Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Rudy is Striking Out...
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Mayor Rudy Giuliani intended to use the chance to address students and faculty at Houston Baptist University on Friday to boost his image and clarify his position - particularly on abortion. He also hoped to energize what is beginning to look like a campaign that is in complete meltdown.

He failed on every level.

Coming out of the first Presidential Candidate debate he was established as the clear loser in many respects. His mumbling, stumbling, bumbling and shrugging of the shoulders on the simple question put to him on the issue of Roe v. Wade truly isolated him from the rest of the field.

He is also bending believability.

In his address at HBU on Friday he took more time than I had heard him use in the past to describe the "two pillars" of his thinking on the matter.

The first pillar is his supposed personal belief that abortion is "deeply, profoundly, and always morally wrong." He belabored the point by emphasizing that if he were to counsel someone personally, that he would always advise them against abortion and would encourage them to have the baby. Once born, if they were unable to care for it, he would encourage them to consider the adoption option.

His second pillar was his belief that our society "must always grant the woman" the "right to make the choice". He didn't really elaborate on the specifics of what they would be choosing, but we are to assume that the choices are somewhere between the "always morally right" decision to have a child, or the "always immoral" decision to kill one.

The Mayor continued by addressing the issue of partial birth abortion. He added that he felt it should have been kept legal to protect the life and health of the mother. Interestingly enough the American Medical Association has denounced this method of ever being medically necessary to "save a woman's life." And the word "health" could be interpreted as lightly as "mental health" which could be interpreted as lightly as "I just don't FEEL like having this baby" which you then realize is in fact a term that means nothing.

Giuliani also seemed to imply that he opposed federal funding for abortion as part of his "giving the woman the option."

He then pledge to work to limit abortions, put restrictions on them, and for added good measure he bragged that adoptions went up under his administration in New York by some 130%.

The problem was the entire pretense of Giuliani's position on abortion is a sham, at least the side of viewing it as "always morally wrong." Moments before he was to give the address in Houston, Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron did a cut-in with an exclusive discovery. Cameron had uncovered a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Survey that Giuliani had filed with them in running for office back in 1997. In the Mayor's own handwriting exists the proof that Giuliani opposed parental notification, and any limits on the always unnecessary procedure of partial-birth abortions. He also advocated more federal funding for abortions. He has also given multiple donations to the racist genocidal organization that was founded upon the desire of eliminating blacks - Planned Parenthood.

Discerning people don't even need the evidence of a NARAL survey to see through Giuliani's ineptitude on moral issues. His stated "pillars" tell us everything we need to know.

With the discovery last week that gender can now be identified in the unborn child only six weeks after conception, coupled with the increasing abilities to see a child survive to a healthy life outside the womb, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, the issue of personhood continues to be Giuliani's downfall.

Since he was in Houston, let's use a local example.

Many remember Andrea Yates who systematically drowned her five children in her own bathtub. Certainly Mayor Giuliani would share our horror and condemn such actions as "always morally wrong." Surely he would have - had he been given the chance - to counsel Andrea to not go through with such a procedure. He would have attempted to convince her that it would be better for the child, and for her to give those children up for adoption. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have even called for police intervention had he been able to divine ahead of time her intent to murder her children.

But by using the Mayor's own logic and his "other pillar of thinking" he would have felt that it would have been equally important to "give her the option, to make the choice" to carry out her plan.

This is where Rudy's logic is so flawed that it defies explanation. And it is this confusion in the arena of moral clarity that calls into question his ability to be morally clear in his governing skills.

The problem with his two pillars is that even Rudy Giuliani doesn't fully believe them both. It is also obvious from his record which of the "two pillars" he believes, and which one he is now giving lip service to.

If he wished to disprove this and in fact attract genuine pro-life voters let me propose a specific tactic for his campaign. In his discussion of "compromise" and the need to hold to his "two pillars" how about this:

Propose sweeping legislation to ban all abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, and the mother's life.

This compromise would eliminate roughly 98% of all abortions performed, and even though we truly pro-life types would still work to ban the remaining 2%, it would allow the "needed exceptions" that the Mayor espouses are "so important."

Rudy Giuliani is the most full throated pro-abortion Republican candidate for President in history. In all transparency he must be acknowledged as such.

Rudy's poll numbers are sagging in Iowa and New Hampshire, and without radical change in his thinking those trends will hold, and somewhere around South Carolina the Mighty Mayor will strike out.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Rudy's Toast
Though his neo-con backers will keep this dead pony propped up longer necessary. Do everyone a favor Mr. Giuliani: stop wasting our time and media space so some other Republican candidate can emerge.

The fine legal and moral points aside...
Over 45 million abortions since Roe v. Wade became law! Whether you believe abortion should be legal, can anyone justify that number? We have a serious problem that suggests that we might have no more respect for life than the Nazis we defeated in WWII.

RINO Rudy's got to go!
I was ahead of the curve on this one: http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/

read "Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

This guy's a disaster for the GOP, and for the country.

He can't win, but he can drag the GOP down with him, and try to force it to abandon its core principles and entire raison d'etre at the same time.

He's the GOP Bill Clinton, a self-serving, self-aggrandizing huckster snake-oil salesman, who wants the Presidency solely for the selfish reason of satisfying his own naked ambition.

That's the worst reason of all, and what makes any politician very, very dangerous.



BrianR
'Fraid you are right about Rudy. His rain dancing just can't stand the light of day. Cynewulf remarked that the GOP big 3 are taking themselves into the flash-in-the-pan category and a clear cut candidate will emerge. For crying out loud, the French did it. Surely we can too.

There's no party for someone like me
It seems that in the "culture wars," those of us who tend to be conservative on economic, national defense and foreign policy issues but who are libertarian on social issues have no place to go. There is no major political party for us, and (if the activist ideologues in both parties have their way) no candidate for us either.

I agree that Giuliani has made an unnecessary muddle of this entire abortion issue. I have a pro-choice position too (with some minor qualifications and caveats), but it's a whole lot clearer than his.

I cannot vote Democrat because I simply don't buy their flirtation with European welfare statism nor their flaccidity in dealing with America's enemies abroad. I lived through the McGovern candidacy of 1972 and the Carter presidency of 1977-80 and I don't want to see a repetition of either. But I cannot vote Republican either, if the GOP has essentially proclaimed that my pro-choice views and pro-gay-marriage views would make me unwelcome in the Republican Party. To say "Sure, you pro-choicers can vote Republican, but don't you pro-choicers dare run for office as Republicans" is too hypocritical for me to accept.

That's why I'm a registered Independent. And that's why it's getting harder and harder for me to vote for either party.

Gently99, SteveL
Gently: I saw your comment at my blog and replied. Thanks. I think Cyne's right. Romney may tough it out, probably will as I think about it, but Romney and McCain are doing a Howard Dean, thank God.



Steve: It's a problem for folks like you, no doubt. Some have a litmus issue; I know I do and it's the 2nd Amendment. I will not vote for someone who doesn't support it, period. If same-sex marriage is a litmus issue for you, you're right that you won't find much support among Repubs for it, other than RINOs like Rudy.

I, and many like me, view abortion as rightfully a state issue that never should have seen the light of day at SCOTUS; Roe has led to 30+ years of wrangling over an issue that would have been settled at the state level years ago.


gently99
"a clear cut candidate will emerge"

One is....

Let's get ready to r u m b l e..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgjI_WROg6w

"Personally opposed" to slavery too?
Giuliani's position is actually the most dishonest of all. Why should he be "personally opposed" unless abortion really takes a human life? If not, then there is no moral problem any more than with removing a wart.

But if abortion really does take a human life, and this is the only reason to "personally oppose" it, then how can it be a matter of "choice". Our laws should NEVER allow the choice to kill an innocent human being.

Giuliani's position is just as crass as "I'm personally opposed to slavery, but defend the choice to own slaves."

Start practicing!
Rudy was/is the best hope of the GOP.

Go to your mirrors now and start practicing these words: "President Obama."

It'll take most of you 18 months of work.

Well, Steve L
You are going to do what adults do: priortize your needs and wants. You want a candidate that supports gay marriage, but you NEED a candidate that will keep San Diego from getting nuked. Problem solved. Vote Republican. Glad to be of help.
You speak as if every issue is as important as every other issue. Life doesn't work like that. Neither do our budgets.

BrianR
I agree completely with your post and your blog. Rudy is showing his true colors and will not get my vote. Great job on the blog by the way!

Roe v. Wade and the Presidency.
The President can not repeal Roe v. Wade only the Supreme Ct. has that power. Rudy G. promises to nominate a strict constructionist to the Supreme Court and that's the most any President can do. So as far as repealing abortion he is no worse or better than any other Republican candidate. But on the other issues, fighting terrorism, lowering taxes, fighting corruption and crime, he is far ahead of all the other candidates.
Rudy G. has walked the walk on those issues while the others can only talk the talk. On those issues he has a superb record of conservative accomplishment in NYC the den of liberalism.
Combined with his record of accomplishment popularity in NY, the record of Hillary in NY and the non record of B. Hussein Obama will be a joke in the general election, he is the strongest candidate the Republicans can nominate. He will surely win the state of NY and the Dems cannot win without NY.
As for Fred Thompson, look at the videotapes of how Sen. Thompson, as chairman, ran his committee investigating how China obtained our military secrets. It was an utter failure, Sen John Glenn rolled all over Sen. Thompson. RudyG would not have allowed Sen. Glenn to take control of the committee as he did with Sen Thompson. ( Following Glenn's thwarting Thompson, Glenn was given a final trip into space as a reward by Pres. Clinton)


Sam M

Gordon
Interesting post. I don't want Giuliani to be the GOP candidate. I don't like his character or his values, and he fails my litmus test of support for the 2nd amendment. Failure to support the 2nd amendment is the action of an elitist who cares nothing for the general population. His willingness to compromise his stated principles, as on abortion for example, means his primary agenda is power and his own career. If he should wind up as our candidate, it will be a Hobson's choice for me. I hope i don't have to make it.

Rudy's Hypocritical Position

.....Kevin ....

.....Rudy's position ..."I am personally against abortion but do not want to deny women the right" ...is the same position as Ted Kennedy ...Al Gore and Bill Clinton ...all three of which voted against the partial birth abortion ban (Clinton veteod it) ...

.....in other words it is a typical Democrat/Liberal talking point and pure bull hockey ...

.....The major difference between the GOP and Dems is the right-to-life position ...if Republican's nominate a pro-choice candidate then the GOP is finished as the alternative to Progressive/Socialism .....COLOSSUS

Abortion as an issue
is drummed up and perpetuated by the left and Guliani is playing into their hands. The more this issue is alive, the more democrat candidates benefit. As for me, the real issue is leadership in these troubling times. The question is: will you feel safer with Edwards, Obama, Hillary or Guliani?

Rudy G.
Rudy isn't a Republican candidate. He's the Democrat candidate for the Republican Party.

The leftist MSM has anointed Rudy as the Republican candidate without asking the Republicans' permission.

Of course, the leftist MSM ALWAYS knows what's best for us. Because they are sensitive and caring and want to save the planet, we should ALWAYS listen to the leftists... after all, we are stupid and couldn't possibly know what's good for us.

Maybe we ought to all stay at home and let the socialists in the MSM select our candidates and vote for them.

(For those in Rio Linda, the last two paragraphs are called "sarcasm".)

Route 1, perhaps, isn't always the way.
Kevin McCullough writes:-
"I was surprisingly unimpressed with the whole thing".

I am not American and the only feedback about Rudy Giuliani that I have had, before this internet link of his speech at the HBU, has been via the mainstream and online media. I had never even heard his voice before.

Although, prior to this, I had already ascertained that I am, personally, clearly more conservative than Guiliani (and the HBU speech confirms this for me) - I have to say that I was (in contrast to Kevin McCullough) actually 'suprisingly impressed' with Guiliani. He does not appear to be as 'Left-leaning' as I had previously believed.

Although I am myself 100% Pro-Life/anti-abortion, pro-traditional family values and true marriage/anti-homosexual and lesbian 'marriage' (but not homophobic - if they mind their own business about their sexuality and let everyone else, particularly children, mind theirs). I am also a Christian, resolutely resolved to defend my own nation and culture, with force if necessary, from without and within (which is, in no way, a contradiction) - amongst many other things - Guiliani did come across in this clip as actually being on my side.

Obviously he was addressing an American audience about their country, their considerations and their political choices. But as an outsider, who also lives in the same world as they do, he was speaking to me as well in many fundamentally important ways.

Ideally, of course, all staunch conservatives would like to see a potential Republican nominee hold up, with an iron hand, a large proverbial sign with the words 'stop' and 'no more, as from today' to many of the issues outlined above.

But the fact of the matter is that America is a democracy. And all presidential candidates have to face the reality that getting the nomination of your party is not walking through the door of the 'arrival lounge'.

