Robertson to endorse Giuliani
Update: Video added
***
Pat Robertson will endorse Rudy Giuliani for president. Well, so much for religious conservatives abandoning the GOP.
The question is whether Robertson’s followers will, well, follow.
According to the AP, the men have a long-standing relationship:
A Giuliani campaign aide said the Giuliani has known Robertson for a long time, and their relationship was cemented on a flight back from Israel shortly after Saddam Hussein was captured, where they discussed views on Israel and domestic policies.
The Giuliani aide said that the two have shared goals despite some minor differences.
Hmm. I wouldn’t call them “minor.”
Meantime, the McCain campaign is countering the Giuliani coup by touting an endorsement from Sen Sam. Switchback, who recently dropped out of the GOP race.
Weak.
***
Flashback - Giuliani’s speech at Regent University in July…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- JammieWearingFool
- PAXALLES
- Things that Make you go Hmmm….
- Church and State
- It’s not the religious conservatives abandoning the GOP, it’s the religious conservatives abandoning religion! « Cowardly political musings…
- Endorsements from the Christian Right — Cranach: The Blog of Veith
- The Queen of All Evil
- A Neutron Bomb Political Endorsement « THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS
- Christ and Pop Culture | Who Do Evangelical Leaders Support for the Presidency?
- Video: Robertson Recommends Rudy « What Is Your Worldview?
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Rudy Giuliani
JustOneMinute
» The Bank Capital Plan
Riehl World View
» Define "Lasting"La Shawn Barber
» Atlanta Police Department Drops StandardsLittle Miss Attila
» Is It October Yet?Hotline On Call
» Odds And Ends, Making Up Is Hard To DoDavid Frum
» I Get So Weary of This ...Weekly Standard
» McCain: Ayers "Still Wants to Destroy America"The Sundries Shack
» Barack Obama’s “Tax Cut” Plan is DeceitfulPower Line
» Spreading the Wealth AroundRiehl World View
» Gawd: America Is DoomedRiehl World View
» ACORN Ohio Honored By Dems With Wellstone AwardStop The ACLU
» Obama the Socialist
If pro-abortion, pro-pork Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination, then the heart & soul of the Republican Party officially have been lost.
That’s my cue to vote for a third party OR stay at home in November 2008. Cadit quaestio.
NARAL must be thrilled! There may well be two staunchly pro-choice candidates in the general election. Doesn’t Rudy want abortions funded by the government?
Whatever your thoughts are on Rudy, he’s a heck of a lot better than the dems who will leads down the path of socialism.
The crux of the matter isn’t that Guiliani is the best republican candidate (at least not IMHO). It’s that if he wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him, as the ALTERNATIVE is unfathomable.
Some feel as if it compromising them as Christians, some simply don’t care for Rudy and his credentials or the lack thereof, that’s your prerogative. But at the end of the day. I will not sit on my hands and allow Chillary to waltz into the WH…you want to talk about compromising your values.
I would in no way, shape or form lend praise to this group. However, did they have any problems under our Evangelical President?
Planned Parenthood thrived. Just sayin’
http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine041031.htm
Taylork,
I will vote for the candidate who best represents my interests. His popularity among televangelists notwithstanding, it’s clear that Rudy doesn’t give a fig for social conservatism, and his record on fiscal issues is spotty at best. After four abysmal years under Hillary, the Republican Party may remember its roots and nominate a true conservative challenger in 2012. As a conservative, it might be in my best interests to forego the next election.
But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
It’s not about Rudy vs. Hillary quite yet. Currently, it’s Rudy vs. Romney/Thompson/McCain.
Rest assured, I will be voting for one of the latter.
That’s exactly what Dobson said… Just sayin’
flenser
What’s wrong with you? Did Rudy steal your wife? Are you one of his kids? Anyone with that much animosity towards another really can’t think straight. Is this personal?
Robertson made his selection and you have the opportunity to make yours but do it by extolling your candidate’s virtues not with nasty comments to our friends here! Please?
In what way is he a heck of a lot better? He’s to the left of Bill Clinton! He endorsed Mario Cuomo and opposed most of the budget cutting measures of the GOP Congress in the 1990’s. He campaigned with Bill Clinton to help his pass liberal legisaltion.
If you honestly can’t see it then I’m not even going to bother, it’s just a waste of my energy.
It’s pretty clear that Rudy Giuliani’s nomination would create a Great Schism in the GOP.
For proof, just take a look at the last ~100 comments.
Vince
I guess. I’m a conservative. We conservatives have spent decades trying to steer the GOP in a conservative direction. We don’t take kindly to seeing liberalism taking over again. So yes, it is personal.
I have not made any nasty comments. And I have no intention of not pointing out what a ghastly candidate Giuliani is. If you can’t defend him from the truth, what does that tell you? Do you think the Democrats will refrain from telling people the facts about Rudy should he win the nomination?
