And I would like to know what you think of him–what you like, what you don’t.
It’s obvious he’s quite imperfect, but let’s be honest, all the candidates are. Obviously, when it comes to immigration and our right to bear arms, we will have to remain vigilant and keep a very tight leash on the man. We are not electing a king, we’re electing a president. What I require in a president is not perfection, but the understanding that the Citizen is the sovereign, and his grasp of the importance and necessity to bend to our will. I do wish, however, he would stop making comments about how much he loves John McCain. That can stop now, thank you very much.
Being pro-choice and gay I also favor Giuliani. I realize this is where many of you depart from him, but my support is not based in the idea that he will do things for people like me, but that he will not use government to dictate to me what kind of life I can, or can not, live. Authentic Conservatism has nothing to do with restrictive religious principles invading government. In fact, it is the opposite. Authentic Conservative principles, in many ways, require liberal or non-religious social positions. This does not mean advocacy for a society without God–it means allowing religion and God to be an issue determined and controlled within society and the community, not within government.
By now you know me well enough to understand my appreciation of people of faith and the importance of the Judeo-Christian ethic in this country. But by its very nature, theocratic theory, the idea that it’s government’s business to legislate morality and the behavior of people, is the antithesis of small, unobtrusive government.
Mix a social moderate with a fiscal conservative, and you will have a government that will not grow into a monster, and not work to control every moment of people’s lives, while working to make sure we keep more of the fruit of our labor, the cutting of crime, and improving the quality of life by improving infrastructure and increasing personal freedom, not restricting it. I think that person is Rudy Giuliani.
I’m very curious where all of you stand at this point in time. First, I’ve grown to really respect all the regular Commenters, and truly want to know what you think, if you like him, if you don’t, and why. While we may not agree on some things, I know I’ll learn something from you.
Gun grabber. East Coast liberal. Lawyer. SteeeRYE Three, yer OUT!
I wish the separation of powers was a doctrine still believed in. We do not need officers of the court in the legislative or executive branches.
I don’t CARE what he did for New York, commendable as it is. He gives me the willies. I may be wrong but he impresses me as being every bit as likely to use the guns and badges of the State to enforce his whims as Hillary Cliton or Michael Bloomberg.
He comes across as a junior high boy’s vice principal with his sphincter sealed shut with Krazy Glue. That sneer of his is scarey.
Oh, and Rudy? Hang up and campaign!
I’m leaning towards Sen. Thompson, but have trepidations about him as well. I like his rhetorical commitment towards Federalism, and pray that if elected he’d govern along those lines.
I fear that a President Giuliani would have a lot of pressure to ‘fix’ problems and the will to do so. He wouldn’t be nearly as bad as any of the Democrats, but amongst the Republican nominees, he’s the most likely to try and ‘fix’ things in a ‘more gov’t is good gov’t’ sort of way.
I’d be more comfortable with a President Giuliani if he was paired with a Republican House and Senate, but given the likelihood he’ll have Dems in control of both, the urge to ‘compromise’ will be strong. A Pres. Thompson would be better at failing to ‘compromise’, I think, but if the Republican primary voters decide to go with Giuliani I will support him against his Democratic opponent whole heartedly.
TB wrote:
“It’s obvious he’s quite imperfect, but let’s be honest, all of the candidates are. Obviously, when it comes to immigration and our right to bear arms, we will have to remain vigilant and keep a very tight leash on the man. We are not electing a king, we’re electing a president. What I require in a president is not perfection, but the understanding that the Citizen is the sovereign, and his grasp of the importance and necessity to bend to our will. I do wish, however, he would stop making comments about how much he loves John Mc Cain. That can stop now, thank you very much.”
Isn’t what you listed above reason enough, Tammy? The guy is just NOT a conservative. Period. A conservative is what we need now. Electing him will just be more of the same of what we have had too much of. We need to have the balls to support someone significantly better this time. Someone who’s platform is more closely aligned with our conservative principals.
I can understand your quandary about the gay stuff but don’t be afraid of hardcore conservatives.
Most of us don’t care in the least what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom, or who they sleep with. Besides, as you have rightly pointed out, there is much more at stake this time round, like our country’s survival (from terrorism, the illegal invasion adversely affecting our cultural and economic landscape, and an impending socialist agenda from the left and some of the right!).
Besides, we LOVE the gays!!
I will probably come up with more at a later time and most likely will promptly climb atop my cyber soapbox and post my thoughts and/or outrage. Because just like you my dear, I too have an opinion on just about everything!
The two most important issues facing our country today are the lack of secure borders and the incremental degradation of our Second Amendment rights.
The last time I supported a President without a strong conviction for the security our borders he almost gave away the store.
He is the same President who was going to sign Clinton’s so called “assault weapons” ban if it crossed his desk.
I rallied in the streets of L.A. to support President Bush in 2000 and again in 2004 and yet he was very willing to sell out on both of my main issues… NEVER AGAIN!!!
I will only support a candidate that shares my convictions on these two very important issues.
Sorry, Tammy, but I can’t believe he’s the right guy for the job. He was great for New York six years ago, but POTUS is a whole different deal. Our border security is priority one for me and my family (aside from the obvious national security threat, we live in Arizona and live with the effects of illegal immigration every day). We’re also pro-life and want to bear our choice of arms. I believe that what we need is a conservative, and he’s not it. Unfortunately, as you’ve said, there’s not a perfect candidate out there for us yet…
Before you decide, Tammy, you should take a look at these three writings of a very smart woman:
Message to Rudy Giuliani: Don’t Bother
Giuliani Advocates Open Borders
Why Giuliani is not the Right Man.
I admire Mayor Giuliani’s honesty and find his personality likeable, but this man has no business calling himself a Republican. His views on gay rights and abortion are the least of our worries. He has a New York liberal’s phobia of guns, and I fear he’s a big-government pragmatist, not a conservative or libertarian ideologue. From what I hear he did as mayor (some of which, yes, resulted in less crime), he likes to use government to solve society’s problems. This is certainly not Authentic Conservatism. As the bumper sticker says: “’Solve’ and ‘problems’ are not in the Constitutionâ€.
At the same time, this is the man who made the statement, “Illegal immigration is not a crimeâ€,
which is more creative syntax than even President Bush has ever managed.
