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 ...
People have been convicted of killing unborn babies. Remember Connor Peterson? Your tagline is a advertisement of ignorance.
If you want to run a liberal Republican against a liberal Democrat, you will end up with a Democrat president.
However, as my post #23 notes, he simply is not the shoe-in some people expect him to be. Seeing he has avoided two head-to-head contests with Hillary, what is the real prospect of him picking up blue states considering Pelosi's gang will define the standard for Liberals, Rudy will be painted as the Conservative and the wicked witch will be sold as the centerist?
While I like the backbone Rudy has shown as mayor of NYC and our foreign enemies, I haven't seen it against our domestic enemies. A Reagan style conservative with Reagan style communication skills would be my ideal, but I don't see one. Second choice would be a solid principled conservative governor like Mark Sanford or Haley Barbour, but I don't see them as electable. Third choice would be a moderate governor or former governor who stands on firm moral ground and is able to handle the press. Mitt Romney might fit the bill as might Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Of the two, Romney has the better business and organizational skills, is a self-made multimillionaire and is thus more likely to raise the money needed to slay the Hildebeast. I'm not 100% sold on Romney (or anyone who could get elected statewide in the People's Republic of Massachusetts), but if Ann Coulter likes him, I'm willing to give him a look.
This country cannot survive with the Hildebeast at the helm and a rubber-stamp congress in support.
He should have deflated Hillary in the latest Senate election, or at least tested his mettle. We'd all be better off if he'd done that first, whether he was going to run for president later, or not. She did, which indicates to me, she's in the stronger position, at least in New York, meaning he might not even deliver his home state. I'm just not ready to sacrifice my conservative social positions on the hope he might win, since he's really not much different than Hillary on a lot of things, unfortunately.
"We’ve yet to get definitive statements from Rudy regarding abortion or the Second Amendment in the last few years."
Sorry but if he had changed his position we would have heard by now. And as for stressing his ethnic Roman Catholic background, he's pro-abortion, pro-gay, and divorced, let's ask Roman Catholic Freepers what they think.
Haley is my number one choice for VP.
Sure Allen could but without better advisers it wouldn't result in much.
Steele simply hasn't the experience necessary.
There are no governors from the Midwest capable of provoking more than a yawn from the electorate.
Dear justshutupandtakeit,
"Your tagline is a advertisement of ignorance."
You "moderates" have such a way with words to win friends and influence people. Yeah. That's the ticket. That's really going to persuade me, or other social conservatives lurking to vote for your guy. LOL.
The law doesn't protect the inherent, intrinsic right to life of the unborn baby. Rather, the law protects the mother's interest, or presumed interest in the baby.
Thus, if the mother says or acts as if the baby is a... * ahem *, a baby, a human, the law acts as if the baby is a legal person, and prosecutes those who harm the baby.
However, if the mother says the baby is NOT a human, a person, or at least not one to be protected by law, then the baby may be slaughtered as per the instructions of the mother.
Thus, only the mother's interests, or her presumed interests are protected. The child is still not protected in law, he is still subject to death without any sort of due process, at the whim of the mother.
Keep workin' on your tact. You're sure to win us pro-lifers and social conservatives over eventually.
;-)
sitetest
There was a small matter of 911 just prior to him leaving office. They were begging for tourists to come to town, Broadway shows closed due to lack of attendance.
I was there the February after 911 and stores were closing everywhere. It was sad and very depressing place for a couple of years. The Toy Fair that year you could look down the aisles and watch the pigeons walking down the aisle, that is how low the attendance was.
Squeaky clean is just as necessary as good leadership skills when the nominee is a dreadful Republican.
Your reading of the "social conservatives" is wrong so I don't worry about it. Holding the GOP hostage to an unwinnable view is of no use. True conservatives understand that this movement and belief is subject to ebbs and flows and that the most important thing is that things progress even if not fast enough for the "Are We There Yet?" crowd. Hence the significant feature of the last four years will be paying dividends for decades to the Constitutionalists in the Nation.
Besides it is obvious from the remarks of many posters that you don't speak for all those calling themselves "Social conservatives".
A couple of more Justices and the Court will be set past our lifetimes.
Guiliani would appoint Justices capable of doing what we want. That is the important issue as for as domestic concerns go.
If Rudy's marriages comes as a shock to anyone, they haven't been paying attention. Ronald Reagan had been married before. Rudy's wife virtually left him, not vis-versa.... then she refused to move out of Gracie Manor, just saw to it he slept in a different room, even when he was very ill being treated for Cancer. She was more interested in a career in showbusiness than being the First Lady of NYC.
The only ones who won't vote for Guiliani if he is the nominee are the Irreconcilables who don't like anyone much. They are closer to 6% than 30%. And that 6% would be offset by 10-20% Democrats and 2/3s of the Independents. Guiliani would approach landslide numbers against Hillary.
I think your ire should be directed at the party, not the voters.
Why is the Republican party forcing it's conservative base to choose between a flaming liberal(R) or a flaming liberal(D)?
It's as if the Republican party wants to lose. It already knows full well that it's base consists of conservatives... and that conservatives will not vote for liberals.
It also knows that Republicans cannot win without it's base vote.
So it's doing everything possible to suppress it???
Tony would led the laughter at that suggestion.
It is a Sure Thing. There has not been one name suggested which does anything but confirm my statement.
Giuliani's record--4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals--is legendary.
That absurd statement is a prime exhibit in why there will be no more conservative candidate than Guiliani. I assume it is in reference to his upholding the law in the Schiavo affair.
Maybe we just aren't ready to let Smokin' Joe decide about OUR souls.
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.