I am not a Democrat or Republican but I admit that I tend to lean left on many issues. Anyways my question is are you guys willing to Overlook Rudy Guilliani's positions on Abortion, Gay rights, and Gun Control just so a Republican can be the Commander in Chief or risk loosing the election by giving the nomination to someone like Brownback?



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My answer is no
March 18, 2007 - 12:59 ET by michaelvogtThe tent should not be increased in size just to allow the "R" in the oval office. Rudy is a true American however I would not put my dogs in for him for that same reason you stated... Abortion, Gay rights, and Gun Control .
Since I am not a registered R
March 18, 2007 - 13:15 ET by NL207Since I am not a registered Republican, I have nothing to say about that party's nomination process. If I did, I would not support Rudy for the reasons you state.
In a general election, if I am confronted with a choice between Hillary Clinton and just about anybody, I will choose her opponent, and this includes Rudy Guiliani, Sam Brownback, or Ron Paul. Rudy is ten times the leader she is and this is not even considering HRC's complete lack of any moral character. That woman is cruel, ruthless, amoral and mean spirited.
Yes I agree with you about Hi
March 18, 2007 - 21:29 ET by shawn228Yes I agree with you about Hilary. I would still take her over Bush. If it came to her and Rudy, I might vote for Rudy. He has been scaring me lately with his conservative views lately on abortion though, Do you think this an act or its for real?
Do you think anything HRC is
March 18, 2007 - 21:37 ET by gfrrmanDo you think anything HRC is real? And Btw, Bush IS POTUS and will not be running in '08. And yes, I think we need another 43 million killed in the future...you know those "scarey conservative views" on abortion.
Yes I realize Bush is n
March 18, 2007 - 23:13 ET by shawn228Yes I realize Bush is not running again, I am just saying I would pick her over Bush if I had that choice. It is obvious you and I have a very different point of view on abortion, so you have right to your opinion about that.
I just want to see if the majority or minority of this site like Guiliani or not. This site speaks for a high percentage of traditional conservatives.
Traditional conservatives wou
March 19, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTraditional conservatives wouldn't take Guilliani as our first choice, but we will choose him over Hilary any day because it will literally come down to a vote for the lesser of two evils. The problem is that the Republican Party has been hi-jacked by moderates as the Left continues to veer even further Left, so now it seems that the nomination will go to someone that is as close to the center as possible. I will not register as a Republican because of that reason. Traditional Conservatives need to take their party back or start a new one...and we all know how well third parties catch on in this country.
So you would take Hilary over Bush...but would you take her over Guilliani?
unfortunately, Mean Gene
March 19, 2007 - 11:45 ET by tumbler_2007Unfortunately;
results of the quandary are that even fewer Americans turn out to vote. Turnout is usually based on having a distinct choice.
Giuliani vs. Clinton is sure to be a very low turnout. We definitely need somebody on the opposing pole to defeat Hillary. Republicans will surely turn out to vote for a confrontational candidate. This time it's really crucial, IMO.
I believe in my response to
March 19, 2007 - 22:42 ET by shawn228I believe in my response to NL207, I already said I would strongly consider voting from him if it came down to him and Hillary. I find her kind of cold. She does not have the charisma of her husband. "please no bill bashing K? Lets stay on topic. I would however take her over John Mccain . He seems to flip flop worse than Kerry.
He is also considered a Maverick to the GOP anyways right?
Since when is charisma a requ
March 20, 2007 - 21:25 ET by UnsaneSince when is charisma a requirement to be President?
Besides, your kleptocratic tendencies are revealed once you indicated you lean towards Hillary "I want to take those profits" Clinton. By that sentence alone, she indicates that she has not seen a dime in her life that she didn't/doesn't think is hers to steal...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Especially the Chicago Trade
March 20, 2007 - 21:38 ET by bigtimerEspecially the Chicago Trade market.
One of her favorites...
Zilch happened.
Imagine if it was a Republican.
LMAO!
The way I see it is this: if
March 19, 2007 - 21:57 ET by UnsaneThe way I see it is this: if he can hold those views, while appointing Supreme Court justices of the caliber of Scalia and Thomas to the bench, no one in the conservative camp should have a problem with him.
Giuliani intrigues me most of all because I think his candidacy places a considerable number of "blue states" in play, though I am a long way from making up my mind about who I want to vote for. I am not a Republican, by the way; I belong to no political party. However, as those who read my posts can consistently can attest, I am as Right-wing as they come.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I would not worry
March 22, 2007 - 15:57 ET by rsschaefferRudy is not electable. A good man - not electable.
Hmmmm...WHY is he not electab
March 24, 2007 - 10:22 ET by UnsaneHmmmm...WHY is he not electable? (I have no preferences just yet - admittedly I am leaning to him and to one or two others - but I would rather see some explanation other than "he's not electable".)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
unsane -- dittos.Even the H
March 24, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Jack Bauerunsane -- dittos.