Somebody here just called me a “Pro-War Liberal.”
That is the most disgusting thing I have ever been called. First a squishy moderate, now a liberal.
I can handle being called a Nazi, racist, sexist, facist pig, which I am often called by liberals because I am a conservative.
To be called a liberal…Mr. Flenser, have you no decency sir?
As for those who are acting like 5 year olds and threatening to stay home in the hopes the entire party will grovel at your feet, I say “stay home.”
It worked with Pat Buchanan, it will work with James Dobson, and it will work with anybody else that thinks they have the right to force an entire party to agree with them.
Just remember this. If some people advocate staying home, and the republicans win anyway…it will be a very cold few winters for those that stayed home.
Pat Robertson made a very pragmatic political move, and it was to keep himself and his movement relevant.
I need to get the bitter taste out of my mouth at being called a liberal. Off to eat some red meat like the alpha male I am.
Respectfully,
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
It is really remakable how, when it is pointed out that Giulaini is to the left of Bill Clinton on the issues, his supporters respond with some variant of what you just said.
If it were untrue you should have zero problem in countering the claim.
But from saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” to banning “assault weapons” to opposing budget cuts, Clinton and Giulaini are in sync. Giuliani said so himself.
Exactly. That is why I am bewildered that my fellow Christian conservatives would line up behind Giuliani. We aren’t dumb, though this move appears to say we are.
Southernboy is not what he’s proclaiming himself to be. He’s here to mock us. Ignore him.
Flenser, calm down…
I was different in the 1990’s compared to how I am now, especially after 9/11. I only care about what candidates think now as beliefs can change. I am a conservative, yet I will vote for Rudy if needed in 2008 as he says he will be tough on terrorism and I believe him.
If, if, if Rudy is the GOP candidate people will be far better saving this country to vote for Rudy than Hillary or Obama. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the Democrats.
So if you desire socialized medicine, open borders—even more than Bush!!, sex ed in kindergarten, birth control in jr high, higher taxes,college tuition for illegals, and taking God out of everything where His name is mentioned, stay home and don’t vote Republican. That is just for starters on where a third party vote will take you. It is too late for a viable third party candidate—maybe in 2012 but not this election.
So vote carefully without only focusing on one issue that is controlled by the Supreme Court of America. Vote for a GOP candidate who, like Bush, will put judges on the bench who vote with the constitution. I can assure you Hillary/Obama will not appoint a conservative judge.
Please, please stop with emotionalizing an issue that the President has no control over except by appointing judges to the Supreme Court.
If the Republicans win as a liberal party, who cares? I’m not going to help them, and I’m not remotely concerned to hear that liberals will then blackist me. How is that different from their current behavior?
For crying out loud flenser you said “telling the facts” and “democrats” in the same sentence! C’mon now, your just visiting from the Kos blog, right?
Rudy! They made a movie about him when he was at Notre Dame didn’t they?
I am a conservative Christian, and Pat Robertson does not speak for me at all. Neither does the Falwell coalition, or Focus on the Family, or Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O’Reilly, or Michael Savage, or Sean Hannity.
I never had much regard for Mister Robertson, whether it be his ideas on Biblical scholarship and interpretation, or his ideas about politics. This is opportunism at its worst. I would never on my worst day have thought that MR. Robertson would be on the same boat as Rudy Giuliani. I figured at the worst he’d side with Fred Thompson, and at best he’d push for Mike Huckabee–NEVER Rudy G.
Pat has totally lost it. The man belongs in a gero-psych unit. He’s in no position to be talking about who ought to lead the last bastion of freedom in the world.
No, it just that if you don’t see that Socialized Medicine, talking to Iran until they get nukes, higher taxes baby bonds, in state tuition and dirver’s liceses for illegals is to the left of Rudy, than I can’t help you.
Rudy supporters probably give you that response because it’s arguing with your about Rudy is like arguing with a troofer about 9/11, you have your opinions (which you have a right to), but no matter what facts are presented to you, you won’t change your opinion. so why bother?
It’s hard to see how Rudy will in fact be honest about things. He says “I’ll appoint strict originalist judges” but then by his own words, those very judges would be going against what he has stated as his personal belief. I quite frankly don’t want a man as president who make himself into a pretzel.
Further I agree with flenser…if you look at Rudy’s record, it’s actually to the left of Bill Clinton.
Lindsay
Why do you believe him? What in his record suggests that he would be any good on national security?
What makes you think so?
It’s rather frustrating that so many people are unaware (or just don’t care) that Giuliani is on the liberal side on all these things.
You think that Giulaini has some committed opposition to socialized medicine?
You think that Giulaini is opposed to open borders? He has been a huge open-borders supporter all his life. He filed a lawsuit against the Federal government because he wanted New York to remain a sanctuary city. Giuliani IS more open borders than Bush.
