidate could be for amnesty for all illegals, open borders, lax precaution against terrorism… etc. Just so long as they are not “fetal idolaters” you’d support them.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Just to be clear, all I voted on was a set of local races and the only I had any opinion on was the mayor’s race. I handed out some pamphlets for the Republican candidate. Also, my biggest issues are immigration and the Islamic threat.

Why do we have these ridiculous local elections when we vote on judges that no one has any clue about?

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3