I may be completely wrong (I do not have full exposure to the American media to hand) but in this one and only brief video clip that I have seen, Guiliani gave me the impression that he is actually genuinely of the center-Right (i.e that which represents reason, common sense, survival and lasting progress), but that he realizes that he must champion his beliefs in a democratic nation in which the antithesis of those values also has political representation and wide, if very misguided, support.

And in this footage he seems to do this without selling his soul to the 'other'. Unlike the British, so called, representatives of conservatism under David Cameron who would never declare, under any circumstances, their own personal opposition to such things as abortion or same sex marriage (which Giuliani quite categorically did - as I interpreted it).

Yes, his delivery to the HBU audience wasn't the most fluent and articulate address that many people will have heard. But, considering the venue, it probably wasn't the most carefully prepared and practised either. I haven't yet heard him deal with live audience questions.

Having said all of this, from what I have read Mitt Romney is still perhaps my own personal favorite for the Republican nomination (although I have yet to hear him speak either).

But the most important consideration for American Republicans to factor into whatever equation they decide to use to work out their immediate political future, is that America continues to have a Republican in the White House. The alternative is a considerably grimmer and far larger retrograde step backwards for America (and for the wider world) than the relatively lesser issue of Republican leadership.

Guiliani suggested as such in his summary. And he is right.

Thoughts
Goshawk, DavidM: Thanks, guys.


Christian Manfred: Obama v. Giuliani = Yawn. I stay home. Who cares? Two peas in a pod.


Baseballdoc: The other big differentiating issue GOP v. Dems: 2nd Amendment. Giuliani sucks there, too.


Loco: Feel safer with Giuliani, Obama, Clinton or Edwards? Where's the difference? My rights will be gone with any or all of them.


the most important considerations
But when I became a man I put away such childish things.

Isn't this the reality? No candidate who makes strong opposition to abortion rights the centerpiece of his/her campaign has any hope of winning the presidency. No candidate who is chosen on that basis has any hope of appealing to the majority of American voters who are moderates i.e. of the Giuliani stripe, on that issue. So what this flurry about Giuliani and abortion is actually about is whether "the Republican base" – what likes to call itself the Republican base – would prefer a Clinton/Obama administration. At least under that administration the morally pure could derive spiteful comfort from mutual self-congratulations about how good they are, and maybe do a bit of millennial planning on the side.

Get it? You can't win an election by forcing your candidate to go apolcalyptic on an issue on which your position is a loser. Even the Democrats know that you don't make endorsement of Gay marriage the absolute center of their presidential platform. They will hedge and qualify about it, and tell that minority for whom support of gay marriage defines whether or not you are a decent human being to settle down a bit so as not to lose the election for them. After all, the most a president can do about gay marriage is appoint Federal judges who will rule favorably, true?

A useful exercise would be making a list of things that a lot of republicans really care about but which presidents can't do much about besides appointing conservative justices. Abortion is at the top of the list. Gun control is second. "Abstinence education" in the schools? "Intelligent design"? You can just continue the list on your own.

Now come back the other way. What falls under the purview of the president that Republicans really care about. Answer: foreign policy and national security. Not coincidentally those are areas in which the parties part company rather dramatically.

So where does that leave us?

Option one: make abortion or gun control or some such the hot button for the Republican campaign, by demanding that the candidate's position satisfy the persons who apparently define their own lives by those issues. Outcome: the Hillary/Obama ticket wins big. Abortion rights gets a big boost. Second amendment rights are eroded by the new Supreme court. Foreign policy goes back ten years, and national security goes code red.

Option two: Nominate a candidate whose foreign policy and national security credentials highlight the weakness of the Democrats. Encourage the Democrats to make the mistake of thinking they have to satisfy the 'move on" crowd and hope they make the mistake the Republicans are in danger of making now i.e. pushing the party to its extreme (again, what likes to call itself its "base") while leaving the large moderate center to choose between sensible adults on one side, and wild-eyed obsessive one-issue children on the other. The Democrats are perfectly capable of making that mistake and you'd better believe they pray to their god everyday that the Republicans make it before them.

Choose wisely.

occamsrazor: Nope
Sorry. I'm a conservative, and rights are more important to me than anything else, particularly 2nd Amendment, so your posit is not correct, and therefore you've reached a faulty conclusion.

Since 1980, GOP presidential candidates have won every time, and only if, they've been endorsed by the NRA.

That says a mouthful. No way does the NRA endose gun-grabber RINO Rudy, the Bald Hillary. Never happen.

When you look at the razor-thin margins in 2000 and 2004, Bush owes his presidency to the support of gun owners. How does Giuliani get that support? He doesn't. Can he make it up somewhere else? Where? Nowhere, that's where.




BrianR
I am puzzled at the "faulty conclusion" you say I have reached, since you seem in pretty much complete agreement with my analysis.

Again you have the option of being some sort of purist who loses this election, and has a hillary/obama administration. If you think the NRA has enought votes to carry an election by itself then you should check your medication schedule. That's just a little joke. No offense intended. Honestly, I understand the attractions of ideological purity as much as the next person.

The alternativve I mentioned is that we can moderate the issues that make us look like a pack of true-believers and maybe win the election on the basis of a strong national security candidate who doesn't unite sixty percent of Americans against him with his moral righteousness. This is not your father's election cycle, Brian.

But, as I said, you seem to agree with me. I said you have two options. You just chose one of them, the I think is the wrong option i.e. to lose by trying to turn the election into a referendum on guns.

Occams: Sorry. Let me clarify
As I'd written in a slightly earlier post, if a Giuliani runs, I won't care about the outcome. I won't even vote.

So then I do agree with your conclusion. The Dem will probably win.

From my point of view, Giuliani v. anybody means a Dem wins no matter what. Giuliani is a Dem, running in the wrong party.

Hopefully, that clarifies.


Too liberal for the GOP
Rudy is a social liberal who, up until know in an effort to pander to his new religious best friends in the Bible Belt, favored both abortion and gay rights. And it that weren't enough to anger the evangelical base, Rudy has a messy personal life with two divorces and has appeared publicly in drag. He was also the mayor of the bluest city in the bluest state in the Union!!! On 9/11 New Yorkers were going to the polls to elect candidates to replace Rudy as mayor. He's only running that he was mayor on 9/11, nothing more. We won't be seeing President Guliani anytime soon.

True enough
Yeah, Rudy doesn't have a chance. Really, nobody who's not willing to replace the Bill of Rights with the 10 Commandments has a chance of getting the nutroots support from the fundamentalist cult that has hijacked the Republican party. Frightening when you realize how much power these nutcases weild!

Of course taking of human life matters to you, if it's in the form of abortion, because that could facilitate (gasp) PREMARITAL SEX! When the taking of innocent life comes in the form of bombs being dropped you see how precious life really is to the Christian right!

oneway: Oh, please, what drivel
Giuliani loses on many bases, to me primarily as a gun-grabber, which is a 2nd Amendment issue that doesn't seem to be anywhere in the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt carry a .44 Magnum).

Pretty good 11th Commandment, though.


Rights
"rights are more important to me than anything else, particularly 2nd Amendment"

I'm under the impression that there are several cities, DC and SF come to mind, that have local ordinances against gun ownership. It would seem these would violate a person's right to bear arms.

Nationally, there are waiting periods, background checks and certain exclusions(felons, restraining orders) that are necessary for buying a firearm. These would seem to fall under the 2nd amendment's "well-regulated" wording.

Are you suggesting that any person should have unfetterered access to any weapon at any time? Is that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Have you ever been denied in an effort to buy a firearm?

utah/mormon: Actually
First of all, if you refer to the contemporary writings of the Founders, you'll find that "well regulated" in their vernacular meant "well equipped". They were expected to supply their own musket, powder, and ball. It has nothing to do with placing a bunch of legal restrictions in the way of gun purchases.

In answer to your question, no, I have never been denied gun ownership, though how that's germane to anything is well beyong me.

As to acces to fireamrs, here's extant US code on defining the militia:

"Title 10 USC, sec 311

"Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


So, as long as someone is a law-abiding legal resident and/or citizen of the US, then yes, they should have unfettered access to guns. They are, after all, members of the "unorganized militia".


oneway
you write "Of course taking of human life matters to you, if it's in the form of abortion, because that could facilitate (gasp) PREMARITAL SEX!"... premarital sex is not really the issue with abortion, if you want to get down to brass tacks it is about personal accountablilty,while this isn't really a hot button issue for me it is annoying how many who push abortion on demand throw personal responsiblity out the window. if you are going to have sex take precautions not to get pregnant if you do not want a baby!!!!!
then you write "When the taking of innocent life comes in the form of bombs being dropped you see how precious life really is to the Christian right!" if you take the time to look at strategy and tactical methods of most western(Judeo-Christian) war fighting, you will see that collateral damage is minimized compared to the rest of the world.

CH47: well said!
The unborn baby gets to pay with its life for the "inconvenience" to the mother of getting pregnant due to irresponsible sex, in the VAST majority of cases.

How about THAT for "An Inconvenient Truth", lefties?


litmus tests make one unwelcome
Randy writes: "You are going to do what adults do: prioritize your needs and wants. You want a candidate that supports gay marriage, but you NEED a candidate that will keep San Diego from getting nuked. Problem solved. Vote Republican. Glad to be of help."

No, you weren't of help, because you missed my point.

It's not only that there is a disagreement about the abortion issue. Nobody expects to find a candidate or a party with whom they agree 100% of the time on everything.

What I cannot accept is the way that abortion has become an absolute litmus test for acceptance into the GOP. Judging by the reaction to Giuliani, in order to run as a candidate of the GOP you have to be pro-life or the GOP doesn't want you as a candidate. The GOP doesn't welcome pro-choicers, period. Sure, we have a secret ballot in this country, and if I vote for a Republican, they'll gladly take my vote. But they don't want me, or my views; much less would they even want me to run for dog catcher on a GOP ticket.

It's one thing to take a definite stance on each issue in the party platform. It's quite another thing to purge from the roster of candidates, anyone who disagrees about any one issue.

Well, if I'm not welcome, I guess I won't darken your door with my presence.

SteveL: Again
Giuliani is wrong on at least THREE key issues, not just abortion.

1. Abortion

2. Guns

3. Same-sex marriage

Three strikes and you're out.


Ockhamsrazor
If I may interrupt for my $ .02?

You are correct that the NRA cannot win an election solely based on it's membership. No one has ever made that claim that I know of. The NRA has a membership of 4MM and is widely believed to directly influence twice that number, due to family members such as a spouse.

In on-the-street surveys there are approximately 20MM that claim to be NRA members, probably because of some affiliation in the past. Those same 20MM vote with the NRA and strongly believe in personal Rights and responsibility's. So the NRA can greatly influence elections, but not everywhere.

The NRA also has a pretty solid policy of NOT endorsing a candidate in a primary election but they can "rate" them. They chose to play when the end-run comes if they play at all.

Now when you throw out the purist moniker in reference to gun owners or Christians or abortion foes you are taking in a large group that can, when united, carry an election, but not everywhere.

You wrote;
"The alternative I suggested is that we can moderate the issues......"

There, right there, you highlight the problem that lost the Republicans both Houses of Congress. Enough of us are fed up with 'moderation' to put a stop to it. For dozens of elections and hundreds of candidates have presented us with moderates that fail the smell test once in office.

Bush II is a good example. A Compassionate conservative gave us tax cuts that expire, grew government faster than even FDR could, gave us (perhaps) two good Supreme Court judges but left hundreds dangling in the wind. Lest we forget, we are fighting a war on terrorists but leave our borders almost wide open. Our country was attacked with our own planes but a Bush appointee stalled the arming of pilots to the point it doesn't practically exist six years later.

For six years the Republicans held the Federal government and would not fix the things that were wrong. Social Security, Education, military size and funding, illegal aliens running wild, earmarks that build bridges to nowhere, a farm subsidy program that is monumental, little security inspections of imported containers, no solution to dependance on foreign energy, no new refineries, no nuke plants for clean cheap power, rash environmental laws that practically designate a wet spot in your lawn as "wetlands", and where or when do you want me to stop?

I'll quote Reagan again...with a twist....
"I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me."

I'm not in a mood to moderate much of anything.















Rudy
Rudy is tanking because he isn't conservative. He's trying to redefine conservative. I don't care if your a neo-con, old school conservative, religious conservative, or libertarian conservative. All is okay with me, and he doesn't fit the definition of either! Although despite all of his weakness' he is a dang site better than all of the Dems combined. He, however, will not be getting my vote.

Marc of Ca
Great post. I am sick of compromising. It reminds me of the children's book "If you give a mouse a cookie". It seems our politicians do not know when to compromise and when not to. My Dad always told me "The art of politics is knowing when to compromise and the trick is knowing when not to."

Marc of CA
I'm going to steal that from you. I can't say it any better.

