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
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Rudy Giuliani :: Townhall.com Columnist
My Contract with America
by Rudy Giuliani
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I am making 12 Commitments to the American People. They are intended to lift our vision from the rearview mirror to the road ahead. If I am elected president, I want to be held accountable for the progress we make as a nation.

1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.

Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.

2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.

3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.

Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.

4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.

Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.

5) I will impose accountability on Washington.

We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.

6) I will lead America towards energy independence.

We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.

7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions.

We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.

8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.

We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.

9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.

America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.

10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.

Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.

12) I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.

These 12 Commitments offer an action plan to focus America on the future. Over the course of this campaign, I’m going to present each policy in greater detail. And when we get to Washington, we’re going to put these ideas into action. Guided by these 12 Commitments, we will hand our nation over to the next generation far better than it was handed to us.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rudy Giuliani is the former Mayor of New York City, and currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of United States. Learn more at www.joinrudy2008.com.

Be the first to read Rudy Giuliani’s column.
Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today
Steps...
These are the steps I would like all candidates to express. It's like buying a car, I want to get my money's worth...

The Devil
All this sounds good, but Rudy's record on several of these issues isn't too good.

The devil's in the details.

regarding #3
Entitlement costs need not explode. Most of them are not authorized by the Constitution, so END THEM!

That's all well and good but...
Rudy,

I would like to see a commitment to uphold and defend the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is being diminished right before our eyes. With the freedom of speech protecting the Howard Sterns of America and the smut on television, while political speech concerning candidates for political office is being curtailed.

I would like to see you commit to a pledge to support, uphold and defend the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution found in the Bill of Rights as well.

Under your terms as Mayor of New York, law-abiding and upstanding firearm owners had their right to own and carry their own private arms diminished or even prohibited.

It's important to note that lawful firearm owners do not commit any crimes. Therefore it's both illogical and unconstitutional to burden honest gun owners with crime control efforts.

America's law abiding gun owners want to see violent crime rates come down dramatically, but we refuse to be caught up in anti-crime efforts as citizens who commit no crimes.

We want to be treated fairly. We want anti-crime efforts to pass us by. Criminals do not get their firearms through law abiding and honest gun owners peddling our cherished collections on street corners.

We're frankly tired of efforts to get guns "off the streets" affecting our firearms and our rights. Humor me and make a commitment to keep lawful gun owners out of the loop of crime control.

There are plenty of ways to do this. Just ask me. info@savetheguns.com

You have proven yourself to be an enemy of the Second Amendment in the past. Why should America's 80,000,000 lawful firearm owners trust you with defending this part of the Bill of Rights?

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Looks good, but . . .
The GOP is going to lose the White House next year.

Any GOP candidate will have to take, broadly, one of two approaches. He can say, "I'm proud to be a Reublican and to be associated with all my party has done since we won Gore v. Bush. Vote for me and I'll give you more of the same." Or, he can say, "Vote for me and I promise you the entire Republican Party will suddenly straighten up and fly right."

The first is undersirable, the second is unbelievable.

World's Shortest Book
"My Conservative Credentials" by Rudy Guiliani....

I'm sorry Rudy, but you don't have the record I'm looking for in a candidate.

#13) I will take away your guns
'Nuff said.

Best Argument yet
Way to handle the Abortion issue. However that does not change the fact that it is murder. Any person who supports the murder of Children will never have my support.

Rudy, if you were to appoint judges who respected the constitution, then would they not strike down Abortion (Row Wade) since it is clearly A. Not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and B. Murder?

I agree with everything else you say 110%. With Fred now in the race being a full conservative, I do not think Rudy has a chance and that is why this article was writen. If you would just back off your Abortion position, you might actually have a shot at the nomination.

These are all good, BUT
From what little of heard of his detailed ideas a lot of the things he wants to do will be achieved in ways that hurt us. I want him to tell me how he is going to do things and I also want him to go into detail on his tax code changes. There is already a bill in congress that will fix the tax problem and abolish the IRS it's called the FairTax. He needs to get on board and make that his goal. While I have serious questions about my gun rights with him in the White House if he would lay out his amnesty (which is what he believes in) plan along with his tax plan and education plan I might actually go vote in '08 instead of spending the day shooting at the gun range.

Missing
Two thousand mile manned wall/fence on the Mexican border.

Ensure the rights of all law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Ensure the right of all humans from the pre-born to those suffering terminal illnesses, debilitating illnesses and developmental disabiliities to live out their natural lives.

Keeping the government from over regulating or controlling health care.

Giving private education the same right to tax dollars as government run schools.

These are just off the top of my head. There are many others I consider as important as some of his twelve. Also, his twelve are lack specifics in many instances and his track record makes others unbelievable.

Of all the candidates,
I find ex-governor Mike Huckabee most in line with my concerns. Please take time to research him and his positions.

If Rudy wins primary?
To all those posting their diaproval of Rudy as a canidate, will you vote for Rudy if he wins the republican primaries or wlll you sit out this election and allow one of the dumbocrats to win. Personally, I prefer Romney or Thomas but I have no qualms about voting for Rudy if he is the winner. This article only reinforces why I would rather vote for him if he wins the primaries than sit at home in the general election.

Test
Test

I prefer Mitt but...
I'll support Rudy to keep a looney liberal out.

RE: eddie
"Two thousand mile manned wall/fence on the Mexican border."

If said wall were 2000 miles long, about 700 miles or more would be submerged in the ocean. The US-Mexican border isn't even close to 2000 miles.

gatormb
If the options are Giuliani and Hillary/Edwards/Obama I have election day '08 all planned out. First I'll be taking the day off work. I'll get up and go to the range and pop off a few rounds and relect on how far we've fallen that both Presidential candidates want to take my guns away.

I'll then either go vote, if there are local issues I have a civic responcibility to vote for, and leave the box for President empty or vote for the democrat on the ticket. If my rights are to be violated might as well get someone in there that can do it right. I'll then go home, read the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution of the United States and toss down a few shots as a toast to the end of this once great nation because it won't matter who wins.

If Giuliani wants any chance of getting my vote he needs to stop doging direct questions about gun control like he has in the last two debates. I didn't like him to begin with, but I was willing to give him a chance. After the first debate he ranked lower then only McCain and Tommy Thompson on my list. After the 2nd debate and his dodging of questions twice, esspecially on gun control, I decide I would in fact stay home if he gets the nominee. After the last debate when Hunter brought it up again and he dodged it again he confirmed my belief that he is agaisnt the 2nd amendment.

My little brother told me early on that he's never seen Giuliani tell a lie. I told him to watch him closly. I'm seeing more and more that my brother is right. He doesn't lie so much as he just refuses to answer questions that he would have to lie to in order to get votes. I'm either voting for Hunter or Tancredo in the primary and if my options in the '08 are an amnesty-loving gun-snatching liberal or an amnesty-loving gun-snatching socialist I'll either stay at home or go all out and vote for the socialist.

No Way
I get my kids to school and I will walk by the election poll in the gym and I will NOT walk in to vote for Rudy. He is not getting the conservative, stay at home vote. Forget about it.

But, maybe I'll write in a vote for Donna Hanover.

beowulfe
I was off 49 miles. My research shows that the Mexican-American border is actually 1951 miles long. My bad, I should not have rounded up, but identified the exact length. Where do you get your information that the Mexican-American border is only 1300 miles?

He's a doer
Careful, Rudy could be one of them readers, too.

His contract is a good idea. His past flirtation with gun control is worrysome. I'll wait and see what Fred's contract looks like. He was awesome on Leno last night.

I want a candidate who is going to be a clear anti Shamnesty candidate. ANd that person needs to speak up today.

Black dog
To which republican candidate are you referring?

I was unaware that any of them take all of the positions that you attribute to them and to republicans in general.

As for the creation statement, why is a person's belief in God creating versus another person's belief in the universe being uncreated so important to you and so many others? Afterall, it can never be proven. Also, I do not see how belief in God diminishes anyone's ability to govern.

Stang200s6

I'm going to do essentially the same things as you on election day, but I will not vote for the democrat. Since it is a "done deal" that either a democrat or a republicrat will definitely win the presidency, and since it really doesn't matter which one we "hire" to take us further down the road to totalitarianism, I intend to "throw away" my vote on either the libertarian or the constitution party candidate.

Even though the libertarian and constitution party will each poll about 1% of the popular vote (or less), I mean to make my voice "heard" by being part of the 1-2% of actual voters who still think they have a duty to vote but can no longer stomach the idea of participating in the charade that is our Federal government. I did it in 2000, and I slept much better between then and 2004 than I have between 2004 and now, having voted for GWB in 2004. Admittedly, it was to help keep "Lurch" from becoming president, but I am no longer sure it was the right thing to do.

Sorry Rudy
Your past actions and statements run counter to my beliefs on three of four non-negotiable issues. And, counter to your statements here.

If it's you on the GOP ticket, I'll be looking at the third party candidates in my state.

Rudi - Not perfect HOWEVER,
If it comes down to it and Rudi is the Republican nominee I will vote for him.

As far as the 2nd amendment and supporting the bill of rights goes. Knowing Rudi will nominate strict constructionist judges and his good record of doing so. Does take care of some of those worries.

Anyone trying to tell me that handing the presidency, house and senate to the dimocrats is preferable to Rudi as president, well, you must be either a dimocrat/lib or a idiot.

vs Hitlery or Osama Hussein
I'll vote for Rudi. I won't like it, but I'll do it.

He'd be with me on 50% of the issues, and most importantly he'd appoint constructionist judges, which is a far cry better than the opposition, who I'd be in agreement with only about 5% of the time and 0% on judges.

DocNoleCat
SO you will vote for a democrat.

Black Dog
If the Wiccan was a conservative on the issues, yes, as long as he/she didn't make Wicca a big part of their campaign. I've known a few of them in the military who were quite conservative and you'd never know about their religious beliefs unless you had a direct discussion about it with them.

Satanist or Muslim (but I repeat myself)...nofrigginway!

Black Dog, part deux
On the abortion matter, most conservatives do believe in abortion being okay in case of the mother's life being in serious danger. Unfortunately, that's the claim of many partial birth abortionists, even though that procedure is NEVER a necessity.

Reply to Black Dog
I was on bedrest for four and a half months with placenta previa which is a condition where a woman can bleed to death. While I didn't bleed to death and I have a wonderful 13 year old daughter, I would made the same choice no matter the outcome.

Black dog
so you thing satan or Allah is God?

Actually, black dog
you are being evasive. Surely, you have some (any) reason for saying republicans would only support someone who wants to put homosexuals to death.
Also, I spoke of a candidate who believes in divine creation of the universe versus someone who believes the universe was uncreated.

Finally, I do not know the theology of Wiccans and whether they believe God created the universe.

Is it propaganda, when we try to influence people by making misleading and/or false statements that we know to be misleading and/or false?

Need someone electable
Rudy would not be my first choice -- which is why I am planning to put some elbow grease and monetary contribution into pre-primary work -- but the fact remains, there WILL be a presidential election next year that essentially pits a Democratic candidate against a Republican candidate. There will be some independents as well.

Almost all folks on the liberal Web sites are Democrats. But a lot of people on the conversative sites are not Republicans. Every time someone here says, "Oh, I won't vote for him. He's Satan, or he's a scumbag, or no friggin way" they virtually hand a vote to the Democrats who WILL cast their votes, en masse, most probably for Hillary -- but who WOULD vote for pretty much anyone the Democratic party told them to.

In short, the election will boil down to Democrats vs. Republicans. It has been this way forever and it will certainly be this way in 2008, despite all the foot stomping and breast beating. And despite all the foot stomping and breast beating, Ron Paul is not going to win anything and everyone knows it. It is also very unlikely that any third party candidates will win anything.

The Republican party absolutely must run a candidate who can beat Hillary or Obama. Both of these characters are extremely strong in Democratic circles and they certainly WILL motivate a large number of Dems to come out and vote. For people with even slight liberal leanings, the three major front runners on the Dem side are all tremendously appealing. The Republican candidate may not be the candidate that I personally would want, and it probably won't be your favorite either -- but it absolutely MUST be someone who can motivate enough conversatives to come out and vote NOT ONLY against Hillary but also for ONE ticket of candidates (pres and vice pres) who can beat her.

Rudy might be able to do it. Fred and Duncan might be able to do it. I'm really hoping NOT for Romney, but the truth is, I would vote for Daffy Duck against the Democrats. I'm not at all happy with Bush, nor with the way the Republicans in power have behaved for the last 10 years -- but if I can't get exactly what I want, maybe I can get SOME of what I want -- and NOT get a whopping ton of what I don't want, which is pretty much what the Dems offer.

Abortion
will all you bible banging preachers get off your soapbox. you are the reason that a lot of 'conservatives' are so sick of the republican party.

You are just as bad as the democrats. you want to be the moral authority that tells the rest of us what to do. The Left wants to grow government by controling choice on Your money, Your health, and Your children's education (on this site I don't believe that I need to go any further). The Right wants to grow the government by controlling your life from THEIR moral code, e.g. War on Drugs, control the airwaves/internet, prositution. These things are none of your business when it is adults that are not hurting anyone. The last thing we need is more government beauracracy.

How about this, you live your life, I live mine. Reduce the size of government and stay out of people's lives. Abortion is not a governmental decision to make. It should strictly be a decision made between a woman and her doctor. Can we please have a person come into office and reduce this massive government is only got bigger with a Republican in office. This two party system is broke becasue all I see are Republicrats in Washington.

I wish I could believe
But you voting record doen't agree with your statements. Why can't we enforce laws currently on the books for immigration? 2nd admendment?


Hillary and Oboma are not locks
A LOT of democrats will actually vote for a Republican before they vote for Hillary. A LOT of democrates will not vote for Obama. The polls might have Hillary leading, but if you actually talk to the democrats who will vote in teh primary most I know will vote for Edwards. Edwards is the real threat.

Giuliani can't win a national election. It's all about electoral votes and he'll lose too many states because too many conservatives are fed up with the lesser evil options and will not vote for him. Hunter would get the base out and would steal the independant vote because independants want border security. Tancredo would do the same. Thompson the jury is still out on. Paul would win that national election in a landslide with his domestic policy appealing to everyone and his international policy appealing to moderates and liberals. He could be the first Republican since Bush Sr to win Cali.

If you want to back an electable candidate then you should be backing Hunter, Tancredo, or Paul. Not Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or any of the others who will alianate too many Americans.

Giuliani is a lost cause
Giuliani can't win a national election. It's all about electoral votes and he'll lose too many states because too many conservatives are fed up with the lesser evil options and will not vote for him. Hunter would get the base out and would steal the independant vote because independants want border security. Tancredo would do the same. Thompson the jury is still out on. Paul would win that national election in a landslide with his domestic policy appealing to everyone and his international policy appealing to moderates and liberals. He could be the first Republican since Bush Sr to win Cali.

If you want to back an electable candidate then you should be backing Hunter, Tancredo, or Paul. Not Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or any of the others who will alianate too many Americans.

Energy Independence
Rudy has left out the most obvious, inexpensive and accessible way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is to remove obstacles to making use of the plentiful oil we already have. It is irrational that we are not drilling in ANWR, exploring offshore, and in other ways developing our own oil resources. We need a leader who is willing to take on the environmental extremist lobby on this issue.

Abortion
If the left would be consistant on if a fetus is a life or not the problem would take care of itself. Why is it legal for a doctor to kill a fetus but if I hit a pregnant woman and she miscarries I get charged with murder?

It is either a life in all situation and then abortion is in fact murder or it isn't and when the woman gets assualted and miscarries it is assult and not murder. Make the laws consistant.

Ofcourse abortion will be almost non-exsistant in another decade anyway. Not because of the right-wingers but because it is becoming less and less profitable, morning after pill, etc. and less doctors are willing to work at abortion clinics.

yawn
Another contract, pact, covenant, pledge, mainfesto, and pinky-swear from a Republican politician.
Bush happily tossed all you out the window.
Guliani will, too.

Abortion
MTrains is right, but he forgot some important stuff.

As for myself, I am pro-life (for scientific and future-shock reasons, not religious ones), but I'm also a classic liberal in the since that I think the government should be in the business of protecting its citizens (i.e. enforcing the social compact -- The Constitution in our case) and not telling them what to do.

The biggest problem I have with conservatives who want to reverse Roe v. Wade and bring back the days of underground abortion (read Michael Crichton's "A Case of Need") is that their rhetoric is completely hypocritical. You say that you don't want activist judges writing legislation from the bench, but that's EXACTLY what reversing Roe v. Wade using the judicial branch would do! Where did y'all miss the logic there?

"Freedom is something we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves."

Amendments to Rudy Pledges
Addendum to Giuliani No. 3 (fiscal responsibility) and No. 9 (reformation of the legal system), based on Rudy's own remarks:

In playing up to conservatives I have often said the I, personally, am against killing babies, but if you want to do so, hey that is none of the government's business. I admit no one has ever advocated throwing women who receive abortions in jail, but I always have liked the rhetorical flare of that hyperbole so I have used it frequently. I also think, since abortion is a constitutional right, government has the obligation to pay for abortions. To date, I have not been challenged on how that can be reconciled with fiscal responsibility, and, of course, no one has to date challenged my logic, as for instance, if we must fund abortions because they are constitutional rights, must we also buy everyone's gasoline since travel is a constitutional right.
I also think Roe v. Wade is an example of strict constructionism. That may strike some of you as ludicrous, but with my esoteric and undisclosed definition in mind, you know the type of judges I intend to appoint when I promise to appoint strict constructionists. All this may be offensive to some of you, and even frightening, but am I not better that the Democratic alternative?

Who???
Steve writes: "I'm also this week strongly recommending that Rudy choose conservative Sarah Palin (Gov. of Alaska) for his vice-presidential running mate."

Now there's a pick out of nowhere. Tell me why Ms. Palin wouldn't be the new Dan Quayle.

If Giuliani got the nomination and took Thompson as his running mate, that combination would be extremely strong.


Sorry Rudy
Rudy you have to make a public repentance for your statements on abortion. You claim to be a Catholic and make public statement regarding abortion and marriage that contradict our intrinsic beliefs. You care a cause of discord and confusion not only for other Catholics, who should know better but don't, and for all the other religious out there that see chaos and blatant hypocrisy by another catholic public figure. We're all sinners and I'm no better than anyone else in that regard, but I try not to be a cause of scandal and if I have been one I repent. It's what we do, and for you to get my and many other catholic votes you're going to have to make amends in public. All the rest is just asking us to sell our souls for leeser gods.
God bless

Stang200s6
Not that Rudy is my first choice but, Polls do say he can win against shillery or osoma obama (whatever).

As far as conservatives voting for the less of 2 evils. We didn't in 2006.. Hows that working out?! HUH?




Lesser of evils
In 2000, we were forced to pick the lesser of two evils for the GOP between McCain and Bush. Both were HORRIBLE choices but we were forced to choose. While we hoped for the best with the lesser of the two evils, we still got a liberal pretending to be a conservative. Then in the actual election it was a no brainer between Gore and Bush of who was the lesser of two evils.

Now once again we are forced into another similar situation.

McCain again (Guess he did not get the message), Rudy, and Mitt.

Fred could be it as long as he clears up any questions about him being a McCain in training.

I am just sick and tired of picking the lesser of two evils. I am demanding a good candidate and I pray others do too.

Holy Blasphemey!!!
Um, Rudy, did you take a peek at the New York Daily News this morning? There you were dressed up as Moses (what would Charleton Heston say?) coming down from the mountain carrying the 10 commandments-er-12 committments. (Gee, even God thought 10 commandments were enough--no wonder lightening struck during your debate!!). If this isn't flirting with blasphemey I don't know what is. How come conservatives aren't screaming y over religion bashing on this one?

NO ONE can ban abortion
What many pro-life conservatives don't seem to understand is that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the issue of abortion would revert to the states, many of which would make it legal themselves. (Such as California, New York, and my own state of Massachusetts. It would then become a local option that each community could decide for itself.

There is no way to BAN abortion nationally in America. So the best the pro-life people can do is get it banned in states in which they are politically dominant. But if they believe it's immoral (murder), then it doesn't matter who gets elected President or even who sits on the Supreme Court because abortion will ALWAYS be legal in at least a few states. Pro-lifers aren't going to become dominant in California, New York or Massachusetts in my lifetime, I can tell you.

no bs artist
I see your name does not apply to your posts.

Your post is a steaming pile of bs artist

Catholicism and the Presidency
John M. writes: "You claim to be a Catholic and make public statement regarding abortion and marriage that contradict our intrinsic beliefs."

As President, Giuliani has to govern as the leader of all the American citizens, most of whom are NOT CATHOLICS. He simply cannot let Catholic Church doctrine set social policy for non-Catholics. How would you feel if Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, had become President and insisted that U.S. policy had to be guided by Orthodox Judaism? Like he'll ask Congress to change the laws so that the Post Office closes on Saturday instead of Sunday? Or if President Mitt Romney gave Mormon doctrine preferred status?

Giuliani's personal views on Catholicism are irrelevant to anyone who is not a Catholic. In fact, they should even be irrelevant to anyone who is a Catholic PROVIDED they understand that America is not a Catholic country.

Abortion not a religious issue
Its a human issue and morally, to muder a human is wrong. Abortion is by definition illegal because it is MURDER. Until murder becomes legal, then Abortion never can be as well.

Currently abortion is like illegal immigration, both are happening non stop in this country, judges have tried to sanction the illegal actions, and some have refused to enforce the real laws against such crimes but none of that changes the fact that they are CRIMES!

SteveL
Actually, that is what true conservatives, like myself, want. Roe V Wade to be overturned because of the 10th amendment and the power to revert to the state, abortion was legal in 22 states before Roe V Wade and was about to legal in more.

