Posted on 10/02/2005 9:21:43 AM PDT by wagglebee
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said Sunday he will contemplate next year whether to run for president in 2008.
"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark. But he added that playing with the idea of running for the Republican nomination for president did not mean he would actually do it.
"Sometime you warm up and get ready and you don't get in and pitch," he told reporters, in a baseball analogy.
Giuliani who was praised for his leadership following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, thanked Danish firefighters who raised $8,400 in support for their New York colleagues.
"To us it was the only thing we could do, raise money and show our support," firefighter Jens Hjorth said.
Eight firefighters from the station raised the money by recording a CD with six songs called "The Skyline Changed." They sold 27,000 copies.
On Sunday, the band members handed over a copy of the CD to Giuliani, who in return gave them a New York Fire Department hat.
Giuliani was in Denmark to speak at a business leadership conference in the Danish capital on Monday.
In 2000, Giuliani ran for the U.S. Senate, but dropped out after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
You are forgetting thet Dubya pretty much said early in his campaign that much of everything in his life prior to his 40th birthday didn't happen. While the media took some jabs (and came close to a TKO on election eve with the DUI story), that mandate pretty much stood.
Clinton's ratings were often said to be 'compartmentalized.' Dubya sucessfully compartmentalized his years between 1 and 39. This isn't a big deal in 2008.
Dude, get real....
Thank you. And another thing, while Dubya has left me frustrated by his unwillingess and inability to effectively combat a hostile press, Rudy (if his run at City Hall is any indication) doesn't have that deficiency. He will tell the whackjobs in the press corps to screw off when approrpiate, but he will do it firmly and with credibility.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. :-)
I agree with you , he is a tough man .The gun issue will be up to the states not him I imagine. He's a serious fighter in the WOT and I think issues of national safty will be most important.
Thank you. And another thing, while Dubya has left me frustrated by his unwillingess and inability to effectively combat a hostile press, Rudy (if his run at City Hall is any indication) doesn't have that deficiency. He will tell the whackjobs in the press corps to screw off when approrpiate, but he will do it firmly and with credibility.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. :-)
Energized base? The other side of the aisle will be their most vilified political enemy. If that doesn't energize them, the limp members deserve to lose.
Kerry never really addressed this and he almost won the presidency in 2004.
You have to realize that close to 1/2 the electorate doesn't think the war on Islamic terrorism is as big a deal as the President (and we) know it is. A few more terrorist attacks stateside might convince some, but we work hard as a nation 24/7 to make sure it doesn't happen.
There are too many people out there who think the top issue is 'healthcare,' 'the homeless,' or whatever. The wrath of americans is overstated.
Too many Freepers can't grasp the very clear fact that most of the electorate isn't nearly as conservative as they are. Most of the Bush voting consituency isn't as conservatve as we are.
The dems have had problems since there most extreme liberal members have an unyeilding stranglehold on the national party that alienates voters.
Any Freeper who thinks that the same can't happen on our side of the aisle is utterly out of touch.
Energizing the base works two ways - both positive and negative. The entire segment of Republican voters who won't be energized with the grim prospect of eight years of President Hillary has to be small. It's infantile for them to put the nation in the hands of the Clintons again. It's also dangerous.
If enough of our constituency is this short sighted and immature, maybe our best bet is to ditch them and build consensus with others.
Yeah, that would be just wonderful, wouldn't it? The weekly radio address would change to a call-in format:
Hannity: Hello Mr. Constituent. You're a great American.
Constituent: No, you're a great American.
Hannity: Well, thanks. Yelp. Just trying to do my part.
Constituent: I saw you when you were last here in Ohio.
Hannity: Yelp. That sure was fun, wasn't it?
Constituent: Yeah, you were ummm... great.
Hannity: It was a great time.
Constituent: I agree with you.
Marty: Hello Sean?
Hannity: MAAAARRRRRTTTTTYYYYY!
