Posted on 02/11/2007 10:27:49 PM PST by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, still basking in his can-do post-Sept. 11 image, got a rousing welcome yesterday from Republican activists searching for a presidential candidate who can win in California.
No Republican presidential candidate has carried California since the elder George Bush did in 1988, and no one has even run a competitive race in the increasingly Democratic-leaning state since then.
Republicans are hopeful they have prospects in the large 2008 field who can reverse the trend by combining liberal and conservative stands that has proven so successful for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“The popularity of the governor shows that you can take the positions that he holds and win in California,” said Duf Sundheim, outgoing Republican state chairman. “I think Giuliani has the same opportunity.”
As for Giuliani, backers say his record on reducing crime and taxes in New York should give conservatives plenty to like. He was introduced to the convention yesterday by businessman Bill Simon, the 2002 Republican nominee for California governor who once worked under Giuliani in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
Simon said that as mayor, Giuliani cut taxes 23 times and reduced the city's murder rate by 67 percent. “That is a record that as a conservative Republican, I can heartily endorse,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Relax, nopardons. Rudy isn't THAT great a choice. Why raise your blood pressure over him? My hope is that a better candidate will arise, and win. Maybe it's a forlorn hope, maybe not. And if Hunter isn't the one, then so be it, I haven't pinned my hopes on him (in fact I only recently even HEARD of him).
Good! If Rudy is the winner in Calif.then, i don't have to feel guilty about staying home in Tennessee. He won't take my state.
thank you, Free ThinkerNY :)
thank you, AmeriBrit :)
I see no reason to believe that in the end they will do the same thing a Republican in Texas will do. they will look at the candidates and pick the one who is furthest from the center on their side. If Rudy (who is center left) runs against Hillary (who by then will be hard left) then Hillary is going to win.
The fact that Rudy will beat any real conservative in NY, NJ, CA,, IL and MA doesn't get him a win.
I don't live in your state, but how much did Corker beat Ford by? Rudy may not win the Repub Primiary in your state, but he could win the electoral votes. The last two elections a republican beat a democrat in Tennessee and as you know, Gore even lost his home state (did he ever live there, really, to Bush).
You don't have to feel guilty at all. If you choose not to vote, that's up to you. But then, you'll really have no right to complain about President Hillary in 2009.
Voters in Tenn. are weird! They would not vote for a Democrat for president, but will load up the local, state and congress with rats.
My guess is that the Evangelicals will stay home if Rudy is the nominee.
Now there's a winning strategy: pander to the California moonbats!
Giuliani would make Hillary fight for both New York and California. Even if she won both, she would not win either without pumping cash into those States that she would need to pump into Ohio, Florida etc in order to win the election. By the way, if Arnold can win in California, Giuliani can.
"Trying to pretend that there is no difference between Rudy and Hillary is disingenuous at best."
When did I say that? I said both are liberals. They are. You can't argue that someone who takes the stances Giuliani has on abortion, gays, and guns is a conservative. He isn't. Clearly Hilary is much farther left but make no mistake, both are liberals.
Our founder made the statement since I've been here that he supported Keyes in the 2000 primary. Probably said during the senate election in Illinois when the rhetoric against Keyes was so constant.
You are right, I've only been here since '03, I guess I'm one of the "newbies" you referred to when you said:
Have YOU noticed that the people who are antu-Rudy are the leftovers who supported Keyes or Pat, in '98,'99, and 2000 and a bunch of newbies?
But my point was that someone doesn't have to be a "newbie" to have supported Keyes or to dislike Rudy. I voted for Keyes in the Illinois senate election because I like him and the other choice was Obama, you see who we got. "Newbie" is not a word I use to disparage others, no matter if they just signed on today, because I realize that like me, people didn't just start forming their political opinions upon signing on to F.R.
I am not certain what a "retread" is but if it means someone who has been banned and then comes back, then the answer is no, I'm not a retread. I didn't get a comp until Dec 1998 and discovered a link to this site while reading Rush Limbaugh.
People don't have to be trolls, newbies or retreads to disagree with you. I've voted Republican in every election since I've been old enough to vote, that won't change come the general election in '08, unless I'm dead and then I may vote for a dem, after all I live in Illinois.
Yeah but he may lose some red states.
After reading it, and doing some research, here's my summary of the subject at hand. On October 12, 2005, Whackjob (aka "relator" or whistleblower) from Missouri files lawsuit against a party (NOT DHunter) under the Civil False Claims Act, aka Lincoln's Law, the Informer's Act, or the Qui Tam Statute, trying to cash in on the DCunningscam debacle (and of course, he tries to drag a bunch of other names through the mud as well--including DH).
Under the Qui Tam Statute, a relator sues on behalf of the government and is entitled to a bounty, normally somewhere between 15-30% of the government's total recovery (due to overbilling, etc.). After the relator files a complaint, by law all documents are automatically sealed by the court to allow the Government to evaluate the allegations to determine whether they want to intervene in the case (meaning, if they find there is merit in the case and believe the government was overcharged or defrauded, they will join in the suit to recover $$$). Note, this is a Civil action, not a criminal action. If the Government finds criminal wrongdoing, they would take an alternative course of action against the party (No need for Whackjob in that).
In January 2006, the ambulance-chasing attorney for the relator decided he didn't want to have anything to do with the case and quit. On March 17, 2006, the Government decides they don't want to have anything to do with the case either and files a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention. On March 20, 2006, given the Government's decision to not intervene, the Court automatically unseals documents in accordance with law. So what does Whackjob do? Whackjob sets up a website posting the Complaint but fails to mention the Government saw no merit in the claim. Instead, Whackjob sends out a press release claiming that the unsealing of the document is a grand surprise and that the Government has been investigating the case for months, failing to acknowledge that they were trying to find any support for Whackjob's allegations and came up empty. It got worse for Whackjob. On June 5, 2006, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss and shortly thereafter the Government indicated they did not oppose dismissal. On July 25, 2006, the Judge dismissed case. To date, Whackjob has not changed his website to acknowledge that his case was thrown out, instead he claims grand conspiracies and is touting a soon-to-be-released new book about the "cover-up."
Oh, one more thing. I suggest Whackjob find an honest way to make a living. I mean, filing bankruptcy after failing in attempts to defraud the bank and the SBA, and chasing Qui Tam bounties, is a pretty sad existence.
As to FR Postings, I hope you will pass this on to anyone else who thinks there is something to the subject at hand.
Yup. Maybe he could. And we then we could have a gun-grabbing, pro-gay, pro-illegal, pro-abortion RINOcrat for president...
Just Wonderful!
Our last popular President came from California and he was not conservative when he was governor of California, he had to govern according to the State which was already more liberal than the rest of the nation. What makes us think Rudy wouldn't be more moderate when he had the whole country to consider instead of uber-liberal NYC?
Nowadays, no.
Although Reagan carried CA twice, it was a different state then.
I think the secret of Rudy's appeal is that he is not viewed as strident.
He simply is not an "ideologue".
Personally, I prefer a conservative "ideologue" over a "moderate" any day, but Rudy does say very clearly that he would appoint judges like Alito (whom he knows), Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia. In fact he has stated clearly that abortion laws should be left to the states and their legislatures - - that is, he has no problem with Roe being overturned.
On most other "hot button" issues, Rudy absolutely fails to scare me. Rudy can't do a stinking thing about guns and homos - - that stuff is still left to the Congress. Some people act like a President is a king or something.
Regards,
LH
Obama can beat Hillary. Should we vote for Obama, then?
We can do better than this thrice-divorced, cross-dressing, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-straight marriage, anti-life RINO. He may be able to beat Hillary, but he's only a RINO. Can we wait until a conservative candidate arises before getting behind someone?
I have a feeling that those supporting this RINO are either part of his campaign, or are Democrats trying to demoralize real Republicans.
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.