Even the Hilderbeast is "electable"... God forbid.
Rudy is eminently electable if he wins the Republican primary. And so far, his lack of true conservative credentials is being trumped by...
#1. The Republcan base putting national security above all else.
#2. The Republican base understanding that Lady McClinton is electable.
In a two horse race, to claim one of them isn't electable is just dumb.
Who da thunk a prize chump like Kerry could have got within 3 million votes of the Oval Office. Pause to shudder.
Rudy isn't a true social cons
March 24, 2007 - 10:43 ET by UnsaneRudy isn't a true social conservative...but I maintain if he appoints the right Supreme Court justices that one day overturn such decisions as Roe v. Wade, statues will be built in his honor across the most conservative regions of the nation.
Besides, many right here on NB can make an argument I am not a true conservative either, for my focus on Rightist philosophies rests on foreign policy and finance/economics, and scarcely at all on social matters.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
On Rudy
March 24, 2007 - 11:27 ET by acumen".....are you guys willing to Overlook Rudy Guilliani's positions on Abortion, Gay rights, and Gun Control....."
I disagree with the implications offered in your question. It's not a matter of overlooking Rudy's positions. It is important to understand Rudy's positions on the above. His positions are not pro-abortion, pro-civil unions or pro-gun control. His position is that these should be States rights, not rights legislated Federally which I agree with totally and the Constitution supports.
Further, unlike the Demediacrats and other associated lib***ls around the globe, it is Rudy's belief (which I agree with) that it is not supposed human-induced climate change that is the greatest threat to the world, but the hate-filled, maniacal, bigoted face of terrorism that is the greatest threat to the world at this time.
As a believer in terrorism being the greatest threat to the world my first and foremost concern is that America elects a leader who recognizes the magnitude of the terror threat and is prepared to continue the war on terrorism with full deliberation. I think we can all agree that the defeatist Dems that dance to the beat of their deranged extremist base don't offer this ability. The argument can be made that most of the Republican candidates, if not all, understand the importance of continuing the war on terrorism and are supported by the base so any Republican should be able to beat the Dem candidate. However, as demonstrated in the last election, it will take more than the base to achieve a Republican victory. The Republican candidate will have to possess the ability to win over the centralists. I don't see any other current Republican candidate other than Rudy who possess that quality.
Rudy appears to understand the necessity of continuning to go after the terrorists anywhere they pitch their tent or dig a spider hole and has the experience and fortitude to make the tough decisions required to respond to the threat despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Demediacrats. More importantly Rudy has demonstrated time and time again he possesses the communicative skills to overcome America's "media stars" deranged positions bringing the much needed centralists on board uniting America in supporting the important fight against terrorism. Rudy is not looked upon by the media elites with the typical anathema shown other Republicans. Remember who opened the first Saturday Night Live show post 9/11.
If America does not win this war on terrorism, the debate on social issues becomes irrelevant. Rudy understands that salient point. In short I am supporting Rudy as he strongly supports the war on terrorism, has the intellect, charisma and communicative skills to take on the talking heads, neutralize the media elites and win over the centist, fence-sitters who seem to be drawn to who appears to be the most popular person in class.
And yes, Rudy, as a former Republican Mayor elected in unquestionably, the predominantly lib***l NY city has proven he is definitely electable.
I agree, acumen, Ruby wou
March 24, 2007 - 13:53 ET by shawn228I agree, acumen, Ruby would make a great president. His biggest obstacle now is not the liberals, but the conservatives
Shawn
March 24, 2007 - 15:40 ET by acumen"His biggest obstacle now is not the liberals, but the conservatives......"
I respectfully disagree Shawn. Now I could be wrong on that point but actually, I have been surprised at the number of die-hard conservatives that have embraced Rudy. I'm not talking about blue-blood conservatives but the give-me-everything-conservative or give me nothing conservatives - you know, the ones that held their nose (and votes) and gave the last election to the libs.
That said - I haven't been surprised at the early lashing out at Rudy by the left. They realize he is electable and have already started the disinformation and fear campaigns - doing so this early on (Rudy is still in the "exploratory" phase of his campaign) is quite unusual. Certainly this is to be expected by the Demediacrats and will only increase as the months drag on, but more to your point, I have not seen the vitriol by conservatives directed towards Rudy coming close to that of the left. But like I said, I could be wrong.
One other thing Shawn concerning one of your other points. I agree totally with you about decriminalizing pot. I realize this is anathema to many conservatives and I understand their point of; why decriminalize something else that many people abuse (laziness and lack of constructive motivation). However, I attribute this to their lack of first-hand knowledge of the herb and try mightily not to let this one difference of opinion cause division between others and myself. Like Jefferson, Franklin and many other reputable people, I have seen first-hand the medicinal benefits as well as other benefits weed offers and certainly don't see why herb shouldn't be available to someone if it helps their medical condition.
