April 4, 2007

Where Rudy Lost His Groove

What a shame; Rudy Giuliani had been doing so well in convincing conservatives that he could represent them even while differing on social policy. He had advanced the argument that he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal bench, relying on textual references for Constitutional debates rather than "living document" notions that have driven conservatives up the wall. All of that work appears to have flown out the window with this CNN interview today:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city. ...

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

This is an absurd statement on two levels. First, while Roe v Wade acts as precedent for the Constitutionality of abortion, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide its citizens with what it allows. If that were true, the federal government would be required to arm every citizen. After all, the Second Amendment explicitly states that citizens have the right to bear arms, in language that actually appears in the document. If Giuliani's logic prevails, he should be arguing for a government plan to disperse guns, rifles, and ammunition -- as any impediment to access to a Constitutional right becomes the government's job to overcome.

On the second level, it is precisely this kind of judicial overreach that has put conservatives in a position to demand strict constructionists that will leave legislation to the legislature and to the states. Did Giuliani think that Republicans want to end judicial activism just to enshrine its idiocy of the past? Even conservatives who adopt the more libertarian position on abortion as a personal choice object to the government funding of those procedures under any circumstances. Personal choice does not equate to government financing -- which makes each abortion so funded a public policy by definition.

It's hard to see where conservatives of any stripe -- social or fiscal -- can support Giuliani after this assertion. He won't do anything to reverse abortion, and he wants to use tax money to fund them. If someone can find the conservative in there, as Giuliani argues, they must have to stare very hard into that abyss.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where Rudy Lost His Groove:

» Rudy: Free Guns for Everyone! from The Crimson Blog
Rudy Guiliani - the NRA’s best friend. No you say? From CNN’s Political Ticker: When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said “Yes.”"If it would deprive someone of a c... [Read More]

» Giuliani Also Inserts Foot from Ruminations of a Christian Conservative Geek
It's not just Nancy Pelosi that has foot-in-mouth disease today, seems she's passed the bug on to Rudy Giuliani. TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abor... [Read More]

» Truth and Hope Report: The Collapse of Rudy from Adam's Blog
The wheels are coming off for Rudy Giuliani as sympathetic bloggers turn after Rudy states his support for taxpayer funded abortion. Also, the Democrats don't want to call it the war on terror and the war on grassroots activists. Click here to downl... [Read More]

» Truth and Hope Report: The Collapse of Rudy from Adam's Blog
The wheels are coming off for Rudy Giuliani as sympathetic bloggers turn after Rudy states his support for taxpayer funded abortion. Also, the Democrats don't want to call it the war on terror and the war on grassroots activists. [Read More]

» Giuliani affirms support for public funding of abortion from Wizbang Politics
Bringing it up doesn't help him at all, but this is and has been his position all along. He hasn't tried to hide it. His approach is to convince pro-life voters to look at the whole range of his positions rather than focusing solely on abortion. [Read More]

» Constitutional Remedial Reading With Rudy Giuliani from seejanemom
Jane is a proud Constitutional Originalist. More specifically, a Textualist, or an originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution and is highly skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective intent. Rudy ... [Read More]

» Rudy Giuliani: Abortion Today, Abortion Tomorrow, Abortion Forever! from Blogs 4 Brownback
Most people who are paying attention realize that RINO Rudy is a pro-abort, pro-gay, gun-grabbing authoritarian who should never be given the keys to the White House. Why is this? People aren’t paying attention. This will hopefully change as t... [Read More]

Comments (30)

Posted by steve sturm [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 4:18 PM

Ah, does this mean I'm not going to be able to deduct the cost of my arsenal off my tax return? Glad I found this out today before I mailed in my return!

Posted by The Mechanical Eye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 4:28 PM

Yeah, Rudy is stretching it very far for social conservatives. As I am not a social conservative, this doesn't bother me as much as the Captain.

Guliani is taking a gamble - his hope is that with the early primaries, a huge base of moderates in Florida and California are going to take a look at statements like these and say SO WHAT? before pushing the polling button for him.

If he can pull off the fiscal conservative credentials with enough primary voters, he may yet win.

This be grow to be an untenable "if," however. We'll see whether the GOP has the stomach for it, in light of Bush's staggeringly bad approval numbers.


Posted by younger brother [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 4:36 PM

It's not only an indicator that Rudy isn't conservative, it's an indicator that Rudy doesn't know what conservatism/libertarianism is.

