Any Rudy Republicans here?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:32 am

-Has had Marital affairs
-Pro gay rights
-Pro Choice
-Pro Gun Control
-His record is weak on illegal immigration.

Nationally, Foxnews.com lists:
Giuliani 30.0%
Thompson 16.0%
McCain 15.6%
Romney 12.3

Besides his slamming Hillary Clinton, and constant praise to Ronald Reagan...where is the appeal?

I just don't get it. If he gets the republican nod, isn't that a pretty big condimnation of President Bush? Because Rudy can't actually be your first choice with those glaring discrepencies. Can he be?

Please help me understand, because I am having a hard time keeping my hypocracy paint brush tucked away.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:42 am

I'm guessing he's assumed to be the strongest candidate in a field of weaklings and nobodies- and anyone's gotta be better than accepting Hillary as president.

The republican side of the field looks like its full of \"Bob Dole\" clones.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:52 am

heh.. strong candidates don't take a single issue and hit 'repeat'.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:27 am

Gooberman wrote: -Has had Marital affairs
So? Big deal. This should not even be public knowledge (well, Guiliani went out of his way to make it public knowledge, but it still should factor absolutely 0% in an electoral decision)
-Pro gay rights
Sort of, kind of... let's just say his current explanation is along the lines of "I was for it before I was against it"
-Pro Choice
Would you believe that he tried to spin adoption statistics in New York City to make it look like he's pro-life? He was pretty damn pro-choice when he was mayor.
-Pro Gun Control
You can't be a NYC politician and not support gun control. It will destroy you in the press.
-His record is weak on illegal immigration.
What could he have possibly done about illegal immigration?

...snip...

Besides his slamming Hillary Clinton, and constant praise to Ronald Reagan...where is the appeal?

Because his campaign platform is "9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 turrists 9/11 turrists 9/11 osama".

I just don't get it. If he gets the republican nod, isn't that a pretty big condimnation of President Bush? Because Rudy can't actually be your first choice with those glaring discrepencies. Can he be?

He's as much of a corrupt authoritarian f*ck as Bush is. Have you heard about the Bernie Kerik indictment?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:25 am

People are stupid. \"We've voted Rebublican for 4 generations!\" They proudly bray.

Mooooooooo
Ba-a-a-a-a

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:42 am

*lemming**lemming*

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:51 am

So? Big deal. This should not even be public knowledge (well, Guiliani went out of his way to make it public knowledge, but it still should factor absolutely 0% in an electoral decision)

I agree. However, my post isn't so much as criticizing Rudy as it is those whom would vote for him. The family values crowd. In fact, I'm not even criticizing in so much as I feel really confused on who is giving him that 30%.

It's not like Rudy is asking you to over look this or that flaw....hes asking you to vote for a liberal. And it currently looks as if that is not too much to ask!

I'm really confused how Pat Robertson could actually support such a candidate. The evangelicals of all people should be un-willing to compromise on their beliefs. Yet fielding Rudy is just that, its saying we don't really care about abortion and think its murder. We don't really think gay marriage is that important of an issue.

what could he have possibly done about illegal immigration?

He could be conservative, he could have in the past come out against it. Again, Rudy is what he is, I'm just trying to make heads and tails of who the 30% are....and see if anyone here still has any respect for Pat Robertson.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:57 am

Ask yourself if the Republicans really want to be in power for the next term when the nation will have to suck it up and admit failure in Iraq, when 500 Billion dollars in trade deficit will emasculate the dollar, when 500 billion dollars a year in deficit spending will force either deep service cuts or large tax increases.
If you run a Democratic Republican candidate and by some miracle he wins you can blame it on his liberal leanings, he's not a true party representative. If he loses then it is all the Democrat's fault pure and simple.
Time to dump the presidency for one term and let some poor sucker take the heat. It will likely be either the first woman president or the first black president and either way they will look like total failures and back up the conservative feelings that \"those people\" don't belong as President.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:36 pm

I don't believe the republicans who would vote for Rudy, would accept the premise of those statements. So I can't believe that is why they are voting for him.

Who knows, maybe it is.

Also, the only strong claim to conservatism that Rudy has is the War. It would be a tough sell that the war in Iraq was lost because Rudy supports gay rights...etc.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:05 pm

I am as confused as you are Goob.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:48 pm

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Rudy (and I've thought Pat Robertson was a giant douchebag as long as I've been aware of who he was. It wouldn't surprise me if his endorsement is more anti-Hillary than pro-Rudy, and I can only hope it's another nail in the coffin of P-Rob's influence.) But I can see where Rudy's appeal comes from.

Gooberman wrote:hes asking [the family values crowd] to vote for a liberal.... its saying we don't really care about abortion and think its murder. We don't really think gay marriage is that important of an issue.

Or, possibly, saying they don't think it's the most pressing issue of the issues they can sway in this election. Out of a field of weak candidates, Rudy's weaknesses aren't so bad.

I don't like anybody's stance on gay marriage (government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely), so that's not a big negative for Rudy. I don't like his stand on gun control, but I like the way he dealt with crime in NYC by enforcing the little stuff. I really don't like his stance on abortion. But I do like his stance on the WoT, and I do like the prospects of his appointing good justices to SCOTUS. That mitigates my worries about his pro-choice stance quite a bit, particularly since I don't think any congress is going to manage to pass any abortion-related bill in the near future. The judiciary is the main fight right now.

That seems to be common sentiment among evangelicals -- we'd prefer somebody else, but Rudy's judicial choices are almost definitely going to be acceptable to us, and that's where abortion/gay marriage are going to be played out anyway. Given the choice between a candidate who'll veto pro-life bills and appoint liberal judges, and one who'll veto pro-life bills but appoint conservative judges, it's not a hard choice.

Rudy definitely isn't my first choice (Fred!), and I don't think he's the first choice of many of the "family values" types (P-Rob appears to be an opportunist, not a genuine supporter.) He's better than Hillary, though. And he's one of the top choices of a lot of military families, those who don't particularly care one way or the other about abortion or gay rights but who want us to pursue victory in Iraq and beyond. I think that's where the majority of the 30% is coming from.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:14 pm

Gooberman wrote:-Has had Marital affairs
-Pro gay rights
-Pro Choice
-Pro Gun Control
-His record is weak on illegal immigration.

Correct me if I'm wrong ... isn't that a lot like ol' Wild Bill's record?

IMO...

Giuliani = too liberal
Thompson = don't think he's really committed (can talk the talk ... but action is slow and a bit undecided. Not good combo)
McCain = just hasn't hit that "resonant" chord
Romney = not yet sure about him

This is why I'm still watching and listening. Too early to set who I'll vote for.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:38 pm

Even if Thompson doesn't become the nominee or President, I'd like to see him as a Republican commentator. He has a very folksy way of explaining his views in a way that isn't abrasive or condescending. Oh my gosh, what a concept. If you don't treat the opposition like misinformed babies, they might just listen to you!

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:49 am

I've been impressed by Fred as well, he has gone out on a limb on a few issues, and seems to be willing to tell people what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear.

Because of this, I have scratched his name off the list of legitimate candidates.

Lothar wrote:Or, possibly, saying they don't think it's the most pressing issue of the issues they can sway in this election. Out of a field of weak candidates, Rudy's weaknesses aren't so bad.

I could conceed every one of Rudy's liberal tendencies to this, except abortion.

If there was a politician--that agreed with me on every single issue--but thought that it was ok to shoot black people if you found them to be inconvenient, and at the same time every other politician in my party was against this random shooting of black people...I would not even consider the origional politician, and would do everything I could to make sure that he didn't become my parties nominee.

These are the primaries, there is no need to sacrifice your beliefs here. I can see a conservative wanting Rudy over Hilary, but these are the primaries. Why do they want Rudy over Fred, Mitt, McCain, etc??

I used poor language when I said, "don't really care about abortion"....but the part of them not really thinking it is murder was dead on. Even in the "better of two evils" scenario you described...I would have to go with third party if I actually considered abortion murder.

Maybe the military-families are indeed where he is getting this support, but I'm surprised the evangelical negatives arn't washing it away.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:39 am

It's going to fall on either one of two sides- the Hillary crowd (because they really want Bill back in some small way) or the 'anyone BUT Hillary' crowd that'll vote for a yellow dog before they vote for Hillary. Giuliani has shown he can fight while the other republicans have shown nothing to earn the confidence of their party.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:02 am

Rudy has shown he can lead the largest city in America and actually get things done. Hillary on the other hand, has shown she cannot even handle a well questioned debate.

Herculosis · Post by **Herculosis** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:35 am

Ford Prefect wrote:It will likely be either the first woman president or the first black president and either way they will look like total failures and back up the conservative feelings that "those people" don't belong as President.

I wish that Condoleezza Rice was running. I believe it would show what absolute crap the above statement is.

On the Rudy question, he's the only Rep candidate that I've seen so far that's showed undeniable passion in his position on the WoT, which a LOT of people see as the quintessential issue of our day. A successful conclusion to Iraq is only one part of that. Iran is also looming, and right now, it looks like war or doing nothing would both be very bad scenarios.

I haven't picked my favorite yet, but I can certainly understand Rudy's appeal.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:20 am

Herculosis wrote:Iran is also looming, and right now, it looks like war or doing nothing would both be very bad scenarios.

Iran is only looming because you have been told it is looming. There is no objective reason to believe that conflict with Iran is necessary, much less beneficial. The only reason the thought of Iran is in your head is because certain people in Washington have decided that we will invade. It's just a matter of pretense.