His speech to the NRA, while another exercise in admirable honesty, did not comfort me. He talked about respecting law-abiding citizens’ gun ownership, but there are other ways to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. You can oppose concealed and open carry, tax ammo to high heaven, and make a buyer wait two months before taking home the gun she purchased, while still claiming to support “law abiding citizens’ right to keep guns in their homes.â€
Many people whom I respect, including Steve Forbes and Rep. Peter King, have endorsed Giuliani. If you add yourself to that list, Tammy, I’ll understand why, but I fear that too many intelligent conservatives are jumping on the bandwagon of a man who is more liberal (and not just on religious issues) than George W. Bush.
I can appreciate the fact that Mr. Guilani is pro-choice and is okay with those of us in this world who are gay. From my own informal polls that I’ve taken at work, the first thing that comes to the mind of the majority of people is the moment that defined him to this nation: 9/11. I can respect this quick reaction to the terrorist attacks on that dark day in our nation’s very recent history. However, prior to this defining moment, he didn’t have as many fans. His dirty laundry was being plastered all over the news, granted, I do not judge on that behavior alone. However, I’m just not very impressed by the man. I know I’m opening myself to receive flack for this, but I do feel that whomever would have sat in his position on that day would have reacted, and would have had his/her face plastered all over the news. Therefore, I do not consider his actions on that day, enough to completely win over my vote. As much as I would love to have a pro-choice president who’s okay with the gays, it’s not going to win me over.
I am not pleased with his behavior of the whole, “Oh gee, my wife’s calling me, let me take this” act during his campaign speeches. I’m not thrilled with him traveling across the pond to take raise funds while sitting with Churchill’s descendant for his campaign.
I understand that he is not alone in telling us what we want to hear. Hell, I haven’t seen one candidate who I feel has been completely genuine as of yet. However, as much as I appreciate the stances that he has taken on certain positions that might not make him too popular to the conservative side, I’m still not won over. The next president is going to have to win votes from both parties, as well as from those of us who are independents. For that to occur, there does need to be, for the lack of a better term, a bit of cross-polinization.
Yet, I’m not truly sure he’s been completely candid with the people.
I’m not looking for a perfect president because, frankly, there is no such thing as a perfect person. However, I would like to see someone who admits to his/her faults, completely backs his “promises” on the campaign trail, and can actually fill his/her cabinet with the best people possible for those set positions. Above all, I would like to get behind someone who will ensure our nation’s security, and won’t cop out or lose his/her cohones when the going gets tough.
Perhaps, if in the general election it would be between him and Obama, I would probably vote for Mr. Giuliani. He’s the lesser of the two evils. It would be nice, just once, to be able to vote for someone. I have a feeling that I will not have that opportunity for this election.
First, I’ll answer the question. I tend to share GGR’s concerns about Giuliani. McCain was my first choice mainly because I think he shoots straighter than any other candidate. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. Then Sen. Thompson joined the race. If he made more of a concerted effort to “win” our vote I would easily change my mind.
Would you indulge me and elaborate on your comments? I feel like you’re saying something without saying it. “Authentic Conservatism has nothing to do with restrictive religious principles invading government” and you mention legislating morality. What “restrictive religious morals” are you afraid will invade government? (Well, it sounds like fear.) Honestly, as a conservative, I fear government growing more lenient and legislating immorality. And I certainly can’t imagine any reversals, e.g. abortion getting overturned. Maybe I’m not understanding your comments and concerns.
While I am leaning towards Giuliani as well, I cannot escape the notion that in supporting him we are getting another “compassionate conservative”. The current one is basically a watered-down version of John Edwards.
To his credit, Giuliani seems to be the only GOP candidate who is willing to take on Democrats. The rest of the Republican field seem to resemble Bush – constant bowing and scraping before the mud machine that is the modern Democrat party. That is, when they are not slipping knives into each others’ backs.
The flap over General Patreus was the final straw for me. Bush was among the very last to defend the general who is winning the Iraq war. Coupled with the amnesty debacle, the Bush Presidency seems to be determined to self-destruct. Only Democrat stupidity – believe it or not, they are all vastly bigger idiots then “W” – is keeping Bush’s nose above the rising waters.
Touché, AshleyMatt.
Giuliani strikes me as the executive version of a judicial activist where the ends justify the means.
The gun issue in NY is a prime example. Trample the Constitution “for a good cause”.
That said, Rudy is preferable to any of the Dem candidates. It’s too bad none of the Republican candidates pass muster on all the issues.
I align most with Hunter who has a snowball’s chance. Newt would be my first choice on the issues but 1) he’s not running and 2) I question his ability to actually function as a president.
You’re all acting like anyone of the candidates can win nationally. You are deluding yourselves. Rudy is the realistic and the inevitable candidate, like him or not. The rest of the field is pathetic.
Thompson – style over substance. This Davy Crockett, country boy routine is insulting and will wear thin fast. He’s listless and boring to boot.
Romney – a suit and a haircut. A hollow man on a vanity quest. He’ll probably do well in New England and Michigan in the primaries. Otherwise, nobody seems interested in him. Thank goodness.
McCain -a megalomaniac subject to fits of rage. It would be irresponsible to make him the most powerful man on Earth. Fortunately he has burned so many bridges, he won’t get the nomination. Please Rudy, do not make him your veep candidate.
Tancredo, Hunter (my personal favorite), and Huckabee are the truest conservatives and they are buried in the dust. They would not be able to carry a national election.
So, it is Rudy, a candidate fraught with faults and covered with targets for the EM and the Dems to aim at. Single issue conservatives will shriek and make threats. I too think he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. That is a good thing in the context of this election. He won’t press on gun control issues. He will be mucho trouble on immigration. My big concern is he’s a global warming believer. While not a nutcase, he will accommodate the zealots. Every aspect of life can be hooked into the global warming scam. That means big time government intrusion every which way.
This is one fine mess we’re in. Rudy, heaven help us, is our best bet. I’m not even going to try putting on a happy face about it. It’s a stop Hillary, life or death election that is going to wind up badly win or lose. Hillary can be defeated. She can be her own worst enemy with her wicked stepmother personality and her penchant for shooting herself in the foot with ideas like $5,000 for every newborn child. It will be a close call, maybe even miraculous. If the economy starts showing signs of trouble which is very possible, it will take a miracle.
Conservatives have a symbiotic relationship with the Republican party and that is a problem for us this time. The conservative movement can’t survive just on talk radio and the blogosphere. We need to bring up new leadership within the Republican party. God bless the religious right. For your own sake keep with a solid front against the Stalinist Dems. For everyone’s sake, please keep the preaching to Sundays. Single issue conservatives: live to fight another day.
I am a Fred Thompson gal myself Tammy. I suppose as a Conservative, I see my party drifting so severely from its core principles that I want someone who can bring my party back to its origins. Rudy is not a favorite in the Conservative bloc, except ( and this is his selling point) on the war, terror issue. It is not that I could not vote for him if he wins the nom’; it is that I want to have that same determination to get ‘my guy or gal’ elected.
What I Like About Rudy:
His principled determination to destory terrorism. It is here that he ‘has’ the Conservative base. We all remember when he told that Saudi prince to take his check and shove it..
His leadership. Proven. I yearn for that. As Churchill is one his heroes that is a plus in my book..
His take on judges. I don’t know if he is a strict Constitutionalist, however, I have heard him speak on the issue and he seems to be someone who will appoint Justices that we not legislate..another point he should push more strongly..
What I don’t like..
His stand on abortion. I am pro life Tammy. It is here that we disagree and this is a HUGE stumbling block for me and those that feel as I do.
Guns.
Rocky relationship with me on this one. I am strong strong advocate of the 2nd A..I worry about his gun control leanings..
Immigration:
Way way too wishy on this one.
I will not hog more space, as I could go on..
Could I vote for Rudy? Yes, but he has a long way to go before I feel as if I am not just doing so because I fear Hillary, however…that may be reason enough..
I am more Libertarian than most of my Conservative brother and sisters..gay rights, I am for..live and let live is my motto..but I know my Conservative friends want this nominee to be one they can truly support. Bush burned them big time..and they and I still feel the sting.
Interesting that there are so many negative comments from my fellow Brucies.
I’m too much of an oddball to think that my preference is important. I took one of those polls and the candidate closes to my views was Duncan Hunter. I like him but don’t know if he could beat The Hillinator. I want to win the war (the election and the real one). I’ve always been concerned that Mr. Giulliani would not play well outside of the New York area. He seems to have a way to get pro-life citizens to support him by nominating non-judicial activist to the Supreme Court and (I think) having a more states rights approach to the issue. That sounds OK to me. I don’t believe the polls which now put Rudi 10 points behind Mrs. Clinton. But it could be true because of what I mentioned about this New Yorker playing to the rest of the country. Plus, most Manhattanites will automatically vote Democrat. He should definitely be in the next cabinet (if his ego permits) as should most of the front runners and Mr. Hunter. But who will lead it? I like Mitt Romney. He’s not an empty suit but a smart, successful and really likable man. I have come to the point where I personally don’t mind The President’s inarticulateness.
Maybe because I’ve grown to like him and trust that I know where he stands even if I disagree with his views. And I lived and traveled abroad for many years and had to talk with people whose first language was not English. What’s important is communication not technique. But I’m odd and most people need to be sold something by a flashy sales pitch and then expect a leader who sounds authoritative. Mitt talks real good. He’s appealing and somehow I think he will make Americans feel comfortable and safe. He’s very good on all the issues, I believe. Calling him a flip flopper is unfair. Tammy changed so did I. I will of course support who ever wins the primary. That’s my 2 cents.
I’m a very pro-life Catholic who is warming up to the idea of Rudy, as well. I believe he is pitch perfect on the Middle East/Islamofascism. I think that’s the key issue of this election. He has shown himself an able executive. He could withstand Hillary’s attacks, just like he has with any of his past wives. What’s one more shrew to Rudy? I would hope that he would make many formerly dark blue states competitive. It would frost the Clinton machine to actually have to prosecute New York and California for the delegates. I believe his best running mate would be Huckabee. Both of them are executives. Huckabee could assuage the Midwest and South while Rudy campaigns in the Northeast and West. Both are the only non-legacy candidates and both are from modest backgrounds. The Italian heritage is a plus.
I don’t slight him his family foibles. Abraham Lincoln’s home life was a mess, too. And, as a lifelong public servant, he chose his career over his family. Not a great choice for little Andrew, but thank goodness he was in NYC in the 90s.
Well, for crying out loud, you guys are driving me to a martini! Yeah, I’m learning something–you all have minds of your own despite my daily attempts to make you into Tammytrons, or as The Word Drum notes, “Brucies.”
In response to Ashley, one thing (of many) I pledged when I left the Left was to keep an open mind, be realistic, and be capable of changing my mind. While many of my concerns about Rudy are not gone, I also look at the rest of the lineup–and I’m not impressed. Yes, of course, I like Tancredo and Hunter very much, but let’s be honest–they can’t beat Bill Clinton’s enabler. I think Rudy can.
And don’t forget, when I was against Rudy, I was also all for Newt. It was Newt this, Newt that, Newwwwwt!!!! I loved him, and I still like him, but it’s amazing what a year will do.
More soon. I must go shake my martini, of which I will be able to drink half before it makes me drunk. Sigh. And you all keep going. Not that you have opinions or anything 😉
My post is long, pointless, and did I mention ‘long’? Doesn’t really have an answer, but is just a whine. Sorry, but I’ve been reading Reagan quotes for awhile and looking at these sad excuses for candidates just makes me want to weep at the thought that Ronnie is gone. Most of these guys make Bob Dole look exciting.
No matter who we choose as conservatives, we wind up settling. As someone else said, Tancredo and Hunter are the only true conservatives and they have zero chance. I like their stances, but they have zero charisma. Shame.
Fred Thompson? I don’t know if he even cares yet. With the excitement building this summer, I expected big noises from him when he announced. My Rice Krispies are making more noise than his campaign. Isn’t he still driving around Iowa or something?
Ron Paul just scares me. Not that everyone who supports him is crazy, it’s just that every crackpot republican supports him. He’s promising to get rid of lots of govt stuff that he frankly would not be able to get rid of as POTUS. Every election needs the crazy uncle I guess. Anybody else notice that he finishes first in any poll where voters can cast multiple votes, but if the voter can only cast one vote, Paul doesn’t fare very well?
Last, but not least, we have the RINO pen. Guiliani, Romney and McCain. Then again, I could be wrong. These 3 guys could actually BE republicans these days. How low have we sunk as a party? How F***ing sad is it that we consider any of these guys republicans? McCain I wouldn’t trust with the keys to the men’s room, much less our southern back door. Will the real Romney please stand up? I don’t know if this guy believes what he says or not. I’d need him on a lie detector every time he gave a speech. Or at least crib notes to compare what he’s saying now to what he actually did as governor in Mass. Think for a moment. If he was really a republican, how in the hell did he get elected governor in Massachusetts??????? Helloooooooooooooo?
