Rudy for president?

Townhall.com ^ | 7/8/06 | Robert Novak

[mathprof]

Well-connected public figures report that they have been told recently by Rudolph Giuliani that, as of now, he intends to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

The former mayor of New York was on top of last month's national Gallup poll measuring presidential preferences by registered Republicans, with 29 percent. Sen. John McCain's 24 percent was second, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich third at 8 percent. National polls all year have shown Giuliani running either first or second to McCain, with the rest of the presidential possibilities far behind.

Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

For starters, anyone who thinks Hitlery Clintong is the be all, end all of the '08 election has already conceded defeat, believes the left wing media driven drivel, or has other motives. I do not believe the liars in the media...

Julie-Annie is a stalking horse for the left and is the Trojan Horse non-candidate (just like he was in Hitlery's first NY senate run) and will ruin the party from within.

The only way the Left can win is to destroy the Republican Party from within. They have lost the public argument and cannot win on the issues, they have to have despotic judges do it for them and they have to undermine conservatives in the Republican primary. (This is the entire reason they have state drives for open primaries, non-partisan legislatures, messing with the electoral college and other electoral scams.)

And they are just drooling at the prospect of ruining the Republican Party by tricking the simple minded to nominate somebody like Giuliani...

The prime example and litmus issue to tell this is the left wing Holy Grail of homosexual monogamy - - something the RINOs support, along with their constant bashing of the religious folks.

I receive no benefit from the same things just because they have different designer labels:

I might has well vote for Bullwinkle, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them. I have absolutely nothing in common with either of them and I do not like New York lawyers to begin with.

I am tired of illegal immigration and that is what people are talking about. Language, borders, culture...



The cult of personality will address none of the three and neither will Julie-Annie...



Julie-Annie can't even beat Hitlery in the New York senate race, he won't even attempt to. If he were at all serious about getting her out of the picture, he would have done it there. He is a stalking horse for the Left from the United Nations capitol... and loves the media limelight...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

This entire matter of promoting the candidacy of Giuliani is but a charade to foist onto America the agenda of the liberal, Rockefeller faction of the G.O.P. Not surprisingly it emanates from New York City - where over two centuries ago the Hamiltonians attempted to subvert and distort the American ideals so magnificently defended by Messrs. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe et al.

Bingo...

For starters, anyone who thinks Hitlery Clintong is the be all, end all of the '08 election has already conceded defeat, believes the left wing media driven drivel, or has other motives. I do not believe the liars in the media...

Julie-Annie is a stalking horse for the left and is the Trojan Horse non-candidate (just like he was in Hitlery's first NY senate run) and will ruin the party from within.

The only way the Left can win is to destroy the Republican Party from within. They have lost the public argument and cannot win on the issues, they have to have despotic judges do it for them and they have to undermine conservatives in the Republican primary. (This is the entire reason they have state drives for open primaries, non-partisan legislatures, messing with the electoral college and other electoral scams.)

And they are just drooling at the prospect of ruining the Republican Party by tricking the simple minded to nominate somebody like Giuliani...

The prime example and litmus issue to tell this is the left wing Holy Grail of homosexual monogamy - - something the RINOs support, along with their constant bashing of the religious folks.

I receive no benefit from the same things just because they have different designer labels:

I might has well vote for Bullwinkle, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them. I have absolutely nothing in common with either of them (and I do not like New York lawyers to begin with).

I am tired of illegal immigration and that is what people are talking about. Language, borders, culture...

The cult of personality will address none of the three and neither will Julie-Annie...

Julie-Annie can't even beat Hitlery in the New York senate race, he won't even attempt to. If he were at all serious about getting her out of the picture, he would have done it there. He is a stalking horse for the Left from the United Nations capitol... and loves the media limelight...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

(the social agenda belongs in the states, not at the national level)...

Says who?

You need to read what the U.S. Costitution actually says:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

Congress can propose an Amendment to give everybody free Preparation H if they want to and it would be perfectly Constitutional if the states vote to ratify...

[Jameison]

"And Julie-Annie got no votes at all..."

Rudy became mayor twice with no votes at all?
Riiiiight.

[Jameison]

"For starters, anyone who thinks Hitlery Clintong is the be all, end all of the '08 election has already conceded defeat,"

I don't think nuthin of the sort.
Fact being she's been ahead in every poll for the RATS candidate for 2008.
As at now, she is one of the top RATSe we should be aiming at for 2008.

[Jameison]

"Julie-Annie is a stalking horse for the left and is the Trojan Horse non-candidate "

You shuldda been here wqhen Rudy was mayor.
The left hated him.
His zero tolerance policy for the police constantly got him under attack from, The Slimes, The RATS, and every left wing outfit in town, and he was constantly called a racist for being very tough on crime, with no regard to what color the criminal was.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Remember, Hitlery got a considerably smaller percentage of the votes in New York than Algore did in 2000,...

And Julie-Annie got none of those votes, he did not run for the senate... but since the New York Republicans are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage???

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You shuldda been here wqhen Rudy was mayor.

What makes you so sure I was not???

[Jameison]

"Julie-Annie can't even beat Hitlery in the New York senate race, he won't even attempt to."

Rudy will probably beat Hitlery in New York State in 2008, if he runs (which I think he will).

[Jameison]

"What makes you so sure I was not???"




Your "Julie-Annie is a stalking horse for the left and is the Trojan Horse non-candidate "?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Rudy will probably beat Hitlery in New York State in 2008,...

Since the New York Republicans are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage???

[Jameison]

"And Julie-Annie got none of those votes, he did not run for the senate... but "

Huh?
Well President got zero votes for Senate in 2000 as well, cause of course, he didn't stand for Senate in New York.
You are not making a hole lot of sense.

[Jameison]

"Since the New York Republicans are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage??? "

RATS outnumber Republicans at least 5 to 1 here in New York City.
The Republican Party has still managed to win the mayor's race in New York for 16 years, and the governor's race for the past 8 years.
I wouldn't exactly call that "sitting on their hands".

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Since the New York Republicans are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage???

[Jameison]

"Since the New York Republicans are so happy to sit on their hands and actually let Hitlery Clintong be their senator why the hell should the rest of the Republicans suffer your incompetence on the national stage???"

This is so eeasy.
Just do a very nice cut and paste like you.


RATS outnumber Republicans at least 5 to 1 here in New York City.
The Republican Party has still managed to win the mayor's race in New York for 16 years, and the governor's race for the past 8 years.
I wouldn't exactly call that "sitting on their hands.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Posted by Alberta's Child to Sir Francis Dashwood; Blackirish; All On News/Activism ^ 07/08/2006 9:42:58 AM PDT · 157 of 495 ^ I'm starting to see a trend here among Giuliani supporters. Whenever one of his flaming liberal positions is exposed, the natural response among his supporters has been to explain it away in one of two ways: 1. A flaming liberal position that he took as mayor of New York (openly violating the 1996 Federal law that prohibited cities like New York from establishing themselves as "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, for example) was really necessary for him to get elected in New York City, and won't affect his performance as president because he'll change his position tomorrow (or next week, or next year, etc.). 2. A flaming liberal position he took as mayor of New York (supporting homosexual marriages and abortion through nine months of pregnancy, for example) will no longer be an issue because "these matters will be left to the states and cities" if he becomes president. Point #1 is ludicrous because this is exactly what made it so clear that John Kerry was a fraud. I don't understand why anyone in the Republican Party would find that kind of sh!t endearing in a presidential candidate -- especially when it involves a situation in which the candidate in question really belongs in a Federal prison instead of at the top of a major party ticket. Point #2 is ludicrous because it misses one very important point: Why would anyone expect Rudy Giuliani in a Federal capacity to "leave these issues to the states and cities" if the most radically liberal positions he took as mayor of New York involved issues that weren't even the responsibility of city government (i.e., abortion, illegal immigration, homosexual marriage, etc.)?!?! Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies

[Jameison]

Oookkay.
So now you have taken to posting garbage from a Canadian, who lives in Alberta and pretends to live in New York, as the authoritative figure on who should be president of these United States?

Its not even worth my time.

[finnigan2]

"I am tired of illegal immigration and that is what people are talking about. Language, borders, culture... "

- One issue fanatics, whether they be left or right, are a dying breed in the 21st century. Modern world politics is far too complex to vote simply on one issue. You must look at the candidates records and balance the good against the bad and then decide who, on balance, represents most of the view that you can support.
To vote against someone whose opinions you don't agree with on immigration and then vote for someone whose views are exactly the same is stupid. I'm afraid it's the old question of the lessor of two evils.
When it comes to it, anyone is preferable to Hitlery because she has shown that she can lie and not be trusted to tell us what she really would do on important matters of national interest.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"I am tired of illegal immigration and that is what people are talking about. Language, borders, culture... "

- One issue fanatics,...

There are actually several there, so much for your ability to count...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Posted by Alberta's Child to Sir Francis Dashwood; Blackirish; All On News/Activism ^ 07/08/2006 9:42:58 AM PDT · 157 of 495 ^ I'm starting to see a trend here among Giuliani supporters. Whenever one of his flaming liberal positions is exposed, the natural response among his supporters has been to explain it away in one of two ways: 1. A flaming liberal position that he took as mayor of New York (openly violating the 1996 Federal law that prohibited cities like New York from establishing themselves as "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, for example) was really necessary for him to get elected in New York City, and won't affect his performance as president because he'll change his position tomorrow (or next week, or next year, etc.). 2. A flaming liberal position he took as mayor of New York (supporting homosexual marriages and abortion through nine months of pregnancy, for example) will no longer be an issue because "these matters will be left to the states and cities" if he becomes president. Point #1 is ludicrous because this is exactly what made it so clear that John Kerry was a fraud. I don't understand why anyone in the Republican Party would find that kind of sh!t endearing in a presidential candidate -- especially when it involves a situation in which the candidate in question really belongs in a Federal prison instead of at the top of a major party ticket. Point #2 is ludicrous because it misses one very important point: Why would anyone expect Rudy Giuliani in a Federal capacity to "leave these issues to the states and cities" if the most radically liberal positions he took as mayor of New York involved issues that weren't even the responsibility of city government (i.e., abortion, illegal immigration, homosexual marriage, etc.)?!?! Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies