Why President Giuliani is my WORST Nightmare

If Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee, I will follow James Dobson and walk away from the Republican Party rather than vote for a promise breaking, serial philandering, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, anti-gun liberal who happened to be at the right place at the right time on 9-11.

If my vote for a third party candidate or not casting a vote for president helps elect Hillary or another liberal Democrat, so be it!

Yes, I fear President Rudy Giuliani far more than I fear President Hillary Rodham Clinton and here’s why: There isn’t a dimes worth of difference, politically, between the two and a liberal Republican will do far more damage to the country in four years than a liberal Democrat. Republicans will fight the liberal policies of a Democrat president. However, most will roll over and play dead before they will stand up to one of their own.

When Rudy Giuliani begins “cooperating” with liberal Democrats to advance his agenda, who will sound the alarm to alert the American people?

The warning will not come from the mainstream media and it likely will not come from conservative groups in Washington. If a liberal Republican is elected, most will be tempted to hold their fire – least they loose what influence they think they have – until it is too late.

We have seen this happen time and again. Ask yourself, “Why has government spending increased much more rapidly under Republican presidents than under Democrat presidents when Republicans are supposed to be about smaller government?”

Why did gay rights advance much more rapidly under George W. Bush than they did under Bill Clinton?

Why did conservatives wait so long before finally sounding the alarm on the amnesty bill and the Law of the Sea Treaty?

Bush, who leans conservative, has a few liberal tendencies but Giuliani is a liberal with a few conservative tendencies – very few. In 1988, Rudy’s mother, Helen, said,

He only became a Republican after he began to get all these jobs from them. He’s definitely not a conservative Republican.

As for his record as a fiscal conservative, it’s overblown. It turns out that many of the tax cuts Giuliani is bragging about were instigated by Republican Governor George Pataki and the state legislature. In 1994, he openly opposed the candidacy of Pataki’ and his proposal to cut the state income tax rate, in favor of liberal Democrat Mario Cuomo.

Giuliani, takes credit for a drop in crime in New York City. However, a nationwide trend had begun before Giuliani took office and the man he appointed police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, pled guilty to ethics charges and is now facing a 16-count federal indictment.

On abortion, Rudy Giuliani replaced the old seven word dodge,

I am personally opposed to abortion but…

with a new six word dodge,

I will appoint strict constructionist judges.

That was a signal to conservatives that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the abortion decision Roe v. Wade.

A strict constructionist judge is one who tries to accurately interpret the Constitution. He or she doesn’t try to change the law by finding something lurking around in the shadows of the Constitution the way the 1973 court did when it made abortion-on-demand the law of the land.

Now, it seems that overturning Roe wasn’t what Rudy had it mind. When pressed on the subject, Giuliani said that a strict constructionist

can look at it (Roe) and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we can respect the precedent.

That’s Rudy’s definition of “strict constructionist.”

Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton doesn’t he?

It all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.

Yes, a lot of conservatives think they can trust Rudy Giuliani. No doubt his first two wives and his press secretary, with whom he reportedly was having an affair between wives two and three, thought they could trust him as well.

Rudy not only has trouble with definitions and fidelity, he has trouble with genealogy as well. It took him 14 years of marriage to discover that his first wife, Regina Peruggi, was really his second cousin, not his third cousin. That’s how he talked the Catholic Church into giving him an annulment when he decided to marry Donna Hanover.

According to The New York Times and the New York Daily News, Giuliani is estranged from his son Andrew and his daughter Caroline for missing major events in their lives, such as graduations.

Conservatives get real! If he wasn’t true to his wives and wasn’t there for his children, do you honestly think he will be there for you?

26 thoughts on “Why President Giuliani is my WORST Nightmare

  1. This sums it up perfectly and I couldn’t agree with you more. The only good result of the last election was that it got rid of some RINOs, why would I vote for one for president? And if they put Giuliani up, it is the Republicans’ own fault when I sit on my hands.


  2. THANK YOU for saying this SO well! I, too, refuse to compromise my values just to elect a “Republican” who doesn’t know the meaning of values.

    Thank you for maintaining the standard, and raising the bar!


  3. Hillary is everything and more that you accuse Rudy of. You are putting the cart before the horse like the rest of the media. You assume Rudy and Hillary are “inevitable”. Not so fast. We the people have not voted yet. How foolish of you or anyone to allow Hillary by vote or default become President. She is the nightmare. There is nothing funny or cute about the Bush/Clinton dynasty. We the people need to step up to the plate, stop listening to the media hype and focus on a candidate that best meets the needs of this great country right now. I suggest to you it is NOT Hillary of Rudy.


  4. Hillary is everything and more that you accuse Rudy of. You are putting the cart before the horse like the rest of the media. You assume Rudy and Hillary are “inevitable”. Not so fast. We the people have not voted yet. How foolish of you or anyone to allow Hillary by vote or default become President. She is the nightmare. There is nothing funny or cute about the Bush/Clinton dynasty. We the people need to step up to the plate, stop listening to the media hype and focus on a candidate that best meets the needs of this great country right now. I suggest to you it is NOT Hillary or Rudy.


