Posted on 11/14/2006 11:02:49 AM PST by Dark Skies
Giuliani has been carefully preparing for this moment. He spent the past election season accumulating a reservoir of good will among Republicans, campaigning hard for Republican candidates from Oregon to New Hampshire. He was particularly adept at raising money for those candidates and has established himself as one of few presidential hopefuls capable of raising the $100 million or so that is seen as necessary to win the White House. At the moment, he is getting help from Anne Dickerson, who ran President Bush’s highly successful Pioneer and Ranger fundraising machine in 2004.
Giuliani has allied closely with Bush & Co. He made a high profile speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention and has gone on the road to stump with President Bush. There has also been speculation, started by the Washington Post's Kathleen Parker, that Ken Mehlman, the outgoing Republican National Committee chairman and former Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign manager, will be joining the Giuliani camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I'm a Catholic and I know many Catholics who will vote for Rudy if he runs. They know a good leader when they see it. And they all voted for Reagan and Bush.
Hollow words. I hear that from democrats also.
Darn right you will.
This country is set up for two parties and we are too closely split to even entertain a third party...
I don't know how old you are, but Hillary would love your comment because that is what she and Bill are counting on...lightening to strike twice in the form of a bunch of people going third party.
can't lay off it eh?
I think he showed his real character by telling the Shiek to take his ten million and shove it.... in other words, he will not be bought off and that is a good thing!
If I wanted to run howling down the Democrat road that option exists. I'd frankly prefer a choice.
Rudy's hostility toward the second amendment, and the "get tough on criminals" bit could be a real mess.
I am sure the Congress, if Democrat controlled would be willing to provide a raft of new gun laws designed to make criminals out of a significant portion of 80 million American gunowners, and Rudy would lead by signing, and get tough on a whole new class of criminals.
Gunowners.
We can get that sh!t from Hillary, thanks.
Now 'ugly' semi-automatic rifles and little tin boxes which feed them more than ten cartridges without reloading the box may not be near and dear to the heart of city folk, but to those of who live out of town, they are among our most revered posessions. We are not going to just hand them over willingly, and we damned sure are NOT going to vote for someone who will likely demand we do, given the opportunity. As 'gun control' is a normal part of the Dem platform, that is pretty likely.
When President Bush said he would sign a renewal fo the "Assault Rifle ban" if such crossed his desk, it was still fresh in the minds of many new members of Congress that the gunowners who contributed to their campaigns and to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, and other organizatons were a powerful force in getting them elected. The chance of that bill crossing his desk, identical to the former bill was nil. The Dems would have changed it, the Republicans were not going to touch it.
Now, maybe you do not recall, but Hillary and Co. practically called any marginally religious person who could (and had) read the Constitution and owned a rifle a "domestic terrorist". Part of the VRWC, iirc.
"Get tough on terrorists" takes on a different meaning when that gets pointed at ordinary Ameircans.
Now for those of you who have only seen a mountain lion in a zoo, keep in mind life is a wee bit different out here.
At any given time, the nearest police unit is generally 20 to 30 miles away, and if there is a problem, we take care of it, and wait for the police to show afterwards.
We are not going to vote to give that up.
I'm already beginning to see this (the same names coming up again and again against Rudy) in my 2 days on the Rudy ping list. They may in fact be lousy Dummie trolls as previously suggested. The President is first and foremost a leader. It seems we have forgotten that fact since 1988. Rudy has proven that he is a true leader. He is a natural. A leader adapts to the situation he is in and the people he is leading. Leading the United States of America is undoubtedly different from leading New York City. I have no doubt that Rudy would adapt his leadership to suit this position.
That should be repeated often.
I'd rather my dog had a leg up on McCain
Now you're jusy lying.
"“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded."
--- Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999
And Giuliani told O'Reilly just this year:
"And then you have to have a way in which people can regularize themselves as well.
O'REILLY: So you would give them a pathway to citizenship?
GIULIANI: I would say -- this is a classic thing where you've got to do both, carrot and stick. "
Regularize is a code word for amnesty. And as you can see, Rudy supports a path to citizenship for illegals.
Good points. In your bluse state pickups, though, you didn't mention NY/NJ/CT, i think he'd have a pretty good chance with those states, maybe get at least 2 out of 3. Also, I think he'd be competitive in CA with Arnold behind hima nd campaigning. Arnold is pretty popular in CA and who knows where he'll be in 2 years but if he's still popular his support could turn CA Red. Although that's probably pushing it. But the NY/NJ/CT pickup is definitely doable.
Yes they do. Bush's single greatest deficiency is his poor communication skills. He allowed the Democrats to totally frame the Iraq war as a lost cause motivated by a lie. Just terrible.
Whaaa...no Pataki on that list
sorry, I'm in a sanrky mood after the last "Rudy" Thread
Keep up the good work, my friend.
Bottom line, if we win NY in a Presidential election, we win the whole thing. Rudy can win New York.
I didn't say that. I said that great leaders are also great communicators.
And as to guns, I think you've got Rudy dead wrong.
He was solving a problem of rampant crime in NYC and he dealt with it, in part, by requiring licensing of handguns.
I don't know if you have lived in NYC, but its problems (relating to density of population) have different solutions than the rest of the country.
BTW, I am a gun owner and I won't turn mine over to anyone.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
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.