Saved the best for last. Mr. Guiliani. Loved him as mayor. Not MY mayor though. And not as POTUS. It’s just not the same job. He’d be a hawk on WoT and foreign relations, but he’s a domestic liberal. LIBERAL, no MODERATE. Sorry, TB, but Guiliani is as socially moderate as John Edwards (okay that was an exaggeration, but not a big one). You may want to kiss Snuffy goodbye too. Guiliani will do his best to protect us from muslim threats, but he’ll gladly keep the border a sieve since illegal immigration isn’t a crime. When the dems finally pass their idea of socialized medicine in the House or Senate does anyone really think that Guiliani would say ‘no’? Do you believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy too? Face it, folks. The truth is that Guiliani is Bush all over again, top to bottom.
Is this what we’re down to—picking the most palatable way to hasten the demise of the country? Pardon me if I can’t get excited.
I’m overly cynical, yes, but for anyone to generate any real enthusiasm for ANY of these guys takes more self-deception than I can muster at the moment. Maybe I can lie to myself better later.
The only thing keeping me interested at all is that having a democrat in the White House (with a dem congressional majority) scares the crap out of me.
Tammy
I love you dearly and still hope and pray for the day you re-examine your views on abortion through the lens of Judeo-Christian principles of morality you have come to embrace.
I have told you before how amazed I am at your journey, your self-honesty and your personal search for truth. I think of you now standing at the threshold of a door and somehow you just can’t yet bring yourself to step across.
Abortion is such a tremendous and profound issue. It is, I think, in many ways a litmus test of morality. Where one stands on the value of human life is very telling and often indicative of ones place in the moral spectrum. While at the same time as a society we have allowed the issue of abortion to become so obfuscated because of the political implications. Abortion is too often about power, political power.
The fact remains that by far the greatest number of abortions are simply “apres-sex” birth control. All the talk about rape, incest, health of the mother, etc and we forget those cases make up a very small percentage of abortions – it is mainly a means of terminating an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy.
Here in LA we have official county vehicles with bumper stickers that say “Don’t abandon your baby”. Is it so hard to see we have created a society in which human life is cheapened by rampant abortion After all, tossing a newborn in a dumpster is not too far removed from vacuuming one out of a womb, is it?
You are the one whose excellent book is entitled The Death of Right and Wrong”. There are many of us who see societal acceptance of abortion as perhaps the single greatest example of this very problem.
As long as Guliani is pro-choice a lot of the people who read your book and personally resonate with so much you say are going to have a very difficult time supporting him.
Oh. one more thing. All laws are based on a concept of right and wrong, and where does that come from if not from religion and faith? We legislate morality every day; you cannot murder, you can not have sex with children, you cannot lie (congress is apparently exempt on this issue), you cannot take that which is not yours. Each of these is no more or less a moral issue being legislated than would be abortion. It’s just the sex part of morality we don’t want legislated, as you have also described in your book.
Do I think Guliani is a better choice than Hillary? Of course. Would I rather hope to see a pro-life Republican overtake and beat Guliani? you betcha! And I still think a true conservative with an ability to clearly articulate conservative values and principles (such as Reagan) could beat Hillary in 08!
I will support Rudy against ANY of the Dem nominees should he be the guy. In the mean time, I am not fully, 100% behind him though my own little civil war continues…
This time last year, I couldn’t wait for him to run. Then I grew wary prior to his official announcement. It is almost as though a vote for Rudy will give us ‘more of the same’ – an extention of the Bush era (which has just really been one big headache after another for a while). Considering how much Rudy fawns over McCain these days, I am also concerned he will appoint McCain to a prominent post – and it’s not going to be the ‘post’ 97% of us would like to give McCain for the amnesty crap he put us through!
You know, we are all finding ourselves in a rather awkward state right now, aren’t we? We didn’t expect our current president to sell us (or his own party) out. Perhaps we are better off expecting the unexpected – not for the purpose of avoiding disappointment – but so we do not assume anything. We really have to take it upon ourselves to beat big government down and be proactive in demanding better leadership.
Maybe this will be a step forward in really questioning ourselves about what is truly important for this country’s survival. If we get Hillary – or any of the Dems currently running – we can forget about debates on abortion, global warming, immigration, health care, education, etc. Though I disagree w/ Rudy’s position on some social issues, I do believe he would protect the positions taken by both the pro-lifer and the pro-choicer, the global warming alarmists & not-easily-manipulated; the dog and the cat, etc.: I tend to think he’d let us ‘fight it out’ – That’s my hope, at least.
As for gay marriage – even as a gay woman, I could care less. Hey, at least we can’t be blamed for the divorce rate right now!
What we could count on with Rudy is that he is a far better communicator, he does have ideas, has cut government & taxes in the past, and he did piss off the Saudis – something I have not heard another leader do. And he did make the UN pigs pay for their own parking tickets instead of forcing New Yorkers to foot the bill.
I just really want what’s best for the country more than anything. And I want the best person possible. This country is too valuable for us to put into the clutches of Cruella Deville.
Being that it is a year and a month until election day, I just don’t know what direction the wind will take me. So much can happen between now and then. I find it a matter of listing my issues and putting them in order of importance/priority.
1. protecting our dear and magnificent country from radical islamofacists.
2. shrinking govt expenditures back from the edge of absurdity.
3. reining in illegal immigration and prosecuting employers who continue to break the law.
4. turning our healthcare system upside down to a consumer-driven system. (God forbid we end up with a nat’l. government rationed socialistic health system)
5. potential Supreme Court justice nominations.
Rudy may well be my only choice when all is said and done, but I don’t feel terribly confident with him right now. I fear he may be a bit too soft domestically, and might find that our tax $$ burn holes in his pockets. I am one of those weirdos who is both pro-life and pro-choice. I believe abortion is a woman’s choice, however I think it is the WRONG choice… but I prefer a pro-life POTUS.
I am liking Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee right now. Romney seems to be a good guy, but he’s not resonating with me. McCain is a goner, thank goodness… he’s become a bit of a wingnut in the last couple of years. Thompson intrigues me but hasn’t shown the energy and fire that I expected. I agree that Newt wasn’t the guy for CEO this time, but he is an absolute necessity in the next admin’s cabinet. I think Ron Paul elevates the discussion quite a bit… except when it comes to Iraq. I believe him to be an honest man, a man of his convictions, and the least ‘professional politician’ (which IS very attractive) of all of them… but, I don’t want him to be the POTUS, he’s not qualified.