We also want education, welfare, social security, and all other social programs returned to the state's hands per the 10th amendment. We want to have the country established in the constitution which is one of a weak federal government that protects our borders, maintains a military that is capable of a strong defense and each state then dictates how education, welfare, etc is handled and those who don't like how things are in their area can go to a place that is of like-minded individuals.

Our four fathers were brilliant men who knew that everyone seeks something a little different. As such they established the 10th amendment which said no powers not granted in this document shall be taken by the federal government. They understood that citizens had much more control over their local politicians then they ever would their federal politicians. This is the thing that liberals ignore, they despise the constitution and the ideals in it that the federal government is not responcible for our lives. If the Supreme Court were to strike down every law that is unconstitutional and return the power to the states you would see mass moving in this country. The communists would migrate to utopia in California, those who oppose abortion would overflow Oklahoma, Wyoming, and other states that would keep it illegal except when the mother's life was in danger.

That is what our founding fathers had in mind. We would all be Americans but Texas would be Texas, New York would be New York, California would be California, Montana would be Montana. As it is going everything will be the same because the constition has been fed to the shredder and the seperation of powers has been destroyed.

Good contract
I have to admit, I really like this contract. I can't find any sincere fault with any of it, and if Rudy sticks by the principles outlined in this contract, he will indeed make a very fine president.

In fact, this contract is, in some ways, a list of things we wish the Republican Party would do. While I still support Thompson, I must say this contract is very encouraging.

To "no bs artist":

Moses isn't God. I don't know why everyone seems to ignore you, it's probably because you overlooked, or ignored this basic fact, or because no one knows what a "blasphemey" is, but I figuired someone needed to tell you this.

By the way, this is Rudy's so-called contract with America, not Rudy's 12 commandments, so I don't understand why you're complaining about that. I don't know why I'm answering you. You probably said these things just to get attention or to get someone fed up with immense ingorance to answer you back, and I'm probably just taking your bait.

As a catholic to SteveL
You are right he doesn't have only Catholics out there to represent, however he claims to be one and for your own confidence in voting for someone don't you want them to reflect in their actions, IE. words and deeds, what it is they profess to believe? So it's not just that he would represent Catholics, but that he doesn’t follow what he says. So, he can't be trusted until he admits he's 1. not a catholic and professes to be some other religion that excepts his social beliefs or 2. he addmits to being a forked tongue opportunist who's not to be trusted with the leadership of the US, and apologizes.

Since 1980
the GOP candidate has won every time, and only if, endorsed by the NRA.


The chances of the NRA endorsing gun-grabber RINO Rudy are nil.

"Constructionist" judges?
When he had the power, as mayor of NYC, his record is one of appointing incredibly liberal municipal judges.


How can anyonme believe what this lying schmuck ever says?

If you do, you're a fool.

If RINO Rudy's the nominee, I won't be voting for any Prez nominee, as if the choice is two liberals what do I care who wins?

What I want in a Candiate
There are many things that I'm looking for but foremost it would be the candiate who:
1. Promised swift deportation of all illegals.
2. Executive order to halt all federal funds to all cities claiming to be santuary cities.
3. Agressive action against any employer hiring illegal aliens.
4. Executive order to halt admission to schools of all illegal aliens.
5. Promise to push for the fair tax.
6. Seek a ruling by the supreme court on the definition of citizenship as enacted by the 14th admindment.

Add #13 - congressional term limits
While he cannot singularly get term limits, he can use his bully pulpit to push for some type of term limits for our career pols who are really working for themselves and not the People. We need a Citizen Legislature, not one made up of career pols! Perhaps a modified term limitation would even do (i.e., like Virginia governors cannot succeed themselves but can run as many times as the like). If Rudy or any other presidential candidate promoted term limits for the U.S. Congress, that would be GREAT!

Also, while Rudy may not have the full pedigree of a conservative R, he would be much better in office than Shrillary, OsomaObama, or the Breck Girl (Edwards). Our country cannot afford, quite literally, to have any of these dimocrats in the White House. Heck, we cannot afford Bush any longer...

Anyway, Term Limits, TERM LIMITS, TERM LIMITS!

Here's the problem
Most of the 12 points run contrary to Guiliani's past. Although I applaud his statement that we have all the laws we need to enforce the border and deal with illegal immigration, can we trust a former mayor of a sanctuary city to follow through? Same on reducing the number of abortions. It's a credibility issue with Rudy. I just cannot see myself ever voting for a Democrat, even if he is the Republican candidate. At the moment, the only candidate whose campaign is directly in line with his track history is Duncan Hunter. Mitt missed his opportunity last Thursday by allowing the amnesty bill smackdown to slip through his fingers. Still nothing from Fred. I read this as a sign that K Street already owns, or has the attention of, all top-tier candidates.

I also agree with that knuckle-dragging absolutist bigot BrianR that Rudy cannot be trusted on second amendment rights.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

Jim Robinson: Well, schmuck
I don't claim to be a Republican.

I'm one of the conservatives the GOP can't win without.

Got it?

I'm accused of being a "biggot"
Aside from the spelling error, that moronic accusation comes straight out of the Lefty/Dem playbook, since none of my posts mention race, immigration, or anything else other than guns and judicial appointments.

Ad homina, the first resort of the intellectually-challenged.

Mr. Guliani:
All of the first 7 (& maybe more) of your 12 commitments will require intensive interaction with congress. What makes you think you can expect to exert your will, or at least receive cooperation from the majority party, given the polarized condition that exists today in the legislature today?

Go Back To NY!!!
I am a one issue voter, that issue being the Bill Of Rights!!
Repeal Mcain/Feingold, it is a violation of the 1st amendment. Political speech is exactly what is protected.
Repeal The Patriot Act, it violates the 4th amendment. Warrantless wiretaps and searches are all illegal.
Repeal all "gun control" laws, every one of them violates the 2nd amendment.
The right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed means PRECISELY that which is written. Our public SERVANTS are EXPRESSLY denied ANY Constitutionally legal delegated authority over it. It is the "INALIENABLE RIGHT" of ALL Free American citizens. The ONLY Constitutionally legal time that an American citizen can be divested of that right, is if they are imprisoned PERIOD!

If all we have to chose from are the lesser of two evils, "Career Pols" who care about nothing more than their own greed, maybe it is time to excersize the 2nd amendment for the purpose of regaining that which rightfully belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. We are the Ultimate Authority and you are supposed to be our servants, not masters!!
In closing, you may wish to read up on the Decloration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights a bit. Maybe, just maybe, you might learn something.

LOL, Phil!
I am proud of my Neadertalism!

BrianR
From one knuckle-dragging patriot to another. The idiot Jim Robinson using typical Liberal B.S. and not even good at it!
His ranting efforts to put down Fred Thompson succeed in only displaying the fear he has of the man. And Fred isn't even a candadate...Yet.

My Firearms
are what keep my family safe down here in South Texas, not unlike my neighbors. I have what the leftys would term an "arsenal for no reason". I will determine the reason, thank you. Hell, I even have great grandaddys old LeMat. If you support any gun control, you will lose. We are watching. But I do like what you say. I agree with most. And that is enough. Now walk the talk.

Rudy
Sorry Rudy but I just do not trust you to keep your word! Your to willing compormise!

Fred and Giuliani
are not worth voting for. Their records speak for themselves. The only options in this election cycle are Hunter and Tancredo. The only other one worth voting for as a lesser evil is Ron Paul, atleast he has read and understands the constitution.

The rest of them from Giuliani to Romney, Hillary to Biden are using the playbook written by Karl Marx with some of the modifications made by Joeseph Stalin. You don't know who those people are? I suggest you go read a history book then.

It's Fred
Hunter and Tancredo can't beat Shrillary - unless as a VP candidate.

Last night on Leno, Thompson was congenial, disarming and quick on his feet. He said that he is old enough now to start looking at what kind of a country he will leave his grandchildren, and that there are a couple of things he wants to do that can only be done from the oval office.

He also said he left Washington after eight years, yearning for the sincerity and realism of Hollywood.

He is smart - building up interest in his plans, before announcing them. Also, he was smart to avoid jumping into the process so early. I'm willing to bet he will push for less government, more power to the states, and term limits. He entered the Tenn race twenty points down, and won by twenty points. He is a common sense talking leader who knows how to get his points across. And he is playing smart. He's going to announce on July 4.

Team him with Duncan Hunter out of California or Mitt Romney and you may have an unbeatable, anti-immigration ticket that will win in a landslide, and none too soon. THe next election will be a one issue election: Immigration, and repeal of the shamnesty soon to be passed by the unconscionable crooks in Washington.

Nick
Tell me one state that Bush carried in the last election that Hunter or Tancredo can't and why. They'd get every vote Bush got and then some. Mix their immigration views with the FairTax, which they both support, and they will kill Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Hunter would even have an outside chance at taking California.

Since 1988
the GOP candidate has won every time, and only if, I voted for him.

The chances of me voting for someone who refuses to make cutting spending his #1 priority are nil.

All hail Ragnar, the ultimate arbiter of political power in the United States!


You have to love small sample sizes...

The Contract and Abortion
For those of you who believe there's no way to nationally ban abortion, I call to your attention the 5th amendment which prevents denying a person LIFE, liberty, or property without due process of law. After 40 days into a pregnancy, the brainwaves of a "fetus" turn on, and an individual mind is present. That is the necessary and sufficient element which constitutes personhood.

No, Roe v. Wade is not an example of strict constructionism. The claim that a right against unreasonable search and seizure along with a vague "penumbra" of other rights does not constitute a legal obligation to let women treat their children like parasites which may be squished like a bug. Sorry.

As for Giuliani's Commitments:

1.) You will keep us on the offense against terror - how? You can't attack Musharaff, support for the Iraq war has waned, and the American people are not about to support another military engagement. How can you play offense when the national mood is to play defense? I agree with increasing the size of our military though.

2.) A fence is good. A bio-informatics I.D. card... okay, I can live with that. Americanization is good. But do I trust you to do this after you gave amnesty to illegals in New York City by forbidding city employees to report illegals to the Immigration and Naturalization Services department? Not a chance.

3.) Technology always costs more upfront than labor. And cut the federal civilian force by half? You're going to put a whole lot of people out of work, and automate their jobs? Get real.

4.) Good talk on simplifying the tax code. How about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) though?

5.) Talk is cheap. Talk on accountability in Washington even cheaper. Your stated policy desire has no content.

6.) See above for cheap talk. Also, you might want to mention that we have a backstop resource in coal... not that it would ever dawn on a politician when they can keep hyping our so-called "energy crisis" and "shortfall."

7.) Reforming the legal system in what manner? I REALLY don't trust you there given your view that a strict constructionist could uphold Roe v. Wade. State by state innovations should be made at the state level, not handled at the Federal level. As for health savings accounts, at least that's a good idea.

8.) You'll increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and increase the quality of life? How? Magic? Or are you going to outsource parenting? Decrease abortions? How about nominating judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and might even recall that beautiful 5th amendment?

9.) I wouldn't trust you on judges if my life depended on it. Trust someone who thinks Roe v. Wade can be upheld by a strict constructionist? That's the loosest definition of a strict constructionist I've ever heard of then. Trust you? No way, bucko.

10.) Wonderful platitudes, but unlikely to be worth anything.

11.) It's not a civil rights struggle. The digital divide is not the problem. Incompetent teachers, student sloth, and irrelevant curricula are the problem. Those should be handled at the local level, not by you.

12.) No, it's going to help us pollute the rest of the world with the worst of American culture, while we import the worst socialist elements. And if you want to engage in free trade, how about you insist that China stop playing footsie with a monetary-targeting, sterilization monetary policy?

Sorry Giuliani, but I either think you're too vague and pandering, I don't trust you, or I outright disagree with you, or some combination thereof. And with that pro-abortion position, there's no chance you'll be getting my vote. After all...

I'm with Fred.

Re: Abortion
Look, this should not be the major issue in this election. Come on, there are more important issues that need to be address such as the WAR, government speding out of control, new tax system and immigration.

I understand where people are coming from on abortion, it is not a pleasant practice. But you know what, having the government making those decisions for people is wrong. You are NOT the moral authority. Voice your oppinion if it means that much to you, but to get the government involved only makes things worse.

No
It's murder. Like slavery, it is absolutely my place and it absolutely falls under my authority as a being capable of moral thought, argument, and conviction to fight as hard as possible against this genocide.

To protect the rights of the people, government must first protect their lives. If it cannot do that or is not willing to, it should not stand.

I'm disappointed with conservatives
Look, folks, I understand wanting a real conservative in the White House, and I want one too.

But let's acknowledge some important things:

1) Giuliani has demonstrated that he has the chops to run government effectively. Hardly anybody else in the race can say that. He literally turned New York City around, he's managed a budget successfully and reduced spending, he instituted no-nonsense policies of all sorts during his tenure as New York mayor.

2) He did all this in the teeth of some of the most virulent leftists in the country. What we're REALLY sick of, with the Bush presidency, is Bush's tendency to give liberals whatever they're whining for. Giuliani, as mayor of New York, was best known for putting liberal whining right back in their faces. That's what we need.

3) He's an effective leader. He knows what he wants to achieve, he knows how to achieve it, and he knows how to sell it. This is the combination that made Ronald Reagan effective.

I can't think of a single individual in the race, on either side of the aisle, who can say anything close to the above. Certainly not Mitt Romney, who basically dealt with Massachusetts liberals by pandering to them; do we really want more of that? Certainly not John McCain; he's staked his career on chumming up to liberals. I like Fred Thompson's good sense and demeanor, but he's accomplished nothing. Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo -- you may as well wrap the White House in a bow and hand it to Hillary.

If conservatives don't wake up and learn to accept Giuliani, then we deserve to lose the White House, and very likely will.

Giuliani on abortion
"8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.

We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography."

In order to decrease abortions, he'd have to back policies to inform young women of their responsibility to make sound choices about sex. He has a good track record in this area.

"...assure that individual choice is well-informed" means stopping abortion providers from lying to their potential clients about the safety of abortions, and informing them of adoption alternatives.

Reducing the high cost of adoption is a sensible way to making adoption a more attractive alternative.

All of these things are positive steps toward reclaiming the culture from social progressives -- steps that have NOT been taken these past 8 years, despite GWB's purported anti-abortion convictions.

Between the above and his (believable) promise to appoint strict constructionist judges, I'm comfortable that Giuliani's position on abortion will not seriously hinder social conservatism.

More Like Contract on America
"I will," "I will," "I will." Me, me. me. What a joke.

Rudy had one good day--9/11. And that was by default. All he did was fill the vacuum left by chicken$%#@ George Bush, who was incommunicado while flying all over the country running away from nothing. (The bravado megaphone/pile of rubble moment came days later after he put on clean underwear and gathered his courage). Ask anyone about Rudy as of 9/10 and you'll know what to expect if he ever gets elected.

Two ex-wives, his own children, and 12 million New Yorkers can't be wrong. The people who know Rudy best can't stand him: his ego, his grandstanding, the way he shamelessly takes credit for the achievements of others. New York City firemen and his own former police chief are his harshest critics. Why do you suppose that is?

Instead of 12 commitments, what Rudy needs is a good 12-step program.

Inkling-Revival; Nope
I'm more concerned about losing the country, and my freedoms and liberties, than I am about whether the liberal in the White House has an (R) or a (D) behind their names.

You and the GOP want my vote? Earn it. Don't give me a bunch of mealy-mouthed platitudes about "constructionist" judges when I know it's a lie, or about how RINO Rudy "supports" the 2nd Amendment when as mayor he bragged about taking away pople's rights to own guns.

EVERY candidate "supports" the 2nd Amendment; Gore, Kerry and Edwards all claimed to "support" the 2nd Amendment. I've never in my life heard a candidate stump on the position of stealing peoples' guns.

But steal them they do, JUST LIKE GIULIANI.

Jim Robinson
The blame for the failure to reverse Roe, which would be required before any legal progress on abortion is possible, lies with the Supreme Court, and specifically with -- I hate to say this -- Ronald Reagan.

Reagan promised to appoint the first woman to the US Supreme Court, complying with feminist pressure from social progressives. He fulfilled his promise when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to replace moderate-conservative Potter Stewart. O'Connor proved over time to be, frankly, incompetent; her decisions have provided a gold mine for litigators, who benefit from the cloud of litigation surrounding vague decisions.

But the clearest instance of her unfitness for the role she filled was when she was faced with the challenge of being the swing judge on Planned Parenthood v Casey, the case that tested the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's informed consent statute regarding abortion. There's ample evidence that Ms. O'Connor did not believe Roe to be good law; yet, when faced with the choice between being THE woman who overturned "a woman's right to choose," and being one of a majority that tweaked existing jurisprudence a bit, she backed down from her convictions and took the coward's way out.

Sandra Day O'Connor is the reason Roe is still law; Ronald Reagan is the reason Sandra Day O'Connor was on the court.

It's NOT abortion
You might be able to find a handful of people that will refuse to support Rudy because of his abortion views. Those numbers by themselves are insignificant, and Rudy knows this and he gives them grief as a result. However, he wants to take your guns, he wants to increase government control on schools, he wants to INCREASE government. Find one thing in his 12 points that leads to smaller government.

He's going to regulate (increase government) to foce economically hideous options on the American people, alternative fuels. Every candidate on both sides will "keep us on the offensive in the war on terror" they just have different definitions of it. Notice he does NOT mention Iraq. Ending illegal immigration is easy, make them all legal and he'll do just that as long as they get an ID card that you and me pay for.

Restore fiscal discipline, ummm, yea, with the liberals firmly in control of congress. I guess he can veto every spending bill for 4 years to shut down schools, hospitals, etc. Cut taxes and reform the tax code, ummm, tell me how. "I will impose accuontability in Washington" That sounds like ending the culture of corruption to me, nice sound bite. More affordable health care, ummm, how? Government takeover of health care? Tighter regulations on health insurance companies, i.e. anti-capitalism?

Incrase adoptions, lower abortions, etc., etc. Not a Presidents job and local authorities in most areas will undercut any efforts he would try. Appoint constrictionist judges, sure he will, just like he did in NY? Why would he do that when he wants my handguns? The lie doesn't match the facts. He'll improve education, how? I smell an exspansion of NCLB just what we need, isn't it?

Reality for you brainless idiots. Rudy can't win! He'll lose at least 4 states Bush won last time by people staying at home. Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and West Virginia. He won't pick up NY or Cali so by supporting Giuliani you are handing Hillary the White House.

Hunter or Tancredo would win every state Bush won in 2004. Hunter would also have the potential to pick up California, being from there and quite popular there. Tancredo would take Colorado, a state Kerry won. Either would defeat Hillary. Support Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, or any other liberal you choose but realise they will NOT have a chance in the general election.

Stang writes:
"Tell me one state that Bush carried in the last election that Hunter or Tancredo can't and why."

Maybe I'm underestimating them, but from what little I've seen of them, I don't think they have the presence or prestige necessary to put Shrillary in her place and stand up to the press. Thompson speaks with ultimate authority. Almost all the other candidates (except Juliani) seem like shouters of sound bites.

Also, seems like Hunter is rabid pro-life (I could be wrong about that) but I don't think middle America wants another ultra-conservative in the White House. Centainly, with his stand for Amnesty, the traitorous Bush has left a seeringly bad taste in everyone's mouth for ultra-conservative whackos. I and many others supported his Iraq policy when everyone was calling for his head. We were all hookwinked and left out to dry by this socialist in sheep's clothing. If he passes Amnesty, the history books one day, all written in Spanish, of course, will hail him as a hero of a burned out world. But there will be a besieged minority that will know the truth about a shining beacon once called America and what could have been. Snicker.

I am a big fan of the fair tax too, but I'm not sure that someone can win an election anywhere talking about it in their platform.

Interesting
how the republicans that don't care about the abortion issue keep trying to tell us that we just have to learn to accept Guiliani, or that we social conservatives in the party make them sick. It sounds a lot like the liberal/"progressives" looking down from their ivory towers on high. To be perfectly clear, I believe that they share a common high opinion of their own intellect to the detriment of their wisdom.

The bottom line, you economic conservatives/social liberals, is that you need us. You need the votes of social conservatives if you want to ever have a major share of power in this country, and we're perfectly willing to pick up our marbles and go home if you keep giving us the finger like you have the last few elections.

Huckabee
Is the only candidate I've seen so far that is not a RINO like the front three, and also has the ability to be a good president, unlike Ron Paul and the rest (I know he has the philosopher vote, I'm not trying to make you guys mad here).

Immigration and strict constructionists
First, like Stang200s6, I fully trust Giuliani to end illegal immigration. Specifically, what he's going to do is make all immigration legal. This way there's no more illegal immigration. Of course, that's bad immigration policy, but what do you expect from Giuliani?

Second, Giuliani WILL NOT appoint strict constructionists. Two months ago, he said abortion is "a constitutional right." But don't take my word for it--watch him say it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8

Black Dog
Welcome back from your KKK meeting. Did you see David Duke there? Your brothers must have given you a big hug after you made the Lieberman "Jew" comments. Hi Hitler!

Rudy

Like many conservatives I strongly disagree with many of your positions. However, if you publicly announce your support of the FairTax I will vote for you. That is the only thing you can do to gain my support and the support of millions of others like me. So read the book, talk to economists and come on board. I believe it's your only hope of winning.

Honestly
First, I really favor the Thompson-Hunter ticket, maybe even this Sarah Palin could be a VP if I hear more about her. Second, I heard Rudy speak on guns. He said he put some control measures in place for New York City, it was not designed with America in mind.

Rudy is a believer in federalism. That means that he worked to govern New York City, the most liberal spot in America. And he did it well. He has a different model in mind fot the presidency since America is not New York.