That said, I believe you are tunnel-visioning unfairly on this administration and conservatives in general concerning this issue. I caught one of your earlier derogatory comments on another thread referring to this administrations "drug czar". To be fair, I hope you will remember that Bill Clinton was far more evasive (I never enhaled) and let a great deal of his base and others down by doing nothing to assist in the decriminalization of weed. He had a Dem controlled Congress for 6 years and yet Clinton and the Dems did absolutely nothing (except to continue to toke up in the closet). Bottom line - I think your fight is with Clinton and the Dems and not with conservatives or the Bush administration. The conservatives have always stated clearly and honestly their anti every drug policy so I hardly would expect them to act differently. On the other hand Kucinich and other like-minded Dem politicians have openly stated their support of decriminalization. But in the six years they ran DC, they did nothing to back that up legislatively. Why? Political self-preservation. They understand it would be political suicide to support something the majority of voters don't want. This has been and continues to be a recurring theme with the Dems. They portray themselves one way to American voters to get elected, then act differently when they get elected. Then to cover these actions or non-actions with their base or centrists they simply blame the Republicans for preventing them from achieving the goals they campaigned on. Unfortunately, some Republicans do this as well but not to the degree the Dems do and concerning this specific topic as I said earlier, I think your fight is with the Dems and not this administration or conservatives in general. The Dems are the ones that let you down of pot.
I observe a general willingness on your part to do the right thing, which IMO is a strictly conservative ideal and I conclude that this is why you lean to the right even though as you stated, you lean left on most social issues. However, I also detect a pattern in you that wants to go along with what the media portrays as the majority opinion. This is by no means a slam at you. I think this is prevalent behavior in society - be one of the gang and all that. I started observing this behavior around junior high school or before (some 45 years ago). I think this pattern you exhibit is the reason for your disaffection with Bush and his Administration. i.e. - it's the cool thing to do.
The media would have America believe that slamming Bush is the popular thing to do. Who knows it might quite well be now. The reason I am bringing this up however, is because I think it is the wrong thing to do. Look past the media talking points, pop-culture concepts directed at Bush, Bushs' role as President along with all the spin associated with that position and just look at the man Bush.
Bush is highly educated, yet likes working with his hands and driving around his ranch in a pick-up truck when he's not biking. He chooses to live on a ranch, not in a trendy high-rise in some fashionable city. This exhibits his closeness to nature, love of animals and a genuine care for the environment. He is modest in his means living in a slightly above-average sized home that he decided to build eco-friendly long before this was fashionable. While firm in his beliefs, he is modest in his demeanor, open to criticism, acknowledging his short comings and a loving husband and father. He realizes his smallness in comparison to his Creator and set's time aside everyday to thank his Creator for all he has been given. He is frank yet tolerant of others conflicting ideology even attempting time and time again to have a working relationship with those that disagree with him. He cares about his Country and his fellow Americans. He is compassionate to those that live in poorer Countries giving a great deal of his own money and time to assist them.
I could go on but I think you get the point. Notice that all of these qualities have nothing to do with his position as President. They are qualities that any sane person would agree are good qualities if not try to emulate. My whole point of bringing up this topic is to ask you to try to see the good man behind all the hate-filled propaganda directed in his direction. He is not perfect but who among us can claim that distinction? But his heart is in the right place.
Anyway, I think if you contemplate these points it will be easier for you to understand why most conservatives support Bush and hopefully you too will determine that such a good person has no desire to supposedly take away the freedoms of other Americans (think the warrantless wiretapping charge), supposedly lie to Americans (think the war in Iraq), supposedly have his AG fire people for political reasons (think the current witch hunt concerning Rove, Meirs, etc) and all the other non-sensical charges the left daily hurls at what is basically just a good guy trying to do good things for his country.
Sorry for being so long-winded Shawn, but I think if you replaced listinening to liberal self-serving talking points with some critical thinking on your part, you will be of great service to others, your Country and the world. Sometimes that means disagreeing with the pop-culturalists, the media elites and those whose approval we would like to have. You are our future Shawn and we are counting on you to employ some rational thought and critical thinking skills to serious issues if America and the individual freedom she offers the world are going to survive and that is something I don't mind devoting some extra keystrokes towards.
Acumen, yes for now the
March 24, 2007 - 18:06 ET by shawn228Acumen, yes for now the critics on the left are louder than the right at the moment. When the Republican Primary starts that is when gloves are off and you have to be agree Republicans can be pretty nasty in a campain.
As for the 2nd part of your post. Thank you for not flaming. I think for now we should stay on topic. I will respond to your question later on today in the Saturday open thread.
Thx Acumen
Thx Shawn
March 24, 2007 - 18:12 ET by acumenMy pleasure Shawn. I agree ALL politicians can be pretty nasty.
Good point about staying on topic.
Thx Shawn
Rudy Interview
April 4, 2007 - 15:37 ET by shawn228Rudy said in a interview recently that his position has not changed and he still supports public funding for abortions. I wonder if this will effect his electibility with Social Conservatives