Hillary/Giuliani: Serious About Race For President

WCBSTV.COM ^ | 27 JANUARY 2007 | AP

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

(CBS) NEW YORK -- After all the hinting hemming and hawing about whether they are really in the race Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani left no doubt in the minds of voters that they are serious about a presidential run in 2008.

"As a republican and I'm very, very optimistic that we're gonna turn this around and that we're gonna turn it around very, very quickly. Meaning this year, in time for 2008," said Giuliani-R , Former NYC Mayor at an engagement in New Hampshire.

And Senator Clinton confirmed her White House intentions in Iowa with her newly innovated slogan "I'm in it to win it."

"They're both in the race. Hillary has a much bigger organization set up. She's been raising money nationally longer," said political analyst Joseph Mercurio, about the man who was nicknamed America's Mayor after 9/11 and the senator who would be returning to the White House this time in the top job. "He's got a tremendous amount of name recognition nationally. He needs to set up a national organization before he's fully plunged into the race. But, undoubtedly he's running just as well as she is," he said.

So, what happens if it shakes out to be a Hillary versus Rudy battle for the white house in 08?

Mercurio says, "it would obviously good if one or the other of them won for New York City or the state how that plays in the rest of the country whether the New York image is a drag or not is a whole other conversation."

[BW2221]

"The fetus wing of the party is rabid. They are busy driving the mainstream of the party away."

It's interesting that people like you want to pin the blame for the 2006 loss on the GOP's right wing. The reason the GOP lost can be summed up in two words - George Bush.

I've run this a number of times but it bears repeating; a Pew Research Center exit poll from November:

"As expected, the election turned out in large measure to be a referendum on President Bush and the war in Iraq -- bad news for Republicans. About six-in-ten voters (59%) said they were either dissatisfied (30%) or angry (29%) with the president. By more than two-to-one, those dissatisfied with Bush supported the Democratic candidate in their district (69%-29%); among those angry with the president the margin was more than fifteen-to-one (92%-6%).

Bush was much more of a drag on his party's candidates than was former President Clinton in 1994, the year that Republicans won control of Congress. More than a third (36%) of the electorate said they voted to oppose Bush; that compares with 27% who voted to oppose Clinton in 1994, and 21% in 1998, the year Congress impeached the president."

[streetpreacher]

I voted Republican in 2006. This FRino made myth that conservatives "stayed home" is just that... a myth. Conservatives didn't lose Republicans the Congress. Bush did.

[zarf]

It's funny. I could comfortably vote for Duncan Hunter, Romney or Rudy (McCain is a looney).....whoever was nominated to run against Shrillary. It's such a no brainer. The fetus wing is completely off their meds.

[oceanview]

and indeed, that's the only way. no openly anti-Roe judge can make it onto the SCOTUS. It doesn't matter if James Dobson is elected president, there is no possible senate makeup that would confirm an openly anti-Roe judge. so what that leaves us with, is judicial philosophy - that's the best the right can do when it send up a SCOTUS nominee. Roberts and Alito were great choices.

Hillary as president on the other hand, will send up openly pro-Roe judges - and they will ALL be confirmed.

[PhiKapMom]

You mean all of you that elected Istook in the primary that got defeated 2-1 in the general. Thanks for giving us four more years of a liberal pro-abortion trial attorney for Governor.

I am glad I am not representative of you folks that gave us Istook -- just wait until everything comes out. I suppose you support kicking out Mike Reynolds from the Republican Caucus as well because he didn't vote for the Speaker of the House.

I represent a lot of Republicans in my County BTW.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Other than he cleaned up NYC in the 90's, I don't really see what makes Rudy qualified to be the Republican nominee in 2008.

[streetpreacher]

Yep. Bush is uninspiring as far as leadership goes, all of those "Day in the Life" threads notwithstanding.

[perfect stranger]

I use the numeric keys on the top for memorized passwords and keystroke combinations. But when I do alot of number work my right hand gravitates to it.

[oceanview]

we barely won the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. 537 votes in one state and a popular vote loss in 2000, a one state win where a 65K vote swing in one state would have sent it the other way, in 2004.

[streetpreacher]

I didn't vote for any of them. I'm an Arkansan... for a short while longer.

[zarf]

Hillary as president on the other hand, will send up openly pro-Roe judges - and they will ALL be confirmed..