I will vote for him, IF he recieves the GOP nomination whihc means, my fellow conservatives that a majority of us voted for him. I would vote for a hampsire named Timmy before I voted for a Democrat especially Hillary.

I am telling you we must keep Hillary from the White House. She'll make the Carter and Bush years look like our time of great prosperity.

Rudy's contract
is mere words on a page. He is no social conservative, and barely a fiscal conservative.

Sorry....contract promises or not...not voting for you, Rudy.

I would love to see Tancredo or Hunter get the nomination. (with Huckabee...as a VP candidate..that is a grassroots conservatives..dream team)

If Rudy, McCain or Romney, get the nomination..look for Christian conservatives..to vote third party...Constitutional Party.

rocker
"What's with repubs and contracts?"

The last contract gave the Republicans control of both houses of Congress after 40 years of Democrat dominance. A new contract and a short two years of Democrat control comes to a screeching halt. Pretty scary, isn’t it?

The Dems ought to try a contract of their own. On second thought, a contract by the Dems wouldn't worth the paper it’s written on. After all, if the Dems don’t respect the Constitution or current immigration laws, why would anyone expect them to honor a new contract?

Patuxahawney Phil
BrianR---Knuckle dragging absolutist? What are you smoking, and where can I get some. I must need better reading glasses, because I never saw anything he posted that resembles, or dissembles, what you are talking.
Wait....didn't you just see your shadow? Quick, jump back into your hole!

Folks, stop yammering about abortion, the gubment should have nothing to do with the topic. If people want to ice skate into hell with a jet motor strapped to their back, so be it. You will never stop the determined.

Drew: No sale
First of all, Giuliani's mealy-mouthing on his record as a gun-grabber as mayor is just laughable. He believes gun control is good for his city, but not the country? What? How exactly does that work?

There's no such thing as federalism with the Bill of Rights. The states don't get to pick and choose whether or not they support free speech, or a free press, or the 5th Amendment.... or the SECOND AMENDMENT. Actually, that just goes to show how poorly Giuliani understands the concept of federalism, and what we can expect from his "constructionist" judges.

What a freakin' joke.


Chowda Melon (or is that Head?)
Have difficulty reading the English language?

Well, maybe the comment I just posted will help you out.

BTW, bud,
if you read my posts you'll see I've never once mentioned abortion.

Duh!

Go Rudy!
Since Newt's Contract On America" was such a huge success, your decision to follow his lead speaks volumes about your decision-making and leadership qualities.

By the way... you rock the mauve shawl and Barbara Bush hair like nobody else!

LOL, soothsayer
You sating he looks good in a dress?

Grweat image for a Commander in Chief.....

Typos. My bad.
Saying, not sating.

Lose the "w" in "great".

HUNTER FOR AMERICA

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. They want an open borders candidate. Give Americans a chance to vote for a candidate who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. 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

Brian..
...my " " was already removed.

Drew
"I heard Rudy speak on guns. He said he put some control measures in place for New York City, it was not designed with America in mind."

So, it is OK to stomp on my constitutional right to own a gun if I live in New York, but it is not OK if I live in Alabama. They tried gun restriction for 30 years in DC. Not only did it not work, a federal appeals court just struck down the DC gun ban three months ago.

A mayor restricts gun ownership in a city where the law-abiding citizens need guns the most. Giuliani overstepped his constitutional authority by doing that, and it almost Ray Nagin-like. What is to prevent a Democrat Congress from writing similar gun-restriction laws where you live, and President Giuliani just happens to agree with the Dems that your area needs a dose of New York medicine?

PRECISELY, Hound Dog!
.

Will: your question
is probably better directed at the GOP hacks.

Conservatives don't have to justify our votes; the GOP has to earn them.

If your party wants to run a bunch of RINOs and lose, have at it.


Hound Dog and Brian R
I always enjoy your post and have the utmost respect for both of you. I also see your point on gun control. I'm certain not a gun control crazy activist. I own a couple myself. I think it is important not to disarm the citizenry.

What I was saying is that states have regulation power. Now I fully support Thompson-Hunter ticket. That is my choice and Fred gets my vote come the primaries here in Missouri in March. However, will Rudy may limit gun issues, I know Hillary or Obama would not only take them away they would probably want to imprison those who had owned them.

I really hope I am not put in that situation to choose between the lesser of two evils. That was all I was saying. You know who I support, I am curious, who do you think would make a good ticket for us next year? Any thoughts?

Sorry, Drew, you're 100% wrong
when you say the states have regulatory power. You have missed the ENTIRE point.

The states do NOT have regulatory power, any more than they can say they'll only allow a little freedom of speech and press as long as it doesn't interfere with their law enforcement activities.

That's like being a little bit pregnant.



Further, RINO Rudy, the Bald Hillary, has fully proven his chops as being a gun-grabber, no matter how he tries to put lipstick on THAT pig.



It took a lot of guts
to do this, no other candidate has and this alone puts Rudy out front.

That Rudy is assuring us with his commitment(s) to conservatism is proof that GOP grassroots have influence not just with his campaign but with him.

Rudy's past actions don't jive with these commitments so he has a long way to go before he has my vote and to be honest I am very sick and tired of candidates that transform to be elected and then pursue their personal agenda (Bush) after they get in office.
There is no candidate that has my vote yet.

No.12 doesn't soothe my globalist paranoia and isn't totally compatible with ending illegal immigration if the worlds bankers have anything to say about it and they do. solving 9.6 trillion debt, 700 billion trade defect, stopping the human flood, expanding "free" trade and protecting American quality of life is a daunting task.

The next pres. will need to be a great leader an active leader and a social and financial genius and to get my vote protect and defend the Constitution, all of the Constitution.

You either have a right or you don't
No matter what some political hack tries to use as a justification for abridging your rights, the moment you concede they CAN be abridged -- for whatever reason -- they're gone. Because at that point you enjoy them only at the pleasure and forbearance of the government.



BrianR
Try to keep more of an open mind than a liberal might.

gatormb
I agree with you. Better Rudy than democratic commies. I can't believe the garbage you people write. Le't make sure that the right guy gets the nomination.

Roger Berry: Sorry
Not on this.

Giuliani is nothing but another New York liberal, Hillary without the hair.


The Bald Hillary.


Nice.
Nice but how you be trusted? You violated the most sacred contract you can make. You divorced your wife. I will not trust any contract you make.

More Shamnesty
Rudy wants to "Identify" every illegal alien in the U.S.? Not deport, not drive out through enforcement. Sounds like he isn't even pretending to be anti-amnesty.

A question . . .
For those of you who have indicated that Rudy's record on guns is the main barrier to your supporing him.

I think it is unlikely that he would repudiate his prior positions as Mayor of New York. But what if he promised to veto all FEDERAL gun control measures that crossed his desk?

In passing I should mention my own view. I think it is quite clear that the Second Amendment applies to the states and municipalities as well as the federal government. Much clearer than with the First. But if he asserts that he favours state and municipal gun control but would veto any federal measures that would seem to overcome any objection to his becoming President (on these grounds). It would form a stronger case against a candidacy for governor or mayor.

Give it a rest, Mr. President!
I like his approach to an immigration bill. Simple, but I think an effective start.

Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President
By Lou Dobbs


NEW YORK (CNN) — President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To “Mission accomplished,” “Bring it on,” “Wanted: Dead or alive,” and of course, “I earned … political capital, and now I intend to spend it,” he has added “I’ll see you at the bill signing,” referring to his own ill-considered push for so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Bush emerged from a midday meeting with Republican senators on Capitol Hill to declare, “We’ve got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border.”

No, Mr. President, someone you trust and respect must convince you that kind of tortured reasoning should never be exposed before cameras and microphones. Isn’t there anyone in this administration with the guts to say, “Give it a rest, Mr. President”?

Read the rest of this entry »

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/i-like-his-approach-to-an-immigration-bill-simple-but-i-think-an-effective-start

A Platform, not promises
This is a good platform on which to run for President. However, this sounds like what we hear every 4 years. You have to deal with Congress which is more bitter and divisive than ever before. The Dems would fight you every inch of the way, so your proposals for a better America would be difficult to achive. For example, we really need a flat tax. Period. I know it would crimp Congress' largess, but hey, who's money is it anyway. Good position on immigration. Etc.
More important than going over each point step by step is that I see you have the sense of leadership that so many of the others in the running pack just have lost sight of. You have a good foundation, parochial school. Your feet are on the ground and with 9/11 under your belt I have had the greatest respect for you. Your behavior and leadership were A+. You've got my vote, just be aware that it's going to be a real struggle because of the opposition (Yeah, both Osama and Harry Reid, who is now the most unpopular man in America - he is unattractively small spirited and looks perpetually dour and like the cranky neighbor, in his behavior). Good luck, Rudy.

Despite all the foot stomping and breast
beating. Rudy the RINO will never get my vote.

From what I've read, I just found 12 more reasons to send another check to Dr. Paul. When will our citizens wake from their stupor, stop drinking the kool-aid and put an end to the one party system. If you think that you can save the United States by voting for whoever the GOP or DNC allows you to vote for, you are simply a fool.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Rudi's 12 Promises
Rudi is probably at little too liberal for my comfort, but I must say every one of his twelve positions is a step in the right direction.

I'd like to see the other candidates post their contracts with America.

Dave

Promises promises
Good ole Giulie forgot one promise. I'll vote for him, if he makes it.

Promisse # XXX: "I will resign, on the spot, if I fail to keep any of my above promises."


SOS
Will we ever have someone represent us in the White House who actually comprehends those of us outside that fence?

Will we ever have someone that will assure us the Constitutional rights as written by our forefathers?

It is a sad thing to watch the WEALTHY play volleyball every four years with what is ours. Talking the SOS and never carrying out one iota of the promises made during the campaign. The elite have made it impossible for one of us to even consider running for most federal offices. It's all about the money.

We need to get the Federal Government off our backs, they are breaking those who work the hardest with the unbarable taxation currently as a norm in our country. The trillions needed to correct the mismanaged mess they have made will still be owed by our great great grandchildren unless WE THE PEOPLE stop this craziness.

The IRS needs to be abolished NOW! A FAIR tax must be instituted! All which can be accomplished by cutting this high priced welfare system which calls itself "the government" and has unlawfully replaced the REAL government "WE THE PEOPLE"!

Look around you!!!!

We again are sending our best resources to die for WHO? After THEY have committed them, they are now bickering wether or not they should supply them with the tools to continue the battle. GET THEM OUT NOW IF YOU WON'T ALLOW THEM TO FIGHT AND SHAME ON YOU, ALL OF YOU!
How many times must we revisit this absolutely irrisponsible behavior by the elite? THEY LIE AND LIE AND LIE! and keep us confused with party loyalties.

We are witnessing our borders being breached every minute, allowing ILLEGALS to participate in what this government decides to give them for FREE. All the while hearing from the majority of THE PEOPLE that we DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS!!! Yet they DO NOT LISTEN! They insult us openly by voting as they want NOT AS WE WANT THEM TO!!!

This wonderful country has been turned into a Fascist State under the disguise of a democracy long gone.

