Posted on 07/08/2006 8:12:30 AM PDT by mathprof
Well-connected public figures report that they have been told recently by Rudolph Giuliani that, as of now, he intends to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
The former mayor of New York was on top of last month's national Gallup poll measuring presidential preferences by registered Republicans, with 29 percent. Sen. John McCain's 24 percent was second, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich third at 8 percent. National polls all year have shown Giuliani running either first or second to McCain, with the rest of the presidential possibilities far behind.
Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Don't get me wrong. I don't support John McCain for president.
He's not even stable on being a pro-lifer now, huh? Can he hold a single conservative issue? Anti-pork spending maybe.
Thank you for your candor.
"As for myself I would vote for anybody now being spoken of for the Republican nomination (except Tancredo) if their opponent was Hillary."
So support a liberal and oppose a conservative? That doesn't seem right to me personally.
I'm also pinging Spiff since he has that list of Tancredo's ratings from various groups that he could post here.
Right. It cost us a lot more as a nation. It cost us the lives of 46 million citizens, of which 95% were killed from abortion on demand. Both Rudy and Schwarzy are big spenders, big government Republicans to the max. Rudy even supports partial birth abortion and both he and Arnie are for infringing on my 2nd amendment rights with more gun control measures. Rudy and Arnie support special rights for homos. People need to wake up and get with the conservative agenda. Liberalism is for liberals.
If a Bayh or Warner have a chance of winning in 2008, they will decimate any of the mentionable Republican except for Giuliani and McCain.
Giuliani and McCain are not mere politicians, they are celebrity superstars- a huge plus in these United States- and they will beat anyone.
The above is a link to a vanity thread posted by Jim Robinson in January 2004 that is worth considering even today when discussing Presidential nominees.
There are safer, winning, conservative choices than Giuliani.
Homosexual "rights", abortion, gun control, what other important issues is Giuliani on the wrong side of?
I would not vote for him because of his pro-abortion policy alone, and when his support for more gun control and more bogus "rights" for sodomites is added in to the socially liberal stewpot there is no way on God's green earth that I would ever vote for the man. I would never vote for a Democrat who is on the wrong side of those issues, so why would I vote for a man who supports the same liberal position as the Democrat just because he has an R after his name? AFAIK there is no law saying that I have to vote for any candidate.
You think making NYC a haven for illegal immigrants is a good thing?
If I were a Canadian you might have a point.
Now, Can you explain why you posted an image in your profile of a soldier pointing his weapon at a possibly booby trapped body on the floor? Why didn't you post an image of Mr. Berg's head?
Why don't you read the freaking quotation under that photo? I posted that back when those soldiers were being run through the wringer for what they had done, and I swore I'd vote for Mickey Mouse in every presidential election for the rest of my life if they U.S. military dared to have those guys face a court martial.
Now that you know the story, why don't you tell me what the f#%& Nick Berg's head has to do with it?
Commissioner Kerik relied on his anti-terrorism training to set up a command post, with Mayor Giuliani and Fire Department Commissioner Von Essen, to begin the massive rescue operation.
The "command post" was already there in that specific location, having been built by the City of New York to serve as a central command post in the event of a terrorist attack after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. Was Kerik the dim bulb in the Giuliani administration who recommended that they build the thing in the basement of a building complex that had been identified as a primary terrorist target for years?
We won't know how Alito or Roberts will turn out for decades. Although J Alito seems to have the right stuff.
(As if their 'liberal' PROGRESSIVE candidate were the ONLY one capable of beating HER)..
That is saying that 'ONLY' a liberal can beat a MEGA-liberal..
I SAY "balooney"!!
So do I... needs to be repeated...
If you don't want to understand the reason I can't help you.
But. I'm curious. What you would have done as Mayor.
An illegal has a communicable disease, want him to avoid hospitals.
A criminal gang threatens illegals, want the illegals, afraid to go to the police, to fight back on the streets.
Immigration is a Federal responsibity.
Should NYC have arrested everyone illegal who came in contact with the city? Done what with them?
I really don't care if Tancredo has a 100 from the ACU or not.
He is way too in love with himself for my taste.
Why do you insist on attempting to misrepresent the policy that was in place in New York City under Giuliani? Illegals were not asked their status -- and the status was not acted upon -- even if the "city services" they "sought" involved arrest and detention by the NYPD for breaking the law.
This is what is ultimately going to destroy Giuliani's credibility as the best candidate to lead the so-called "war on terror." If Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists had been arrested on September 10th, 2001 for jumping a subway turnstile in New York City and it was learned that they had outstanding INS warrants for being in the U.S. on expired visas, the NYPD would have been prohibited -- under the policy that the Giuliani administration proudly maintained in direct violation of Federal law -- from turning them over to the INS.
When a candidate like this has such a miserable track record -- even on an issue that people insist is going to be one his greatest strengths!! -- you understand why so many of us recognize his presidential aspirations as a delusional pipe-dream.
I see your point. By today's term the interjection of the Feds into personal Liberties, Lincoln would qualify as a Libertarian. He use to get slammed in his political campaigns by the "Religious Right" of his day as an atheist. The problem is modern political terms do not really fit all that well to historic figures. While he was Libertarian in some aspects of his ideology he was almost a Socialist in others.
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.