He really wouldn't even know how to sell a false perception that he embraces some conservative ideals because he has no reference from which to formulate that perception.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 4:49 PM

Oh, just about everybody has a "favorite son."

In the old days? You needed a good rabbi. To advance your chances. INSIDE smoke filled rooms.

It's one of the nice things about American politics; there really isn't one recipe that works every time.

What put Lincoln in the lead? The year was 1856. And, the WHIGS disintegrated.

How did the WHIGS disintegrate? They were unable to cope with the advancing immigrant population. So, they became "nativists." And, compromisers. Not so worry about slavery, after all. As they were the incoming waves of Irish Catholics. And, worse! Germans!

Well, go figa that hiding never helps ya; in the atmospherics around circuses.

And, Lincoln went into the "teepee" in Chicago, in 4th place.

So how did he win, you ask? Look it up.

Meanwhile, one clue is that Lincoln made no enemies; while the 3 top contendahs refused to shake hands. Refused to befriend anyone in any other camp.

So what happens?

The first misstep for Stanton (the favorite), was not to have ballots available "that night!" Because in the process of waiting for the printer to deliver the ballots; Lincoln worked behind the scenes. And, at the next set of votes, Stanton got less. And, Lincoln more.

Until our history, here, became inevitable.

Most Americans just go and vote. They were never part and parcel of the "inner sanctum" when men got to choose "the top of the ticket." Many times their choices stunk to the high heavens.

Worse! In every competition ONE MAN LOSES. And, the other goes into the White House.

Sometimes? You can tack a revolving door over the opening. Men get elected. But then are "turned out four years later."

So if you can grab onto your hats; you might see that Guiliani has done a marvelous job. Leaving the conservatives their choice, Dubya, just about in last place, now.

So, it's hard to mount something that will overtake the MAINSTREAM. As Bush floundered away from so many GOP voters, it's hardly likely that a "favorite son" of the conservative variety, will produce any better results than you got out of Anthony Kennedy, and Souter, when these less than conservative men got selected to sit and warm the Supreme-O's bench.

If you were in retailing; you'd know a few bad seasons would have tanked you by now. And, forced you into thinking about other lines of work.

While Guliani? Doing well in California. Pennsylvania. And, Ohio. With the possibility that he'd clean Hillary's clock in New York, as well.

Heck, Guiliani once beat the heck out of Dinkins. A small man. Who demonstrated a lack of competence.

Dubya? In a similar vein. Today. There are people who really dislike the man. He seems so innept. And, other than his "fwends" in the House of Saud; he seems about as clueless as condi. Whom he sends out to the Mideast on "quests."

Someday? Bush will get credit for killing the affirmative action idealists. Where we tried that. And, it came up wanting.

I don't think politics is a religious experience, either. And, while it doesn't feel like a millstone, yet; trying to put women and/or doctors in jail for performing abortions; would be about as successful as putting them in jail for having Botox stuck in one's face.

Once you've been Botoxed, you can no longer smile.

But two years of Bush sitting on his hands? I think most Americans are prepared for that. And, then? It will be hard for Iowa or New Hampshire to tamper with what puts a GOP nominee into position.

Still? A lot of this stuff is up to God. And, good health.

Favorite sons? Agnew was a Greek one. But only got so far.

Nixon? Did bad stuff. Most of it meant to show the world his power. Ended up getting brushed off by a few kids at the WaPo. "Halped" by the FBI, we now know! And, you could throw in the CIA. By any measure.

Actually, part of the reason there seems to be a bandwagon growing behind Fred Thompson, is a realization among conservatives that they haven't got anyone up there, yet to field.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:04 PM


Although I don't agree with Rudy G's position, you are jumping, in my opinion.

The complete transcripts are not available, trusting CNN's account is never wise, the term 'some' can be open to interpretation, and you have not provided the full intent of the Mayor's expession which was provided by CNN.

I question again, if some are jumping too quickly, and too far.

The former Mayor was referencing the 'poor', perhaps in terms of Rape, Incest, etc., whom he feels should be protected-aided by the Federal Gov:

"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."

When asked directly Wednesday if he still supported the use of public funding for abortions, Giuliani said "Yes."

"If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right," he explained, "If that's the status of the law, yes."

But the presidential candidate reiterated his personal opposition to the practice.

