Posted on 02/11/2007 10:27:49 PM PST by FairOpinion
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, still basking in his can-do post-Sept. 11 image, got a rousing welcome yesterday from Republican activists searching for a presidential candidate who can win in California.
No Republican presidential candidate has carried California since the elder George Bush did in 1988, and no one has even run a competitive race in the increasingly Democratic-leaning state since then.
Republicans are hopeful they have prospects in the large 2008 field who can reverse the trend by combining liberal and conservative stands that has proven so successful for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“The popularity of the governor shows that you can take the positions that he holds and win in California,” said Duf Sundheim, outgoing Republican state chairman. “I think Giuliani has the same opportunity.”
As for Giuliani, backers say his record on reducing crime and taxes in New York should give conservatives plenty to like. He was introduced to the convention yesterday by businessman Bill Simon, the 2002 Republican nominee for California governor who once worked under Giuliani in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
Simon said that as mayor, Giuliani cut taxes 23 times and reduced the city's murder rate by 67 percent. “That is a record that as a conservative Republican, I can heartily endorse,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Unlike Hitlery who claimed she just wanted to be New York's Senator, Rudy's not going to run for something and just turn around less than a year later and run for President.
And in 2000, when New York went nuts and elected the carpetbagging beast, Rudy dropped out because we was undergoing prostate surgery. The polls were competitive when he dropped out.
The Clintons will have to spend a FORTUNE, in California, N.Y., N.J.,all of New England, Pa., and Ohio; just to keep up with Rudy; should both of them be the presidential candidates.
You just don't have a handle on this race.
not really, Rudy is the one that believe in "School Choice" and "States Rights", I believe he's more like you than you believe.(maybe not a personal level but on his governing style)
Oh expound on that statement. How exactly was his career "kept alive" by organized crime except for the fact that he was putting those types in PRISON as a prosecutor and then a mayor?
I thought being tough on crime was a good CONSERVATIVE tenant. I'm holding my breath for a response.
He's an ex-mayor and she's a sitting senator.
We have not had 2 presidential candidates face off in a presidental election since 1904.
Rudy did not run against her for medical reasons and there was no reason to come back later and challenge her.
He may or may not win against her in NY. But you sure as h*ll don't know even though to pretend to.
This is a bogus, misleading comparison, ignores key issues of major differences.
That's right EV, you know everything and not anyone else on FR, who disagrees with you has EVER been right.........NOT!
He supports Ron Paul; what else need one say? LOL
"Back to basics. Please explain how Angelides as governor of CA and Hillary as president of the US would hlep conservatism."
People, people, the primaries are around a year away. It's too early to feel that you have to settle for a lib.
After the primaries it MIGHT NOT EVEN BE BETWEEN Rudy and Hillary.
Remember: If a lib runs against a lib, a lib will be our president.
Rudy is a fiscal conservative. Live with it.
The polls have him down. You keep saying Giuliani is a SURE WINNER in the primary because of these worthless polls. But then when they all show Hillary Clinton with something like 52% and Giuliani at 35% in the state of New York for president you totally ignore it. They're both garbage polls, but you can't accept one and ignore the other like you're doing.
Anyone saying Giuliani will beat Clinton in New York is lying.
"Rudy did not run against her for medical reasons...."
That was 2000, I specifically said 2006.
"But you sure as h*ll don't know even though to pretend to."
And you just know Giuliani WILL WIN right? The Rudymites have only said that line a million times, as if he was some sure winner. Your world is going to collapse on you soon enough. Giuliani will never be president, nor should he.
"And we're supposed to jump on board with a gun grabber just on the off chance that he'll carry California?"
No, we're jumping on board with a fiscal conservative who is right on the central issue of our time (GWOT) and who can win the big industrial states that have lots of electoral votes and went for Kerry: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Jersey, Wisconsin.
And yes, the chance that he'll carry Cali is a nice bit of icing on the cake.
"So shows us a conservative Republican candidate who has any chance of beating Hillary."
It's way too soon to tell.
Remember when everyone thought George Allen was a done deal?
WHERE did I say Rudy is a sure winner? What polls?
You're hallucinating!
[So shows(sic) us a conservative Republican candidate who has any chance of beating Hillary.]
The Hildabeast is far from indestructable. It's too early to predict which conservative candidate will eventually push ahead in the Republican primaries, and it is merely my hope that one does; not my prediction.
Until it comes down to Rudy vs the Hildabeast, I will remain firmly in support of whoever is the most conservative candidate.
At the wire, if it's between ANY Republican, and ANY democrat, ie if the choice is unpleasant either way, I will get out and vote the 'R'.
However, I think too many of you are willing to throw out social conservatism, before the race has even begun.
Have you even considered that it may not come to a choice between a RINO and a dem?
"Rudy is a fiscal conservative. Live with it."
Conservatism is a way of life, and being a fiscal conservative is not enough.
Did you see this about Ron Paul?!
Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program Demanded in US Congress [Ron Paul asks Condi]
US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice was quizzed yesterday over the failure by the current US administration to present any form of solid evidence over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
During the questioning one Republican congressman, Ron Paul told the hearing "Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."
Paul went on to say "This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came first and proof was supposed to come later – only that proof never came because the accusations turned out to be false."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782812/posts
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.