You think that Giuliani is a tax cutter, when he opposed George Pataki for New York governor because he was concerned that he would cut taxes?
You think that Giulaini is opposed to sex-ed in high schools, when he is a donator to Planned Parenthood?
If I saw Giuliani as you see him, I’d probably support him also. But I have to tell you, I think your perception of him is badly wrong. And I think that if you look at his actual record you’ll agree with me.
This is why it is important to vote Republican in 2008:
Since you bring up Roe v. Wade, what’s its future?
It depends who wins the 2008 election. If a Republican wins the 2008 election, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. There is no doubt about that. If a Democrat wins, it will likely remain in force. I don’t feel that I’m going out on much of a limb there. But I think that’s appropriate. The Republican party has been on record opposing Roe for two decades, and they’ve appointed 11 of the last 13 Justices. By rights it probably should have been gone by now.
So, GOP voters, don’t stay home or you will defeat yourselves.
Lindsay, I think you need to re-read some of Flenser’s posts. Flenser is exactly right.
taylork
Sanctuary city - drivers license to illegals…not a good pro -Rudy point
Socialized Medicine - another not so fine pro Rudy point as I think the record is pretty clear Rudy expanded social services for the masses
robertson doesn’t speak for this Christian conservative.
I think he is trying to be relavant like rev al and jessie.
GSP
flenser
Your quote, attributed to Rudy, on socialized medicine gives us no context. Medicaid is a state run program that the Federal govt. contributes to but there are formulas that have to be followed. Some states were actually stealing from the fed. govt. in this program and the Federal govt. was trying to get the money back!
Do you have links to anything you are badmouthing Rudy about? Give us some context!
If the Democrats win, that result will affect everyone, whether you voted for the Democrat, the Republican, a third-party candidate; or whether you stayed at home.
And, that will NOT be good for the country.
By not voting for a less-than-ideal Republican, you may keep your purity - but, at what cost to the rest of us, to the country; and, ultimately, even to you?
Do you really believe overall - I repeat, overall - that it would be an acceptable result to have a Democrat elected in 2008, as long as one was glad in one’s heart that one did not vote for a Republican one did not like?
On a lighter note, since part of our discussion is the tax&spend, tax&spend, tax&spend, Tax, tax, tax, tax,…ad infinitum Democrats (remember Iowa trying to tax pumpkins?):
I just listened to “Taxman” by the Beatles; and, I thought I’d share it with you folks - still accurate, after 35+ years:
Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Should five percent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all,
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
If you drive a car,I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman!
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for,
(Taxman, Mr. Wilson)
If you don’t want to pay some more,
(Taxman, Mr. Heath)
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
Now, my advice for those who die,
Taxman!
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
Taxman!
‘Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman,
And, you’re working for no one but me….
Taxman!
Rudys’ position on illegals as Mayor of New York was identical to that of Spitzer as governor. So I have a hard time understanding on what basis Rudy thinks drivers licenses are a bad idea. It does exactly what he felt was important as mayor - it increases the public health and safty be making sure that ilegals have insurance and have passed a drivers test. Other than pure political pandering to we the GOP base, why does Rudy oppose this?
Rudy’s record on immigration and illegal immigration IS to the left of Bill Clinton. We don’t know all about Hillary yet but it is hard to see how she can be any worse that Rudy. When the GOP Congress tried to limit benefits to illegals, Rudy opposed them.
Giuliani wanted to spend city money on an agency to help illegals gain citizenship.
Link
I may look to my pastor for guidance on several issues. But, as for whom I will vote in November 2008, that is not one of those issues.
Rudy is a far cry better than Shrillary. But, that doesn’t take a lot from my estimation.
Rudy and I just don’t see eye-to-eye on social issues. I vote from a conservative position, not a partisan one. If it comes down to Clinton and Rudy, I may be looking and hoping for a conservative third-party candidate I can support.
blast!
I submitted too soon.
Does anyone else besides me think that, if conservatives could work the tune, words, and message of “Taxman” into the campaign, that it might just be a “hip” and “cool” winner?
Hey flenser! Thanks for the link but that’s the New York Times trying to define a Republican! As a true conservative, do you have anything better than that? By the way, reading between the lines, I find a lot to work with in that article if Rudy is the Republican nominee. It’s our job to let him know what we want!
I’m glad you asked. Here is the context.
The GOP Congress had passed the line item veto. Bill Clinton used it, among other things, to restrict the amount of money New York could get fr the Federal government. (New York is one of a few states which milks the program for all its worth.)
Rudy Giuliani wanted his money, so he filed a law suit to get the linr item veto thrown out. Which says something about his allegedly “fiscal conservative” credentals.
The statement was made in reaction to his success in keeping the pork flowing into New York.
But you probably want links.
Here is one.
Another.
Let me repeat that bit. ““New York City sued to restore a provision that would have let the city and New York state raise taxes on hospitals and use the money to attract federal Medicaid payments.”
It was in reaction to this scrapping of the line item veto that Mr Fiscal Concervative said the following words.
If you want a link for that, here it is.
As you can see, I am not “badmouthing” Rudy. I am simply stating the facts.
Are you saying that Giulaini DID NOT advocate for $12 million to start a city agency that would assist those illegals seeking citizenship?
That he DID NOT vigorously defended the city’s policy of forbidding city employees, including police and hospital workers, from asking a person’s immigration status?
Because unless you are saying that, you are not making much sense. And if you are saying that and denying reality, you are still not making much sense.
First of all, folks, I never said I was a Rudy Girl, only that I will support any GOP candidate in 2008.
My top choices, today, are Thompson and Romney in that order. My points are to support the GOP and not stay home next year and allow Hillary/Obama to take the White House.
I will give an example of not voting for a perfect candidate: in 2004 I knew George W. Bush was weak on illegal immigration but I voted for him anyway against Kerry as he seemed tough on terrorism and radical Islam. W was not a perfect candidate, but a third party vote was not an option and won’t be in 2008 at this late date.
That said, a lot of people opposing Rudy today are regurgitating what he believed in the 1990’s when all we had to worry about was a stained navy dress and Bill’s zipper control.
Here is what Rudy recently says in 2007 about immigration (the #2 big issue on my plate after terrorism). I hope the link works as it was long!
The reason that Roe is NOT gone by now is that even Republican Presidents who oppose Roe have done a poor job of appointing anti-Roe justices. Why would anyone think that a pro-Roe President like Guliani would do any better?
There is considerable doubt that Roe will be overturned even if Dobson is the next President. We still don’t know how Roberts and Alito will vote on it. Keep that in mind when Rudy says that he likes Roberts.
#136 Lindsay:
“My points are to support the GOP and not stay home next year and allow Hillary/Obama to take the White House.”
Exactly.
Well stated.
The rest of this thread should be relevant only to whom the primary process should yield as the nominee…not to whether to support the GOP nominee against the leftist - oops!, er, Democrat nominee (sorry, I don’t have cross-out capability on this computer).
Rudy wants to “curb” illegal immigration by legalizing it. He wants to give amnesty to the twenty million of so illegals currently here, who will then be able to bring their families, and so on and so on.
If illegal immigration is important to you, there is no way you should be even considering Giuliani. His stated position is exactly the same as that of Bush and McCain. Actually, McCain seems to have seen the light. But Rudy has not.
Here is Giulianis current position on imigration.
Lindsay, look at your link carefully.
This is EXACTLY the sort of amnesty proposal which we have been beating back for the last two years.
Keep in mind that ALL illegal immigrants commit crimes. Rudy only wants to deport those few we catch committing violent crimes. He wants to legalise all the rest.
EVERY candidate running for office says nice things about securing the border. The bad ones are the ones who want amnesty as a price for doing so. Rudy is identical to Hillary on this.
While we are talking endoresments, Borat has made a statement:
flenser, with all due respect, I don’t like to argue as this is all hypothetical at this stage and you have a lot of old facts pre-9/11 about Rudy that you base your statments on.
I am voting for the GOP candidate in 2008 whoever he may be. He will certainly be more conservative that Hillary or Obama, and I don’t think there is some magic candidate who is waiting to run who will meet everyone’s demands.
I have no idea what happened to the rest of my post. The comment is from Borat.
What if the GOP nominee is a leftist also? I swear, some of you people would vote for Castro if he ran on the Republican ticket.
His position on immigration is not pre 911. He has stated in 2007 that he favors amnesty.
Why will he certainly be more conservative than they are?
A great deal of this is right up to date. His comments on Roe and immigration are still well to the left of the GOP and the country. Now, in 2007.
And tossing out the word “regurgitating” does not obsecure the fact that I’m quoting you his own views in his own words.
In any case you are implying that he has changed his mind since the 1990’s. It’s up to you to back up that claim.
In its current form, the line item veto was unconstitutional, that’s what Rudy argued when he was opposed to it. Sure, having to pay for $12million out of NYC coffers rather than the feds pay for it undoubtedly had something to do with his decision, but you seem surprised that a politician would play politics. All of them do it.
And the NYC immigriant issue is more complex than just labeling it as a sanctuary city. The feds are in charge of deporting illegals, if they’re not going to do it, which they weren’t at the time , then you’re pretty much stuck with them in the city. So if you’re going to have them there, you can allow them to report crimes and let them go to public school, or you can let them hang out cause trouble, in the case of truant kids, or be victims of crime who are afraid to report it to the police.
Bottom line, he knew the feds weren’t going to do a darn thing in terms of dealing with the illegals in his city, so he did the only thing he could to help reduce crime.