"I'm in the same position now that I was 12 years ago when I ran for mayor -- which is, personally opposed to abortion, don't like it, hate it, would advise that woman to have an adoption rather than abortion, hope to find the money for it," he said. "But it is your choice, an individual right. You get to make that choice, and I don't think society should be putting you in jail."

And the Giuliani campaign noted later in the day that the former mayor would not seek to make any changes to current law, which restricts federal funding to cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother...

"A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade," he said. "They can look at it and say, 'Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we'll over turn it.' [Or] they can look at it and say, 'It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.' Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that."

I am not protecting his expression, nor agree with the position, but the answer is simply larger than your post revealed, and we should all seek further explanation, for all candidates on all of the issues.

let's not create a fog out of already confusing issues.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:14 PM

So, where do I line up to get my government-issued printing press?

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:17 PM

Sorry Younger Brother,

but your expression seems confused.

'conservatism/libertarianism' makes little sense, and is somewhat a contradiction in terms.

there are a number of Libertarians these days, trying to sway, blur, confuse Conservatives with their agenda.

(* even many liberals who pretend to be libertarian, to undermine the support for the GOP).

Of course Rudy, who cleaned up NYC, would not be a Libertarian.

but no real Conservative is a Libertarian either.

Libertarians would have let NYC rot...

And their mantra, would not endorse the fight in the GWOT either.

President Reagan was no Libertarian, and the Gipper was not an isolationist, an alarmist, a reactionary, a protectionist, either, etc...

Posted by syn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:19 PM

It's impossible for Social Liberals to be Fiscally Conservative.

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:44 PM

I'm not a social conservative, but I do lean toward the fiscal Right. While Rudy's my #1 right now, the idea of state-funded abortions being a right makes me put a big check mark in the negative column.

Still, there are months to go, so let's see how this plays out before getting out the pitchforks and torches.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:45 PM

I really think abortion is too serious an issue to be left in the hands of our elected representatives.

For people on both sides, it has become critical to vote only for people who support the side you prefer. (This controlled my vote for 20 years, and I ended up with lots of other things I don't care for.)

We ought to settle it by direct referendum, state by state.

The SCOTUS (humor me here) ought to obey the Constitution and not disregard the will of the people. If a particular right is not found in the Bill of Rights*, then the SCOTUS should not create it.

*Explicitly, in plain language, the way the Constitution was meant to be used.

We should not need to care deeply what a given presidential candidate thinks this issue, because the issue should be basically out of his reach.

Roe v. Wade caused incalculable damage to our Constitution. By finding a "right" that wasn't there, the SCOTUS opened the door for everyone to find "rights" that aren't there--and half of these "rights" collide with rights that ARE there.

And if the Constitution needs to be updated to include some new right, well, there is a time-honored process for that. The fact that people go around that tells you how weak they think their case is.

Posted by younger brother [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:50 PM

Of course Rudy, who cleaned up NYC, would not be a Libertarian.

That is commendable but is doesn't make him conservative. There are a lot of loyal communist mayors in Chinese cities who run a well behaved city.

You wouldn't be able to make the case that Rudy is more conservative than LBJ. It would have never occurred to me 10 years ago that the Republican Party would be seeking a presidential candidate in the mold of LBJ in ten years. I guess the Democrats have won the war of ideas.

Posted by George [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 5:54 PM

I agree fully with the Captain on this one. Conservative Republicans have been cautiously optimistic about Giuliani. Agreeing with abortion is one thing; considering it a right that deserves taxpayer funding is over the line.

I think Giuliani may have blown a hole in his mainsail with these remarks.

Posted by BoWowBoy [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 6:40 PM

As I said in an earlier comment about Rudy Giuliani ..........he is sooooooooo liberal ....he makes George W. Bush look like a conservative.

Posted by Karen [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 6:58 PM

Bring on Fred Thompson. He is the kind of leader that conservatives AND moderates can support. If his only flaw was voting for that disgusting McCain fiengold bill, but if he falls on the right side of immigration control, war on terror, etc, then I can be enthusiastic about voting for him

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 7:42 PM

If his remarks to CNN are accurate (one must always question the veracity of anything at CNN especially DNC shill Wolf Blitzer nowadays) then Giuliani is not simply supporting an political view he's advocating social engineering. I am appreciative of how Giuliani overcame the NYC courts system to finally nail the Gotti organization and am appreciative of how Giuliani salvaged NYC from the ravages of David Dinkins. I see his advocacy of funded abortion as unwise because it now appears part of his platform along with gun control and various other activist central-control pursuits dangerously close to an Orwellian slippery slope. Keep in mind the next president will be making several Supreme Court nominations as activist judges Ginsberg, Stevens, and maybe even lazy Souter or Breyer may end up retiring or passing on. Even pompous Anthony Kennedy might finally decide to change his citizenship to one of those European nations he loves more than his own. The next president will indirectly decide whether eminent domain further trumps private property and whether or not pseudoscience will continue to influence USSC decision making.

