Posted on 02/14/2007 11:59:06 AM PST by areafiftyone
Mike DuHaime, the former RNC political director, sure has loyal colleagues.
Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani's exploratory cmte. announced a bunch of new hires today to its political team, at the national and regional levels.
Mark Campbell, nat'l pol. dir.; "past clients" include Bush-Quayle, American Medical Association PAC, RNC, NRCC, Bush-Cheney FL Recount
Rick Wiley, dep. pol. dir.; previously served as executive director and pol. dir. of GOP of WI, exec. dir. of GOP Victory '04
Bill Stepien, nat'l field dir.; dir. of '05-'05 Nat'l 72 Hour, BC04 NH field dir
Jake Menges, sr. advisor to pol. dept.; worked for National Media, a GOP media firm in Alexandria, VA, and managed Bill Simon's CA GOV primary.
Cary Evans, nat'l field advisor; previously worked as RNC regional pol. dir., BC04 regional pol. dir., dep. manager for Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR),
Regional Political Directors
Chris Gulugian-Taylor, previously served as exec. dir. of NV Victory '06, exec. dir of NV GOP, the Nevada Republican Party as Executive Director and Political Director. Gulugian-Taylor has worked for the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C., and in the field, serving as the Washington State 72 Hour Director for President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
K.C. Jones, manager for Rick O'Donnell's House Run (CO-07), VA dir. of RNC's 72 Hour, BC04 IA field dir., BC04 MN dep. exec. dir.
Matthew R. Mahoney, Giuliani's WH Pol. Affairs Liason from '02-'07, dep. dir. of advance for Giuliani between '98-'02, sr. legal adviser to Solutions America PAC.
Matt Mason, dir. GOTV in '04 and '06 for OH GOP, joined Marines after 9/11, served a tour in Iraq in '05
Tyler O'Connor, state. dir. for MO GOP 72 Hour/Victory '06, pol. dir. for Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) '04 camp
Mike Roman, dir. of Election Day Operations at RNC in '06 and in PA in '04, before that at the PA GOP camp. cmte., Phill Ward Leader from '02 to '06
Mike Vallante, COO of CA GOP, chair of RI GOP, regional pol. dir. for RNC
David Watts, exec. dir./pol. dir. of Dallas County GOP ('98-'01), Western reg. pol. dir. for BC04.
Very well stated! I couldn't agree with you more on what you have written and the updates!
Job well done!
Did I say the boy is wierd?..
I don't doubt you. I'll take your word for it.
My comment to you about suffering came from a political viewpoint. I believe Rudy was sincere in what he said about Global Warming. The fact that places him more in the Algore camp, then the Bill Gray camp, was my main point. However, the excuses being offered for Rudy`s public remarks today, which I view as just more double-talk then anything else, doesn't help Rudy gain support among conservatives. Rudy is exhibiting a transparency that is found in most liberals. Showing his true colors, one more time.
Whether it be Rudy`s double-talk on issues from abortion rights, to gun control, to immigration to special rights for gays, or whatever, Rudy doesn't seem to understand what the conservative movement is all about. Its simple, advance conservatism. Rudy keeps advancing liberalism, and in the end most conservatives will not buy what Rudy is selling.
>> There are no assumptions and the real system is bounded.
Bounded to what exactly? And what are the secondary effects of the 'real term' that contribute back to the primary concern? You're unable to answer these question, so there's no need to respond with elementary prose.
>> Yes [climate change is a simple function of summation.]
Well if that were the case, one would expect weather forecasting would have been mastered decades ago.
LoL. Thats what it sounds like. Stop making sense.
On that list, we didn't see Superman, The Incredible Hulk, Batman & Robin, or Spiderman. Too bad because that's who he is going to need to get elected POTUS. It's the GUNS Rudi...remember...its the GUNS!!!!
Good job on finding these quotes from our "annointed" candidate. Just say no to Rudy!
Ping. Another fun Rudy! thread.
I am surprized it isn't pushing Tom Tancredo.
In the long run, nukes must be installed. Atmospheric heat retention is one of the big concerns, that amount to a major reason the nukes must be used. I'm sure Bill Gray would agree with that. Gray isn't going to deny the effect, he just agrees it has an insignificant effect on the weather. It won't have an insignificant effect on human's though in 100+ years if nukes aren't used to stop the sharp increase in gas generated by burning carbon and hold the concentration steady. A 5oF change in avg temp is significant for people and animals.
Not true. The electorate did not become ULTRA left it merely fled the "extremist GOP" which the Treason Media showed was the alternative to Sweetness, Light and Reason sometimes known as the Democrat Party.
