Posted on 05/02/2006 9:42:32 AM PDT by Crackingham
Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said on Monday that he was seriously exploring whether he has "a chance" of winning the presidency in 2008, as he visited politically important Iowa and huddled with state advisers, donors to President Bush and other prominent Republicans. While Mr. Giuliani was officially in Iowa to attend two Republican fund-raisers, his behavior and remarks came close to politicking for himself. He ruminated openly about running, disclosed he was not sure what he would do if his friend John McCain also ran, and argued that if Republicans are to be a majority party, they need to accept politicians like himself who support abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.
"I've got a lot of places to go and a lot of people to talk to and a long process of figuring out whether it makes sense to run for president in 2008," Mr. Giuliani said before speaking at a daytime fund-raiser in Des Moines for a Republican congressional candidate. "I don't know the answer to that yet."
He added: "My effort this year will be to help Republicans get elected, and then, quite honestly, as part of it, saying to myself, does it look like I have a chance in 2008? And make that decision after the 2006 election."
At a fund-raiser in Davenport on Monday night, Mr. Giuliani offered a stout defense of President Bush's leadership, arguing that the economy was growing and that Mr. Bush would go down in history as "a great president."
"I don't know what we're all so upset about," he said, referring to concerns about the economy and rising costs, such as gas prices.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Brilliant", or even "sharp", is not a word often attached to Allen. And that worries me a lot too. I'm rather tired of worrying that my guy can't hold his own in a debate.
No.
I don't choose candidates based on endorsements, first of all.
And secondly, even though Phyllis is one of the heroes of the pro-life movement and I have the greatest respect for her, I haven't always agreed with her choice of candidates. In 2000 she supported Steve Forbes, whose pro-life position I think was contrived.
I'm reading that link you provided, and frankly I'm shocked.
There's a whole bunch of stuff there about George Allen's positions and priorities that I didn't know about...and it ain't flattering.
2000 U.S. Senatorial Debate - Transcript
October 22, 2000, NBC 12 Richmond, Va.
Moderator: Larry J. Sabato
Candidates: Chuck Robb (D), George Allen (R)
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/programs/debates/00_transcript.htm
Your question deserves further remark:
I've been shocked at how many DC-based conservative leaders have been woefully ignorant of George Allen's true positions on key issues.
I hope and pray that Mrs. Schlafly will dig deeply into the facts.
Because, I believe that if she does, she will look elsewhere for a candidate for '08.
He's a moderate Republican and would be the best damn POTUS for the dangerous times we're in. He would have my vote. I think he could win by toning down the anti-gun stature he maintained before 911 but he doesn't seem as much of a anti-gun type guy nowadays after 911 now does he?
"and if Rudy is elected president over a democRAT, there will be what noticeable difference?"
Yeah, Rudy has honor. He is a hero and was right downtown immediately after the planes hit the towers, despite potential harm to himself. He cares about the people and is down to earth. Much different then a lof of the Dems who are just pissed at the world they lost power and will do anything to get it back...
"I believe that, first and foremost, we need to secure our borders. We need more border agents and detention centers along the border and we ought to be using technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, to help with surveillance. Secondly, we must not reward illegal behavior; rewarding illegal behavior will only encourage more illegal actions." --- Sen George Allen"
I like Allen also but I would still vote Rudy.
"I think that if people want to enhance punishment because of someone they harm someone because of their sexual orientation, race or religion I would support it."
"At the federal level if there is federal crime I don't mind allowing juries and judges to permit a harsher crime if it is based or race or sexual orientation or religious beliefs or gender so I think the penalties ought to be increased."
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/programs/debates/00_transcript.htm
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/programs/debates/00_transcript.htm
What do you suppose his call for "scientific research" could refer to? Embryonic stem cells, perhaps?
Wow.
George Allen, has never, will never, would never refer(red) to himself as "the next Ronald Reagan."
That's funny, he used to like to call himself and Bush "we."
Agreeing with or following someone's philosophy of government is not quite the same as claiming to be their heir apparent.
As for "distancing himself from George W. Bush" I really think that a couple of Keisters wouldn't want to go down that road.
Suddenly, with the president's approval at an all-time low, Allen "describes himself" as more in sync with Reagan than with Bush.
Allen wants us to believe that he is more conservative than Bush, when in actuality he is more liberal on the issue of abortion, and has identical rhetoric with the president on the borders.
One thing's for sure: he ain't no Reagan.
I wonder what ever happened to that?
Promises easily made in politics are easily broken, aren't they?
You betcha.
George Allen: Most people who know me think I’m most like Ronald Reagan."
Touchdown!
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.