I’m not giving you my opinion. I’m quoting you Giuliani in his own words.
Talking to the Giuliani groupies is like talking to Truthers. Facts just bounce off them. They don’t need no stinkin’ facts, they have their feelings.
And “no matter what facts are presented to you”? You have not presented one single solitary fact on this entire thread. I’m not expecting that to change.
#144 flenser:
“What if the GOP nominee is a leftist also?”
That SHOULD be a logical impossibility - sort of like water flowing uphill, or time running backwards, or Hollywood making an antiCommunist movie.
It could considered an actual example of success of the body-snatchers.
If that indeed was to end up being the case, that the GOP nominee was also leftist; well, then…that would most likely indicate that our country also had other, unimaginably serious problems.
Nonsense. The court ruled the way it did. But conservatives don’t generally believe that the constitution means whatever judges say it does.
If you bother to read the contemporaneous news accounts, you will see that it had EVERYTHING to do with it.
I’m surprised that a politican who behaves like this is seen by many as a true fiscal conservative. He’s a Huckabee clone.
A great many cites, towns, and states around the country are enacting laws to move the illegals out. So it’s not true to say that Giuliani had no choice. He could have done what Arizona and Oklahoma are doing, for instance.
But you contine to give him too much credit. You can’t say “it’s up to the Feds to take care of this”, when Giuliani consistently did everything in his power to OBSTRUCT the Feds from taking care of the problem.
Rudy opposed the immigration reform act of 1996 because he felt it was too hard on illegals!
Rudy sued the Feds to STOP them from finding out about illegals in New York.
If Rudy killed his parents you respond “Poor Guy! Now he’s an orphan!”
Rudy did all he could to make NYC a magnet for illegals. Here he is in 1994.
It’s amazingly hypocritical for him and his supporters to now say “Darn those Feds. What else could Rudy have done?” He could have worked with them instead against them.
Absolutely untrue. As I’ve shown, he fought the Feds every step of the way to keep them away from illegals.
Well, maybe it SHOULD be. But its not hard to demonstrate that the leading Republican contender is at least as far to the left as Bill Clinton. Even a casual look at the record shows this to be the case.
In truth there is no particular reason why it should be logically impossible for a republican to be pretty far left. The single most important consideration for the typical GOP voter seems to be that somebody have an “R” after his name.
Excellent analysis, flenser. You have almost single-handedly made this comment thread worthwhile.
Know where this comes from?
700 Club/CBN web site.
Know who they are refering to?
Senator John McCain
So, McCain gets it sideways and Rudy gets the nod?
*scratching his head
Hey, Pat!
How many times has Rudy been divorced? Is Rudy pro-choice? Is he a conservative (the (R) does not count)?
Sadly, people will support Rudy because Pat flung doo his way.
I would support Rudy because I am a Republican who wants to defeat the Democrats for the office of President in 2008. He may not be my first choice, however, as I have stated several times in this “conversation.”
I certainly won’t vote for him because someone endorsed him.
If the nominee is Rudy (who may have the best chance to defeat a Democrat), and you don’t vote in 2008, then what is your great solution? Right, there is none, other than sitting on your hands on that November day and, by not voting Republican, endorsing Hillary or Obama.
You define the “problem” as making sure that sombody with an “R” after their name gets into the White House. I don’t agree that Giulaini can win that race. But even if I did, I don’t agree with your definition of the problem. My goal is to defeat liberalism. Voting for Giulaini defeats my goal.
If offered the choice between two liberals, one from each party, I’ll vote third party.
The GOP tried this tactic in 2006 if you recall. “Everyone vote GOP of Pelosi and Reid will take over!”
How did that work out and what akes you think it will work better now?
You still have not explained to me why I should fear Hillary or Obama more than Giulaini.
Wow. I guess Pat Robertson is no fool. As a Christian conservative leader, he’s trying to put th cabash on this 3rd party jazz, and support the one GOP candidate who can beat Hillary. The republicans may be too smart to “Nader” their chance at the White House.
I honestly don’t get those of you who think liberal lite will win an election. Last time I checked, Reagan was NOT liberal lite. Rudy is liberal lite (maybe even skip the lite)
The thing the Republicans need to do if they really want to win, is make the distinction between themselves and the libs as large and compelling as possible.
I want some of what you are drinking if you think that the ultra liberal Giulaini who cannot even beat the carpet-bagging Clinton in his own town, is going to beat her in Ohio and Virginia and Alabama.
What part of “cross-dressing gun-grabbing amnesty-loving liberal from New York” do you think is going to sweep republican voters off their feet?
Rus.
That’s why Rudy is moving so far to the right. He’s trying to say “even if he was liberal lite, he ain’t anymore.”