How does pounding the MOST conservative elements of the Party become a rejection for not being conservative ENOUGH?
I believe Rudy will fight the war properly and I believe its in his nature to fight injustice. I believe he loves the USA (unlike hillary who loves her Communist agenda) and genuinely loves the troops, law enforcement and first responders. To actually love America and what it stands for is important, those would not just be acts he would have to put on.
I believe if Congress pushed through a gay marriage bill Rudy would sign it, but so would Hillary.
If America can vote in a conservative Congress we'll be fine. I it can't at least we have a man in there who wants to do whats right for his homeland.
Like I said earlier, vote for your man in the primary's and the nominee in the general. Why is that so hard? Is there nothing more advantageous in voting for Rudy if he is the nominee than Hillary? Is there more to living in America than social issues?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm one of those rightwing conservatives who sees Giulinai as an extremist leftwinger on most social issues, as I mentioned before. Not only that, but Rudy is a big government Republican. Limited government isn't in his political or policy lexicon. And then this from feb 12 2007, doesn't help either.
Giuliani praised California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, calling him a "progressive leader" and adding, "I generally agree with Governor Schwarzenegger."
~~~ Rudy Giuliani, Feb 12, 2007, Santa Clara California LINK
I "know" them because they are the movers and shakers in society. I "know" them because they actually CREATE the news which must be reported to some degree.
The press has NEVER created my reality since I discovered it is filled with lying aholes and that was over 40 years ago. The press did NOT create Rudy or McCain or Romney nor has it obscured Hunter. It does not have to ignore Hunter and would not if he had ANY following. He would be EXACTLY what they would want to go against Hillary. Nothing would be easier for it to paint him as a dangerous extremist.
"You know only what you're told." And you wondering why people dispute you when you lIE. There are probably few, if any, subjects you are more knowledgeable about than I.
Conservatives didn't vote against the GOP. They were strongly Republican as ever being intelligent and exercising commonsense. It was moderates and Independents who turned away from the "extremist" GOP.
If GOP liberals had been wiped out while RAT conservatives won then your argument might not be fallacious. But what happened was conservatives were smashed by candidates to their Left. Pretending that did not happen doesn't change the reality of the result.
"Well if that were the case, one would expect weather forecasting would have been mastered decades ago.
Predicting the probability of observing paticular disturbances in a turbulent system(chaos theory) is not the same as calculating the average energy of the system. Equipartition of energy applies in chaotic systems, so the avage energy of any particular event, never changes more than the average energy for the whole system.
Re: There are no assumptions and the real system is bounded.
"Bounded to what exactly? And what are the secondary effects of the 'real term' that contribute back to the primary concern?"
The bounds are the energy available to the system, and the physical properties of the elements of the system which absorbs and releases that energy. There is no feedback. Valid models are progressions of differential elements. The bounding calclations are those that prove consevation of energy. IOWs the model can't show a final state that contains more energy than a simple calculation would show is allowed by the energy available to the system. Some of the warmists do that. That's where the "more violent" storms and the large temp increases come from.
"You're unable to answer these question, so there's no need to respond with elementary prose."
LOL! Liink, see #7 thread also. There's more than a couple here that know what this is all about.
>> LOL! Liink, see #7 thread also. There's more than a couple here that know what this is all about.
The link points to differing opinions. Simple logic would suggest a couple may be wrong?
On one hand you say the 'simple summation' is satisfactory for proving the outcome; yet, you defer to notes that clearly point to non-trivial analysis and, inevitably, subjective conclusions about the system to which theories are applied. Furthermore, the temporal and spacial dimension of the system appears to be reduced to a convenient size such that an answer can be achieved. As you shift the period of analysis and change the dimensions of the system, the results will change. The regressive characteristics of the inputs to the system are not being accounted for and fail to project the anomalies, deviation, and faulty analysis that can only be understand through a larger sample over time.
It's not difficult to layout and interpret the annual patterns of temperature and to make the obvious conclusion that one specific period of time is warmer or cooler than another. And, if it's warmer this year than last and likewise the one previous, we're to accept the simple fact and not be fools to think it's getting cooler. On the other hand, your suggestion that the inputs and methods used to define, compute, and project the climatological inevitability is a matter of simple calculations, closed systems, and linear non-regressive inputs is too convenient and premature.
The sincere analyst would need to conclude that more information is required over a longer period of time in order to understand the contributing factors, the systems reaction and adaptation, and the degree of error as part of the model used to draw conclusions about the system.
I read your comments in the thread you referenced and I doubt you're being insincere. I would hope, however, that you're being thoughtful.
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.