When will the real lion be awakened? what will it take to awaken that spirit which made this once great country?

We don't need more of what we've had, the differences between the elite are very small, the party elites are laughing at us every election. Don't allow this to continue. We are more intelligent than this.




Rudy said,
9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.

This sounds good but what is needed is to force congress to follow the Constitution. A review of all the laws of the land and their support by the Constitution is mandatory. All laws that do not pass the test must be dissolved.

Rudy I like your putting forth your plan. The question is how do we trust you in this and why should we trust you?


Drew
I agree with BrianR. The only thing Giuliani has on his resume that is not on Hillary's is 9/11. He was a great 9/11 mayor, but beyond that, I don't know. It's good that is hitting all the right notes on the contract, but so is Romney. Both are northeastern liberals, both changing their stance on key issues, just in time for the election.

RINO=GOP R.I.P
Rudy,

I agree with alot of what you are saying, but the bottom line is that there is no difference between you and Hillary Clinton or Barak Hussein Obama on abortion, same sex marriage, and gun control. In fact you may be even further to the left than both of them.

At any rate, we have been down this road before with Ford and Bush 41. Americans are by and large center-right and prefer socially conservative presidents. RINOs like you Rudy lose. You can't win without Reagan Dems (socially conservative blue collar church going Dems who cross over in a general pres election) and you don't appeal to them. That's why "born again Southern Baptists Carter and Clinton beat RINOs Ford and Bush 41.

Bottom line America is that if don't want Hillary/Obama in the White House signing hate crime laws, national healthcare, fairness doctrine laws, gun confiscations laws/repeal of 2nd amendment, tax payer funded abortion on demand, scientific tax payer funded research on human embryos, and de facto open border, becoming part of world govt run by the UN, etc. then the GOP must nominate an authent Christian Conservative in the mold of Washington-Lincoln-Reagan. Time is running out. And only Reagan conservatives win landslides. And in order to preserve America and defend Western Civilization from the Jihadist Barbarians at the "gate" we can't afford to have a president that is not an across the board Christian-Reagan-Conservative.

Remember Class......RINO=GOP R.I.P

http://www.greggjackson.com

And Rudy (along with Mitt and John) are all RINOs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drew
I have narrowed my choices down to Huckabee, Hunter and Thompson. I need to find out a little more about Thompson, because I don’t know much about him besides being a one and a half term Senator from Tennessee and an actor. I do know he was McCain’s campaign manager in 2000 and signed onto McCain-Feingold.

Promises Promises
More promises that will never be kept. In typical politician style, Rudy is just one more who will over promise and under deliver.


BrianR

Remember a while back I ranted about the NRA not having our best interests at heart? You asked what the heck I was blathering about. Yesterday the House passed legislation, endorsed by Chucky Schumer and the NRA requiring state and federal agencies to transmit all "relevant" disqualifying records to the NICS database. This is what the NRA does, trade our second amendment rights for the sake of political expediency. Remember, the NRA was founded by ex-Confederates after the War of Secession to keep guns out of the hands of ex-slaves. Our countries original gun grabbing group. Today they are still at it. Don't support those bums, there are plenty of legitimate second amendment groups that deserve our support more. Anyway, that's what I was blathering about.

An interesting platform, but...
Rudy seems to misunderstand the office he seeks. The title is President/Chief Executive Officer. Rudy seems to think he can do all these things himself, fogetting the other major player in the game -- Congress. Only a dictator can unilaterally accomplish all these things and the POTUS isn't a dictator. Unless and until a majority of both houses of Congress has the same goals, none of this will happen.

black dog- the true face of hate
I love how people like black dog claim to be so tolerant. Yet judging from his comments above to gabby it is clear to me that a great many like him have no interest in joining the American family as LEGAL IMMIGRANTS came to our country in years past had. His comments reveal an arrogance and hater for our culture, our laws, our borders, our sovereignty, and our language. Just listen to him brag about how "Jaun" is replacing "John". Black dog is the face of hate and is the true enemy of our country. He is a person who hates America and has no respect for our laws or insitutions. He most likely belongs to "La Raza" the racists "The Race" separatist group who believe America is rightfully theirs.

If you want to understand why Americans have had it with illegal immigration in this country just read "black dog's" comments above.

Sorry
List is good but not good enough. Didn't see anything about the Second amendment or Constructionist judges.

TELL THE TRUTH, MISTER!!!
Rudy (yes, "that" pro-abortion "conservative"), IS HELPING TO BUID NA UNION (read: disappearance of USA) - his firm is involved in building the Texas hwys from mehiko to Kanada....

Upland William Writes
An interesting platform, but...
Rudy seems to misunderstand the office he seeks. The title is President/Chief Executive Officer. Rudy seems to think he can do all these things himself, fogetting the other major player in the game -- Congress. Only a dictator can unilaterally accomplish all these things and the POTUS isn't a dictator. Unless and until a majority of both houses of Congress has the same goals, none of this will happen.

How is that different from any of the others' promises? Lets face it the real power and the real problems are in the Congress!

Action
Regarding Black Dog, did you read his anti-Semitic rant about the possibility of Senator Joseph Lieberman switching parties the other day? He referred to Lieberman as "that war-mongering Jew". Black Dog is truly a man of compassion, tolerance, understanding and love.

National Security Issue

.....Rudy ...

.....The election will turn on National Security and it's evil twin "illegal Aliens" ...if Thompson can co-opt those positions then you are toast ...

.....My suggestion ...if Thompson wins in the Primaries ...work for his campaign in the National election and then lobby for the job of Attorney General .....COLOSSUS

Giuliani as Attorney General
That's as scary as Janet Reno making a repeat performance.

Rudy wins, then what?
If Rudy wins the primary, then who are you all going to vote for? Hillary?

You are never going to find a candidate that appeals to everyone 100%. Rudy might be the best shot at wide Republican appeal with significant enough independent voter appeal.

As a gun-owner, I'm concerned about the 2nd amendment. Sure, Rudy did some questionable things while mayor of New York, but what would any stock Democrat do concerning the 2nd amendment? Rudy has already taken a states-rights approach to several other hot-button issues.

I don't agree with Rudy 100%. In fact, I agree with Romney on more issues. But I'm supporting Rudy, since he gives America the best chance at surviving.

Politics has always been about the lesser of two evils. Instead of taking this narrow-minded track "Rudy is pro-choice, no way in hell I'm voting for him," maybe you ought to weigh the consequences of not voting for him.

another note
Before someone accuses me of being a RINO, I'm a war hawk libertarian who refuses to join the Republican party because of the RINOs.

jcthomasva
If it comes down to Giuliani or Hillary I'll either vote 3rd party or for Hillary. If my choices are an anti-American, pro-UN, NY liberal or an anti-American, pro-UN, NY liberal I might as well vote for the mosre honest one which is Hillary.

Giuliani can NOT win enough electoral votes. Look at the last election and you'll see several close states that were only won by high social conservative turn out and they will sit at home in '08 like social conservatives did in '06. The liberals will be out en mass to support whoever gets the democratic nomination.

My question to you is if the options are Tancredo or Hillary who do you vote for? Hunter or Hillary?

AMNESTY -- NOT!
Point 2: "I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. ... And we need to encourage Americanization..."

Rudy DOES NOT plan to send the illegal aliens home. His promise is for AMNSTY! No matter how he lies and couches his AMNESTY plan in weasle words, AMNESTY is an anti-American sell out.

Sorry Rudy, giving AMNESTY to millions of Mexicans is selling out America, it is treason.

Be honest Rudy, stop the lying. Be honest and admit that you are promising AMNESTY for illegal aliens. At least you would be an honest traitor. Point 2 of your 12 points is that of a lying traitor.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


What America needs...
...is a president that will veto any legislation that comes across his desk that is not compliant with the U.S. Constitution.

...is a president that will use all the power of his office to rid the federal government of every department, bureau, division, and office that is not authorized by the U.S. constitution.

...is a president that will appoint judges that actually believe in the U.S. Constitution, and understand that the words contained therein have meaning.

...is an electorate that respects the principles upon which this nation was founded, and nominates and elects a president that will faithfully execute the responsibilities of the office as described above.

Anything less then the above is more of the same. Which is the last thing America needs. Anything more than the above is beyond the legitimate power of the chief executive's office, therefore unconstitutional, and by definition not what America needs.

jcthomasva, to answer your question
If RINO Rudy wins the nomination, I and many conservatives including most gunowners simply won't vote for any presidential candidate.

Then Bald Hillary loses, dragging the GOP down with him.

It's really very simple.

GOP losers
All this talk about the president having his hands in gun control and abortion is garbage. This should be at a state level. The Republicans that keep saying things like "He's a RINO" and "he won't get my vote" are overlooking the big picture. Even if you don't want Rudy, you want some other big government republican which is just as bad as CLinton/Obama.

A candidate's personal views on such things should be irrelivant. The fact of the matter is both sides are looking for the federal government to govern TOO MUCH of our lives. Lets get someone in office that doesn't need 12 points. They should have 3...

1: Protect our borders for invasion (immigration or military)
2: Hammer Congress to pass a "fair" tax system (i.e. National Flat Tax or National Sales Tax...get rid of the IRS and it's compicated system that has no accountability)
3: Leave the states to decide things that effect it's own community. We do not need National Health Care, or National Education Reform. These things should be done at home where you can regulate poor performance.

If you want abortion, gun control, drug regulations, whatever...communities can make their own decision on what will fly. Both parties are taking us down a road that is very scary. One the Left we have the Nanny state were all decisions are made for you. On the right we have the Police state. If you ask me, we have two choices in this election judging by the front runners, a move towards Socialism or a move towards Facism. What happened to the land of the free, because our government certainly does not care for that notion.


MTrains: Really?
Communities can make their own decisions on your Constitutional rights?

I don't know what world you live in, but it's a pretty scary place.

so...
Stang200s6 - most election data indicates that voters who identify as conservative account for only about 25% of the pop., liberal account for slightly more, and the great masses are "independent." What pushed Bush over the top in Ohio and other swing states were independent concerns over national security and the Democrat's inability to provide a convincing platform for nat'l defense. Even that knucklehead Larry Sabato will admit to this.

BrianR - good move. Bald Hillary loses, Hairy Hillary wins, bye-bye gun rights altogether. Actually, even this is simplistic. A president can spearhead gun legislation, but he can't pass it without Congressional support, and even in Democratically controlled Congresses their is majority resistance to this idea.

Go ahead and be a single issue voter, see what happens. You'll lose on that issue. If you have an issue important to you, and you are in the minority, then you must be willing to compromise on some level, trade off to a degree, to preserve that issue.

BrianR
It's a scary place because people like you are blind to see that both parties are the same. you want another Bush in the White House? Our government is growing at such a large rate that we should change the name of our country. We are not United States anymore, if the federal government is going to take all the rights away from the state, what the hell is the point of having states? All that I am saying is that if everyone in Alabama agrees that abortion is an abomination, then they should make the law. If people in California want to have abortion on demand and legalize drugs that is the states decision.

jcthomasva
I'd rather lose my rights honestly than reward the GOP for sneaking them out the back door.

As to the President, he's the one who signs or vetos legislation, so anyone who says the President doesn't matter on issues is either woefully ignorant or disingenuous.

MTrains: Nowehere in any of my
posts have I discussed abortions.

I am talking about the 2nd Amendment.

No Way Rudy
won't vote for you. Aint never gonna do it. If you win the nomination I will vote 3rd party. Tired of compromise, tired of RINO's.

AMNESTY -- NOT!
Point 2: "I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. ... And we need to encourage Americanization..."

Rudy DOES NOT plan to send the illegal aliens home. His promise is for AMNSTY! No matter how he lies and couches his AMNESTY plan in weasle words, AMNESTY is an anti-American sell out.

Sorry Rudy, giving AMNESTY to millions of Mexicans is selling out America, it is treason.

Be honest Rudy, stop the lying. Be honest and admit that you are promising AMNESTY for illegal aliens. At least you would be an honest traitor. Point 2 of your 12 points is that of a lying traitor.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

Sorry, Rudy!
Rudy Guiliani has a strong record on crime prevention, and I believe he will do well on national defense. However, his record on abortion and gay marriage leave much to be desired. I cannot see myself voting for anybody who supports the killing of the unborn, or who helps to legitimize homosexuality.

I agree that Rudy is preferable to Hillary, but I hope it does not come down to that choice. If he is the best Republicans have to offer, then the GOP really is in trouble.

Who to vote for?
I'm like a lot of other conservatives, I'd vote for a hound dog named Butch before I'd vote for any Democrat.
For all you so-called "conservatives" that say you'll stay home, I say you can all just go to he!! with the rest of us because that's exactly what you're going to bring down on those that went to the polls knowing that we weren't going to get everything we want. Those of us that know a little something about the real world know that you very rarely do.
For those that compare Rudy's governing of New York with what he'll do about gun control or immigration etc, I ask this. Did you ever go to New York in the 70s or 80s? It was an above ground sewer. Druggies and hookers all over Times Square and a murder rate that was triple or better what it is now. Garbage everywhere. Figuratively and literally. He cleaned up the largest city in the country and made some tough choices to do it.
At this point, he's not my top choice. I don't have a firm one yet. But I'll be damned if I'm going to turn over the entire Fed gov't to the Democrats.

Ilegal Immigration
I also have this to ask of my fellow conservatives. How many of you have reported illegal aliens that you see at construction sites, in restaurants and motels? I'm guessing none on here have ever done that. My guess is that you sit on the sidlines griping and complaining while doing nothing. My suggestion is that we inundate the immigration service offices in each city with phone calls of suspected illegals. The roundup has to start somewhere so let it start there. Otherwise nothing and I mean nothing is ever going to get done no matter what legislation is passed. We have to be involved.

RetMSgt: you scare me
Because you think that the pit that NYC was justifies the abrigation of the Bill of Rights.

So if you think I care one whit about your opinion of me for not voting for some RINO demagogue, let me disabuse you of that idea right now.

Further, I have called the ICE Hotline, not that it did a damned bit of good.

So save your sanctimony for some toher time. Maybe you can impress your dinner guests. It doesn't fly here.



I will only vote
for a 100 percent pro life person. If we don't respect life at its inception, then we are someone who picks and chooses which lives are more valuable than others. Not a good thing....

BrianR
If you have so little confidence in your aim that you don't believe you can hit the Federal agents when they show up to collect your gun, then perhaps you personally don't need to own one.

truetolife
A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary. Last time I checked, Hillary is not pro-life. Weigh that on your conscience.

but what about...
Social Security?!?!? Not a word! Maybe it really is the third rail of American politics--touch it and you die. Sure didn't help W's popularity much.

Yet, after Islamo-fascism, it's got to be right up there as a looming threat.

single issues
Single issue voters and militant pro-lifers are marginalized in our political system. If you as a single issue voter intend to have any influence on the country, then you need to do it from within one of the two political parties. That means you won't always get 100% of what you want, but thats how the game of politics is played. Getting 25% of what you want is better than 0%.

jcthomasva: What????
I have absolutely no idea at all what your last post to me means.


As to single-issue voters being marginalized, again:

Since 1980 the GOP candidate has won every time, and only when, endorsed by the NRA.

Clinton credited gun owners with defeating Gore.

In an era of razor-thin margins, where the outcome is determined by a few thousand votes, if you want to claim ANYONE is marginalized you do so at your own peril.

That, pard, is is the world of realpolitik.

Do you believe him?
The main problem with Rudy's contract is that I don't believe he will do much of it.

I will vote for Ron Paul.

BrianR
In regards to your NRA-GOP stat - correlation is not causation. I think its hysterical that you would cite Bill Clinton (the purveyor of truth himself) to reinforce your claim that gun owners defeated Gore's bid. Where are your statistics?

But you prove my point. Gun owners sat on their hands in 92 & 96, and look what you got - the Assault Weapons Ban. Congratulations. Thats realpolitik for ya. Remember who was "Co-President" at the time?

So go ahead, stay out of the election. Vote for Ron Paul. I don't care. See what happens when a Big Gov't Dem gets elected, and is candid about wanting to take your guns.

BrianR
If your primary concern is that someone will come and take your guns from you, then you must not be a very good shot.

Pretty words Rudy
But knowing who your masters and owners are, I do not believe a word you say.

Word games is all you got Rudy, and most of us out here are sick of hearing the right buzz words and never seeing you guys do anything but go socialist and globalist on us.

Republicans make me as sick as the lying democrats have for years.

Hunter, Tancredo or Ron Paul, thats its for me.

jcthomasva
Evidently you simply don't get it. Let me make it simple for you.

If someone wants to take away my guns, it doesn't matter whther their name is followed by a (D) or an (R). They don't get my vote.

Capisce?

BTW, as to your joke? Don't give up your day job.

jcthomasva
Can you knock out 50 UN troops sent to your home to take your guns before they take out you and yours when they are in body armor and drive up in armored vehicles? Send 2 after me and I'll laugh at you, 5 and I'll have to dig a big f'n hole but 50 to 1 and I will die. Reality is gun confinscation in the US can NOT be done by the US military and they know this. It WILL be done by UN troops. They have been training sherif departments for the last 12 years in advanced riot control and assisting troops at controling their areas because they believe they will help.

I know too much to believe that my rights are safe any longer in America. This country is headed into civil war. You want to see blood shed just wait. Within 25 years there will be a full fledged war in America if we continue to elect liberals like Bush, Giuliani, Clinton, etc. Build the damn wall on the southern border. Find out who is in this country and get the criminals out. Give the power back to the states. There will be a big push from several states to leave the Union within the next 10-15 years and either they will be permited to leave or war will emerge. That is reality.

So many of you are caught up Islamic terrorists overseas, and yes they are a serious threat, however the wolves that live amoungst us are the bigger threat then teh wolves overseas. Russia and China will cleans the Muslims in due time. Russia is almost back to superpower status if it isn't already. We need to deal with our internal issues NOW and the rest of the world can deal with itself. We gave Iraq their new government now it is up to them to keep it. Finish training their soldiers over the next 6 months and start getting out. Then come home and secure our borders and protect Americans.


Rudi
I worked at Kidder and worked with and knew the two men led out in cuffs. A former associate worked at Princeton/Newport.

I had a few friends at Drexel.

I am not Rudi's biggest fan. In fact, I think he could be a very dangerous president.

His 12 Commitments are an interesting attempt to shadow the Contract with America. However, as some have pointed out, quite a bit of this isn't under Rudi's purview. He can lead, push, cajole, etc., but the proposal and implementation is, rightly, in other branches of government.

I have no doubt that under Rudi we would see even more of an "Imperial Presidency." However, I'm not sure we don't need a strong president to reverse the failure of the two Bush administrations and the blatant malfeasance of the two Clinton terms, someone to right the country and prosecute the war against the bad guys. Could Rudi do this? Probably, but he'd have to be watched very closely.

Bottom line, I'd support Rudi if he were to be nominated, but I would prefer someone else.

Barry

Rudy's commitments
How about this one, which would solve most of Rudy's problems with the conservative base:

13. I believe in constitutional government. In accordance with the 10th Amendment, I shall as President veto every bill reaching my desk that does not quote, in the preamble, the specific language in the Constitution that authorizes the proposed Federal action.

INCONVENIENT TRUTH, DUDE!!!!
1. Giuliani, to protect ILLEGALS, went all the way to Supreme Court to make NY a "Sanctuary City" for criminals...
YES, YOU THINK WE ARE IDIOTS. NOT SO!!!

2. As a "cosrvative", he is pro-abortion.


BrainR
Talk about sanctimonious! Apparently by all your rhetoric on here, your vote is the most sanctimonious of all. I personlly don't give a rat's behind who you vote for. But save all the "it's all about my guns" bs. Go live on a hilltop in Idaho and shoot at feds. I don't care. Better yet, form a militia. Since people like you are so fond of quoting the 2nd Amendment, remember it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Notice the word regulated. Or did you just skip over that and go right to the phrase "right of the people"?I'm all for gun rights but you have to keep things in perpective. Sheesh.

BrianR
You apparently don't get it. There are numerous other issues besides just firearms. Ever bothered to read the newspaper? Any idea whats going on in Iran? Palestine? North Korea? Russia? Surely, you are not so brain-dead that you have an opinion on world affairs. On monetary policy. On issues of federalism. On taxation. On domestic social spending. On border security.

Oh nevermind. All this pales compared to your right to own some largely insignificant piece of steel. The security of the nation be damned. Foreign trade be damned. The economy be damned. Taxes be damned. Society as a whole be damned.

Are you gonna shoot your way to the front of a line at the doctor's office once health care is nationalized? Are you going to shoot inflation? Are you going to shoot Congressional spending? Are you going to shoot illegal immigrants cutting your neighbor's grass?

Quit huffing your nitro solvent and realize that in the great scheme of things, one besieged right is but a drop in the political ocean. We can zealously defend our right to bear arms, but its counter-productive to marginalize ourselves, or cast our lot with one issue and ignore more pressing issues.

Stang - last time we said the hell with the rest of the world, it took the death of half a million American men to liberate it. And that was the second time around. Sticking our head in the sand has never been a solution.

Well, RetPvt
Here's the definition of militia, since you seem law-challenged:

"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 you can see, I don't have to form a militia, as according to law every law-abiding citizen and/or legal resident of the country is already a part of either the organized or unorganized militia.

You should learn a little about the law before flouting your ignorance for all to see.

As to my vote being sanctimonious, would you mind explaining to me how a vote can be "sanctimonious"?

That was hilarious!

jcthomasva
Dude, I don't have to justify my vote to you or anyone else. I am quite aware of all the issues in the world, and my primary concern is the Bill of Rights, which along with the Constitution happen to be the very definition of this country.