  5. Giuliani has Ted Olson, a brilliant conservative advising him on Judges. athis alone is a reason to vote for him over Hilary. Bill Clinton with Hilarys proding apointed the worst judges in America. Hilary is much worse than Giuliani, to me it is childish to punish republican party, when there is a grteat difference between Hilary and Giuliani.


  6. At first I thought that you were “nuts”…but I will have to admit that you are right.

    In fact, if Rudy is the nominee of the Republican Party, I suggest that we republicans go ahead and vote for Hillary….Hillary will serve to unite the Republican party like nothing else….perhaps we can take back congress with a wide enough margin to make it veto proof.

    Just imagine the possibilities of a Hillary Clinton presidency….and a democratic congress…the most hated woman on the planet in charge of the most powerful country….nationalized health care, US Military Officers retiring in droves, homosexuals openingly serving in the military, abortion for everyone (paid for by tax payers), fairness doctrine is passed, constituional amendment allowing FOR homosexual marriage, “husband” Bill fornicating again in the west wing, more taxes on everything not nailed down (double taxes on the nails), confiscation of privately held pension plans (401ks) — afterall what a better way to safeguard Social Security than to take control of 401k, tax on all junk food — carrots and broccoli for all…yep, Hillary will unite the Republican Party like nothing else.

    My concern is, can this country survive a Hillary Clinton presidency? Then again, maybe you are nuts……


  7. Diane has a valid point. No one has voted in the primarys or cacusses yet. I don’t think Rudy will survive. If he does and becomes the nominee, I definately will vote a third party, never for a “Republican” RYNO who cannot be trusted one inch.


  8. It’s a travesty against all women that you would let the person who was complicit in the rape of Anita Broderick and the terrorizing of Kathleen Willey into the Oval Office. This is truly a person to be feared. You will find out if she becomes President Hellary……….


  9. I’m with you Jane. I would like to add that abstaining from voting or voting third party may put a Democrat over the top, but God loves those who refuse to vote for evil.


  10. Thank you Jane!
    What you have stated in your column is my feeling as well. I would rather see this country come to a quick awakening under Hillary than to see a RINO liberal in drag take the helm of our ship. I feel the same way, although not as strongly, about McCain, Romney, Thompson, and a little the same toward Huckabe. As far as I am concerned, there are only three candidates I could vote for, with Ron Paul being at the head of the list………way ahead.

    It amazes me that those on the editorial staff of WND continue to ignore Paul. I can understand why major media do, but why WND?

    Anyway, keep up the great columns, I always enjoy them.

    Darrel Mulloy


  11. Darrel,

    WorldNetDaily has two stories on Dr. Paul on the front page today. I cannot speak for the other WND columnists, but if Ron Paul were, by some miracle,the Republican nominee, I would vote for him as I would for every other Republican candidate with the possible exception of McCain. Dr. Paul is a fine man of character. You always know where you stand with him and he has been one of the most steadfast members of Congress. I agree with 90 percent of what he stands for.

    However, he is way down on my list of candidates because of his stand on foreign policy. I have many problems with George W. Bush but taking it to Iraq is not one of them. I have studied Iraq for many years and I believe it was necessary to protect us. Bush never made a proper case for going into Iraq, but Hussein was financing terrorists and giving them a safe haven. Also, he violated the conditions of the Gulf War cease fire.

    We still do not know if he had WMD — none were found — and the borders in Iraq, like ours, were unsecured.

    Many mistakes were made in Iraq but that is always the case in a war.

    However, you feel about going into Iraq, we are there now and to give up would make us appear vulnerable and an easy target. The terrorists will follow us home. In fact, if you had told me on 9-12 that we could go this long without another major attack on this country, I would have found it hard to believe.

    The protection of this country is one of the legitimate functions of the federal government. It is Dr. Paul’s stand on Iraq that scares me. I hope that helps you to understand why he does not have my whole hearted endorsement.


  12. Amen, I keep trying to explain to people that it is time to quit voting for the supposed lesser of two great evils, and come together to take OUR party back.


  13. Jane, Dr. Paul’s stand on Iraq is that there should have been a congressional declaration in order for us to be there. I hope you don’t disagree with that stand. Congress approved giving the president carte blanche in regard to Iraq because it didn’t have the guts to follow it’s constitutional responsibilities.
    Congress did not declare a formal war, and that is Dr. Pauls main complaint with our being in Iraq. Do you feel that he is incorrect in asking that our troops in Germany and Korea be brought home? As well as Bosnia?
    We sure can better use those troops here, guarding our borders. At least you know what Dr. Paul’s foreign policy is. Can you say that with any confidence about any of the “top tier” candidates?


  14. Darrel,

    I agree with what you said about how we got there — but we are there and to leave now would be dangerous to us and a disaster for the people in Iraq. Colin Powell was correct when he said, “You break it. You fix it.”

    Yes to Germany and Bosnia. No to Korea. And yes, I would put them on the border.

    As for your comment on WND, True, but our editor put those stories on the front page. It wasn’t for a lack of material.






  16. I think you need to re-read my column. He throws the names of Roberts and Scalia around a lot but it was Scalia who wrote the dissenting opinion in the case he brought before the Supreme Court to destroy the Line Item Veto.

    Also, why did he appoint so many liberal justices in New York?

    If you honestly believe that Rudy will appoint strict constructionists — in the true sense of the word — to the high count, than he has a bridge he’d like to sell you.


  17. Your article raises a lot of questions. I agree that Rudy is primarily a liberal, but I do believe he will appoint “judges in the image of Scalia, Alito and Roberts.” My preference would be to see someone else be the republican candidiate, but if it is Rudy against Hillary, I will have to vote for Rudy. A third party candidate would lead to complete defeat and the election of Hillary. Some people say you should vote for the lesser of two evils. I say rather, you should vote for the lesser evil. There is a difference. Weigh all the beliefs of the candidates and choose the lesser evil, that is, the one who will bring good judges. That, after all, is the only truly long lasting legacy a President can leave.

    Thanks for listening,
    Bob Hollmann, Cheyenne, WY


  18. I agree wholeheartedly about Mr. Giuliani. He is utterly untrustworthy. No more voting “for the lesser of two evils” for me. I would rather see myself President of the United States than a two-faced serial polygamist like Giuliani.


  19. Dear Ms. Chastain,
    As I look upon the putative candidates that are paraded before the public, I have to think that the fact that Mrs. Clinton is a lead on any ticket, is sufficient evidence that the general “electorate” is not qualified to select a candidate based on historic and anticipated performance. I don’t know any of the so called “republican candidates” to “know” they are strict Constitutionalists, that they are republicans in a very real desire to return this Nation to its republican roots, and actually root out the socialist aspects of both the vast federal wasteland, as well as the similar socialist laws and departments of the individual states.
    If any next elected President fails to actually turn the Nation around and successfully start the process of disassembling the IRS, the department of education, the social security department, just to name a few, we will have failed to stop the forward motion of the Nation towards our imminent destruction, and it is quite possible that the Jihadis will be able to sit around and wait until we have lost control of our government completely, and at that point, they would be able to simply step in and push through their agenda from an international seat of authority.
    Failing to end all the various initiatives intended to broaden the direct power of the U.N., and to give the U.N. its own source of funding that can no longer be denied by a Nation delivering it, but can be altered at the whim of those in the high councils, will mean the end of National sovereignty at some point and it won’t matter much if it is sooner rather than later, unless “later” means substantial numbers of American citizens have seen the truth and thus prepare for repelling the application of “global authority” on our own government.
    We know that we cannot expect any of the branches of our federal government to do anything except empower those who are trying to reach a state of world governance, even though such a thing would mean an end to any power and authority in their own, individual office.
    At least with a Mrs. Clinton white house, the enemy is known, and she can be expected to operate as we have long observed, and thus we can oppose her administration in a way that no putative “republican” administration would ever be opposed.
    John McClain
    Vanceboro, NC


  20. Ranchers and farmers have an affinity for the FREE MARKET when they also happen to be the “hands-on” owners of their spreads or farms; these folks do not have an “employee” mindset; rather they would risk the travails and hardships that they suffer from weather, the lack of parity between costs and returns, and the solitude of their workplace from the interference and meddling of the “Dude” in Washington that assumes the role of a seer and precursor of these risks – or from he outrageous fortune of it all. “Farm Subsidy” is the brainchild of the “Dude”, and it is egregious in its intrusion into the affairs of the American farmer or rancher – the last of the breed; e.g., the American Cowboy, the Dirt Farmer, and that ilk.

    Guiliani, the “Dude” out of NY, knows little of “Heartland America”, and this bread basket to the world; ergo, the closest he gets to this workplace is in one of those swank eateries in Manhattan; as I read him and your recent column, the “good” Mayor would enter the agricultural market place no different than his constituents (corporate agri-business) have in the past, and leave the Cowboy, the Dirt Farmer, the “Hand” as chafe in the wind. Find me a Cowboy, a Dirt Farmer, a Philospher, a “hand to play” and run for the job of President, and I will play the game of politics, and vote for risky and free market; otherwise, I would rather be the chafe, residue and dregs of the folly that is fomented by these subsidies.


  21. Jane,

    This has really opened my eyes! I have been thinking about what you said last night about Romney. I am thinking that you might be right…there is NO way that he can back down now, he has painted himself in a corner, like you said and he might be the best choice for conservatives right now.

    I am going to do some more research!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s