Posted on 03/10/2007 9:24:06 PM PST by Angel
Those sound like excellent reasons to me.
Blah blah blah. Bottom line is the south is not going to buy him. Too New York, problems with social life.Maybe as attorney general, but he wouldn't accept that. Look who has been the elected president for the past 22 years. Southerners or californians.
Even Brownback polled 41% to Hellory's 46% yesterday and he is a 1% in the primary. Any Republican that does not lose the base can beat her.
She polls at 48% negitive with likely voters still and cannot win without spliting the consevative base vote of the Republicans. Her only hope is someone like McInsane or Jullie-Annie splits the conservative base of the party. Why do you think the media, who's around 90% liberal dem, keep pushing them?
The pro-life and pro-gun groups are not going to vote for Rudy, period. I believe the Republicans can write off maybe 10 to 15 million votes out of their base if he gets the nomination.
My guess has been a loss of 10 to 15 million base votes because of the pro-life and gun control issues. 2008 could be the year the Libertarians get 15% or 20% of the vote and I'm a registered Republican...
Guiliani and McCain are Hillary's only hope since she cannot poll less than a 48% negitive with likely voters. That's why the media keeps pushing them...
It'll change: Salt Lake City is like New York Cityas of last month. :-(
2. Why would I oppose her running for a nomination?
Running? You're changing your terminology in mid-argument.
Any real conservative would oppose Rudy's run for the nomination.
I think its more likely she beat him.
If he beat her it might be considered animal cruelty.
The kind of people who are falsely portrayed by the MSM as marrying their cousins.
Here's the irony: Rudy actually did marry his cousin.
Meant #89 for you.
Good morning! I just let it slide. I'm used to people looking down on me because of where I live and of course, I'm just a truck driver. It doesn't bother me at all! But thanks for your defense, I appreciate it!
If we stop the rush to judgement and see who else might join the race, we might find someone outside the current field. Personally, I still like Duncan Hunter. I also like Jim Gilmore a great deal even though he's in the exploratory stage right now. I could vote for Fred Thompson, and I think many conservatives who couldn't vote for Mr. Giuliani could vote for Fred Thompson. I think the same is true of Mitt Romney. I don't like Mike Huckabee, but I could support him as could many others. Newt Gingrich would have a hard time winning the general election, but he's another possibility.
One big mistake we're making is front-loading the primaries so much. Long primaries don't weaken a good candidate. Ronald Reagan had a long, hard fight to the nomination, and he won big. On the other side of the coin, Bill Clinton had a long fight for the Democrat nomination in 1992, and that fight only strengthened him for the general election. We need to change the primary schedule if we can and never do this foolishness again. We need to let the nominee be decided by plenty of primaries that give the primary voters a good chance to meet candidates and make decisions.
Bill
I stand corrected. I appreciate and thank you for your setting me straight. I am one who values truth. Although I did say I assume (suggesting it was not necessarily fact), I should not have put this statement in. In fact it detracts from my main point which is the article if anything makes a better case why Rudy should be president than why not.
What does that have to do with the fact that the Left calls Giuliani, Adolph Ghouliani and compares him to Hitler? The fact is, he is hated by Liberals. He's considered to be a racist and a right-wing extremist. Go to DU or any Liberal blog and see what they say about Giuliani. Why don't you suggest to them that he is one of them. They'll think you're crazy. I read a posting on a Leftist blog last week in which someone said that Giuliani should be assassinated because he's a would-be right-wing dictator.
The hell he's not. Virtually all of his policies reflect the kind of state control specifically exerted by Italian fascists in the 1930s, and were sold with similar justification, principally public safety and order.
Ronald Reagan believed in people possessing the ability to defend themselves. Giuliani wants the police to have that exclusive power while disarming the citizenry, nor is he shy about trampling the Constitution to get there. The two are miles apart.
You miss the point. Reagan was seen as a would-be dictator by the Left. His law and order policies were called fascist by the Left. When he became President, I heard Liberals say that he would set up concentration camps for anyone who opposed him. The same kinds of ridiculous and hysterical claims are being made about Giuliani. In the 8 years that he was my Mayor, I never feared that he would violate my rights in the way you seem to say. I don't believe in gun control at all. He's wrong about that issue. But, that doesn't mean he's like Hitler.
You expressed perfectly the misgivings many have about Rudy.
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.