Hey, if you don't mind throwing your rights away while you go running around trying to solve the rest of the world's problems, particularly when you're being sold a bill of goods by snake-oil salesmen like RINO Rudy, then I will tell you that contrary to your belief, you are the problem, not the solution.

Sophistry
Rudy's political rhetoric can be considered nothing but sophistry.
"I will increase adoptions...", oh really.

I prefer reading Thompson's essays which are more specific as to subject and to specific resolution of problems.

Someone mentioned they would vote for Daffy Duck to keep the leftists out of office, I will too, I don't wish to live in Hillary's commune. However, I'd prefer electing a Republican who understands the Constitution-- Fred Thompson.

BTW, before belittling
someone else's consern with the Bill of Rights, you might reflect for a moment on the fact that you're using one of the every time you write your gibberish.

BrianR
I served 22 yrs in the AF. I earned the tag RetMSgt. I certainly don't deserve or appreciate your insult.
As to your vote being sanctimonious, the definition:Feigning piety or righteousness. By focusing on your one pet peeve and saying that you're going to waste your vote, I would definitely say that it's being self rightous.

Dude, I'm a vet, too
And served in combat, so I'm not impressed by your background. You got demoted for your rant.

So, using your definition, how can a vote be sanctimonious? What I SAY about my vote can be called sanctimonious, if you wish. But you said the vote ITSELF was sanctimonious. A vote doesn't "feign" anything; it just is.


BrianR
I know you aren't trying to tell them townhall.com will disapear and die under Rudy because that's only 90% true. Yes, he's a fan of the fairness doctrine but he'll still let townhall stay up as long as they post liberal blogs instead of conservative blogs.

RetMSgt
With all due respect to your service, and being a DoD employee I have a lot of respect for it, I do not know any respectable miltary personal retired or active that want Giuliani as the President. Troops I know doing thier 2nd and 3rd tours in Iraq don't want to have to worry about not being at home to defend us from a tyrant in the White House while dealing with an emeny overseas.

We can't prevent enemies from coming after us, we can avoid voting those enemys who wish to further destroy the constitution into the office of President.

BrianR
Ok, let's try this. I said I've got no problem with gun ownership. NONE! So what exactly is the burr in your arss? With the amount of gun ownership in this country and the 2nd amendment, do you really think that the feds are going to bother coming to YOUR house to get your Glock? Seriously, are you that paranoid? And don't try to pull that "they did it in Australia" crap. They didn't have it in their constitution to begin with. Neither did Great Britain. So what exactly is it that Rudy did wrong? He took guns away to get them all off the streets and lower crime. It worked. I just don't see it working all over the nation. And yes, wasting your vote is feigning caring about the big picture. You can say you know about the other issues, but do you care?

LOL, Stang
And as long as they keep letting him post these little self-plugging pieces!

Look, Sarge, you obviously
don't get it, and even contradict your own self!

One minute you say "they" can't take away our guns, then write: "He took guns away to get them all off the streets and lower crime."

Get it? He TOOK THEM AWAY, while you're standing there saying they can't.

You either have a right or you don’t.

No matter what some political hack tries to use as a justification for abridging your rights, the moment you concede they CAN be abridged -- for whatever reason -- they're gone. Because at that point you enjoy them only at the pleasure and forbearance of the government.

And I'll tell you something else
in answer to your question: There is no issue in the world more important to me than my constitutional rights. They are THE ONLY THING that distinguish us as a land of liberty, and they are rapidly being taken away.

I would suggest you click on my name and read my current blog essays "The Nature of Freedom" and "The Era of Constitutional Erosion". I spell it out very clearly.

Stang
I didn't say that I wanted Guiliani as President. I said I had not made up my mind. As to tyrants in the White House, I would think that Hillary or Barack or any other Dem would be far worse than anyone the Repubs have at the present time. A Dem Congress with a Dem president is scary. It's blank check time for any socialist agenda topic that they want. Want more taxes? Here Madam President sign this. Want free healthcare for all? Here sign this. That's when we should all break down the doors of the capitol.

Rudy WILL
if elected take your handguns and rifles. He'll let you keep shotguns, single shot only, possibly double barrel, and single shot rifles, he'll consider bolt actions with a maximum capicity of 5. This is the goal of the liberal agenda and it's not "unconstitutional" because you can still own a gun. It's VERY similar to what Giuliani did in NY. Give him the chance to appoint a jude or two of his choosing and you'll have two options. 1- hand them over 2- die fighting for your freedom.

I'm in group two, but are you really willing to vote in a candiatate (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney) that is going to make every American make that choice?

To paraphrase Shakespeare
A lib by any other name would smell as sour.

I don't vote for libs, regardless of party affiliation.

Rudy and guns
I can't find anywhere that says Guiliani's stance is that you should not have firearms. I found this quote on Ontheissues.org.
"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons." Boston Globe March 2000.
I don't see where that restricts anyones right to own a firearm.

Sarge!
Can't you read your own quotes? Since when do you need a license to exercise a right? Do you need a license for free speech? To write your comments here?

Further:

“Mayor Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York, basically said I'm not a Reagan Republican anymore, I'm a moderate Republican; I'm pro-choice, I'm for the Brady Bill, I'm for the assault weapons ban"
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/06/national/main181115.shtml)


"But the contrast is not as sharp in Mrs. Clinton's expected contest with Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. The mayor and the first lady hold almost identical views on gun control, which could complicate any effort by Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast. Mr. Giuliani's campaign manager, Bruce J. Teitelbaum, said, "As a senator, New Yorkers will know exactly what Mayor Giuliani will do because he doesn't just talk about gun control, he actually has a record of taking an historic number of guns off the streets."
NY Times on the Web, 10 May 2000


RUDY, RUDY, RUDY - WE AIN'T that STUPID
You have promissed illegals a sanctuary in NY - now you say you will end illegal immigration and secure the borders?
NO YOU WILL NOT - YOU HAVE ALREDY PROVE THAT WITH fighting for "sanctuary" ....

Maybe we not that stupid, only, hm... somebody else??

Shame on you, shame.

RetMSgt
Do you think Clinton was a good guy and pro-2nd ammendment guy? He was nice to us compared to what Rudy wants.


In 1993, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton to discuss national gun registration and supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but Rudy argued that it didn’t go far enough. Clinton, largely crediting Giuliani for the idea, enthusiastically sent Atty. Gen. Janet Reno off to develop a gun-licensing and registration system.

http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/003150.html The Brady Bill didn't go far enough? Comforting, ain't it?

When a lunatic attacked innocent civilians at the Empire State Building in 1997, Giuliani used the tragedy to again push for gun control beyond his city’s limits: “We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun, you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions—and really stronger ones—that exist for driving an automobile. ... Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19883

Need a handgun? I have a right to a handgun rather I need it or not. I don't have a right to drive a car, they can make driving illegal and I can't complain because as I learned when studying for my driving permit written test driving is a PRIVILEDGE not a right. I have a RIGHT to own a gun and NO LAWS shall be passed to infringe upon that right. Hitler was a great guy once also...then he got Germany to give up their guns.


Yeah, Stang, a LICENSE TEST
They can make a test so hard no one can pass it, too, on top of everything else.

As soon as you concede your right can be limited, tested (didn't they ban poll tests?), licensed, regulated, whatever, it's no longer a RIGHT. It becomes a PRIVILEGE, as you ably pointed out.

Facts BrianR and Stang
See guys, this is what I want. Give me facts and let me decide based on facts. But don't get in my face, insult me and then tell me that all my rights are going to be taken away. They aren't because I'll be dead first.
I do have one question. Do we not now require a test and license to conceal/carry? We do here in Arkansas. (And no I don't think Clinton was a good guy. Couldn't stand him or his wife)

It depends on your state
I can cary a gun on my hip in Arizona perfectly legally. Some places have it illegal to take a gun into certain places (typically courts and government facilities) and others you can keep it in your car at all times withint reach but aren't supposed to take it out.

They are delt with on local levels not federal. Giuliani believes in regulating them federally which is unconstitutional as is every other fedral gun law.

Hehe!
Oh, this is so much fun.

Eddie laments that "Giving private education the same right to tax dollars as government run schools" is missing from Rudy's 12 points.

Uh, say what now? Isn't the point of private schools that they have their own money? Aren't you essentially suggesting making private schools public? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?!


Arby writes: "the three major [Dem] front runners on the Dem side are all tremendously appealing. The Republican candidate may not be the candidate that I personally would want, and it probably won't be your favorite either -- but it absolutely MUST be someone who can motivate enough conversatives to come out and vote..."

You're absolutely right, and that's why the GOP is freaking the eff out right about now. There is simply no chance that the most electable Repub., Rudy, is going to motivate anybody's conservative base enough to win. He SO wishes he never put on that dress.

Also, anyone here open-minded enough to do so should really check out the article about Rudy in the newest Rolling Stone, "Worse than Bush". It's scathing, mostly about the fact that no one else in US history has made so much money off the deaths of so many people. The author commends his leadership on 9/11, and then says he woke up on 9/12 and saw dollar signs in the ashes. Ouch.

Yeah, Sarge, you may
Here in Leftifornia, in LA County, it's virtually impossible to get a CCW.

That having been said, even though the licensing does in fact exist doesn't make it right. Or Constitutional.

The loss of our rights has been going on for a while using the frog-boiling approach.

BTW, Sarge, thanks for taking the time to check out my blog; I left a comment there for you.

Stang, local laws restricting
rights are also unconstitutional. Can a local jurisdiction modify your right to free speech, press, religion, or anything else. Miranda? 4th Amendment? These issues are not subject to federalism.

How come they can get away with it with the 2nd Amendment?

I don't buy it at all.

Brian
That is debatable. The 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...actually you are 100% correct, my appologies it specifically say bear arms that means restricting carrying them is unconstitutional. Know a good attorney who could challenge the laws? I used to work in a law firm and was told I'd make a good lawyer but never knew any I'd consider good...and definitly none I'd trust to defend the constitution.

LOL, Stang
Unfortunately, I think that part of the frog's already well-done.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, though, and not keep pointing it out.

And keep trying to get the chef to turn down the burners.

blah blah blah
Good old Rudy is talking like a true conservative, but sorry Rudy I dont believe anything you say! How many decades have we heard from the Republicants what we want to hear and what we want to see done in washington, and the moment they get elected they turn into democrats!

They build bridges which the leftists use to destroy america. they build coalitions in which all conservative values are thrown aside. They love the UN and all its horrid treaties as much as the democratic socialists! We need to withdraw form the UN and kick it off our land, but the republican'ts love it as much as the progressives (read neo-communists) and help destroy American independence.

No Rudy, America dosnt believe you, you are just another blue blood, elitist, CFR, Trilateral, Rockerfeller Republicant! Quit the race and go home you internationalist lying hack!

Will ...it is worse

.....Bush said (with a straight face) that the money to build the fence will come from the fines that the illegal aliens will have to pay ...

.....this man has either gone totally bonkers or else he beieves that we are more stupid than Bill Clinton gave us credit for .....COLOSSUS