Posted on 01/27/2007 2:26:06 PM PST by narses
Rudolph W. Giuliani, who developed a national reputation for decisive and reassuring leadership after 9/11, now faces the odd challenge of having to reassure some supporters that he can be decisive about a very different issue: running for president. Even as his fellow Republican John McCain and fellow New Yorker Hillary Rodham Clinton have all but formally declared their candidacies, Mr. Giuliani has proceeded more cautiously.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Vote for whoever you like. Who do you support?
Never.
Draw your attention to 382 if you haven't passed out yet.
No evacuation plan for the World Trade center after the first attack.
Emergency response protocols not followed led to many needless deaths on Sept. 11.
Allowing Mrs. Clinton a senate seat to launch a presidentila bid was incompetent.
Every candidate Giuliani campaigned for in '06 LOST.
What are you smoking?
In reality not so well. But there are a considerable amount of people and organizations trying to do something about it instead of being smug about it. With the previous elections being so close go ahead and support Rudy. Hillary's inauguration will be quite the media event.
No, it's not going very well is it? And it's not likely to be a predominant issue in 2008 either. Perhaps the idea of demanding that all presidential candidates be rabidly pro-lie is NOT what is going to change hearts and minds throughout the country? Maybe social issues really belong in the states?
Bullsh!t.
A person whose ideology is based on a political/economic system whose implementation requires the complete eradication of the underlying principles of the U.S. Constitution is utterly unqualified to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice. If you don't accept that, then you'd do well to figure out how you intend to live and do business under a governing document that has been subverted by emanations, penumbras, international law, etc.
I haven't made up my mind yet. I think it is far too early for that. But I don't like the bashing and trashing - so I like to mix it up with the bashers and trashers :-)
"No evacuation plan for the World Trade center after the first attack."
The second attack was just 14 minutes after the first attack. Not alot of time there.
"Allowing Mrs. Clinton a senate seat to launch a presidentila bid was incompetent."
He withdrew because he had prostate cancer, you vile, hateful person!!
"Every candidate Giuliani campaigned for in '06 LOST."
That's because the sitting Republican President has 30% approval ratings. No fault of Giuliani's. If you don't know that then you are totally ignorant of political realities, which you are.
"What are you smoking?"
Nothing, but whatever it is you are it sure has made you one rude, vile, and hateful person. Do yourself a favor? Find Jesus and give up that stupidity called atheism. You wouldn't be the rude, vile, hateful person you are now.
Unbelievable is the self-contradiction within that statement. The unanesthetized slaughter of 49,000,000 innocent Americans is something you can just live with, be comfortable with? You're okay that over four thousand little people, on average, are going be dismembered for the crime of merely existing? And you see ZERO connection between the massive-scale execution of our future generations and our future survival? I would suggest you re-read your statement and look at the irony.
As far as I am concerned, there IS no other issue to address until we end abortion. A society that no longer cares about something this brutal and this unjust on this scale is a society not worth saving IMO.
Consistently - incl. after the latest election - polls show 52%-54% of Americans oppose most abortion - and present policy does NOT reflect the will of the people. So while my views are quite strong on this, I believe I speak to some degree for a great many on this point.
GIULIANI: Sure. That's be exactly the kind of person you'd think that you'd want to appoint, somebody who shares kind of your general outlook, but hasn't indicated and hasn't really predetermined most of the cases that are going to be determined by the court.
Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them. It's sort of an extraordinary thing to ask of President Bush. Nobody asked it of President Clinton.
President Clinton appointed people that basically agreed with his political philosophy, which is left of center. Of course, President Bush is going to appoint people that basically agree with his political philosophy. And then what we found out about the Supreme Court is, we don't really know until after they're on the court where they're going to end up.
Thanks for the transcript. Looks like someone is doing some spinning.
How do you feel you are doing so far in preventing abortion?
He seems like a conservative to me on fiscal, domestic, and foreign policy and a states righter on social issues. No problems there.
Someone needs to explain to me how a Republican candidate in 2008 is going to generate any enthusiasm among Republican voters if his campaign -- by definition -- will have to be predicated on the notion that his Republican predecessor has been an incompetent Commander-in-Chief.
LOL. Good night and good night everyone else. Until next and the time after that for the next year.
Name recognition will not cut it as it hasn't even started to get warm in the kitchen yet for Rudy. Remember that the country was close to 50-50 on the last presidential election.
So, as I said - support Hunter. And now answer my question - how do you see you efforts here trashing Rudy as being supportive of Hunter?
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.