So, it will depend on who survives the primaries. Then I will be able to determine how my priorities fit with theirs… and who can realistically beat moveon.org’s manipulations and puppets.
I’d pretty much echo Tammy’s thoughts about why Rudy might be the best choice. He achieved an impressive track record of accomplishment (and of course 9/11 crisis management) when he ran the NYC government; that’s a basis for cautious optimism that he might make headway against the analogous intransigent environment in DC. In an imperfect world, he’s an imperfect candidate, but I think he’s the only one with the star quality to stand a chance against Hillary — and she will be difficult to beat at best. On the con side, his troubled family history brings his personal judgment into question. But Hillary’s own domestic history doesn’t leave her in a position to cast stones. My modest goals for the Federal governments: National security from enemies (including border control), fiscal and regulatory restraint, appointment of judges who shun judicial activism, and minimal political debt owned to moonbats.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!
This is so frustrating!
We conservatives complain that there isn’t much difference left between the two parties…that we wish we had a choice that didn’t involve settling with a lesser of two evils.
We have a couple of choices this time in Tancredo and/or Hunter but it seems as though all of the posters here have already written them off as ‘not being able to carry a national election’.
Well, why is that? Would someone PLEASE explain this to me. I mean, is it only a money issue? And if so, why don’t we all contribute heavily to those campaigns instead of to the RNC? The fact that there are real conservatives running this time and STILL they are overlooked by voters that claim to be so, is astonishing to me!
This country is almost divided in half between Conservative and Liberal (with the Left as the lunatic fringe). Therefore if the half of us that were conservative actually supported a conservative candidate, this country could finally have what it needs and we would be able for the first time since Reagan, to vote with a clear conscience.
Call me naive if you will, but have we become so jaded politically that we willingly count out the good men that would truly represent us? Have we been so brainwashed my the left leaning media to believe that the conservative candidate has no chance?
This only seems to reinforce the utter resignation of a people in a country in decline, and that even when America is given a chance, finally, to defeat the opponents of what we hold dear, what we cherish, that we will inevitably, shoot ourselves in the foot once again.
If and/or when Giuliani is elected (God, forbid it would be Hillary) these blogs should be pretty empty of any complaining, as Giuliani seems to be the one a lot of you guys are willing to settle with.
I think that’s weak as hell!
While his perceived take-charge leadership on 9/11 was inspiring at the moment, his lack of judgment before and after on several issues (where he put the Command Center, his pandering to illegals, the total lack of personal morality in marriage) makes him unworthy to lead this great nation.
I heard Rudy speak in Chicago last fall. He is impressive on the business side of things. But in the primaries we all need to support the person who most closely matches our own beliefs on the issues. In the general elections, we may need to settle for the lesser of two evils.
Right now, issue for issue, Mike Huckabee is my guy.
girlsgotrhythm is right. This is the real reason our American dream is perishing… because too many of us sit back and don’t fight the downward slide. We speak of “imperfect candidates” who we vote for “because they can beat Hillary”. All the time ignoring the fact that, with each compromise candidate, we’re slipping deeper and deeper. This is a rigged game, folks. Give me a president who will stand up to the Left and fight the fights that need to be fought. Not just roll over, capitulate, and say it is “a compromise” or “expedient”. We’re ruled right now by a Good ‘ol Boys/Girls Club, whose only interests are their own and staying in the Club. And it’s our fault.
So to answer the question, if my only choice come election day is Rudy or Hillary (I’m not sure which one is the Douche and which is the Turd), I’ll march down to the polling station like a good little subject and press the button for Rudy.
But I won’t be excited, and I won’t send him a dime. All my political money and energy is going to Tancredo.
If Rudy wins the nomination, then he will get my vote; however, I am concerned about his wavering stances on gun control and–especially–immigration. His recent comments that illegal immigration is “not a crime” did not go over well with me. Otherwise, I find Rudy quite likeable on a personal level. Kind of the way I felt about Bush (red flag?!)…
Huckabee may not stand a chance, but he is my favorite candidate so far.
Hi GGR –
Not too long ago, I was pulling completely for either Hunter or Tancredo. I like them. They have a more conservative record than the other candidates, and I genuinely believe either man puts America’s best interests at heart before his own. I have even posted w/ similar concerns you have: that we are voting for ‘who can beat Hillary’ moreso than who is the best candidate.
Granted, there is still time. But Tancredo & Hunter have a visibility problem and it makes them both vulnerable when faced w/ the Clintons. And this is serious.
We cannot underestimate just how clever the Clintons are – they are deceptively brilliant campaigners! I keep hearing people make the naive assumption of ‘when people see who she really is, they are not going to vote for her’ – uh – we’ve known her for 15 years and it hasn’t stopped her from gathering a noticeable following.
I haven’t completely backed Guiliani yet, and I struggle for the same reasons many on this post do. But we have to be realistic: Guiliani can take Hillary to task! He has been visible for about as long as she has. We know he has flaws – personally and publicly. There are few surprises there. He will not be as vulnerable as Tancredo or Hunter when faced with The Clinton Machine. Plus, he is able to lead – no question about that.
There’s so much more I wish to elaborate on , but I’ve gotta get to work. I’ll post later.
Have a good one, everybody!
I did give Duncan Hunter money. He hasn’t budged from his also-ran status and the primaries begin in less than 4 months. His campaign isn’t lighting any fires. Same goes for Tancredo and Huckabee. Time is running out.
I didn’t say Romney was stupid or uncharming. On the contrary, he’s a polished salesman who thinks he can talk you into anything. It’s unbelievable that his flip-flops which were so perfectly timed for the circumstances came from a core conviction epiphany.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Conservatives are stuck with the Republican party. The party brought forth moderate/liberal choices this time. The Wall Street country club Republicans think we conservatives are bringing down the ship and are tossing us overboard. Look around you. That’s deep shark-infested water we’re in–thank you very much George Bush. You can be proud and drown on principle or do what is necessary to stay alive. The Republican party must win this election. What the Stalinists can do in 4 years will take generations to undo, if ever. Stay alive, then takeover the ship.
I still haven’t made up my mind about who to vote for President. My thoughts are lining more up around getting rid of the congressmen/women that seem to be causing more harm then good at this point. Harkin, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, the list is pretty endless. If push comes to shove though, and I have to make a choice…I liked Thompson, but he is not stumping very convincingly. I really like Newt, but he is a no go…so I am still looking at Huckabee. I grew up in Arkansas, so I know who is…I just don’t think the rest of the country wants another Arkie after the hill and bill show. For some reason, it looks as though the Republicans AGAIN, as in 1992, are purposely trying to lose this election. Giuliani I could live with. He may be able to less hated by the Dems then Bush and maybe some important work can get done. It is frustrating not to have a passionate candidate to back. But they just aren’t there.
Very well said, Pat S!
If Rudy is the GOP nominee, I’ll vote for him. Maybe not in the primary.
This time around, I don’t care about the candidates’ personal life or how many times he’s been married. The candidate who promises me the biggest pile of dead jihadis gets my vote.
The absolute number one priority that eclipses all others regarding the 2008 Presidential Election is that some ignorant, vicious, totalitarian leftist ass (a description of every Democrat running) not be elected, and in fact, as soundly and thoroughly trounced as George McGovern and Michael Dukakis. So far it looks like Guiliani is the only one capable of doing that.
Senators Thompson and McCain learned their national politics in the Senate, a notoriously rotten place to learn anything. Two men were elected from the directly from the Senate in the 20th Century: Warren G. Harding who gave us Teapot Dome; and John F. Kennedy who gave us the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as the assassination of Allies Diem and Ky. Senator Thompson has the advantage over McCain of being out of the Senate for a few years.
Rommney has the advantage, as does Guiliani, of being a Republican elected in a Democrat/leftist stronghold, and not being contaminated by the lice in the Senate. But his poll numbers against the Democrat flakes aren’t as good as Guiliani’s at this point, although a poll result now along with a cup of coffee will get you some liquid caffeine.
But Guiliani’s strong point it seems to me is his promise to appoint judges that will adhere to the wording of the Constitution. Since a President can do nothing about Roe v. Wade, but Judges can; and since, thanks to the intervention of Divine Providence, we have the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which has interpreted the 2nd Amendment as it should be interpreted according to both liberal and conservative legal scholars–it means an individual right to own firearms–then Guiliani’s promise about judges is more important than his personal views on just about anything. He is also capable of telling you exactly how he will get things done, unlike the totalitarian shrew, the junior Senator from New York (another incompetent Senator running for President).
To answer your question Tammy, there is absolutely nothing I like about the man except, and this is the biggie, he’s not Hillary.
Barring a totally unexpected and unanticipated development (and this may occur even as late as election eve), it’ll be Rudy v. Hillary in 2008. Talk about offering poison for food and poison for antidote!
The only reason I’ll vote for Rudy is I cannot stomach listening to, as Jimi Hendrix said, “your superior cackling hen” for four years.
Yes, we do have the worst form of government in the world – except for all the others.
I’ll join you in that martini, Tammy, only mine will contain rubbing alcohol (highly recommended by Kitty Dukakis).
Bottom line for me in NOT supporting Guiliani has to do with securing the border and illegal immigration. He JUST DOESN’T GET IT!! These two issues are about keeping this country safe and preserving the American culture and our sovereignty. How much would you like to wager that the next terrorists to attack this country will come across our essentially open borders (if they haven’t already)? If we aren’t safe–not only from terrorists but ALSO violent criminal illegals–nothing else really matters. Judges, government spending, abortion rights–none of it.
One thing we can all agree on, and that is ultimately uniting to make sure Hillary (or any other Dem in the field) doesn’t win.
And GGR is right. It’s wrong that we are going to compromise and settle for less than what would ultimately be best.
I think Rudy is the smartest, most competent executive and has more integrity than all the other candidates. I’ve been a fan of his all the way back to the Eighties when he took down Michael Milkin and Drexel/Burnham/Lambert as NY DA. Then what he accomplished as NY Mayor was truly miraculous.
Rudy not only talks the talk …he walks the walk and gets things done. I will feel very comfortable when he becomes President and pity the jihadists.
“Authentic Conservatism has nothing to do with restrictive religious principles invading government. In fact, it is the opposite. Authentic Conservative principles, in many ways, require liberal or non-religious social positions. This does not mean advocacy for a society without God–it means allowing religion and God to be an issue determined and controlled within society and the community, not within government.”
*wild standing ovation*
At the moment, I’m pretty much supporting Rudy for president. He’s definitely not perfect, like you said, but I’m looking at the choices out there and…well…they are less than wonderful, let’s say. Even now, though, my support for Rudy is dwindling due to his stance on guns and illegal immigration.
I begin my selection process with the proposition that our president should be merely the servant who takes out the trash, locks the doors at night, has a gun in his bedroom to use against intruders, keeps my checkbook balanced, and does not try to change me or my life. He/she doesn’t have to be a Phi Beta Kappa or a Rhodes Scholar. He/she doesn’t have to be good looking. He/she doesn’t need to speak like Demosthenes. Neither Hillary nor Giulani seem to fit my template: a feminist socialist with an agenda and an East Coast lawyer with an urban perspective of running people’s lives and implementing social change. I haven’t decided whom I’d vote for in the primary. Pickings are slim.
I love the fact that Rudy rescued New York City from the depths of David Dinkins’ inept mismanagement and turned it into the once-again model city that it now is (to the point where reigning autocrat King Bloomberg the Independant can continue to ride his still-flowing coat tails).
I love the way he stepped up after 9/11. I hate the way he forgot what caused 9/11 in the first place and continues a misguided stance on immigration. I’m not crazy about the way he feels on guns. Social issues are nothing more than the outer left and right wing’s tool for muddying up an election, so they don’t hold a lot of water with me.
Bottom line is, I’m still waiting to be bowled over by a candidiate – ANY candidiate. I should point out that I’ve also been waiting for another Reagan for the last 19 years, and that’s not going so well, either.
If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I’ll obviously go with Rudy – but I won’t feel as strongly about it the way I did when I pulled the lever for him against the thoroughly awful Dinkins. In any event, then, like now, it was no contest.
I too support Rudy.
He is the right candidate at the right time.
I too am a very strong gun supporter, but I believe for the time being we have won that issue. Even the Dems won’t bring it up, because it is a losing issue for them.
Keep Snuffy. Everything else can be resolved or changed.
Honest to goodness I like Giuliani…up to a point. However, regarding the Second Amendment, I am seriously concerned that he might just be the most capable candidate in terms of restricting our right to keep and bear arms. Hillary is obviously the easiest target here because of her party and her open disregard for the Second Amendment. However, Giuliani really has a lot of potential to make law, he changed New York, and has been a move active opponent of the gun industry…key word active rather than vocal.
If you care about the Second Amendment that our Founding Fathers carefully chose to bestow upon us, Giuliani is more than a little scary.
