• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservatives -Still comfortable with Giuliani?

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Conservatives, rightwingers and neocons:

Are you still comfortable nominating Giuliani as your GOP Presidential choice....or will you stay true to your principles and go with someone like Gingrich?


Conservatives balk over Giuliani's judges
His picks as New York mayor raise doubts over whether he'd put 'strict constructionists' on the high court.
By Tom Hamburger and Adam Schreck, Times Staff Writers
March 12, 2007


WASHINGTON — Rudolph W. Giuliani, in an effort to temper his support for abortion rights and his other socially liberal stances, has been assuring conservatives that as president he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the federal bench, in the tradition of Supreme Court jurists Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and John G. Roberts Jr.

But now, some prominent conservatives are saying that Giuliani's record as mayor undermines that promise. In his eight years leading New York City, they say, Giuliani appointed a number of judges who did not appear to fit the conservative mold......

"Rudy's judges were mostly liberal," said Connie Mackey, a former New Yorker who now serves as vice president of FRC Action, the legislative and political arm of the conservative Family Research Council. "Any pro-lifer who believes they are going to get the kind of judge out of Rudy Giuliani that we see in either Roberts or Alito is probably going to be disappointed."

One judge approved by Giuliani, Rosalyn Richter, had been executive director of a gay rights organization, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, before being named to the bench. After her initial appointment by former Mayor David N. Dinkins, Richter changed the questions asked of potential jurors to be more welcoming to gay and lesbian couples. She was later reappointed by Giuliani.

Another judge, appointed by Giuliani to the criminal bench in 1996, Dora Irizarry, has called herself pro-choice and was later elevated to the federal bench with strong support from Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Phyllis Schlafly, leader of the conservative Eagle Forum, said the Giuliani surge in public opinion polls would be short-lived and that Giuliani's pledge to appoint conservative jurists would not win over the GOP base.

"The grass roots are more sophisticated than that," she said in a recent interview.

Among abortion rights advocates, Giuliani's record is viewed more charitably. "On balance, the great majority of Giuliani appointees were moderates," said Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York. "I didn't notice a pattern of conservatives, and I certainly didn't notice a pattern of appointing strict constructionists."

Sign Up
 
I am a conservative and I would still vote for him in a heart beat. I think he will be very tough to beat because he is more middle of the road and that means he will get many Dems that will come to his side. The only ones he may lose are the far-far right people but the Dems will make up for them.
 
Why do I care? Is that a rhetorical question?
Aren't most of us on these boards here because we are interested in politcs?
I am certainly interested in who the next President is and I am interested in what they stand for.

I agree with you that I think at this point Giuliani is the Republican that has the best chance of getting elected. He is also the Republican candidate that I believe would be the best Republican for the US.

That said, I would still prefer to have a President that is a little more liberal. Seeing that there is no true Liberal that has a chance, I would prefer to see Edwards, Clinton or Obama over Giuliani. But I could stomach a Giuliani administration.

It also interests me because I think this election will be an interesting one to watch. The GOP is in a bit of a turmoil. Who will win out? The neo-cons and right-wingers or the true Republicans who lost their party to the fringe.
I think that Republicans will regain control of their party and the real losers in this election will be the neo-cons and right-wingers who will be stuck with a President (be it Republican or Dem) that opposes their agenda.

The point of this article is that Giuliani is not going to promote the type of judges that will further their agenda so the right-wing is not excited about the prospects of his election. But who do they have....not McCain, probably not Romney....their only real hope is Gingrich.

Which is why I pose the question. Will the current Republican party stay true to their principles and go with someone like Gingrich or will they hold their nose and go with Giuliani because he's electable.
 
But you are a liberal, there is no question of that, so you don't care if they don't get the judges they want, and you're not really in a position to be able to accurately assess what is important to us.

Yes...I am liberal....and I do care that they DONT get the judges that they want. This is why I am torn. On the one hand, I would love the GOP to nominate Giuliani because it would be the end of the crazy right-wing politics ( at least for four years) that we have had to endure under GWB. On the other hand, I would prefer that the GOP go with a right-wing like Gingrich because I think he would be easier to beat than Giuliani.


Galenrox said:
It's strategic, the same reason we're probably nominating him is the exact same reason you guys aren't nominating Kucinich.

EXACTLY. I think my politics are personally closer to Kucinich than they are to Hillary or Obama. However, I know the reality is that Kucinich couldn't get elected. So I settle for who I think can get elected. Clinton/Obama/Edwards are more to the center than I personally like, but as with Giuliani I could stomach their administrations.

The way I see it. For someone like myself...its a win/win situation. We get rid of GWB and replace him with someone who is a moderate. Not the liberal I would hope for...but someone who will not advance the right-wing agenda as GWB has.

The question remains...and the one that I am personally interested in....will the right-wing do the same? Will they go with a President that probably will not advance their agenda because they fear getting someone worse?
I think that Gingrich will enter the race. He claims he's waiting to see whether a candidate comes forward to represent the true GOP values/interests. He knows that that candidate isn't out there and he will step in and claim that he is that man. The GOP battle will be in full effect at that point
 
Last edited:
Even if I had my doubts about Rudy I would put them aside because I believe the most important issue we face is the War on terror and that is a strength of Rudy............All the other issues don't mean squat if we lose the war on terror..
 
I would hope that Giuliani would run. Sadly he's overly supportive of the president's position on Iraq including going in knowing what we know now then. But then that might just be GOP lip service.
 
Still?

I've never been comfortable with that sleezeball opportunist.

I'm not even sure how much he really differs from Senator Clinton anyway. Peas in a pod if you ask me.
 
Who do you define as the right wing? I consider myself to be part of the right wing, and I can tell you, we don't make our decisions as a group, I make mine individually, as do most others. I personally like Gingrich a good deal more than Giulianni, and McCain more than anyone else. I think that Gingrich is somewhat of a dark horse, in that people have forgotten how smart and charismatic he really is, and how well he could do in a general election tends to be pretty understated. I like Giulianni because there isn't a single democrat who could beat him, and he's alright, other than the gun control I don't have a whole lot of problems with him (and plus, he's gonna get away with a whole lot less as far as gun control goes as President of the United States than he was as Mayor of New York City, the liberal capital of the United States, save for possibly San Francisco and Boulder). McCain's the best, he's the best on the military and our international policy, he's got the best understanding of what social conservatism really is, and he's the best steward of the post Nixon pre Gingrich Republican tradition.

I'm caucusing for McCain, in a general election, I'd vote for either of these three over any of the Democrats. Brownback, Huckabee, any of those sorts of douchebags, I'm voting Libertarian. Hagel, I'm on the fence, but I'd probably vote Libertarian. Then again, I'll be living in Illinois for the 2008 election, so it doesn't really matter how I vote, as it'll go blue anyways (except for maybe Giulianni, but even then, almost certainly it'll go blue)

When I use the term right-wing, I am referring more to the social-conservatives than fiscal conservatives. I think pretty much universally that is how the term has been applied over the last couple of decades. In other words, the right-wing consists mainly of "Fundamentalist" Christians who view advancing their social agenda as the most important issue of the day. They are to ones seeking to outlaw abortion (not only overturn Roe v. Wade), they oppose any type of gay rights, they pursue an active agenda of promoting religion in schools (via school prayer, graduation prayers,) and want religious displays (Christian) in government arenas (10 commandments...etc).
They aren't overly concerned about international or fiscal issues or other issues per se. Their main agenda is in getting activist conservative judges appointed to the courts to advance their agenda.

I agree with you on Giuliani. At least at this point, he does appear to draw from both sides of the aisle which could bode well for him in a general election. I disagree with you on Gingrich. I wouldn't necessarily count him out, but he would have a much tougher fight.

The fun battle is going to be in the primaries. I am interested in seeing which Democrat will come out ahead, but more interested in watching the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. I don't think McCain has a shot anymore. He has really self-imploded during the last couple of months and I think he can be written off.

The key question in the GOP primaries will be whether the right-wing will give up their agenda of getting activist conservative judges or not. My guess is that they will NOT which will prompt Gingrich to enter the race....and then it will get really interesting....at least on a spectator level.
 
Still?

I've never been comfortable with that sleezeball opportunist.

I'm not even sure how much he really differs from Senator Clinton anyway. Peas in a pod if you ask me.
Now here's something new, I must ask, why do you consider him a sleezeball opportunist.
 
Now here's something new, I must ask, why do you consider him a sleezeball opportunist.

The amount of face time he sought after 9/11 was so obvious.

He tried to propel himself into national prominence with it. Probably would of worked too if it weren't for his second failed marriage blowing up during an election year.


What issues does he support that a conservative should be happy about? Amnesty? Gun Control? What exactly is it?

He has no record on national security, so that can't be the warm fuzzy that everybody is excited about.
 
It's pretty self explanatory.

Read the thread subject and my reply. If you still don't get it - color me not surprised.


Listen my wannabe Conservative I am fighting the good fight against Liberals like you in about 6 or 7 threads........Don't get your panties in a bind........:roll:
 
Listen my wannabe Conservative I am fighting the good fight against Liberals like you in about 6 or 7 threads........Don't get your panties in a bind........:roll:

Navy:

Your personal "War on Liberals" is about as real as the "War on Terror" or the "War on drugs". They are all idealogical battles for which there is no "Victory". The real solution is to find out the best way to achieve effective results. But calling it a "War" or an all out "Battle" has been proven ineffective time and time again.
 
Navy:

Your personal "War on Liberals" is about as real as the "War on Terror" or the "War on drugs". They are all idealogical battles for which there is no "Victory". The real solution is to find out the best way to achieve effective results. But calling it a "War" or an all out "Battle" has been proven ineffective time and time again.

His good fight is so important that it precludes him from understanding posts he is responding to.

to me, that's the definition of a crappy fight but I guess you must consider the source.
 
The amount of face time he sought after 9/11 was so obvious.

He tried to propel himself into national prominence with it. Probably would of worked too if it weren't for his second failed marriage blowing up during an election year.

What issues does he support that a conservative should be happy about? Amnesty? Gun Control? What exactly is it?

He has no record on national security, so that can't be the warm fuzzy that everybody is excited about.
I can not say that I understand or know too much about Rudy other than the times making a hero out of him.
But in another thread that this has been accused it had been shown that he had much to do with reducing crimes.
Measures that a conservative would support, personal liberties I think are one that ppl would be supportive of him. Personal accountability another. But then I'm pretty ignorant to him on national issues as well as his accomplishments.
As for airtime though, I must say, it's difficult not to get airtime when you are the head poncho of the very city that was struck by a horrible disaster. Cases in point, Earthquakes in SF and LA, LA city riots with Rodney King fiasco, NO, and so on.

But the marriages though, indeed, I don't think they'd sit well with conservatives.
 
But in another thread that this has been accused it had been shown that he had much to do with reducing crimes.

The only real crime crackdowns were petty crimes. Like for example, when Rudy took office there were 720 arrests for marijuana possession per year, his last year there were 58,000. Really great use of NYC police, busting kids with weed. It would be a good asset to a city like say, Peoria, IL, but NYC had far larger problems - nonetheless, his statistics do look good, so kudos to him.

But the marriages though, indeed, I don't think they'd sit well with conservatives.
Yeah, considering:
1) married his second cousin (YUCK!)
2) has admitted mob Ties (through his Dad and Uncle)
3) Cheating, Three-Times-Married Husband

I'm not so sure about the guy at all. I think it's rather sad someone who can't manage his personal life at all is the top GOP contender at the moment.
 
I can not say that I understand or know too much about Rudy other than the times making a hero out of him.
But in another thread that this has been accused it had been shown that he had much to do with reducing crimes.
Measures that a conservative would support, personal liberties I think are one that ppl would be supportive of him. Personal accountability another. But then I'm pretty ignorant to him on national issues as well as his accomplishments.
As for airtime though, I must say, it's difficult not to get airtime when you are the head poncho of the very city that was struck by a horrible disaster. Cases in point, Earthquakes in SF and LA, LA city riots with Rodney King fiasco, NO, and so on.

But the marriages though, indeed, I don't think they'd sit well with conservatives.

I don't get the Guliani crush. Crime was lowered - that's great. He might make a great DA - or mayor I guess.

Some people claim support because he is best for national security. Why is that? Because he was mayor of New York during a disaster? Or is it because he did everything in his power to not serve in our armed forces in a a time of need?

Is it his amnesty plan that they love? Gun control?

Do conservatives like that he makes up phoney organizations such as Firefighters for Rudy?

I just don't get it. If he is the GOP nomination I guarantee I'm throwing my vote away to a third party candidate.
 
Navy:

Your personal "War on Liberals" is about as real as the "War on Terror" or the "War on drugs". They are all idealogical battles for which there is no "Victory". The real solution is to find out the best way to achieve effective results. But calling it a "War" or an all out "Battle" has been proven ineffective time and time again.

You make my point..........Its really scary to me that liberals like you don't believe that we are facing the biggest danger this country has ever faced and deny that a threat exists.........

That is why it is so important that no liberal ever be elected president of this country...........
 
You make my point..........Its really scary to me that liberals like you don't believe that we are facing the biggest danger this country has ever faced and deny that a threat exists.........

That is why it is so important that no liberal ever be elected president of this country...........

Way to hijack the thread for your own agenda instead of actually addressing the topic.
 
If he is the GOP nomination I guarantee I'm throwing my vote away to a third party candidate.

It would be a marvelous development if all the likeminded would self-marginalize and take themselves right out of the political scene. Then the republican party could focus on fiscally conservative, limited government and leave religion to the people.

Please, take your ball and go home.
 
It would be a marvelous development if all the likeminded would self-marginalize and take themselves right out of the political scene. Then the republican party could focus on fiscally conservative, limited government and leave religion to the people.

Please, take your ball and go home.

:doh

I'm about as religious as Guliani is conservative.
 
ok, I may have been a little off there ;)

I guess the issues you mention are not the ones that many claim will confront him in the primaries. You mention guns and illegals, and I agree with you regarding those issues. I disagree with Rudy on those as well. In the bigger picture of the race, I think there is a possibility that the religious wing of the republican party could withhold their votes from Rudy for a parallel reasoning, but substituting his stances on abortion and gay folks. If they were to do this I would be pleased, and this was the thrust of my post. Sorry to have mistakenly included you.

Regarding your own reasoning though, are you serious about handing it to Hillary ? Isn't Rudy still the lesser of two weevils ? :)
 
Regarding your own reasoning though, are you serious about handing it to Hillary ? Isn't Rudy still the lesser of two weevils ? :)

I don't know.

I'm a big talker now, but that could certainly change on Hillary Eve. Thats a bridge I will need to blow up when I come to it. :mrgreen:
 
Way to hijack the thread for your own agenda instead of actually addressing the topic.

I was responding to DD..I am sorry if you can't make the connection.........:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom