Posted on 11/15/2006 7:40:33 AM PST by goldstategop
Every day, I'm asked whom I'm supporting for President in 2008. I've looked over the potential candidates, and on the Republican side, I believe the best, by far, is Rudy Giuliani, who took the first step toward a run, yesterday, with an exploratory committee.
(On the Democratic side, the best guy who's been talked about as a Presidential contender is Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, who truly understands the Islamic threat and is a more moderate Democrat--which is why he'll never get the nomination.)
Yes, I'm pro-life and against gay rights, where Giuliani shares neither of my views on these issues. But, to me, the terrorism issue is far more important, #1 on the list. Right now, we have a President who is pro-life, against gay rights, and pretends to be the "Counterterrorism Prez." But, actually, he's done nothing substantive on any of these issues.
Rudy Giuliani: Then-NYC Mayor Had Guts to Stop Yasser Arafat's Stateside Escapades
So, I'll take the guy who I know will have the guts to do what Bush does not. I believe Giuliani is that man. He's proven that time and again, whether it was when he told terror-supporting Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal to take his $10 million and shove it (right after 9/11) or when he severely restricted Yasser Arafat's travel in New York (kicking him out of a concert).
A man who will do those things vs. Bush PC on Islam is the man we need to run this country. He's probably also the man who can handle the illegal alien problem and actually see to it that something is done about it. Not sure on his position on guest workers, but we'll soon enough find out.
It will be a difficult matter for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate (and, again, I oppose Giuliani on these issues) to get the GOP nomination. We'll see.
So for those who want to know who I'm supporting for Prez, I say, "Viva Rudy." America's Mayor has what it takes to be America's President.
Gutsy Giuliani Tells Saudi Prince Alwaleed Where to Go
I agree with you on that. That's why I've always said that another 9/11-type attack (or worse) throws all bets and conventional wisdom out the window. In fact, I would speculate that the voters of the U.S. would be perfectly willing to elect a war criminal or some other sordid character to the White House under such a scenario -- if they thought he was the one most capable of dealing with the threat.
Well, who do you think appoints the federal judges?
It's not as simple for the Republicans to just find someone with the qualifications you insist on and then throw them up there as a candidate....they have to be ELECTABLE, they have to have SUPPORT and they have to have a NAME at this point.
And, once again, I will state that Rudy is NOT my first choice...but I understand the rationale for this discussion and would gladly cast my vote for him IF he was the Republican nominee.
I just cannot understand the thought process of those that are threatening NOT to vote in the next election if the Republican nominee is not avowedly 'pro-choice' as not voting or voting for some other candidate only makes the situation for the 'pro-choice' crowd WORSE for the foreseeable future.
I can understand casting a dissenting vote in the primaries...that is what they are for.
But not the general election.
See my post #48, along with other previous posts (some of them may be on another thread, though) on this specific point.
The "war on terror" was barely enough to get George W. Bush re-elected in 2004, and wasn't even a major issue for most voters by 2006. I suspect it will be nothing but a distant memory to most people (even if it is being waged covertly behind the scenes) by 2008.
He took on the porn merchants at Times Square and won.
No, he didn't. The "porn merchants" in Times Square were chased out by the rapidly-escalating costs of commercial real estate.
He took on the entrenched NYC bureaucracies and won. His personal involvement in NYPD reduced crime over 50%.
Sure, these could be legitimate accomplishments -- though I'm not sure exactly which "entrenched NYC bureaucracies" you are referring to.
In your haste to call my Post #96 "idiotic" and "factually incorrect," you forgot to post any correct information in response to it.
Are you aware the reason the real estate costs were rising is because Giuliani REZONED THEIR PROPERTY TO CAUSE THAT?
Good grief, I'm not even for Giuliani, but I'm offended by your blatant Michael Moore approach to winning an arguement.
There is only one thing that Rudy Giuliani can possibly accomplish in 2008: If nominated, he would single-handedly destroy the Republican coalition, effectively dooming the GOP. The Whigs would quickly have company on the ashheap of history.
Those who promote or support him are highly suspect, IMO.
I said nothing about ideological purity.
Hillary is the one who can bring the media to our side in the war. They will rally the people instead of demoralize them. That would be a huge benefit in the fight.
In the campaign she'll also be portrayed as very good for the war.
So if the vote is on who can do the best job of prosecuting the war- without regard to domestic issues- Hillary wins. Not Rudy, or any other Republican for that matter.
Deb's thesis is just the opposite and she's obviously wrong. Only domestic issues can win the election for us.
Conservatives know Hillary is not the one to lead the fight, but others don't.
2. The revival of Times Square as a prosperous commercial center actually began years before Giuliani was in office -- when the Koch administration and the Urban Development Corporation (a state agency) unveiled the 42nd Street Redevelopment Plan in 1984. The place would have been transformed soon after the city's Board of Estimates formally approved the plan in 1986, but the collapse of the stock market in October 1987 caused a general decline in the New York City real estate market and drove many banks to withdraw the financing packages they had arranged for new buildings in Times Square.
A few years later, three major real estate transactions marked the "official" beginning of Times Square's revival -- including Viacom's lease and subsequent move to 1515 Broadway in 1990, the purchase of 1540 Broadway by publisher Bertelsmann in 1992, and the purchase of 1585 Broadway by Morgan Stanley in 1993.
You'll notice that these three all occurred before Rudy Giuliani set foot in City Hall.
If you're going to accuse someone of having a "Michael Moore approach" to winning an argument, it would really be helpful to have the facts on your side.
"the so-called "war on terror" (whatever the hell that may be"
Sounds like Dim talking points. You can't seriously doubt that we are at war with an enemy that wants to obliterate us.
The WOT, the war on Islamo-fascism, is the prime issue. If we do not mount a strong campaign against these people who have sworn to destroy us, we are doomed. We must have a POTUS who will fight on all fronts, domestically, with surveillance and interrogation, and internationally with the same.
If we lose the WOT, all the social issues we care about count not a whit. You can't bring a child into this world, bear arms, or defend marriage if you are dead.
The stakes are that high. Ignore them at your peril.
Heck -- I can't even fire a Muslim employee on strictly practical, defensive grounds without running afoul of all kinds of EEOC regulations.
right on, right on. someone with a pair that will eliminate the terror issue in 1 week. 6 days to pick targets, 1 day to finish the war.
THanks. I will have to look up that Forbes Mag article which I wasn't aware of---I wonder what the slant of the piece was, whether the details were matter-of-factly revealed, or whether they were making the same points that bother me.
I'm not sure if this link will work, but give it a shot anyway . . .
I just finished reading (actually, skimming) the Forbes article "The Company He Keeps". Actually it's Forbes.com.
Oddly, just this week a muckraking book from a Left perspective came out :Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins: GRAND ILLUSION : Giuliani and 9-11. Barrett also wrote a very anti-Koch book, years ago. The Forbes piece , by virtue of its relentless presentation of details, dollar amounts, carelessly hit-or-miss influence peddling, reckless business decisions, etc., paints a picture that is not at all flattering. Really not much different from the stomach-turning fact that people like Bill Clinton are pulling down hundreds of thousands of dollars just for showing up, playing the celebrity, and mouthing the same tired platitudes. SOOOOOOOOO----who do we have to pick from, at long last? ANYONE? Mitt Romney, maybe?
Rudy is a tax cutter, is for smaller government ( he cut down the N/Y.C. government, all the while fighting the damned unions! ), stood up to the teachers' unions and WON, is against CRIME ( he did a miraculous job in N.Y.C., which Bloomgberg is busy destroying ), and is a VERY big proponent of the WOT. He also thinks that America needs more judges like Scalia, who he thinks is the templates for ALL SCOTUS justices.
Are you now going to tell me that these are also Hillary Clinton's positions and views?
No, I'm equating pro-abortion politics with Nazi politics. America is better than Nazi Germany, because there is a thriving resistance/opposition here to such mass atrocity and we are still holding to a better political creed, as we sweep 1.2M murdered human beings under the rug, each year.
Other than that, it's the old ethical question: "Is it really any worse to murder someone out of hatred, than out of disregard?"
In my mind, that article paints the picture of a guy who isn't serious about running for the White House. I've got several bets on the line that Rudy isn't even going to be a formal candidate in 2008, and I haven't changed that view one bit.
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.