The plot against Rudy (did Karl Rove play him?)

NY Daily News ^ | 12/21/04 | Rush & Molloy

[presidio9]

Conservatives continue to feast on Rudy Giuliani's misery.

As Rudy begins to distance himself from the ethically challenged, briefly nominated Homeland Security chief wanna-be Bernard Kerik, some right-wing hardliners claim White House strategist Karl Rove devised the Kerik debacle to hurt Giuliani's presidential chances in '08.

"Rove used Rudy and Kerik to tout Bush as the anti-terrorism candidate," says one Republican party player. "But Rudy is too socially liberal for the true-believers. So they let him shoot himself in the foot. Rove knew about Kerik's baggage - and that he could never be confirmed. But he went along with the nomination, betting that the heat would come down on Rudy, which it has."

A White House spokesman didn't return a call for comment on the conspiracy theory. But other party observers disagree that Bush wasn't damaged by Kerik.

"It may even have hurt the appointment of Alberto Gonzales [for attorney general], as Democratic senators are going to question his vetting process, too," says a source.

While some think Giuliani could still be a contender in four years, others believe Rove and Bush have one man in mind for the Oval Office: brother Jeb Bush.

"They're saying, 'We own the party now,'" says one source, "and we're not going to give it away."

[bigeasy_70118]

I find it ludicrous that people want to consider Jeb for the job in 2008. He's qualified, its just that it would be hard to win and election with three people from the same family in such a short time.

Is it any more ridiculous than being governed for 16 years by a Bonnie & Clyde-like husband and wife team?

The Klintoons think they are so beloved. They are 1-0 against the Bushes, let's go double or nothing in 08.

[nj26]

This is MSM spin, to cover up their true game, which is to take Giuliani out of the 2008 race so their golden boy McCain will have a shot.

[BlackRazor]

some right-wing hardliners claim White House strategist Karl Rove devised the Kerik debacle to hurt Giuliani's presidential chances in '08

This presumes that Rove's ultimate goal is to get conservatives elected. I'm not convinced that's the case. Hasn't Rove advised Bush to move left on certain issues for political expediency? I think Rove's aim is to win, period. If Rove felt Giuliani was the best shot to win in 2008, I get the impression he'd support him, regardless of his positions on the issues. But I don't see Rove orchestrating some strategy to get conservatives, per se, elected.

[NJ_gent]

"If you have money and a false identity (and if you can get yourself from the Mid East to Mexico, you do) why walk into this country when you can fly?"

When airports are better equiped to catch terrorists trying to enter the country, walking or boating in will be the only alternatives. As it stands, many terrorists would prefer to avoid more secure locations (such as airports) to reduce the risk of being recognized and captured. A fake ID only gets you so far when your face has been plastered all over TSA headquarters.

"If you are against open borders because you feel like your job is threatened, fine."

My job? No. My country's economy, my fellow citizens' jobs, and my nation's security? Yes. Don't close the borders - secure them.

"But the idea that we need to go to the obscene expense of closing our borders for security purposes is insulting to the intelligence."

Have you really missed all the articles floating around (including on FR) about terrorists sneaking in with illegals? Have you missed the BP agents' and US Congresscritters' statements that specifically state terrorists are already using the southern border's lack of security to slip into the US unnoticed? Did you miss that woman who got caught trying to get across the border illegally who was loaded with fake IDs and passports, and apparently had links to overseas terrorist groups? How deep into the sand must one's head go to miss the obviousness of the truth that having a wide-open perimeter in the middle of a war is suicidal?

[Simcha7]

Shalom!

Hi...presidio9,

Does this really surprise you?

I'm not surprised, and I would NEVER Vote for Mr. Giuliani, because he is PRO-DEATH/ABORTION and PRO-Homosexual.

He may be "America's Mayor," but he is NOT Presidential material, we DO NOT Need another Clintoon Character in the Whitehouse pretending to be a Conservative or Christian; both of which Giuliani is NOT and Never will be.

Bernard Kerik's behaviors didn't take me by surprise either, he is a rough, gruff Police Officer who grew up on the mean Streets of a poor NJ neighborhood.

We had No idea that he had such Character Flaws...my, my, my...his SINS, indiscretions and poorly made decisions surely found him out...The TRUTH about him was brought out into the Light.

I do Not believe that Karl Rove had anything to do with Kerik's outting...this smells like HillZeBeast and Company...to get Rudy out of her way for 2008!

[NJ_gent]

Just so I'm not spouting off without citing anything, here's a couple links to take a gander at:

• FR Article
  
• USA TOday
  
• AZ Star
  
• WND Article.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Personally, right now I'm leaning towards Mitt Romney. Mitt is Mormon, I am Southern Baptist. The two really aren't that closely akin, but he seems to be right on all the issues."

---

If Mitt was pro-life, I might consider him, but I will not support a pro-abortion candidate such as Mitt Romney for the presidency. He'd make a fine U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, though.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

The Bushes stand for election like everyone else. They win (like last month) and they lose (like 92). Jeb will do the same in 08...if he elects to run.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. However, I'm afraid most voters are not as sophisticated as you and I (and the majority of FReepers!). The people who don't pay attention until the last month are the ones that win or lose elections. I'm afraid they will have "Bush fatigue" at that point.

Besides that, I believe Jeb is being sincere when he says he is not running in 2008. I think he might in 2012 if the incumbent is a Democrat.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

If Mitt was pro-life, I might consider him, but I will not support a pro-abortion candidate such as Mitt Romney for the presidency. He'd make a fine U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, though.

Several people on here have attacked Governor Romney for being pro-choice when I've mentioned his name. However, none have ever shown me evidence that he is. The worst that I have seen is that he doesn't address the issue, which makes sense if he's wanting to win re-election in Massachusetts.

I have some friends in Utah that were politically acquainted with Governor Romney when he was out there heading up the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. They have assured me that he is pro-life, but just hasn't wanted to discuss the issue in Massachusetts.

If you have proof otherwise, I'm all ears! While the abortion issue is not my number one issue, I am pro-life as well and would have a very hard time supporting a presidential candidate that is not.

Thanks!

[presidio9]

I'm not saying that it is impossible for a Muslim to enter this country illegally. What I am saying is that Muslims with the resources necessary to carry out terrorist attacks have already demonstrated quite nicely that they have no need to do so. Illegal entry is just one more variable that increases chances of them being caught. The idea that they are crossing the Mexican border on foot it red herring.

[Tempest]

Rhandi Rhodes is now speaking for the GOP. Oh wonderful. . .

[bigeasy_70118]

I agree that if Jeb decides to run his family connections will no doubt be an issue. However, we need to respond forcefully with the fact that this is an election, and you are free to vote for him or against him and that he hasn't been appointed or (unlike his brother) anointed with the republican nomination.

I suspect that if Hillary runs in 08, this is Jeb's best chance. Hillary would be running on record of far less accomplishment than Jeb and far more on family connections (to the extent a sham marriage can be considered a family). Furthermore, it would allow Jeb to distinguish himself from his father and brother by doing something neither of them ever did. (Beat a 'Toon.)

[Bluegrass Conservative]

. . . and you are free to vote for him or against him and that he hasn't been appointed or (unlike his brother) anointed with the republican nomination.

Okay, what's the part in reference to President Bush about? I don't think he was "anointed", but rather ran in the primaries and caucuses and proved he was the best candidate. Can you think of another candidate in 2000 that would have been better?

[bigeasy_70118]

I don't think he was "anointed", but rather ran in the primaries and caucuses and proved he was the best candidate. Can you think of another candidate in 2000 that would have been better?

Considering I have voted for the guy four times, the answer to that question is no. But you can't honestly tell me, that after the 1998 mid term election debacle, Dubya wasn't looked upon as the savoir of the party and the field cleared for him to take the reigns in 2000.

In 2008, it is clear Jeb will have no such advantage and will have to scrape and claw to obtain the nomination.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

Considering I have voted for the guy four times, the answer to that question is no. But you can't honestly tell me, that after the 1998 mid term election debacle, Dubya wasn't looked upon as the savoir of the party and the field cleared for him to take the reigns in 2000.

"Savior of the Party" might be a strong term, but yes he was seen by the "powers that be" to be our best chance. And, I'm glad they united behind one candidate. I think we came out of the 2000 primaries more unified than ever before. With the exception of some of the McCain supporters, the supporters of all the losing candidates immediately got behind President Bush's campaign. I think that spoke highly as to how badly we wanted the presidency back and the era of the Clintons to end.

I hope that those feelings are not easily forgotten and that the party will be unified against Hillary after the 2008 primaries, regardless of the nominee.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Mitt Romney endorsed the legalization of the French abortion pill RU-486, favors legal abortion and supports Roe v. Wade:

http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

Sounds like he's pro-abortion, even if he's "personally opposed" (a la Mario Cuomo and John Kerry).

Oh, and while Romney is opposed to same-sex marriage, he's in favor of giving other special rights to same-sex couples, including providing so-called "domestic partnership benefits and the right to sue for discrimination based on sexual orientation:

http://www.baywindows.com/news/2002/10/24/LocalNews/Election.2002dont.Dismiss.Romney.Gay.Republicans.Say-305911.shtml

While Mitt Romney is no Lincoln Chafee or William Weld, he is still quite liberal on social issues and as such would be unable to obtain support from conservatives in a presidential run. If you're looking for a pro-life, pro-traditional-values Republican governor from a New England state, you should look at Governor Don Carcieri of Rhode Island.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

Romney's quote on that same page was, "On a personal basis, I don't favor abortion," he said. "However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman's right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That's the same position I've had for many years."

I think that's all we can ask from a Governor. Right now, the law of the land allows for abortion. While I may disagree with that, I don't want executive department officials to ignore that no more than I want them to ignore laws that I do agree with that. If he did, he would be no better than Gavin Newsome in San Francisco.

It would be a different situation if he was pushing a legislative agenda that furthered the abortion agenda. Or, if he was a legislator and voted in favor of abortion.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Read all of Romney's quotes, plus his policy decisions. He claims to be privately opposed to abortion, but believes that it *should* be legal (not merely that it is currently legal and thus he is bound to enforce the law). Romney has said that he favors Roe v. Wade. He also favored the introduction of RU-486 in the U.S. The only reason why he hasn't voted in favor of Roe v. Wade or of FDA funding for RU-486 is because he has never served as a legislator.

I agree that a governor can't be condemned merely for enforcing the law, but that's not what's going on with Romney. He is not pro-life.