Posted on 07/09/2006 10:47:24 AM PDT by kddid
There's no doubt about it, writes columnist Robert Novak: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.
Novak made this declaration in his July 8 nationally syndicated column, reporting that friends of Giuliani confided he has told them of his intention to run for the White House.
Giuliani - dubbed "America's Mayor" for his cool courage and spectacular leadership during his city's 9/11 emergency - leads at least one national poll, beating runner-up Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., by a healthy five points, Novak reports, citing last month's national Gallup poll that measured presidential preferences by registered Republicans.
In the poll Giuliani had 29 percent, McCain 24 percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a mere 8 percent. Novak added that all year Giuliani has run either first or second to McCain, with the rest of the presidential possibilities far behind in national polls.
Giuliani brought the delegates to their feet at the 2004 Republican National Convention with his stem-winding speech attacking the Democrat party, John Kerry and John Edwards while heaping praise on President Bush. He has wide popular appeal nationally.
But all is not moonlight and rose for the moderate New York Republican. The path to the Republican nomination could prove hard to travel for Giuliani due to his present liberal stands on such hot button issues as abortion, gay rights and gun control. Novak writes that GOP strategists warn he must change his position on at least one of these issues if he hopes to win the nomination.
Heaven help us.
What percent is Giuliani? And please justify your answer.
He is now a political commentator at Fox News, hardly mainstream media. His Chicago newspaper columnist job, maybe, although his writing hardly fits the usual liberal newspaper position. He is certainly closer to Cal Thomas than to Maureen O'Dowd.
If that is true, Allen may be the only Republican who can carry the South in 2008. I can guarantee that while many people respect Rudy Giuliani for his performance following the 9-11 attack, when his true colors are revealed he is left naked.
He showed well after 9/11, no question. But, before that he was basically a laughingstock with all his sexual pecadilloes and living with queers, etc. He has a martinet authoritarian personality and his thinking is not suitable for the Presidency.
---A liberal Republican like Giuiliani could hurt us FAR worse on gun control, federal support of abortion, and gay marriage than any Democrat EVER could.---
There are a lot of folks that would rather not vote than pull the lever for gun control, abortion, and gay marriage.
As far as illegal immigration goes, I think all the major leadership will continue to play us on this unless there is a major uprising amongst the voters. Even then it could all backfire and result in the opposite.
Bwahahahahahaha! If that was remotely the case, we should just concede 2008 to the Democrats. Giuliani could never carry the South, a mandatory requirement for the GOP to win. Whoever the nominee is, in order to win they must be:
Anti-abortion, Anti-Terrorism, Fiscally Conservative, Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Universal Health Care, Anti-Illegal Immigration (NO AMNESTY!), Pro-Family Values, Pro-Religious Rights Anti-ACLU
Add your own to this list...
McCain will suffer the same consequences in the South as Giuliani.
Since the New York Republicans (and Giuliani himself) are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage???
| Posted by Alberta's Child to Sir Francis Dashwood; Blackirish; All On News/Activism ^ 07/08/2006 9:42:58 AM PDT · 157 of 495 ^ I'm starting to see a trend here among Giuliani supporters. Whenever one of his flaming liberal positions is exposed, the natural response among his supporters has been to explain it away in one of two ways: 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.)?!?! Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies |
Since the New York Republicans (and Giuliani himself) are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage???
Right up until they get power again, and think they can get away with taking our gun rights. Just look at Mike Bloomberg (erstwhile Republican) if you think the gun issue is "dead". I only wish you were right about that.
Rudy just isnt viable
I still have faith in the 2nd amendment. San Francisco got slapped down by a liberal court when they tried to take away everyone's weapons.
"What percent is Giuliani? And please justify your answer."
Hmm.. . Fiscal, National Defense, Social. How do you want to weigh each one? Can we say he is 66.6$ conservative? How about Bush? Fiscal? Nope Social and National Defense? Yep, 66.6% consrervative. That 33.3% is the difference in an election. Because that is where your moderates votes are coming from.
Lets look at a liberal, in this cased Hillary. Social? Nope. National Defense? Well she is coming off that way. So give her a yep. Fiscal? Nope. 33.3%.
As far as justification goes, It is the moderates that will make the difference this election. Which means you have to look at what is important to them as well as what they could give a squat about. Many moderates could care less about abortion and gay marriage. To the left that is their theme so they have to cater to the moderates going the other way.
Bottom line here is this. Moderates are going to have to decide if national security is more important than social issues. Republicans are weak on social issues and Democrats are weak on national security. Which to me means we will need a candidate that is strong on fiscal and national security and neutralizes the lefts strength on social issues. Which means Rudy.
He looks good, and I certainly like him.
The critical question is, "Can he win?". How will the GOP base fair in fighting off the McCaniacs and their little commander that believes the nomination for 08 is owed to him?
Oh, great. We'll waste months on All That's Rudy then the media will drag out all the skeletons in his closet they've been keeping for a special day; worse yet, they'll like him. Then it will be too late to bring in someone else.
"Anti-abortion, Anti-Terrorism, Fiscally Conservative, Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Universal Health Care, Anti-Illegal Immigration (NO AMNESTY!), Pro-Family Values, Pro-Religious Rights Anti-ACLU"
Bush was neither anti illegal immigration, fiscally conservative or pro religious right. If I recall correctly, he carried the south. Unless you are implying that Bush lied about his views?
Create a Triangle. On one point put Social, on one point put National Security and on one point put Fiscal. You will only get two of three because whichever one you leave out is the one which is going to bring your moderate vote.
If you get all three you will not win the general. That's the libs problem and that is why Hillary is projecting a National Security stength. She will get strong on Social issues, strong on National Security(I know, but humor me here) and weak on Fiscal. So her crossover will be fiscal issues.
Now Rudy. Strong on National Security, Strong on Fiscal and his crossover for moderates is social. Call it triangulation. Clinton did it in 92 but he used another candidate to pick up the fiscal piece while he went after social issues and left Bush with national security. Clinton effectively neutralized Bush with the raised taxes gambit and Perot syphoned off those votes.
Clinton only had one point in the triangle but kept the base. If we get a fully conservative candidate, whoever the third party candidate is, the same thing will happen. And there will be a third party candidate. Hillary will make sure of it. That will probably be McCain.
So would you rather have McCain as a third party candidate or Rudy as the Republican nominee? I know, dog food or cat food.
Personally I would want an Allen/Rice ticket,
Rudy had cancer and couldn't run against Hillary in 2002. Strategically it makes sense. If Rudy runs and loses there goes 2008. Plus, Rudy could not generate the cash in time to take on Hillary.
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.