Marc of Ca
P.S. We compromised with Arnie and look what that got us? Ca State legislators can tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, drive, and how to raise our kids. Heck, they even tell us who we can like and dislike! But they can't balance their own checkbook! Amazing!

ockhamsrazor
"No candidate who makes strong opposition to abortion rights the centerpiece of his/her campaign has any hope of winning the presidency."

Have you been asleep since 1976? EVERY president except Clinton was elected on a pro-life platform. Back in 1976, even Jesse Jackson was pro-life. Is there any point in my reading the rest of what you said?

Making stuff up out of thin air
Well regulated=well equipped

Very funny.

In many interpertations
of the Founders intent the 2nd amendment was written in so that a tryannical government could be cast of by the citizenry,a well regulated(by the government) miltia...would not be allowed to arm or take action against a government that controlled it.
hmmm it seems that the wording of the 1st and second amendments are strangely similar as well (or the right of the people peaceably to assemble(1st),he right of the People to keep and bear Arms(2nd). How many who would abolish the 2nd would scream if the same creative interpetation was used on the first.

How many ?
>How many who would abolish the 2nd<

How many in this country have advocated abolishing the 2nd amendment? Can you name one influential person? Keep in mind that there is a big difference between regulating and abolishing.


Ockhamsrazor,
and others posting here who recognize Rudy for the stealth candidate he is, I agree with you all. As a life member of the NRA, and an anti-abortion, anti-homosexual marriage conservative, I will never vote for Guliani.


To those who point out that not voting for him may result in Hillary, Obama or some other Democrat as President, I really regret that. I'm not going to carry all of that weight though. The Republican leadership has been giving us policies and candidates that I just can't stomach anymore. No, I am not happy with the thought of a Democrat in the White House, but I will not vote for Rudy or McCain.


They support more gun control, "comprehensive" immigration reform (amnesty), and while McCain has always been anti-abortion, he has also been supporting bills Democrats could have written. He just can not be trusted.


Hopefully a conservative will emerge between now and 2008. If not, so be it. I just renewed my fishing license, and I have located a few bass fisheries here in Montana.

Drift
Rudy is starting to drift downward. His big problem is his straddle approach to abortion. He looks undecisive. He undermines his "leadership" positioning strategy. He needs to take a clear pro choice stand and be done with it. He is the only pro choice candidate and that position will get him about 25% of the abortion vote.

Rudy will not die out in SC. He is a lock for NY, NJ and enough other blue states and congressional districts that he will get substantial delegates no matter what position he takes on abortion.

As long as he beats Hillary in head to heads and Romney (and/or Thompson) does not, Rudy will keep about 20-25% of the primary vote. There has been some shift to McCain in the last 10 days but Rudy has a floor of about 20% of the vote.

how about
"It doesn't have to be that way. Any more than we as Americans have to continually face the real-life meaning of that gruesome, blood-soaked, gun-toting word "massacre" because of the outmoded language of the Second Amendment." Walter Shapiro Salon's Washington bureau chief.
2.That age is gone. If we really want to control handguns in this country, perhaps the Second Amendment should go too.....effery L. Bineham is a professor of rhetoric in the Department of Communication Studies at St. Cloud State University.
3.It's true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now; that doesn't bother me. It should be hard to take away a fundamental right. But that doesn't make it less wrong to ask Silberman and his colleagues to relieve the political culture of the obligation of trying.We should seek gun control and a Constitution that means something.......Benjamin Wittes is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution
4. Diane Fienstein's turn them in mr. and mrs America,statement

Utah/mormon: Your ignorance is showing
Yoju're embarrassing yourself. You should read the referenced writings before flouting your complete lack of knowledge.

What I wrote is absoluetly accurate.


Kucinich
He out and out said last week we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that. It will do for America what prohibition did. If the 2nd goes, so goes all the others, including the 1st.

Lolo
If Kucinich had his way we would all be protected by the dept. of peace. flowers and lollipops for everybody.

One Issue Voting
Rudy is taking up a lot of our time, and to no avail. So are McCain, Romney, Huckabee and others. The time is short. The frontloaded primaries will probably decide who the candidates are to be before Valentine's Day 2008. Thankfully, the 'debates' being held are inclusive of all the candidates. So, again this Tuesday, we can see and size up GOP candidates participating from Columbia SC. Duncan Hunter is pro-life, as are most of the party's candidates.
He also has worked like an American Workingman to end the suicidal 'immigration' policies of today. Security of America is a strong point in his record. Realistic Trade is something he knows about and works toward, in intelligible terms. No other candidate has a record of competence and length to match Duncan Hunter's.
No other Republican candidate can beat any Democratic candidate. My focus and my time and effort is dedicated wholly to helping him win. The present exigency cannot be viewed as "Politics as Usual". I truly believe it can be summarized as 'Hunter or Havoc". He is the one Capable Conservative.

Gordon, thanks for mentioning the egregious example of weak leadership on the part of Thompson,F. during those hearings

























Striking Out
I think the Mighty Mayor will strike out well before South Carolina, and probably before the end of the year!

Zeb: Hunter's good
So are "Thompson, F", Tancredo, a couple of others.

Whichever one of that short list secures the GOP nod can beat the Dems, because the internecine fighting of the party will be over, and there will be a good candidate representing GOP values.

Not so with RINO Rudy or McCrazy.


Robert Lee: Hahahaha
I give him a coule more months before his numbers tank right through the floor, MAX!

His speech last Friday was a shot to his own head. The guy committed political suicide.


All i know is
that i will vote in the GOP primary and it sure won't be for one of the big 3. If i'm lucky, someone like Hunter, Tancredo and F Thompson will distinguish himself and clarify my choice. I know more about Steele from his Maryland run than any of those guys. I'd vote for Steele in a heartbeat. He is a real conservative, proven under fire, and not a wuss. I just hope that the number of second tier conservatives will not split the conservative vote and usher in Someone like Rudy who has name recognition going for him. With luck, the big 3 will split the uninformed vote and usher in a conservative.

Great Post, Lolo!
You nailed it about compromise. The goal of we conservatives is NOT to compromise with the Left, but to build a Christian republic here before they build a soviet socialist one!

To BrinaR
He tanks on a lot more than 4 issues:

1. Pro Gun control - strike one
2. Open border policy - strike two
3. Believes in Global Warming - strike 3
4. Most likely a liberal big Gov - strike 4
5. Appointed liberal judges in NYC so will appoint liberals to supreme - strike 5
6. Believes in abortion rights not States - strike 6
7. Believes in Gay Marriage - Strike 7
8. Policy on Iraq is a big question mark - Foul Ball

utahnotamormon
An influential person advocating repeal of the Second Amendment? Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University Lawrence Tribe. Google his name please.

Author of the famous law review article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" and oddly enough one of the lead lawyers who brought the recently famous civil case against the District Of Columbia, Washington D.C.. Parker v The District of D.C. if I remember correctly.

In Parker Tribe was successful in (at least until it gets to the SCOTUS)dumping the law prohibiting possession of functional handguns in D.C.. Tribe is a blatant and professed Liberal and is universally well know in all circles of Law.

Although he used the 2nd to win in Parker v D.C. he has repeatedly said that if you don't like the 2nd then he would advocate Repeal and he would support that. In the meantime he will use whatever is on hand to continue to spread his influence by winning cases and getting himself written into the history books, a practice almost every lawyer dreams of; setting precedent.



Rudy's appeal as CIC

.....The only reason for Giulani's high poll numbers is his perception as a strong leader (read Commander-in-Chief)...

.....If his Republican opponents want to beat him in the primaries this is the area that will take Giuliani out of the race ...they have to outdo him on protecting the country from both the illegal alien invasion from Mexico and the threat of terrorist attack from the Middle East

.....right now Hillary comes off as a stronger CIC than some of the Republicans seeking the nomination .....COLOSSUS

Thanks, Marc
I followed your advice and googled Tribe. Very troubling.

As for Brian:

>if you refer to the contemporary writings of the Founders, you'll find that "well regulated" in their vernacular meant "well equipped".

>You should read the referenced writings before flouting your complete lack of knowledge.

What referenced writings? You mean the "contemparary writings of the founders?"
That's rather vague, bordering on embarrassing.

utahnotamormon Part II

You wrote...
"Making stuff out of thin air"
well-regulated=well-equipt

Very Funny

It is not funny. It is fact. BrianR is absolutely correct to point this out. Just as many textbooks dismiss the 2nd Amendment as a collective right in a few words the phrase 'well-regulated' has fallen out of dictionaries.

But I and others have actually been to big city and university libraries where you can look up the texts of 200 year old English dictionaries and in there you find "well-regulated" sure as he11! And it does refer to training, precision and skills for an example I found a well-regulated clock keeps good time (which was quite important for navigation in those days).

Even in today's dictionaries you can find over 50 words that start with "well-...". Look up 'well-kept' and you will find it means 'carefully looked after'.

Answer Loco's question
"The question is: will you feel safer with Edwards, Obama, Hillary or Guliani?"

I don't fear for my safety, that's the province of hysterical women.

If your question is: "Who would do a better job of safeguarding the nation from another attack by foreign terrorist?" Of the four choices you presented, I would say Hillary because she's the only one of those four candidates whom I've heard stating that the border needs to be secured. But I won't vote for her.

And I forgot!!
One famous clock maker actually named a line of clocks trademarked "Regulator" if I'm not mistaken. You still see that name on modern replica clocks in stores today. [I confess my sister-in-law owns a clock/watch shop.]

They couldn't have possibly meant "well-restricted" could they?

I gotta give you kudos for actually looking up Tribe. Most anti-gunners (not that you appear that rabid to me) just rant on and on. You sir can accept a little education on the subject and that says good things about you.

utah/mormon: Let me help you out
Do a search on: Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Payne or Federalist Papers or Alexander Hamilton or James Madison or John Jay.

Man, if you don't know those guys, you *should* be embarrassed.


Usual liberal drivel
Once again we have the usual liberal misinformation coming to the surface.

"No candidate who makes strong opposition to abortion rights the centerpiece of his/her campaign has any hope of winning the presidency. No candidate who is chosen on that basis has any hope of appealing to the majority of American voters who are moderates i.e. of the Giuliani stripe, on that issue."

According to whom? Reagan was clearly opposed to legal abortion. He said so when he ran (all 3 times he ran) and once in office he backed it up by nominating Judge Robert Bork to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. In case you didn't hear, Reagan won in both 1980 and 1984 with landslides.

The single most over-rated political notion of today is this business that "...the majority of American voters...are moderates." This is pure propaganda. People who make this claim can never come up with any evidence to support it. It's like so much so-called conventional wisdom. It's only "conventional wisdom" because the liberal media keeps repeating it. But they never provide any evidence to support it either.

Here's some evidence to the contrary. No Democrat has gotten 50% of the popular vote in a Presidential election since 1976 despite the fact that every Republican running against them was an avowed opponent of legalized abortion. In case you're wondering about Clinton, he got pluralities of 43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996.

"America is a democracy"

No. The United States is a representative republic. The difference being that the people exercise their power indirectly.

"Nationally, there are waiting periods, background checks and certain exclusions(felons, restraining orders) that are necessary for buying a firearm. These would seem to fall under the 2nd amendment's "well-regulated" wording."

If you go back and read the actual "wording" of the Fifth Amendment you find that the term "well regulated" describes the noun "militia." It does not describe "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The amendment specifically states that this right "shall not be infringed". What that "would seem" to indicate is that all of the gun control laws described in Utah's post are unconstitutional. Or at least they would be if it weren't for imperial, activist judges.

"To say "Sure, you pro-choicers can vote Republican, but don't you pro-choicers dare run for office as Republicans" is too hypocritical for me to accept."

Anti-abortionists don't say (or think) "Sure, you pro-choicers can vote Republican." For one thing, we don't engage in this PC "pro-choice" baloney. Such people are "pro-abortion", not "pro-choice". Secondly, we DON'T want a bunch of whining RINO's voting in our party's primaries, resulting in the same kind of whining RINO's going to DC, where they wimp out on issues like school vouchers, social security reform, making the tax cuts permanent, cutting entitlement spending, drilling ANWR, supporting the Iraq war, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and confirming constructionist judicial nominees.




Thanks again, Marc
Your civility is appreciated.

As for Brian, if this is such common knowledge, and YOU made the claim, it should be a lay up for you to link to one of the founders you mention defining their meaning of well-regulated.

Here's what I found:

Alexander Hamilton who unambiguously declared that “If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”

Nothing about keeping your gun well-equipped there. In this extensive study of the posturing concerning the addition of the Bill Of Rights:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm

It appears the Federalists and anti-Federalists were in opposition as to the 2nd amendment, but the discussion certainly revolved around the regulation of the militias, not the maintenance of weapons.

