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 ...
That's in VA where there is a huge Republican majority and even most Dems are Republicans. Come on.
Your posts were plain simple and nasty and a turn off. If the Dems were to use that crap against Guiliani I believe many on both sides of the aisle would feel the same as I do.
And Bush II ALMOST gave us Harriet Miers.
Great. But then these clowns like Giuliani and Bloomberg actually have the b@lls to go down to Washington and chastise Congress for failing to deal with illegal guns in New York City (i.e., for failing to extend New York's ban on guns to the entire nation), and to make the preposterous claim that New York City is somehow entitled to an exorbitant amount of Federal money for domestic security measures even as the city refuses to comply with Federal immigration laws.
Still I do enjoy people like you telling me what I will think, do and say in the future.
I really have no concern over what you will think, do and say in the future. But I do know that the candidate you are going out on a limb to support right now is a loser.
Having seen Rudy in person on a street corner in Manhattan some years ago (before he was mayor), I can assure you that he is not 6'2" tall. I'm about 6'1" myself, and I've got at least six inches on the guy.
I remember seeing Guiliani explaining in an interview the problem with sex business's on Times Square and 42nd Street. Up to that point I had taken a very libertarian view of such things. I have never heard an argument on any issue explained in such simple and persuasive terms.
I don't believe that any politician on either side can match Guiliani in a debate format.
Some of us aren't claiming that he is a conservative. I'm certainly not but I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Can you just see the unstable McCain debating him? What a laugh that's gonna be.
That's right it would be because of them and 100million more like me.. I dont' want a RINO, I want an elephant.
How come most so called "moral conservatives" are fiscal conservtives too, but when we try to "rain on the prarade" of the RINOS "that only CLAIM to care about money", then they have to be the ones that insult those of us that care about so called "moral issues". I say that we pick someone who is both Morally and Fiscally conservative, that way we avoid the intra-party fight (at least as far as the right-is concerned), now the Rockefeller-liberals is another story, but we dont' want RINOS ANYWAY. WE WANT TRUE-RED-ELEPHANTS (not Demo's desguised as Repubs.)!
That's not necessarily a knock against him, but it's the truth. When he was a Federal prosecutor most of his cases involved white-collar crime on Wall Street (including the case against Michael Milken that most people who understand SEC regulations rightly regard as a farce), as well as some infamous cases involving the kind of corrupt politicians that have been commonplace in New York City over the years (Stanley Friedman, Donald Manes, Stanley Simon, etc.).
Who do you have in mind ?
The current crew of social conservatives are spending money like they hate the stuff.
I guess we have a different view of being out on a limb.
Hoping who I believe is the best candidate runs and wins is not being out on a limb.
Concentrating on the fact that a candidate doesn't genuflect to the far right's politically correct view of Guns, Gays and Abortion in the days of terror plots on NY, a war in Iraq, a soon to be nuclear Iran, a madman shooting missiles targeting Hawaii, a belligerent Russia, Israeli and Arabs doing the tango, oil prices through the roof, and all the other good stuff occurring whose solutions or calamity are almost directly laid at the hands of the President- that my friend is the country going out on a very dangerous limb.
Mike Pence, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn, Marilyn Musgrave, (Tancredo-mostly, though he is an egoist), another Hoosier: John Hostettler..the list goes on (..but not long enough as far as I am concerned..)..
Rudy for President?
Why not?
And Ray Nagin for Secretary of State.
By the way. Maybe in all your disparagement of Giuliani, I missed your recommendation
Who would you like to see as the Republican nominee that you believe will both win and Govern to great success?
And what gives you those beliefs? That they might have said some things you agree with or voted a certain way, wouldn't convince me.
You really miss the whole point. If this country isn't going to stand on the principles laid out by its founders, then this country isn't worth getting out of bed to defend against all these calamities you listed here. That's exactly why pro-life and Second Amendment supporters are among the most uncompromising people in the United States today.
And that's exactly why a place like New York has become increasingly extraneous over time in the minds of most "red state" Americans -- which makes a Republican candidate's track record in a sh!t-hole like New York City completely irrelevant in a national race.
1. Successful executive experience (in either government or private industry).
2. A decent track record when it comes to supporting conservative issues (someone who compromises on certain issues for political reasons is acceptable, but one who does this on 23 out of 25 issues will never be able to credibly stand up and call himself a "conservative."
3. Any executive experience in government must have been in a traditionally conservative jurisdiction.
Item #3 basically disqualifies almost any candidate from the Northeast, Illinois, and the West Coast. That may sound like a silly criterion for someone to have, but I will never trust a candidate who has run a successful campaign in a city or state that would rightly be called a Communist enclave in any other era.
Why can't we just vote Republican, regardless of the label? I loathe McCain, but he's the nominee I'm gonna vote for him no matter what I feel about his instability.
Jon Kyle ain't gonna run for Pres. He's happy being a US Senator and with Frist gone, he'll be what third in leadership in the Senate if the Republican Party retains it.
BIG Oops Kyle=Kyl
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.