Indeed. Preach it to the Fetus Wing brother.

[Spiff]

You don't have any say. And you're not representative of Oklahoman Republicanism.

The only kind of Republicanism PKM represents is false Republicanism - the kind that blows their nose on the Party Platform and the U.S. Constitution. Party power uber alles - that's their motto. Their type just got their come-uppance today in Arizona as the establishment McCain RINO wing of the party just got shut out as we elected an independent, grassroots conservative as party chairman. He's his own man and he's conservative. Wish we could repeat this pattern across the nation right now.

[streetpreacher]

The only reason we won in 2004 was the Swiftboat Vets. Karl Rove was and is an idiot.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

I understand. I do think, however, that we have to be pragmatic to some extent. As an analogy, it is obviously best not to get sick at all, but if you are going to get sick it is better to have a cold than to have cancer. The same is true in politics.

I think we need to have a short term plan for getting a Republican elected and preventing a HIllary or Edwards or Obama etc. victory, and then a longer term plan for promoting change in the country and getting better candidates for public office. Compromise is sometimes absolutely necessary. Rudy may not be your ideal candidate, but if he can win and believes in more of what you believe in than does Hillary etc., then he is a better choice for you. Ultimately I think one of the most important issues that most of us agree on here at FR is preservation of the individual. I think every person has a unique contribution to make to the world, and I don't want that abrogated by policies that push 'group think' (i.e. socialism and communism).

Congruent with your passion about the unborn, every child in the world is unique, and each has a unique contribution to make. That, to me, is one of the most important aspects of FREEDOM, the preservation of the individual and their right to make their own unique contributions to the world. People with huge egos, like Hillary, do not defend the individuality of others, because the rest of us are just props in their narcissistic passion play. Hillary wants to be personally responsible for 'saving the world', and will sacrifice the sanctity of the rest of us in the process.

[streetpreacher]

Yep. I'm tired of all of this talk of a third party. Let's force all of these blue bloods into a third party.

After all, we are the American Taliban according to them. Time to purge our ranks.

[hosepipe]

Giuliani will get Hillary elected for sure..
Almost as bad as McLaim making it thru the primarys..

[BW2221]

The thing you have to give the Dems is that they pick SCOTUS judges who support their causes. Look who GOP Presidents have selected:

Eisenhower: Warren and Brennan

Nixon: Blackmum

Ford: Stevens

Reagan: O'Connor and Kennedy

Bush 41: Souter

Of course there were some good ones thrown in, but over 50% was crud.

Perhaps Bush43 had the best picks, but he had a GOP Senate until a few weeks ago.

[PhiKapMom]

Hate to tell you this but my philosophy is a lot closer to my Congressman then yours will ever be. I am giving up a County Party leadership position this year to join a campaign so my hands are not tied in the primary. What position do you hold in your County Party since you say I don't represent Oklahoma Republicans? Can think of a lot of elected officials you must not like here either.

All of you pushed too far with social issues in OK and it came back and bit all of us with only having one Republican win statewide and getting a pro-abort Governor and Lt Governor. Thanks for nothing!

I am pro-life but I believe in winning and you elect the candidate that can win because without that your agenda goes nowhere fast. Politics 101 in case you don't understand.

[beltfed308]

I also have the right to speak out and say that anyone that puts social issues ahead of the military and the WOT gets no respect from me whatsoever and obviously don't have family in the military.

You must be one of those single issue voters that I read about on these threads. Social issues define our society. Nobody is putting social issues ahead of our soldiers as you would like to think. It is all part of the decision process for voting. Hunter or even Mclame would not undermine our troops. There are other candidates coming forward and Rudy is not the last resort.

[Spiff]

They blew it in 2006 with their temper tantrums.

No, the establishment RINOs in party leadership blew it by ignoring the wishes of conservative Republicans and constantly forcing liberal to moderate candidates upon them. Congressional Republicans earned it by listening to President Bush's misguided domestic agenda. Nobody is entitled to anyone's vote and if you don't earn someone's vote, then you don't deserve it. Give the core conservatives what they want and you'll earn their vote. If you don't, you'll get what you deserve. It's not a temper tantrum, but a fact of life. Complaining about is like complaining about gravity making you fall down or water being so wet.