Giuliani is an idiot
I'm sorry, but it needs to be said. He's an idiot. Giuliani should have run as a Democrat, because those are the only people who would ever vote for such a left winger.

Giuliani's only claim to fame is that he cleaned up NYC - no small feat, and I actually compliment him for that. But these asinine claims that he is tough on terrorism are just that - asinine.

Giuliani's only association with fighting terrorism is that his city was attacked by terrorists. He has done nothing himself to fight terrorism. He has, on the other hand, made himself rich beyond comprehension by going around the country presenting himself as some kind of expert on combating terrorism, on the basis of no actual experience in the mater.

Giuliani is a fraud, plain and simple. He is a typical Northeastern RINO, wanting nothing more in life than to kill unborn babies, disarm honest citizens and to open up the borders of this country to illegal aliens.

I am personally counting the days until the GOP scrapes this man off their shoes and gets down to the serious business of identifying a viable candidate who actually represents the views of the electorate, because this man is way off the reservation.


A long list of quotes
http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/gunquote.htm

This has quotes from Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and many others concerning arms, though they really amount to little more than soundbites out of context. Some, like Henry, were anti-federalists, while others, like John Jay, were federalists, and much of the debate centers around the power of the federal government versus the power of the states.

But there is no question that the debate centers around well-regulated in its intended meaning, not type of equipment or maintenance of such. Sorry, Brian.

Utah/Mormon
Good, you looked up one guy. It's not up to me to provide links and do your homework for you. I gave you a place to start, you looked up one guy, so now you can go to my post earlier in this thread where I posted to YOU at 1:11PM the extant US Code that defines the Militia, and you'll see that the militia is all law-abiding legal residents and/or citizens of the country.

So I guess that takes us full circle, hmmmmmm?




HUNTER 2008

Republican voters still get to decide who their nominee will be. Money only buys elections when people act like sheep. If 80% of Republicans are indeed seeking a conservative, we can nominate one. We can nominate Duncan Hunter. The money players won't like it and are trying to convince us only Rudy, Romney, or McCain can win. Hogwash. 49% of people will never vote for Hillary. Only 60% voted last time and turnout was the difference. My belief is Rudy would push turnout down. There might even be a third party, splitting the vote. Give Americans a chance to vote for a candidate who WILL secure the border and watch what happens to turnout. Americans want their government to fulfill it's most basic responsibility.

The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.

http://www.gohunter08.com

Further, Utah/Mormon
As you requested, here's the link, since you can't seem to bother yourself:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

And here's an outtake:

"Well Regulated

"The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

"1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

"2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

"3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

"4) To put in good order.

"Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training.

"The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning."




So you see, it has nothing to do with passing laws. As I stated. It has to do with beinfg well equipped, as in prepared and ready for battle.


Not really
First of all, you made a claim that you failed to back up, and yes, it is up to you to provide links when you're challenged instead of insults.

Regardless, there is plenty of ambiguity in the 2nd amendment, especially given the dynamics of the US in the 1780s.

The ultimate question was federal standing army versus local militias. Currently, I have a city police department, county sheriffs, state police and national guard(what's not in Iraq) as well-regulated militias outside of federal control.

Now, this is not to say that private citizens don't have the right to keep and bear arms, but, like other rights, there are regulations that are established to provide for the common good. I have already stated my opposition to wholesale bans like those in DC and SF. However, keeping guns out of the hands of inner-city gang bangers, convicted violent felons, stalkers and recently jilted lovers(waiting periods) are only a threat to the rights of those whose intentions are likely not defensive.

Utah/Mormon
Talking on this issue with you reminds me of trying to explain to my daughter when she was 5 why the sky was blue. In her case, she was too young to understand refraction; in your case, you're just being willfully obtuse.

I don't have time for this.


Man it is getting too late to keep this
Utahnotamormon

While you are getting up to speed on the 2nd Amendment please consider this.

44 States have 'the Right to Bear arms' written in their Constitutions. Now how could that ever be construed to include some Federal control if these States made it their own issue and suppported individual ownership?

I have to go and relax, so I can feel good about supporting dozens of illegal aliens with my tax dollars which I will be contributing due to my employment, before going to work tomorrow. Have a nice evening if there is any time left in Utah.

We can resume this dance on another day. BTW, your skeptics.org reference was not impressive for your argument.

Obtuse
Brian, you must be looking in the mirror. Your continued insults are childish and unnecessary.

Here are the relevant, original anti-federalist proposals for the Bill of Rights(which Madison, the federalist, didn't even feel was necessary):

#7 that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers

#11 that the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of [Page 209] time only as such state shall agree.[69]

The final wording was, of course, condensed, but:

"unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;"

indicates restrictions, while

"the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers"

indicates well-regulated.

Keep in mind the final wording was deemed a victory for the anti-federalists.






Rudys got it right
He know's that he is the only Rebublican who has a chance to beat the Clinton/OBama ticket. He is telling Conservatives that they are completely inconsequental. He is Pro-choice, pro guncontrol, pro gay marriage, etc. etc. He know that if it comes down to him vs. Hillary, Republicans will give them his vote, since the alternative is so terrifying. They won't sit out the election and let the Clinton's take back over. You know it,I know it and most importantly Rudy knows it. Romney is unelectable, McCain is supporting Bush's policy and looks too old. He'd get killed in the general election. So who's left? Duncan Hunter? Fred Thompson? Hillary would beat them both by 15 points.
Rudy is the GOP's only viable option, so get used to it.

Rudy the RINO
I watched him on Fox Sunday. It was interestng to see him say that he supported the second amendment and would appoint consrtuctionist judges but he supported gun control for NYC.

How can you be for gun control and the Constitution? He talks out of both sides, therefore you can not rust him.

My party will not care
When all is said and done, my party will not care that Rudy is pro-choice with restrictions.

As a pro-choice "with restrictions" Republican for 20 years, I certainly don't feel left out of my party or that I am even in the minority view on abortion -- As does Rudy, I am personally pro-life for religious reasons but realize that we live in a secular nation under secular laws and accept that the question "When does a human life begin?" can have an answer other then the one my faith informs me with. Given that, I beleive that a secular argument for legalized abortion can be made but with severe restrictions -- in the 1st trimester (and never after viability) , parental/spousal notification, life/health of the mother, etc. I also believe that such decidions should be left up to the states. t

The GOP that I know is not so intolerant and beholden to special interests like the Democrats that they will doom a candidate over a single issue. I didn't become a Republican because it was defined by the abortion issue, I became a Republican because my values and beliefs on a whole line of issues are much more in line with the GOP then the those of that other party which I find contemptible in so many areas.