Herculosis · Post by **Herculosis** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:39 pm

DCrazy wrote:Iran is only looming because you have been told it is looming. There is no objective reason to believe that conflict with Iran is necessary, much less beneficial. The only reason the thought of Iran is in your head is because certain people in Washington have decided that we will invade. It's just a matter of pretense.

Umm, no. Not even close.

Here's what I see:
1. Iran is agressively moving toward nuclear weapons, and thumbing its nose at the world in the process.
2. Ahmadinejad has been very vocal about his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.
3. He's excited about the escalation and seems to want to take his rightful place in what he sees as the apocalypse.

There's a very real possibility of some very bad stuff coming.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:47 pm

DCrazy, please do not drag threads off topic. Thanks.

-----

Goob, certainly in the primaries, your pro-life voters should be supporting someone other than Rudy. Even reading P-Rob's statement, what he said was, in essence, that if Rudy wins the nomination, then he'd be acceptable to vote for in the general election. It wasn't a wholehearted primary endorsement. (And P-Rob is a loser anyway; I suspect his \"endorsement\" has more to do with money than anything else.) The \"evangelical negatives\" aren't going to wipe away Rudy's support in the primary because his support isn't coming from evangelicals. And they're not likely to wipe away his support in the general election because he's so much better than Hillary.

When it comes to general election, I'll vote for Rudy if he's the guy who gets the nod. A guy who'll veto pro-life bills and sign pro-choice bills (which rarely make it through congress anyway) but appoint judges who'll overturn Roe v Wade? That's a net positive, especially compared to Hillary*. It's like electing a racist if you know Congress won't put any race-related bills on his desk anyway, and he'll appoint judges who will overturn racist laws already on the books. His own racism won't actually hurt anything. I gotta hold my nose while voting, but I'll still vote for him.

* not to mention the damage Hillary-appointed judges would most likely do in other areas!

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:05 pm

I'm not trying to drag the thread off topic. I refuse to vote for any politician who supports action against Iran, because they are not a threat to us. Guiliani is one of those people who is using the spectre of Iran to gain support. I am countering his argument through reason.

Herculosis wrote:Here's what I see:
1. Iran is agressively moving toward nuclear weapons, and thumbing its nose at the world in the process.

Not according to the IAEA... where have you heard otherwise?

Herculosis wrote:2. Ahmadinejad has been very vocal about his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the planet.

Nope. He claimed Pakistan would do it, though. When has Ahmadinejad threatened to use pre-emptive force against Israel? And then there's the entire question of whether that is our problem to begin with.

3. He's excited about the escalation and seems to want to take his rightful place in what he sees as the apocalypse.

Absolute and complete conjecture, unless you're Ahmadinejad's personal psychologist.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:31 pm

It's sufficient to say \"I refuse to vote for any politician who supports action against Iran\" without actually arguing about Iran, just like it's sufficient to say \"I will/won't vote for a guy who's pro-choice\" without actually arguing about abortion.

If you want to argue specifics on any given issue (Iran, abortion, gun control, immigration, etc.) take it to another thread. Don't make extra work for me.

Herculosis · Post by **Herculosis** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:00 pm

Done. See other thread.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:11 pm

Here are reasons that Pat Robertson is backing Guiliani. He's probably more electable than the other Republicans and likely has a better chance of defeating Hillary.

The other important fact is that he's also stated that if he's elected president, he WILL appoint strict, constructionist (i.e. right wing conservative) judges to the supreme court. Then the conservative fantasy will come true, a right wing stacked supreme court!

The Evangelicals want to elect the most electable Republican just to get a right wing supreme court, the end justifies the means. You'll note that it takes a very long time to turn over the judges in the supreme court, they're in for life and they either have to retire or die.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:17 pm

tunnelcat wrote:The other important fact is that he's also stated that if he's elected president, he WILL appoint strict, constructionist (i.e. right wing conservative) judges to the supreme court. Then the conservative fantasy will come true, a right wing stacked supreme court!

I consider myself to be moderately conservative. I certainly don't want a right-wing stacked Supreme Court, because that eradicates the ability of the panel to make informed judgments based on reason, debate, and discourse.

I think the term "conservative" has been redefined slightly over the past seven years to really mean "right-wing". The practical politics you're talking about underscore that, and are certainly disheartening.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:29 pm

I also consider myself somewhat 'conservative' but not like the Republicans are now. We've lost the original 'Goldwater Conservative' to a bunch of extreme right-wing, power hungry, bigoted, greedy, fascist religious zealots, in my opinion.

The Democrats aren't much better these days either. Spineless slugs and wimps being led around by Bush, come to mind as a descriptor for them. What's a voter to do?

One party (either one) with full control and power in all branches of government is a very bad thing for the future of our country.

Any Rudy Republicans here?

Any Rudy Republicans here?

Re: Any Rudy Republicans here?

Re:

Re: Any Rudy Republicans here?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: