Skip to comments.Rudy for president?
Posted on 07/08/2006 8:12:30 AM PDT by mathprof
Well-connected public figures report that they have been told recently by Rudolph Giuliani that, as of now, he intends to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
The former mayor of New York was on top of last month's national Gallup poll measuring presidential preferences by registered Republicans, with 29 percent. Sen. John McCain's 24 percent was second, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich third at 8 percent. National polls all year have shown Giuliani running either first or second to McCain, with the rest of the presidential possibilities far behind.
Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
If you mean, who would RudyG and McCain nominate for the SCOTUS, I think McCain would be closer to Bush`s type of picks, right leaners like Alito. Since Giuliani is a liberal, I'd expect his picks would be more left leaning. The problem is, no one can be sure how the SCOTUS picks of any POTUS would turn out after 10-20 years on the bench. Just look at Ike with Earl Warren, Nixon with Warren Burger and Reagan with Anthony Kennedy.
"You look at any poll of Republicans only regarding 2008 and you find 70% of respondents name Rudy or McCain as their favorite. Do you really think those who want McCain would not vote for Rudy?"
Er, these are Newseak style name ID polls. The media ignores conservatives except when they want to bash them.
Get some conservatives front and center and this will change.
Warnings from whom, the enemies of the United States? He was the president...
That is like saying the USA provoked the terrorist attacks...
Tell me how our voices in the New Media can possibly spin Guliani as our nominee?
"I'd be more worried about McCain and his finger on trigger..."
You can't be serious.
I would just compare him to other pubbies...as far as dems are concerned, on gun control and abortion there would be no difference, so I'm not sure his picks would differ from theirs.
Guns. Gays. Abortion.
Won't vote for Giuliani because you think you know his position of these issues and how he will act as President.
How is the current President acting on guns, gays and abortion today? Or yesterday? Or last week? Or next week? Or last month or next month?
Are any of them pressing issues?
Look this minute at the FreeRepublic sidebar. Look tomorrow
afternoon. Look again next week and next month.
The pressing issues - life and death, security- that are and will always be current and immediate, issues the President deals with every minute of every day do not relate to guns, gays and abortion.
When you vote for your Mayor are you concerned with local issues or his position on Iran?
Why do you vote for President based on issues that 95+% of the time are irrelevant to his job?
Imagine if you will that the President had nothing to say on the issues of gays, guns, or abortion- and when you think about it in reality he has very little to say- who would you vote for if the President's duties were strictly foreign affairs, including trade/economic issues, security and national emergencies.
That should be your candidate- because like it or not the Constitution makes that the job description.
I'll third the motion!
Homosexuals losing traction is what is killing you... that is the only reason you are here...
I'm deadly serious. I personally feel that McCain is a bit unstable. War for a just cause is one thing, going to war to be at war is another. That would outweigh the diff for me bet Guiliani and McCain and the concern about USSC picks.
These shortsighted FReepers who say, "Well, Rudy is liberal only on social issues that he would have little or no influence over as president" need a reality check. A half-century of liberal SCOTUS decisions has rebuilt this nation, and in a bad way, to conform to a socially liberal model. All Rudy has to do is appoint one or two more squishy SCOTUS justices like Kennedy, and he will deal this nation a coup de grace.
And Sandra D O'Conner - iirc
"As many independents and MANY quasi-Democrats would flock into the polls to vote for him."
Does it not scare any of the Giuliani-trolls here on FreeRepublic that Giuliani would be gaining democrat and liberal-republican support and losing conservative-republican support? Does that not say it all?
1. A flaming liberal position that he took as mayor of New York (openly violating the 1996 Federal law that prohibited cities like New York from establishing themselves as "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, for example) was really necessary for him to get elected in New York City, and won't affect his performance as president because he'll change his position tomorrow (or next week, or next year, etc.).
2. A flaming liberal position he took as mayor of New York (supporting homosexual marriages and abortion through nine months of pregnancy, for example) will no longer be an issue because "these matters will be left to the states and cities" if he becomes president.
Point #1 is ludicrous because this is exactly what made it so clear that John Kerry was a fraud. I don't understand why anyone in the Republican Party would find that kind of sh!t endearing in a presidential candidate -- especially when it involves a situation in which the candidate in question really belongs in a Federal prison instead of at the top of a major party ticket.
Point #2 is ludicrous because it misses one very important point: Why would anyone expect Rudy Giuliani in a Federal capacity to "leave these issues to the states and cities" if the most radically liberal positions he took as mayor of New York involved issues that weren't even the responsibility of city government (i.e., abortion, illegal immigration, homosexual marriage, etc.)?!?!
Spare us from further social liberalism disease. It's destroying and rotting this nation from the inside.
Presidential nominees for court appointments, particularly the Supreme Court, echo for decades and carry just as much weight as the other 95% of his/her job.
There was a thread up yesterday talking about his anger issues. The first time I ever saw him, my gut told me that all the screws were not completely tightened. I continue to believe this
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.