Posted on 03/18/2006 9:38:27 AM PST by UncleSamUSA
March 18, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani will soon make a pilgrimage to the politically potent state of Iowa - the first stop in the presidential nominating process - fueling further speculation that he's eyeing a 2008 bid, The Post has learned.
The official reason for Giuliani's trip is to star at a May 1 "Get Motivated" leadership seminar that's already being advertised in The Des Moines Register.
But the trip to Iowa, site of the first presidential nominating caucus, has much bigger symbolic value for Giuliani. "It tells us, at a minimum, that he's looking to keep his options open - and, at a maximum, [that] he's looking to interview people to run his Iowa operation," said Republican strategist Rich Galen, who helped run Iowa for President Bush's dad.
deborah.orin@nypost.com
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Reagan worked with and supported Republicans with whom he was not in complete agreement. He even made a point of NOT criticising fellow republicans to the point of calling it the "Eleventh Commandment"
Reagan would support Guliani in a heartbeat if he were the nominee. Reagan would NEVER encourage republicans to desert his party OR sit our an election.
Conservatives since his day have shown a destructive willingness to allow the Treaon Media dictate their choices. Ninety two is a good example wherein the media used a concentrated attack on the President because of his tax policy. It was so destructive that it was able to convert a huge AND JUSTIFIED spproval rating into a defict.
Like Pavlov's dogs the right jumped on cue into disaster and inflicted the Scumbag on us. We have been paying the price ever since because of the stupidity of the right in deserting Bush. That brainless reaction weakened National Security and directly led to 911 and the wars in Afganistan and Iraq and a vast increase in terrorist power across the globe. Great Job.
In Ninety six the Treason media put Clinton back in office by distorting the meaning of the OKC bombing.
I wonder what dress he'll be wearing?
Will he be looking for the votes of illegal aliens in Iowa too?
How about the Iowa gun-owners?
How does Allen, saying he thought GWB should meet with Shaheen translate into his "inability to see through" her?
President Ronald Reagan received Helen Caldicott in the Oval Office. Was he also not "ready for Prime Time"?
Your comments are all the more ironic when one reads your tag line.
BULLoney.
You obviously aren't familiar with the history of the so-called, Eleventh Commandment. Reagan did not create the phrase, Eleventh Commandment. Instead it came about during his 1966 run for the California Governorship.
"The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since."
Reagan actually broke that promise when he ran against PresFord for the GOP nomination in 1976. Reagan criticized Ford during the primary season, and right up through and including the GOP convention. Reagan was a gentleman. He wanted everyone to like him and vote for him, but when the chips were on the table, Reagan was a tough SOB. Ford found that out in 1976. George Bush found out how tough Reagan was in the 1980 campaign for President. Jimmah and Fritz discovered what a political fighter Reagan was in 80&84.
I'll leave you with this thought. If RudiG were to win the GOP nomination and go onto win the general election, he would be the most liberal POTUS ever elected in US history. More liberal then FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter and even more liberal then, "der schlickmeister", William Jefferson Clinton.
The debate was over mainstream conservatives versus ultra right wing. Ultra right wing in my book are John Birch Society extremists. They may constitute 1/4%-1/2% of all voters. Religious, social and cultural conservatives are very much fiscal mainstream conservatives. Religious, social and cultural conservatives are the base of the GOP. I don't see that conservative base giving RudiG the GOP primary nomination. Not now, not ever.
bttt
Allen's inability to see through Sheehan was made manifest by that remark since it was well known to ANY who had not started to run his mouth before knowing what he was talking about Bush had already met with her.
It was clear that she was nothing but a Leftist tool with no real reason to meet with the president except to spit in his face.
Caldercoot was no Cindy Sheehag. And she was not by herself when meeting with the president. Apples and oranges.
REagan turned right around and supported President Ford. He did not go off and sulk when other republicans won. Or threaten to sit out elections or vote third party.
You have never heard me claim REagan was not tough. Though he certainly did not stand up to the Islamic terrorists in Beirut.
Guiliani would be tough as nails fighting the Nation's enemies that is nothing a real liberal would do. And you speculation regarding Rudy's relative degree of liberalism is only that which is contrary to reality.
>>>>Though he certainly did not stand up to the Islamic terrorists in Beirut.
You raised the issue of Reagan's 11th commandment, then you turn around and take a cheap shot at The Gipper. Amazing. Seems to be a habit among some FReepers lately. Bash Reagan's legacy. Truth is, you don't have you're facts straight. For starters, Reagan had had bigger fish to fry in the 1980`s. He was fighting the Cold War. What happened in Beirut was a tragedy, but it didn't go entirely unanswered.
>>>>Guiliani would be tough ...
Rudi Giuilani supports killing unborn children, placing gun controls on American's RKBA, giving homos special rights like marriage, immigrants unlimited special rights and envirowackos rights over individual freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. Rudi's a liberal alright. No speculation about it.
Not to worry. RudiG won't be getting the GOP nomination. Conservatives will make sure of that. So, you can stop whining and stop the cheap shots at Reagan.
Kerry had his shot and blew it. He will not be the nominee in 2008.
If you believe the hype, Hillary is more likely to run. I, however, have my doubts that Hillary will be the nominee, despite her war chest. More likely she is positioning herself for influence over the ticket, or to be chosen as VP.
She reads the latest polls, in which she is stomped by all Republicans named except Cheney.
But no matter who is chosen on either isle, Republicans cannot afford to back someone who will cost them a significant portion of their base. It would be the height of foolishness to choose someone repulsive to pro-life voters.
If any litmus test exists for Republican voters today, it is the abortion issue. The polls support that notion, and the proof is also in the fact that very few openly pro-choice Republicans get elected to significant office.
BTW, George Allen has been prematurely mentioned by some conservatives as the second coming, but the case could be made that he is actually weaker than McCain on the pro-life agenda. Allen does not believe life begins at conception, but rather once there is a heartbeat (presumably about 12 weeks).
Moral values, not the war in Iraq, was the greater issue in the 2004 election. See #158. And where voters pointed to Iraq as making the difference in their vote, they went for Kerry, not Bush.
Granted, the war will be a dominant issue in 2008, because the pressure will be even greater for a pull-out. There is no proof that Giuliani would address this in a way more appealing than any other Republican. Better to choose someone who can lead in general, not leaving pro-life, pro-gun, pro-marriage voters in the lurch.
If the anti-abortion movement does not understand this it will become the enemy of the REAL prolife needs.
Rubbish.
Kow-towing to the Far Right will result in victory for the Party of Treason. 2004 did not show National Security issues to be subordinate to "moral" issues. Your own poll showed "terrorism" to be the greatest concern.
Guiliani would not necessarily have a different or even a better approach to terrorism than others. The crucial point is that he is an expert at communicating his program and far more intelligent that the others.
I am not saying Guiliani is that wonderful but he cannot be written off by claiming he cannot reach the voters or is an automatic loser because the Right will defeat him. That tail will not wag this dog.
From what I see he is the man to beat for the nomination.
The Pro-life movement disgraced and damaged itself in the Schiavo affair showing fanaticism and complete lack of restraint. A very ugly picture.
Abortion is not to be more important than National Security. If there is a group willing to subordinate National Security to Abortion that group needs to be exposed and driven out of the party.
Though your prediction about Hillary will be shown to be false I asked who in the GOP could beat Guiliani.
A statement of fact is far from a cheap shot. Reagan did exactly as I said he did. And that is FAR from his "legacy".
Nor have I been "whining" about anything. Merely pointing out that the tail does not wag the dog even in GOP primaries.
It is remarkable how many people here consider FR part of the mainstream. They are clueless that we are the most conservative 10% of the nation and the Ultra Right not even 2%.
Gun owners are arguably the biggest voting bloc in the country. It is because of us that Al Gore is not president. We will NOT allow Rudy to win this primary. I'd be willing to bet you a $50 donation to FR on this. Deal?
Rudy has as much chance as a snowball in hell of getting elected to any national office as a Republican once his liberal record is exposed to the view of red-staters.
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.