You’ve seen the #s in the polls. Hillary is hated, but Rudy seems to be the only one w/ a chance to take her. Do you really think Thompson, McCain, or Romney could beat her 1 on 1. I can’t see either of those guy grabbing the right leaning independants which are crucial for the election.
Can you offer any examples of him “moving so far to the right”? Is it refusing to take the tax pledge? Insisting that he still supports amnesty? Sticking with his support for Roe and abortion? What? Examples, please.
Ron Paul polls as well against HRC as Rudy does. The polls do not show that only Giuliani has a chance against Clinton. Stop lying.
And you think that a liberal like Rudy Giulaini will pick them up where Romney or Thompson can’t?
As I say, I want what you are drinking.
Personally I would rather see a Thompson and Kucinich ticket (my ideal choice), but would accept a Thompson and Guliani ticket to keep the comrades out of the White House.
Just my thoughts tonight….
GSP
a) I haven’t seen Rudy move anywhere - least of all right. What I think I’ve seen him do is stay firmly rather liberal. Just look at his positions over time. Don’t look only at what a candidate says - watch what they do.
b) I do not agree at all that he is the only one who can take out Hillary. I might be biased, but I think a cardboard cutout saying nothing could take out Hillary. All you have to do is play Hillary’s own words back at her.
c) The (R) after a person’s name is merely a self selection thing. The number of politicians which have switched sides indicates to me no particular political ideology in many cases, rather political opportunism.
FWIW - There is no way on election day I can walk into the booth and pull the lever (fill the circle, punch the chad or whatever other method is employed) for a candidate who openly supports lawful murdering of babies. Further there is no way on election day that I will help elect a candidate who willfully tears down the very first institution that God set up. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Look it up. I can and many others here can tell you where to look if you are unsure where to find it.
I’m not asking for “the perfect candidate” - I’m only asking that a few of God’s laws at least be acknowledged as supreme.
Flenser:
Gay Rights: I haven’t heard him campaign on his support for gay rights, or how he lived with a gay couple. Now, he’s resurrecting the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
Immigration: I think he opposed the amnesty plan that Bush and McCain supported. He’s trying to flip from his former sanctuary policies to now appear tough on immigration
Abortion: He doesn’t want to appear like a blatant, convenient flipflopper like Romney, so he still says he’s pro-choice. But he goes out of his way to explain how he’ll oppoint strict constructionist to the court like Thomas, Alito, and Robert. (winkwink). He says it would be “okay w/ him if Roe were overturned.
Easy on the lying and drinkin allegations Flens, it’s just an opinion, and I’ve given the e.g’s. I do challenge you to provide me one e.g of a poll showing Ron Paul withing 6% pts of beating Hillary in a National Election.
A right leaning independent is not an ultra conservative(see Thompson), otherwise he would be a republican. A right leaning independent would stay home, or possible consider voting for Hillary if he/she could justify it by ideological category. A right leaning independent, probably voted for Clinton over Dole.
Rus:
If it comes down to Guliani and Hillary, will you stay home, or bite the bullet to vote for Rudy? Unless the people with your views run a 3rd party candidate, this could be the likely scenario.
We need to get away from the “Anybody But Clinton” crap that scared little Republicans are shouting already. Let’s pick the best conservative possible and fight for that person to win, we don’t have to pick the most popular person in the polls.
Let’s boycott these RINOs and chose a real conservative. There are several that are far better choices than Rudy McRomney.
Would someome please explain to me why Rudy gets this mantle as the “War on Terror” guy? What has he actually done to deserve this coveted title, besides attend 600 funerals?
FYI, Jihad is just as big a problem here as it is over there, and in my opinion you win this war here first. Build that fence, crack down on who is in this country illegally,
and don’t fair to use the “j” word to decribe so called islamic civil rights leaders. Someone need to find the balls to stop them now!
I agree with many on this post that Rudy is in fact, a liberal. Romney is also to a large extent, so this is all legitimate discussion….
FOR NOW
…at the end of that day, we’ve got to back our guy regardless. Your “Principle” will NOT win this election.
I am a conservative. A liberal is not “my guy” and does not become one by having an R after his name.
If the GOP wants to be a liberal party, and it seems as if it really really does, then Godspeed to it. I’m not following it where it is going.
Buck I
Well, he is not going to campaign on it in the heartland, but it is part of who he is and he can’t get away from it. The Democrats won’t let him.
Is he? Got a link?
But that is not something he is “resurrecting”. It is soemthing other better Republicans have been trying to advance while he threw rocks at them.
Purely political posturing. He actually SUPPORTS everthing Bush and McCain wanted. His explanation for saying he opposed the bill was incomprehensible.
It’s like how he “opposes” Spitzers plan for DL’s for illegals. Spitzers ratonale is exactly the same one as Giulaini used himself as Mayor of New York. How can Rudy oppose it now? Well, he can say he does for reasons of political opportunism. Words have never meant much to him.
