Posted on 12/19/2006 3:59:27 PM PST by Paul8148
Because the GOP, and America, need Rudy now.
More than ever.
by DaveG @ 5:40 pm. Filed
(Excerpt) Read more at race42008.com ...
---Rudy Giuliani
He said this? Source?
FYI.....There isn't a Planned Parenthood clinic on every corner there; not now, not when Rudy was mayor.
OTOH, he lowered taxes, cut the size of city government, brought back the city from the brink, cut crime, stood up to the teachers' unions and WON, and stood up against the UN and Arafat. Things that you appear to be against. *smirk*
Oooooo scaaary!
"Gives Rudy a chance to convert to Conservative while in office"
You mean in the same way G.H.W. Bush did when Reagan asked him to be his VP? If I recall, the elder Bush was pro-choice up until that moment.
As for Newt, compared to the rest of the current front-runners, he's the only one who has the mind and temperament for it, as I see it, at the moment. McCain would be an unmitigated disatser for this country if he managed to snag the White HOuse, IMHO.
Oh she never does! She and other Rudy haters post the picture time and time again and won't tell anyone that it was a press club show that Rudy was in. They want you to be shocked and think that Rudy is some kind of weird cross-dresser. That's the whole idea.
Thanks (I guess) but I'll pass.
"Oh she never does! She and other Rudy haters post the picture time and time again and won't tell anyone that it was a press club show that Rudy was in. They want you to be shocked and think that Rudy is some kind of weird cross-dresser. That's the whole idea."
Note that they don't even bother to Photoshop out their greasy fingerprints from the picture before they post it, too. I'll bet some of them secretly masturbate to this picture, too.
Condi has NEVER run for any elected office, doesn't have the skill set or knowledge of HOW to do so, and does NOT want to be president or V.P.!
Newt has far too much personal and private baggage to do any ticket any good at all.
Like it or not, Rudy is a stonewall veteran. That means he was a trans dancer at the gay club.
All the data from Rudy and the stonewall site can be found here and sourced back.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687307/posts?page=4#4
Thanks for the ping! I had to kind of wing my Rudy ping list tonight! LOL
Sure.
As for Newt, three main reasons:
1. He's been Speaker of the House, and knows the give-and-take-rough-and-tumble of policy debates. He could more easily navigate the rocks and shoals when it comes to pushing policy through Congress.
2. He's a historian, and as one myself, I'm partial to similar types. That sort of historical knowledge can only serve a President well in handling the job. I seem to recall a little blurb about those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes.
3. The other viable option atthe moment is McCain, and the man gives me the willies. I believe he has too much to prove, especially in the warrior department (since he came up short in that department himself), and that makes him dangerous with American troops in the field right now. McCain also talks a good game on the immigration issue, but has so many flip-flops on his record in this regard, it's not even funny.
As for Condi...
1. The democrats will more than likely run a combination ticket which will include a woman and a black (the Obama buzz is a marketing campaign to test the waters amongst minorities). What bettr way to counter this than to run a black woman, particularly one who is knowledgeable about diplomacy and national security, and up to speed on the developments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the WOT?
2. Condi is smarter than any three conservative front-runneing males put together (although, truthfully, this is not such a mean feat to begin with, given the current crop).
No thanks. We need another RINO like a spare nostril on our elbow.
P.S. Hope you get that 'milk problem' fixed--as Rudy once said that "Bill Clinton's policies weren't all that different than his". And I guess you must have been drinking milk again when you missed his other DEFENSE of Slick when he once again became a Clinton-apologist DEFENDING Slick (on Slick's dereliction of duty in WOT) after the Chris Wallace interview meltdown when he stated that (and I am paraphrasing here), "I don't blame Clinton. He did all that he could do". Yarite
Good luck with YOUR definition of liberal!!
Of course, I truly believe that if the pubbies had the cajones to nominate a strict conservative of the Reagan mold, we'd win in a landslide--but so far, no one of that nature has even been mentioned.
P.S. as for the "baggage" thing.
Unfortunately, John Paul II is dead (and not American, in any case), and can't stand for election in 2008.
I'm sure if someone took a microsope to your life they'd find things that might cause the perpetually panty-bunched shake their heads, too.
To paraphrase Mr. Rumsfeld:
"You run with the politicians you have, not with the ones you'd like to have".
Quite frankly, anyone who chose politics as a career to begin with is highly suspect, but that's another argument altogether.
As for Rice never having stood for election to any office, well, who said that having been elected to anything was a requirement for the job? If this is the case, then what made George Washington fit for the job (oh, and BTW, Washington was 3-6 against the British in the Revolution, so it's not like he was military genius with many great victories to his credit, unlike Caesar, for example).
You're welcome! I got the site linked on my blog, and will be signing up shortly.
Kewl!
You are quite welcome. This is very exciting news!
Hmm, so you consider Hilary CLinton, a woman who wants to nationalize 1/7 of the American economy (Health care), and who once said "we'll have to take things from you for your own good" (or similar) to be a LIBERAL?
Last time I looked, liberals defended individual rights, personal property and the rule of law. I doubt you'd find a democrat alive in the current crop who ever did any of those, and yet, somehow, they have been termed "liberal" The propaganda machine has done it's work well; even people who should know better (like a stock trader)apparently don't.
Neither position is anywhere NEAR liberal. And we could run the list of issues and the democratic position will never be a "liberal" one.
What you mean is "LIBERTINE" not "Liberal". I could school you on just how the word liberal came to be hijacked and twisted into it's current form, but it appears you're more than happy to go through life with your hands clapped firmly over your ears.
As for the defense of Slick; get over it. The man is gone, ne'er to return, and serves as a shining example of just how self-interested Americans are. So long as everyone had a job, had a ton of money flowing in to the 401(k), and we werent at war anywhere (in any way that mattered), people would have even forgiven Bill Clinton the sin of torturing puppies with a meat cleaver on Pay-per-View. Since NYC depends so heavily on Wall Street and Wall STreet was making sh*tloads of money during the Clinton Era (I know, I was there), would you rock the boat as Mayor of NYC and criticize the man? Particularly when you had your own skeletons that could be exposed? Grow up; that's politics.
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.