The bottom line is that Rudy blieves in the goodness of America - he is strong on defense, strong on fighting terrorism, strong on lowering taxes and most of all has a proven track record of beating the crap out of democrats and liberals in their own backyard. I believe that Rudy has the vision and strength to bring America safely into the next decade. I also believe he is the only GOP cnadidate that can beat the Democratic candidate with room to spare.






Vic misstates Rudy's position
Vic said: "How can you be for gun control and the Constitution? He talks out of both sides, therefore you can not rust him."

Vic, I saw that Rudy interview. He said he was for background checks and preventing criminals and the mentally ill from owning guns. That is not "gun control" that is just common sense.

The people we can't trust in our party are people like you who can't discern the difference between Democrats who want to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns, and Republicans (like Rudy) who just want to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from owning guns.

Bowa
He said he was FOR the NYC Gun Control Laws. That includes the Sulivan Law which virtually outlaws guns for the private citizen. I stand by what I said.

Hosecuervo: Wrong, mi amigo
A Giuliani nomination loses the general election. Look at the 2000 and 2004 elections, both won with razor-thin margins. What do you think happens if conservatives in any number at all sit it out? RINO Rudy loses. Period.

GOP campaigns are won with the base putting in the time and money to gain success. You think they'll do that for him? Hah!

I'll restate, since 1980 the GOP nominee has won whenever, and only if, he's endorsed by the NRA. What are the chances of the NRA endorsing him? Zip.

The culture war still means something to us. We don't want to become the UK, where the ONLY difference between the Labor and Conservative parties is the stand on the war. Both endorse gun control, socialized medicine, big state/nanny givernment, etc. In the UK, the culture war is over, and liberalism won.

We don't want to see the same thing happen in this country, and that's exactly what it means if RINO Rudy gets the GOP nod.

No way, Jose.


Rudy's common sense on gun control
"The Second Amendment to the Constitution is about as clear as it can be. It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable. And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on the state-by-state level. And that's the guidelines that I would use in dealing with it as president." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271917,00.html

Vic, Bowa: You're right, Vic
I watched the YouTube of Giuliani's Friday speech, and he is clearly anti-Second Amendment. He took the same stand that Kerry and Edwards did in 2004: "I'm for private gun ownmership, BUT..."

Every time you hear that "BUT...", you know that the weaselling is about to begin. In Giuliani's case it's "BUT, I believe that at the local level gun control, is okay" (paraphrase).

That's like saying you believe in being a "little bit pregnant".


Bowa: You just proved my point
He also said what I wrote in my immediately previous post; why didn't you quote that part? That local jurisdictions have the power to make their own gun control laws.

Perhaps you didn't watch Friday's speech; I did.




To Bowa
If you agree that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal Government then you disagree with the SC in saying that the 14th Amendment incorporates the bill of rights to the States.

BTW, the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be abridged", that means NO restrictions unless done via "due process of law". Not "reasonable" restrictions, NO restrictions.

UTAH / BRIANR
HERE IS SOME QUOTES BY OUR FOUNDERS:

Zacharia Johnson
1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention
Category: Arms


[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.


James Madison
1788 - Federalist No. 46

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

George Mason


[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

Noah Webster

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States


Patrick Henry
1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined


Vic: Take it a step further
The same then holds true for the other Amendments. Local jurisdictions can make their own rules on Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Petition for Redress, search warrants, wiretaps, jury trials, and everything else.

Civil rights as a local matter, with Constitutional guarantees meaning absolutely nothing outside Federal jurisdiction.

That's where this kind of liberalism logically leads us.


JDW: Well
You've done his work for him, but you'll be sorrrrreeeeeee.....

LOL


To BrianR
I don't think Bowa is a liberal, although he does support Rudi. I do consider Rudi a liberal because looking at that stack of issues that I disagree with him on, he appears to support the liberals more than the conservatives. Now that isn't new for Republicans of today's party because GWB is the same way.

I just am NOT going to vote for any more liberals with an (R) after their name.

Look at his first campaign:

From Wiki (I know but this is history)

1989 campaign and defeat

Giuliani first ran for New York City Mayor as the fusion candidate of both the Republican and Liberal Parties, attempting to succeed Ed Koch in 1989 (the Conservative Party of New York withheld support for him and ran Ronald Lauder instead).[28] Giuliani lost to Democrat David Dinkins by 47,080 votes out of 1,899,845 votes cast, in the closest election in city history.

If Dinkins had ran as a Republican he would have ran as Democrat.

Matthew, Vic
Matthew: Well said!

Vic: Well, actions speak louder than words. Giuliani does call himself a Republican, after all, when he's rightfully a Democrat, and a very liberal one, too, as Matthew just observed.


I am not a liberal
Brian - I am not a liberal, nor am I a conservative. I am a moderate republican. And there are a lot of us. Rudy is our guy. Most of us abhor liberals and democrats. In fact, thre's an argument to be made (and in fact pat Buchanan makes it everytime he opens his mouth) that conservatives have more in common with liberals given their similar isolationist views on america's role in the world.

Frankly, I abhor extremists of all stripes. I have found that the most commons sensical view of the world is to be found in the middle and in moderation. As Rudy said, "Someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy". Ideologues of course do not see it that way.












Constructionist Schmonstuctionist
I have arrived late.

Being a Constructionist does not mean that a judge will handle all cases while channeling John Jay, it just means that the person would not view creating law from the bench within the purview of the Judiciary.

What that means is that what is law is defined as what is currently ajudicated as such. Roe v. Wade plus Planned Parenthood v. Casey makes abortion law. A constructionist, especially in the eyes of an administrator like Rudy, could just as easily see Roe as legistlation via oligarchy or as well established law with which no must tamper.

Which makes his comment on slavery particularily disingenuous. Some judges had to be appointed to the bench in order to begin to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board and those judges would not fall under a constructionist rubric because they had taken part in overturning legistlation from the bench that was almost 60 years established. We need judges who understand that one day in 1973, because 5 people disagreed with 4 people, infanticide became a "choice" primarily for sexual convenience.

I am ferociously conservative but I would actually rather have a Democrat than Rudy or McCain. It comes down to the cooking frog metaphor. If you throw a frog in boiling water, the frog knows that it is hot and jumps out. If you throw a frog in cold water and then slowly heat the pot, all those cute little proteins in the from will slowly unfold and he will die a comfortable death.

Rudy is the cook with the cold water.

Hortensius
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.