Hehe! 
Posted on 08/22/2006 8:38:59 AM PDT by presidio9
Republicans relish the prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008, just so they can vote against her, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was quoted as saying.
Giuliani, who is expected to be a leading candidate for the Republican Party nomination, described the New York senator and former first lady as a polarising force who ignited strong passions across the political spectrum, the New York Post reported.
"Democrats seem to support her as their main candidate for president -- she's way ahead of anybody else -- and it seems like Republicans are just waiting for her to be the candidate so they can vote against her," he said.
"She definitely creates passions on both sides," he added.
"Hillary probably has the distinction of being the best fundraiser for the Democratic Party -- and the best fundraiser for the Republican Party," he said.
Clinton has yet to officially state her intention to run, but has been tipped as the leading Democratic hope, ahead of other potential candidates such as husband Bill Clinton's vice president Al Gore, former senator John Edwards and 2004 candidate John Kerry.
A poll in Time Magazine, however, suggested that she would be pipped in a head to head challenge by top Republican contender Senator John McCain.
All but Lieberman (if he counts anymore) and Zell Miller. Even besides his 9/11 record, he did use economic incentives and a tough on crime approach to turn NYC around.
I'd highly recommend this comment from The Anchoress (via Instapundit)
http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/08/21/anchoress-called-on-to-retract-support-for-rudy/
Note that while McCain makes headlines for himself, Giuliani has been raising money and stumping hard for fellow Republicans. Giuliani has some liberal skeletons in his closet, but as '08 draws closer, he will persuade a lot of people with much more conservative rhetoric.
Not to oversimplify, but Guiliani's 9-11 trumps McCain's POW hero thing, ya know?
Voting against hillary sounds good to me.
Hehe!
I think its a true statement that Hillary would be good for the Republican party.
If the border issue is turning off a lot of Republican base, the one thing that could fire up their "republican" patriotism anew would be to have Hillary as the "other" choice.
The Republican turnout would be a historical high simply to vote against her.
I think that the Pro-Life issue is wrongly being looked at as a "litmus" test. It should be looked at as an "intelligence" test!
Any Republican candidate that is not Pro-life is merely a politician and not a leader. Based upon the known facts available on abortion, it takes someone with leadership and intelligence to stand up to the pro-aborts. Because it is a "Life and Death" issue to a small percentage of the conservatives they will vote for a Pro-Life candidate from a third party over a "Pro-Mothers-Choice" candidate (Guiliani) without a doubt. That small percentage will be enough to give the vote to another Bill Clinton.
My guess is that the issue would split the vote.
Since the media discovered he's a Democrat.
I agree with you Doug. If she gets the nomination, then I worry. She wants to be CIC so badly that I fear she woiuld stop at nothing to achieve her goal.
"Or Lindau, Switzerland."
Bite your tongue. 64% taxes. Complete socialism. Moral decadancy (even worse than here.)
Never.
I'm with you all the way. That's exactly what I was thinking, too. It' sad, because I want to like Guiliani, yet I know deep in my heart that if I voted for him I'd suffer the same anguish I did after voting for Perot.
Part of me knows that it will take a mountain to move the masses on this very vital issue. Part of me wants for it not to split the party even as I expect it will.
What about a replay of 1992 with a 3rd party - Tom Tancredo.
Really?! We saw nothing like that at all when we were there! Sheesh!
"Guiliani is also pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control."
I don't know about the gay marriage claim, but I do know that he is not anti-NRA or pro gun control on a national basis. He is for prohibiting "hand-guns" within the city of NY. I agree that's not good, but he has said that he supporst the right to bear arms, except hand-guns in certain jurisdictions.
Many won't agree with that either, but at least thats his real stand.
The writer says in the opening that Guliani is the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, then in the closing that McCain is the leading contender. That was the problem with the Time article. Most polls show that Guliani would beat Hillary and McCain is just a tie.
Somebody, somewhere down at the DNC and in the MSM, has figured out McCain loses the most GOP votes.......
Giuliani is not pro-gay marriage. He believes in marriage between a man and a woman. He's pro-gay rights (i.e. workforce etc.) which many freepers mistake for pro-gay marriage. As far as guns are concerned - Integrityrocks is correct in his post.
"Guiliani is also ... pro-gun control. McCain beats Guiliani"
McCain is also rabidly anti-gun - Just look at his unrelenting attempts to make gun shows illegal!
Ron
((((PING))))))
Thanks for the gay-rights clarification. In addition to the gun issue. I think it is important to remember that back "when the west was won" an overwhelming number of blossoming towns/cities prohibited guns within their town limits. You had to check them at the gate, so-to-speak. I don't like the concept, but its not new with Gulliani.
On the other hand; he's pro-choice. I have issues with that.
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.