Posted on 02/01/2007 5:41:39 AM PST by areafiftyone
According to a source close to The Giuliani campaign, Rudy Giuliani is throwing his hat into the ring. The Hinzsight Report confirms, through a source close to the Giuliani campaign, that he is presently sending people out into all 50 states to secure his name on the primary ballots. "Despite Mayor Giuliani's public cautiousness, this is evidence that he is seriously pursuing the Presidency in 2008, and he should be taken very seriously. Critical state polls have shown Mayor Giuliani leading the pack, and it's about time that he start being considered what he is--the front-runner" a source tells The Hinzsight Report. Giuliani has lined up nearly 300 key Republican supporters in New Jersey for his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination, his campaign announced this week. In a recent Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey voters, it showed Giuliani leading all Republican presidential candidates and ahead of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender, in a head-to-head matchup. The New Jersey primary, which is currently set for Feb. 26, is likely to move up to Feb. 5, placing it early in the campaign season and increasing its significance. As many as 15 states could hold their Republican presidential primaries Feb. 5, reports Gannett. |
In 2003 the end game was California. This time around, its the whole ballgame. Conservatives will gain NOTHING by voting for a liberal, whether that be Hillary or Rudy. Voting for the lesser of two evils only goes so far.
"You said that the 'rat base votes "D" regardless, and they clearly didn't in 1984. Nobody can credibly claim that Massachusetts voters decided in 1984 that they were supporters of conservatism."
You missed quite an important part of my post on that issue.
Jimmy Carter created more Republicans than anyone in history!
How is someone who never served in the military better than an Army Ranger who fought in Vietnam?
I did not blame his loss on conservatism. I said that being a conservative alone is not enough to win.
I think if I created it, I would gag myself so it won't be happening, but I have some other raphic fun, harmless to the point humor to come, I am working on it.
Ike appointed Earl Warren. Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun. FDR appointed a life member of the Ku Klux Klan -- Justice Black -- who ironically ended up supporting civil rights and even more ironically wrote the best Court opinion on justicial activism I've ever seen (see his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut).
Here's a site that has Fred Thompson's voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
I don't think that any Republican was going to win in Ohio thanks to Bob Taft - conservative, liberal, moderate, centrist, whatever.
He's my kind of guy!
They won't argue the facts, because they can't argue the facts in Rudy`s favor. When they do argue, they usually lose. Not all the time. Just most of the time. Especially when it concerns issues like limited govt, guns, abortion, illegals and homos. And we know what happens if you cut taxes, but not social welfare spending. Bigger government and/or bigger deficits. Rudy and his liberal backers around FR are defending liberalism. How pathetic can you get.
I read this and worry whether the divisiveness really will be the ruin of us. I am one of those who will vote for which ever candidate wins the Republican nomination so I am not as entrenched as the Hunter and Rudy fans seem to be. I like both Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter. They have different strengths and both would bring valuable skills and ideas to the WH.
However, doesn't it make more sense for us to unite behind someone who has the charisma, executive experience and leadership skills of Rudy and the conservative principles of Hunter? To me, that person seems to be Romney. He may not be as charismatic as Rudy and he may not be as conservative as Hunter, but he is a charismatic and electable conservative (more so than Newt, my #1 choice, but he is not running anyway).
I also think Romney has the added plus of being a new face, a non-beltway guy. If it is Obama, we have our own "fresh face" -- and he's "clean" too! If it is Hillary or Edwards, we can argue let's not go backwards. No more Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. No more inside the beltway guys -- time for a change.
In the end, it shouldn't be about one candidate or the party, but what is best for the country. Which conservative has the best chance of keeping Hillary out of the WH?
I'm still wating to hear what Rudy's views are on a wide range of topics.
Show me where Giuliani said anything more than the appointments were signs of promises kept by Bush to the Republican Party, and that their appointments would help the GOP. Show me where he said that he "promised" to appoint "strict constructionist" justices. Explain why he would support a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution if he also supports Roe v. Wade and opposed the FMA.
By the way, while you're at it, provide a specific quote that Giuliani supported Ginsburg's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Show me where I EVER claimed that Giuliani supported Ginsburg's appointment to the Supreme Court.
By the way, here's a quote where Giuliani praises Ruth Bader Ginsburg and tries to equate her to Roberts:
"And what's important to me is to have a very intelligent, very honest, very good lawyer on the court. And he fits that category, in the same way Justice Ginsburg fit that category.I mean, she was — she maybe came at it from a very different political background, very qualified lawyer, very smart person. Lots of Republicans supported her."
547,548--you guys are hapless and hopeless.
I'm gonna listen to Rush and go back to work.
In 1976 Reagan was just barely behind Ford heading into the Convention, and there was some doubt Ford would win. Reagan decided to name Schweicker (sp?) of Pennsylvania as his running mate -- a well-known liberal Republican. That move was seen for what it was -- window dressing. Nobody believed the Veep slot would really make a difference in how Reagan would act as President.
I agree with Nixon -- the Veep nominee can't really help, but it can hurt. I offer John Edwards as evidence that you can't even count on the Veep nominee to win his own state.
Looks like we need a fresh order of nails!
Yeah, and all the GOP ethical problems in Ohio had NOTHING to do with the loss.
Get real.
And he has a responsibility to give you that. A certain poster just annoys me.....
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.