He still says he is in favor of amnesty, just like Bush and McCain.
You seem to be twisting yourself into a pretzel to give him every possible benefit of the doubt. What has he ever done to earn such an attitude on our part?
It is entirely possible that he means what he says. He still supports abortion, and is just trying to muddy the water a bit in hopes that we’ll be fooled. That seems a lot more plausible than the [wink] scenario you describe. If he is winking to anyone it’s to his pro-abortion supporters.
Good Lord, man! How much of a moderate are you if you think that Fred Thompson is an ultra conservative?
Michelle’s site seems to be overrun with liberal republicans who think anyone to the right of Rudy is “ultra conservative”.
You have an odd definition of “right leaning independent”.
Hillary cannot get to 50% in the polls even if the matchup is against Ron Paul.
In other words, this insistence that we nominate a man who is to the left of Bill Clinton in order to keep his wife out of the WH makes no sense. ANY Republcan has the same decent shot at winning next year.
Rudy has a poorer shot than others. The amount of dirt the Democrats can unload on him is staggering.
In January 1980, Ronald Reagan was polling behind Jimmey Carter, 34% to 66%.
Republicans back then had some instestinal fortitude. They nominated him anyway.
Now a question for you. Is there ANY Republican too far left for you to support? Would you vote for Linc Chafee if he was doing well in the polls for President?
Yup, kind of like a cineplex telling you that you have to choose between two gawd-awful movies.
Well, I’d exclude a nominal Republican like Paul. Otherwise I’d say you’re right - especially with a year’s worth of water yet to pass under the bridge.
Yup again, and many of us also remember President Dukakis’ 16 point lead over GHWB in the months before the 88 election.
Not true, but I can see you have been intellectually defeated by my points. That was not my intent. Friends?
Well, if there was any entirely conservative Republican candidate who could stand up to Hillary in the poills that would be one thing, but with all due respect, I’d submit quite simply that people looking to hard-right candidates to defaet Hillary are setting this country up to a replay of the Dole candidacy. That may not be fun to hear to those of us who are appalled by abortion, but that’s how the hard numb3ers of real life reality shape up, like it or not.
To those who look to past polling for examples, one very important difference between those halcyon days and these needs to be remembered: the MSM back then felt an obligation to at least appear non-biased, and many of them personally liked Reagan. It’s a different, dirtier political world now, and anyone on this board knows it, so there’s no point in pointing out the obvious “whys” of it.
Those who would vote “conscience” over practical reality quite literally put their kid’s and their kid’s kids into the world as Hillary would fashion it. In signinging far-left legislation into law, in her judicial nominations who would make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like Clarence Thomas, if you hate the left-slanting aspect of American society, this is nothing compared to Hillary in the halls of the most powerful position on earth - and she has a very real chance of getting there.
This country has careened insanely left on all fronts. We all know that. However, any candidate who is right in the Reagan mold will simply appear to be a “right-wing zealot” in this 500 -channel, internet domination, ultra hard-left-media new century (and that would include me if I were running for President or anything else, so there’s no offense intended).
If we want to see a return to the country as it was, as we want it to be (no, no racism, that’s the providence of the south - the democratic south as exemplified by long-term hard left democrat senator Robert Bird), we’ll need to be mature and change the country back in small doses. Anyone who supports a Huckabee at this stage of the game, one year out from the elections in an accelerated primary cycle , as attractive as he is on personality and issues to conservatives, are simply living in a dream world. Hillary and the left-wing media will eat a guy like him for lunch and laugh doing it. Remember Dole. remember Lazio. Remember all the people the media/clinton machine have eaten for lunch. This isn’t cute and it’s not in the abstract. This is real and if you value what few conservative values are left in this country, then if you’re voting on principle, you may want to vote for the one person who may (may, no certainties) beat the Clinton machine.
Robertson may not be sticking strictly to principle, but he’s being smart in a dirty game. He’s prepared to take 70 percent of a win instead of 100 percent of a loss. It isn’t fun to have half our values system whipped out from under us, but we’re all gorwn-ups and this is the world as it is today. And if conservatives don’t want Hillary Clinton, the lying, hard-left socialist, anti-conservative President, they’d do well to get smart too and follow Robertson’s lead, unless, of course, they can point to poll numbers which indicate that anyone but Giuliani has a ghost of a chance to beat her - and before you start to rant, in the event you are inclinded to do so, please do point to any poll numbers which show that anyone but Giuliani has a ghost of a chance at beating Hillary.
It isn’t fun and it isn’t warm and fuzzy, but it’s where we are, unless anyone can catagorically prove otherwise.
I dunno, MrCC - my impression is that most Americans lean towards “common sense conservative”. Not so much in a political statement/label sort of way, more a non-PC sharing of what’s right and what’s wrong.