I wish Fred had gotten in earlier.
I love the comments! Tammy peeps are great.
I normally rely on my first instinct because I trust my discernment about people and situations. So when Rudy’s name first started floating around I thought, “Yes, he’s the one. He was great after 9-11.” (Just as I thought about George W.) But then the water was muddied by Rudy’s position on guns and the border. I am a conservative and a Christian, but don’t care about his position on abortion at all. He needs to pledge that he would not push for gun control.
Then Fred came on the scene. I know for sure he would not push gun control or the abortion issue. So what I want to hear from each of them in more detail is how they would conduct our war against islamic terrorists (here and abroad) and our war at the border. If one of them said they would get rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security, that’s who I would vote for!!
I was reminded by Ann Coulter of something this morning…lately when we nominate someone we think is “electable” we always lose! (Dole, Bush Sr.)
Bascially, I still feel torn.
This is my second posting on this subject and for that I apologize. I consider it rude to submit multiple postings—hogging the road. However, I must say one more thing directly to Tammy.
Tammy, help us keep our gun(s) and we will try to protect your freedoms and we will will certainly protect your life. It is very important. See QB’s posting.
Question!
Would my hero, Ronald Reagan be elected today by conservatives?
He was divorced!
Two of his children would hardly speak to him!
He was a Democrat for most of his life and was a moderate on several issues!
Our choice is going to be Hillary/Bill along with Hollywood, George Soros, Move-On and a host of others guiding this great country or _______?
I have two beautiful grandchildren and my #1 concern is radical Islam and the long war against terror. It is going to take someone with great courage to continues this fight.
This is a sad state of affairs.
Giuliani said that he thinks gun regulation should be left to the state and local authorities. When pressed he said it may be necessary for certain locales to ban privately held guns altogether. The federal constitution is supposed to protect us against locals trying to take away constitutional guarantees. Rudy G., Mit Romney, John McCain are all collectivists, just like Bush, Elder Bush, Bill Clinton and all the top Dems. Hillary is a flat out socialist, right down to her red Mao jacket. My money is on Fred Thompson. Not because he’s some great thinker, but because they call him lazy. I want a lazy man that will be obstructor-in-chief. I want him to stand in the way of all this wild spending, and vow to veto and read outloud on TV every earmark and who inserted it into a bill before he vetos it. Unfortunately the candidate that actually understands the economy and what the politicians and the FED are doing to the underlying fiscal health of our nation is Ron Paul. He, unfortunately does not articulate is positions very well and his opponents cut him off and paraphrase misrepresentations of what he said back at him. He is not forceful enough to jump in and set the record straight, which is a big weakness. I am afraid that I have become a one issue voter. It’s 2nd ammendment first, and foremost, because without it we’re going to move into an era of socialist feudalism.
A brucie?? I actually kinda like that label. I like what BA in LA had to say, too. Like it a lot. It’s not about appearances. For me, its one issue only…dedication to the Constitution and a sharply limited federal government above all. Washington is already full of “professionals” who can speak well, or have great hair, but don’t have that dedication. Thats why I like Tancredo. Never heard a demeaning response or a smarmy answer from him to anyones question. Tops in every conservative ranking. Knows that quack=duck, and says so. Seems a lot more like the guy next door…a (non)-politician I could invite into my house and not feel I have to bleach the floors afterwards. As others have already noted on this thread, if we don’t get serious about the illegal invasion, all other issues will be moot. Rudy’s position? Despite what he says now, his past says ‘sanctuary city, amnesty and open borders’. Can’t trust that. Unacceptable flip-flopping. Tancredo has the track record of right responses to both Islam and Mexico. And with equal clarity. Dhimmitude is not in his dictionary. Second choice, Thompson or Hunter would both be acceptable, both know the danger we face in the middle east, and on the border. Obstructor-in-chief. Love it, and completely agree with the concept, mrfixit!
I’m going to cast the tepid support thing to the wind here and say I actually love Rudy. He is a larger-than-life personality and a true American original who has an absolutely astounding force of political will: what he did in NYC, even before 9/11, was truly nothing short of miraculous, doing the undoable. Yes, there are hosts of issues I disagree with him on, but as has been noted above, we are not electing a king. On the issues where we may most be at odds, immigration and guns, these are the issues most likely to be hashed out in the legislative arena, i.e., where the presidency has the least power to change things, but only power to hold back Congressional madness.
I’m pro-gay rights and (with great reservations) waveringly pro-choice, so I’m with him on those issues but they aren’t WHY I’m with him. And for those who disagree, I think it’s becoming more and more consciously clear on his part, on these and other issues, that he’s a federalist who understands the President is not a mayor writ large. As a conservative attorney myself, I sense he’ll appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, who understand the proper and limited role they should play.
And he can beat Hillary. AND he can beat Hillary. And again, he can beat Hillary. And finally, he can beat Hillary. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is political stupidity and suicide of the highest order. Rudy puts places on the electoral college map into play that no one else does: New York just for starters. Speaking as one of umpteen zillion Northeast-born Floridians, I think he takes Florida OUT of play from the Dems, which is huge.
“most Manhattanites will automatically vote Democrat.”
Of course. But that Manhattan isn’t most of the City, let alone most of New York. Manhattan never voted for Rudy: it was the outer boroughs who made him Mayor and it’s the outer boroughs and the NYC suburbs that suddenly become an electoral battleground if he’s the nominee. Upstate is still pretty reliably GOP.
I’m with the folks who don’t like Giuliani’s position on Gun Control. I don’t much like his posisition on Abortion either, but we have to face the fact that his position is officially the law of the land until the Supreme Court says otherwise — or until we amend the Constitution — and I’m not holding my breath on either happening.
The biggest problem with Giuliani, though, is not Giuliani’s fault. He is a classic liberal which is a perfectly respectable position with a long intellectual history. If the Democratic party could ever grow up and get serious, he would be their ideal candidate. Likewise G. W. Bush, who ran in 2000 as a JFK-style liberal. Tough on national security but “we can do bettah” on the home front. I happen to disagree with that position, but I could live with it for four years while the conservatives got their act together. In a perfect world, Giuliani would be the Democratic candidate and, say, Thompson would be the Republican. I would still vote Republican, but I wouldn’t be too worried about it if we lost.
But since the Dems can’t be trusted, all serious candidates wind up in the Republican party where some of them, like Giuliani, don’t belong and wind up crowding out the legitimate candidates. Like I say, not his fault, but I think it would be a bad idea to put him forth as the conservative candidate.
I have more to say on the topic of “theocracy” but this isn’t really the right place for it (for those few here who are interested in my take on the subject, here is a link from a really old post). Just as a teaser, though, which of the candidates now running on the Republican ticket actually supports a biblical view of government?
I firmly believe that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who can win, and more specifically, the only candidate who can beat Hillary. He may not be as conservative as I would like, but the Hunters and Tancredos in the race really have no chance. Giving Giuliani strong support early on makes sense, whereas campaigning for other right-wingers may fall on deaf ears. The role of government shouldn’t be one of social meddling, but rather a democracy that provides strong defense and supports a free market. I really think that Rudy can fill both roles as president.
As a side note, his imperfection is charming. In contrast, Mitt Romney is so robotic and scripted that I can’t take him seriously.
With the information available at this time, and the thinking that any Republican would be better then the far-left Democrat most likely to win the nomination… I’ll vote for the Repub. that is most likely to win. WITH… a few caveats…
First; if he/she (I say “she†with the hopes Condi might run) is for open boarders or anything much short of anti-illegal alien – I’ll vote democrat with the hopes of sending a message (or at the very least with the theory that if we are to hit rock-bottom…I’d like to get it over with so we can start building back up)
Second; Even though I am a proud and devout Christian, I agree with Tammy in that a true conservative is for a smaller and less obtrusive government and one that does not legislate morality. Therefore, if the leading Repub. is going to legislate morality by banning abortion (which I’m not in favor of but will leave it up to the woman’s choice except in the third trimester) or is going to push hard against gays (I’m not for gay marriage, but for civil unions with all the rights) then I don’t want to be associated with that person – and again will vote Democrat in the hopes of sending a message.
One final comment – I wish we could get someone with Ms. Bruce’s ideology to run for office!!! But since there doesn’t seem to be any that I’m aware of… 🙁 Maybe if we stated raising funds for Tammy we could convince her to serve her country in the future! hint… hint… 🙂
If the general American public were as thinking and reasoning as we are here in Tammy’s “cyberfamily”, there would be no problem. It would be Tancredo or Hunter or maybe even Thompson or a combo of these. Oh, can’t forget Romney, either. But, sadly, we know better. Rudy has many no-nos in his file. But he’s well known for his positive actions on and after 9/11. The thought of Bill & Hillary back at 1600 Pennsy…argh. Good posts above, good priorities lists. Security & sovereignty of America is primary. Without them, nothing else can survive. Maybe Rudy is the one for those key points. We will have to live with his no-nos. Much easier than living with Bill wandering around the White House with nothing to do…unless Hillary issues all female staff chastity belts…
Neither Rudy nor Mitt support the FairTax.
That’s enough to keep me from supporting either in the primary…but not the general.
I don’t like Giuliani for his stand on guns, his softness on illegal aliens, and his generally “liberal” slant. The only candidate I really like in this horserace is Fred Thompson, and the more I hear about him, the more I like him.
In terms of Fred’s principles, I think he stands rock solid for what he believes in. When he was a senator, he stood on the ass-end of some 99 to 1 votes — voting against something not because he didn’t personally support it, per se, but because he saw it as increasing federal control over local autonomy. I LIKE a man who is willing to take a strong stand _against_ federalism in the face of powerful opposition.
Beyond that, he is a strong traditional conservative, and the closest by _far_ to Reagan — something we see too infrequently these days to let it slip past us.
I also like that he has (at least tentatively) expressed suport for the Fair Tax plan.
—-
On a somewhat different line of thought…
Tammy, with regard to gay marriage you said, “Authentic Conservatism has nothing to do with restrictive religious principles invading government.”
I’m an atheist, and I oppose gay marriage. Please do not assume that it is purely a religious issue.
_Why_ I oppose it is difficult to describe. In the broad sense, I am at the least _extremely wary_ of undermining such a significant societal cornerstone as marriage. We have already weakened it with no-fault divorce and the like, and clearly we can see the damage that has been done with the disintegration of traditional two-parent families. This is no suggestion that homosexuality is in and of itself immoral, or anything of the sort. I do, however, think there is real and significant value in promoting (how do I phrase this…) “normal”, and biologically viable couplings as the standard on which human society is based. Gays are free to associate with each other as freely as anyone else, but for society to try to declare that the exact same as what biology and basic human social structure for _millenia_ has supported is, at best a dangerous experiment.
Here’s a link to a truly excellent essay on the subject. I don’t expect you to suddenly leap across the aisle, but it’s one of the best (and most moderate) treatises on the topic that I have ever seen. Food for thought: Jane Galt: A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other
Um… okay, you didn’t explicitly cite gay marriage in your statement, though it is implied in your statement that being gay is a reason to favor Giuliani.
Guiliani is my man as well. Though I am pro life and am not sold on the idea that homosexuality is in born. I’m not even sold that it is an acceptable life style choice. Nevertheless it is not my place, nor is it governments to decide. The fact is that Rudy scares me because he is an authoritarian – an authoritarian in a non authoritarian party. But Hillary Clinton is a totalitarian in an authoritarian party. When people like her win elections we don’t have other elections. She is the greatest threat to individual liberty this country has ever faced domestically.
Moreover, while i may agree more with thompson, I want a president who will not waver in fights with congress. Who will take a pick and an axe to the CIA and State Departments and shrink the size of government. . Rudy can do it.
make no mistake. . he scare madame hillary because he can win and because he is on the record for opening her investigations. . . .
I’m with you on Rudy. He is not perfect, but Dennis Miller said it for me: “he’s in the prime of his killing years”. To me the war on Islamist terror is still the biggest issue of our time and I feel Rudy can kick some behinds on that point. He is strong on national security; I also feel he can defeat her Thighness.
Giuliani is my man, definitely. I have admired him for years.
Giuliani combines social moderation with support for economic freedom and a strong American role in the world, which happens to be my philosophy too. I’m not that worried about his history on the gun issue when he was mayor of New York. Back then, he was taking the advice of his police force. As President, Giuliani won’t be listening to local cops; he’ll be listening to the military on issues of greater scope.
Those who claim that Giuliani’s understanding of the terrorist threat extends only to his 9-11 experience are wrong. I read the paper that Giuliani wrote for Foreign Affairs magazine:
http://tinyurl.com/2huqpz
It is a thoughtful analysis of America’s role in the world in an age of Islamic terrorism and newly rising world powers like India and China. I found it so close to my own view, it’s as if I had written it myself. It is what closed the sale for me and I urge everyone to read it.