I'm with those who see Fred Thompson as the preferable candidate who has chosen pursuits beyond lawyering and politics. Thompson has shown that politics is one option of many in his life not the sole purpose. Rudy still might someday make an excellent Attorney General to clean out the considerable rot in the Justice Dept. If nothing else he could make a point of investigating "Special Prosecutors Gone Wild" like Fitz and similar political hacks who in the wake of Scooter Libby's railroading has encouraged honest leaders that taking the Fifth is now the safest route to avoid entrapment or Nifionging.

Rudy as Attorney General certainly would be preferable to Mr. " Uh, I just work here. Who's Sandy Berger?" Gonzalez or everybody's favorite massacre specialist Janet "Barbecue" Reno. That's not saying much, however, to improve upon those two.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:12 PM

Special prosecutors gone wild" Why does the name Ken Starr ring a bell? Has Rudy lost his marbles, why would he say something like that in public? His primary opponets will run ads of that statement 24/7. He lost his senses.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:32 PM

If you want to watch the video:


Posted by KCrouch [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:52 PM

Rudy lost my support when he suggested that his wife would sit in on cabinet meetings. This self-absorbed idea trivializes him. He's just another aging politician, and a foolish one at that.

Posted by LargeBill [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 9:25 PM

The only conservatives foolish enough to be surprised by this never heard much about Giuliani before September 2001. He would only be considered a conservative in a state like New York where leftist senators like Clinton and Schumer are thought to be moderate. Some folks so wanted to like Giuliani they blinded themselves to who he is. Heck, I like the guy, but that isn't enough reason to make him president.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 10:04 PM

conservative democrat said:

"Special prosecutors gone wild" Why does the name Ken Starr ring a bell?"

LOL! The "Special Prosecutor" is an invention of the Democrat Party. That's all one needs to know.

However...I'd love some accurate and credible examples of how Starr "went wild". First of all, as I recall, he was personally approved by Bubbah to do the probe.

Second, during his probe, Clinton's high-priced lawyers (the best lawyers money could buy, as evidenced by the fact that the Clintons had to take several years after leaving office to repay them), wasted Bill's money by trying to advance totally hallucinogenic legal "theories" to prevent Clinton's subordinates from testifying against him. In at least 90 percent of the court rulings, Bill lost.

In addition, Kenneth Starr's sucessor, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr after his term expired) managed to get Bill Clinton to admit that he lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. Clinton agreed to surrender his law license among other slaps on the wrist.

Such a result isn't a "fishing expedition", especially when the fish you were going after had promised "the most ethical Administration in history" before he took office.

If a sitting President from any other political party had done the same things, the Democrats would demand he be taken out back and be shot.

And if so many law school professors didn't have their tongues so firmly attached to Bill Clinton's posterior, they would be teaching legal ethics classes about MonicaGate until 2107.

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 10:12 PM

Unless Ken Starr stole and planted the DNA on the famous blue dress then the evidence he found, disgusting as it was, simply represented Clinton's top priorities, penchant to molest the hired help, and Bubba's pathological allergy to speaking honestly. That is, unless one buys into those sad Vast Conspiracy theories floated by Satan's prom queen herself, low brow Carville and other hacks like so many black helicopters once claimed buzzing around poor paranoid Ross Perot's head.

Giuliani is preferable (in a choice of only those two) to Hillary under all conceivable circumstances but he's still a populist in a populist state controlled by a big , largely dependent-class populated main city. Now that he's on a national stage he's still speaking his mind as though he's still on the lecture tour. Schumer and Hillary realize that elections in New York State can be controlled by the City much like the Landrieus control Louisiana through corruption in New Orleans.