Marty: Those Dems sure are dumb.
Hannity: We couldn't do it without you Marty. You are a great Amerian.
Marty: What? Hello? You know Sean...
Hannity: Gotta Go.
Hannity: Ok, that will be it for now.
Hannity: See you next week. 4 hours per Saturday is all we ask.
Most americans are not as solidly pro life as the GOP core base is. Dr. Rice describes herself as a moderate pro choicer - that is, for parental notification for children seeking abortions, against partial birth abortion, against federal funding for abortions, ok with abortion in cases of rape or incest, and probably ok with most first trimester abortions.
This is probably roughly where most Americans are, though it's not where the most passionate pro lifers are. There is no broad consensus to outright outlaw abortion in the USA at all. Pro Lifers, Freepers, or anybody else waiting for that day have a poor evaluation of the political climate.
Nah. But, he'd make a pretty balanced running mate for Condi Rice.
Rudy needs to run for Senate in 2006 to defeat Hillary first.
That would be the best way for him to get the GOP behind him for 2008.
This is the wrinkle that the pro life leadership has not had a grasp of in years. Basically, there is a broad consensus for the status quo to remain the same - the battle line on the abortion issue is on partial birth abortions, parental notification, federal funding, etc.
The issue of 'should abortion be legal or not' is not the issue and hasn't been for 30 years. Abortions won't be illegal in the USA in our lifetime (well, maybe if the Islamists ever get to run the USA, but by then the USA won't be much fun anyway).
The truth is that there is a disconnect - in opinion polls, many polls tell us that most people are against abortion, though the number isn't overwhelming (the polls for partial birth abortion are overwhelming).
Basically, I think people - and many woman - tell pollsters one thing and quietly support the status quo at the ballot box. As long as anti-abortion rhetoric is seems as that - rhetoric they basically agree with - they are ok with it. Any significant threat to the status quo, however, freaks enough women out to the point where they side with the pro abortion types.
I think the reason for this is something a lot of folks, especially conservatives, have a difficult time coping with. That is, most women know in their hearts that they could find themselves with an inconvenient - or unexplainable - pregnancy on their hands. They have an otherwise happy relationship with a boyfriend or husband, but wouldn't you know, when the calendar is pulled out it seems that the child was conceived while her man was away for a week on business, or when mommy helped chaperon the weekend away with the girl scouts (and when some knucklehead picked her up at the bar after hours, a day after that nasty fight with her husband).
Or while hubby is risking his life in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever.
Anyway, regardless of what women say, more than enough will prefer the 'easy out' of ending an controversial pregnancy, especially when the alternative is severely upsetting their status quo - an otherwise stable marriage, relationship, home life, whatever.
Is this good? No, of course not. The thing a lot of folks can't cope with is that this is in the back of the mind of a lot of women who you work with, or sit next to your family in church. Or even sleep next to you every night.
It brings me no pleasure to say this but I think the status quo is tacitly supported (and brought over the top) by enough women who realize that even though they may live virtuous lives, they can be caught with their panties down after doing something stupid and wrong. or after continuing to do something stupid and wrong for months.
Our side wins big on the partial birth abortion issue. I don't think we win nearly as big on the basic abortion issue. In fact, I think we lose a close one on that.
It is, but it isn't. Read my analysis and thoughts on the matter a few posts up.
As a President:
a.) Gun control as in NYC is a non-issue nationwide. It simply won't happen, and it won't be an issue in any election any time soon.
b.) Rudy's stance on abortion is irrelevant if the court is already packed.
c.) Pro-gay? Who cares? On a nationwide platform... don't think so anyway.
Well said. The abortion battle must be won culturally not legally. No law will ever stop one single abortion.
I think he could win the general but it would be a knock down drag out in the primary! The social conservatives would rather die than support him . . . and they would rather lose to a liberal democrap than support Rudy. What a strange mixed up world in which we are stuck.
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.