If there were a candidate who could personally identify with and tap into that common sense conservatism, I suspect s/he would go far. I think you could probably find some governors who have already tapped into it.
People - how clearly do I have to say it. Will I pull the lever for Rudy. Please read carefully and comprehend #163. I fail to see how Rudy is better than any democrat. They support the same stuff.
What I hear here is a bunch of people who think Conservatism is a losing proposition. I’d argue that it is in fact the thinking person’s position and it will win every time.
Liberal lite is the defeatist position.
Conservatism is logical, thought-out, sustainable, prosperous and attractive. Liberalism is merely emotional and unsustainable. The end result of liberalism is chaos and poverty every time.
Saying the goal is to get an (R) as president no matter what they believe, is defining things entirely incorrectly. I honestly don’t care what letter the person has after their name. The issue is where will they take the country.
I think I will trust Ted Olson’s opinion of Rudy as he worked with him in the Reagan Justice Department. I think Olson has the country’s best interest at heart regarding who he would support for President–especially involving terrorism– as his wife Barbara Olson died on 9/11.
I would love to see Ted Olson appointed for a Supreme Court Justice someday. Conservatives I read think Ted Olson is a fine and intelligent man.
I think the MSM and Democrats worry more about Rudy than any other candidate and they will attempt to smear his words and past any way they can.
Here is the National Review link by Ted Olson:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2NlNmM5MjRhMDYwMDdiMjM5NDFlYzYzNmYxNTg1ZWY=
Can you provide any cites for this? I suppose he is a fine and intelligent man. I don’t know that he is especially conservative though.
Why? What do you actually know about him?
I think he has his own best interests at heart.
I think that the MSM would like nothing better than for the GOP to nominate Rudy Giulaini. They will certainly destroy him if nominated, which will not be hard to do given Rudy’s history.
But for now, they are treating him with kid gloves. It would be no fun for them if people learned about Rudy ahead of time, would it?
I just read the Olsen article, and my opinion of him has dropped sharply.
Rudy Giulaini has no experience in this area, as Mark Levin has said over and over again. Rudy was not involved in selecting judges for Reagan. Olsen actually admits this, but uses lawyer speak to give the opposite impression.
flenser, don’t know what rock you have been under but Ted Olson is regarded as an honest conservative man. He representedPresident Bush in the 2000 election debacle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson
In response to your tiresome remarks,I do not have the time nor the desire to track down comments I have heard on the radio/TV about him by people I respect. I am talking of people such as Rush,Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin who think highly of Ted Olson.
A quick search of Michelle’s blog shows this of her opinion of Mr. Olson as AG. I hope her opinion is good enough for you:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/18/lame-lame-duck-bushs-decision-not-to-nominate-ted-olson-for-ag/
With that, this is the end of my responding to your diatribes. I think you are new to this blog and I find you rather rude and insulting of other’s opinions.
I have no doubt that many on here will snicker and marginalize Robertson. Frankly, anyone in his sphere can have that done to them. The simple fact is that Rudy is a paradigm and at some point everyone will realize that. I already have.
Flenser:
I’m not a republican, but I find your takes and Rus’s pretty interesting. I admire the commitment, but I’m sure you both know you’ll catch hell from fellow Republicans if it simply comes down to Rudy and Hillary. I certainly think Hillary can get more than 50% of the vote, against any candidate but Rudy. The polls I read yesterday have her leading Rudy 51 to 45 nationally.( I don’t know how to hyperlink, but I’m sure you can google it with the 11.7.07 date). Your Carter/ Reagan poll points are revealing, and it’s still early. I guess we’ll see. You both may have be w/o a choice on election day if the current trend holds, but we’ll see. I guess you must think Robertson sold out.
Of course they would flensor! The MSM is far to the left and they would like nothing more than for the conservatives to take a big step to the left as well. Fox News is all too willing to take a step to the left to make Rudy look normal. They’re trying to create a “new normal” for conservatives. MAKE NO MISTAKE! And now Pat Robertson’s endorsement out of nowhere… It’s just like poetry for the Rudy crowd. Well, I’ve got their number and I won’t be fooled. I’m disappointed that Rudy’s ahead in the polls. Instead of finding a candidate that stands for solid conservative principles, we’re just trying to find someone quick enough to talk down Hillary. The GOP should be solidly behind a strong conservative to rally the base. We need a fiscal AND social conservative. I’m for Fred Thompson - he fits that bill and furthermore, he doesn’t have to explain why he was a liberal once but has since changed his ways. Rudy’s a RINO, Mitt’s a flipper, Huck is socially in the right spot, but fiscally a liberal. I can’t support McCain because of the Shamnesty he tried to ram down our throats. Duncan Hunter would have been good too, but he’s just too far down. I’m just very disappointed.
flenser
Sorry I messed up your name. :-/