Giuliani rode in after finally getting the Gottis and in the wake of Dinkins' Naginesque squalor. So I'll agree he's a fluke in New York City politics yet leans toward those who thankfully chose him over Stalinist buffoons like Mark Green who'd have us in brown shirts before breakfast. To Giuliani's credit he has followed and enforced the law faithfully therefore he may be useful, especially after the GOP convention, for attracting some Democrats who haven't totally gone over the Socialist cliff. He could have helped keep the Red Queen out of the Senate but he bailed out early. He'll probably tire of this race soon too and will then be angling for a cabinet appointment while campaigning for the nominee.

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 10:58 PM

There is a lot about Rudy that I like but he lost considerable standing in my eyes in the Walters' interview when he said, gushing like a love struck teenager, that of course his wife would attend Cabinet meetings.

It was an answer given without benefit of time for reflection but it was clearly an emotional answer and the wrong answer.

I saw Romney being interviewd by Hannity tonight and he was the epitome of intelligence and calm. He was a good as any politician I have seen. It will be interesting to see if his religion is an impossible barrier. I see no other obvous weaknesses and, as I understand it his conservative credentials are solid, notwithstanding his previously weak position on the right to life.

It's no wonder he's raised so much money and it's amusing to see Chris Matthews demanding that his contributors reveal themselves and submit to some kind of litmus test. (Who would have known polygamists were such big contributors to political campaigns).

Posted by ohmyachingback [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 11:11 PM

What is all this nonsense that Rudy isn't conservative enough when it comes to abortion? Good drief, we've had a conservative in office for the last 6 years and I haven't seen any effort made to get Roe V. Wade overturned!! If Dubya couldn't get it overturned I don't think Rudy would be able to endorse anything that would make it easier to get an abortion. Nothing is going to change the status quo on this subject!!

I was so hopeful that Dubya would be the President I could support with enthusiasm. It's amazing what 6 years of a "compassionate conservative" has done to my enthusiasm. I keeo praying for Dubya to find the steel for his back bone; instead we have the weak guy on the beach with someone else kicking sand into his face. Heck, he's got a grandmother kicking sand into his face.

Enough with the "Mr. Nice" already. Rudy has chutzpah; I don't see him standing down with a "kick me" sign on his back. My second choice would be Fred.

I think "conservatives" need to take a good look at themselves. Dubya came into office and the GOP held the House and the Senate. Look where we are now; we've lost the House & Senate and unless conservatives get a grip on reality we're going to lose the White House too.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 1:14 AM

" If Giuliani's logic prevails, he should be arguing for a government plan to disperse guns, rifles, and ammunition -- as any impediment to access to a Constitutional right becomes the government's job to overcome."

I told you guys, when Giuliani doesn't respect the Constitution on ELECTIONS, he doesn't have the basic comprehension - or HEART - required to BE an ELECTED official - this statement just DEMONSTRATES it better for those who didn't see him personally licking his chops over the ancitipation of an Election-Set-Aside!

Giuliani hasn't got a basic grasp of the Founding Fathers, and what they were doing to insure freedom for Americans, he has all the potential of being a GOP version of Bill Clinton, in every single important way.

And in a RINO with powerful Socialistic tendencies, that is more unforgiveable than many foibles might be.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 1:28 AM

"I think "conservatives" need to take a good look at themselves. Dubya came into office and the GOP held the House and the Senate. Look where we are now; we've lost the House & Senate and unless conservatives get a grip on reality we're going to lose the White House too."

Posted by: ohmyachingback

That logic MIGHT make sense if Conservatives were interested in the GOP holding the White House and the Congress - but that isn't our GOAL.

Our GOAL is the CONSERVATIVE POLICIES making headway in all three branches of Government.

The GOP apparently doesn't share that goal at all.

About half the GOP shares the goals of the DIM Party Socialists.

We Conservatives aren't even MILDLY interested in voting for people who will ADVANCE the SOCIALIST agenda, regardless of the Party Colors they were.

We have no vested interest in any party that is advancing the causes of Socialism.

If the GOP isn't invested in our interests, we are NOT invested in the GOP Party.

We didn't work this hard for 35-50 years to see the GOP do to America what Dah Ahnold Man has done to California.

IF the GOP gives me a "Tom McClintock" to vote for, I'll be honored to vote for the GOP Candidate.

If they give me a John McCain, Rudi Giuliani, Newt, or Mitt, ETC... then the GOP has CHOSEN their target base - and it isn't ME.

I'll go to the polls and do write-Ins, like I did when the GOP put Robert Dole, or Gerald Ford on the ticket - I won't vote DIM or H. Ross Perot , but I won't vote RINO, either.

If the moderates want to insult the blazes out of us Conservatives and then demand we vote for their Socialist ENABLERS, they have my blessings to enjoy the consequences of their own actions.

It isn't as if they left me an option to enjoy the consequences of my own choices.

If I cannot have ANTI-SOCIALISM, then what difference does it make to me if they stuff Socialism or Socialism Lite into power, against our will?

If they don't like Socialism, then forcing us to vote Socialism Lite isn't going to save them from all the benefits of Socialism.

Reminds me of protesting vegetarians at the stock yards, harrassing the cowboys there, while themselves wearing leather shoes and belts and purses.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 1:36 AM

"And if the Constitution needs to be updated to include some new right, well, there is a time-honored process for that. The fact that people go around that tells you how weak they think their case is."

Posted by: Bostonian

You've hit the nail on the head.

And I don't need to vote for a Socialistic "GOP" member who is going to work bloody hard to advance the SOCIALIST Agenda of destroying our Constitution.

Posted by LargeBill [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 7:10 AM

Give Rose a gold star. She summed up the thoughts of conservatives very well. Her comments explain why Giuliani never really had a chance. It isn't that conservatives will cross over and vote for the Dem. No, his problem is most good folks just won't bother voting. In 1984 Reagan won in a landslide because he had firm convictions and explained his beliefs to the American people. Giuliani is attempting to get elected by telling some people one thing while assuring another group he would push for the opposite. In a socialist state like NY he was a successful mayor. Outside of NY he will be considered an ultra liberal despite the nuts in NY calling him an arch conservative.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 11:19 AM


"There are a lot of loyal communist mayors in Chinese cities who run a well behaved city."

well behaved?

is younger brother really 'comrade brother'?

sorry, just kidding...

but communists by definition do NOT run anything well, they oppress with massive taxation, and centralized power.

your example reveals more confusion.

what Chinese City are you referencing?
do you know Communist Mayors well?
do you equate Cities with small populations of like minded heritage and ethnic background to NYC?
do you embrace the free market?

Rudy successfully governed and reformed a city as big as a State in the USA, which was crumbling - rotting because of the misguided Democrat policies and liberal indifference.

his Conservative approach, using the law, tax reduction, free market, to return a crumbling welfare state of instability, to a positive one of order and opportunity. this is truly admirable.

it is foolhardy not to understand the grasp of the success of this Man's Leadership in NYC, as many believed it was simply not possible.

in fact, Democrat Liberals believed NYC was to be treated like the Soviet Union or Radical Muslim Terrorism, as if a major American City crumbling with rampant crime should be 'lived with', accepted, as a part of life.

a libertarian would have held similar beliefs...

(in fact, the libertarian belief to make a number of dangerous substances legal, the same drugs which created a great deal of the problems in NYC, would have proven disastrous.)

but the Conservative efforts of Rudy, quite similar to President Reagan in confronting the Soviet Union, was not willing to accept the status quo, failure, and proactively made an effort to restore a safe environment, a competitive free market, less taxation, a healthy community, which existed long before the foolish Liberal experimentation.

we see similar admirable endeavors led by GW BUSH in fighting the GWOT, to make a safer world for the future.

a true libertarian would not even support the Patriot Act, nor the forced removal of the Taliban...

this confusion between a libertarian and conservative is concerning.

perhaps someone, like the fine Captain, could explain the many, sincere differences sometime.

certain aspects can be comparable, but in the end (again), they are not really the same.

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 11:28 AM

sorry Rose...

Rudy is not a socialist.

the folly of empowering the Democrat Party, has only enabled the liberal agenda.

if one is not seeing the clear differences between the Republican and Democrats, they are simply not paying attention.

certainly, some were encouraged by a lot of hype on the internet, and some egos trying hard to be more Conservative than anyone else.

granted, there are some misguided Republicans, who run for Office, but the GOP has a sound Conservative record, and can be encouraged to maintain sound policy.

the reason you have had tax cuts in your life?

the GOP

the reason you have experienced a strong National Defense?

the GOP

Conservative Judicial Appointments?

the GOP

etc, etc, etc...

Some get tired, are natural cynics, become impatient, but it is unwise to undermine those serving (imperfectly) in one's interest...

Posted by younger brother [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 1:42 PM


I'm still waiting for you to make your case showing how Giuliani is more conservative than LBJ.

If that's too distant for you, tell me how he's more conservative than Lieberman.