Posted on 03/28/2007 8:25:49 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Steve Forbes, former Republican presidential candidate, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes, and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. Mr. Forbes will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor:
“I am honored to support Rudy Giuliani for President,” Steve Forbes said. “As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline – including tax cuts – lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue. It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results.”
“Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint,” said Mayor Giuliani. “I look forward to working with Steve and am proud to have him as a member of our team.”
Nice addition, as those of us who value economic liberty certainly look to Mr. Forbes as a leader on that front.
He was diagnosed on April 27, 2000.
It will be interesting to see how active he was afterwards.
I had 2 weeks of radiation. Lost all of my hair (and I mean ALL - head, face, chest, and "elsewhere"). 3 days of chemotherapy (cytoxin) that left me puking green and pooping for a week.
I'm guessing he had it a little better.
You are correct.
I know exactly to what you are refering. (Read many Shakespeare plays in College.)
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
That's Attorney General Olsen.
He never served in the military.
So's America, baby. ;-)
Rudy's far from perfect, but he's what the people want. A fighter. A tax cutting, crime fighting, fire breathing leader of men. Does he have a checkered past? Sure. But who cares? He's an tough SOB, and it just adds to his cred in that role. Don't underestimate how deeply America resents President Bush's new tone, and how badly they want a firebreathing SOB, blasting gaping holes into our enemies and tearing the weasely press corp to ribbons. Don't kid yourself about the personal details. They don't care if he has a soap opera past. America loves good drama.
Not highbrow types like us, who interpret the finer points of political nuance on internet chatboards. We're too worried about things called abortuaries and gay civil partnerships, while the commoners worry about simple things like taxes, crime and terrorism. It's easy to think that we're the majority, and esoteric conservative ideals are what the average American is all about, if you spend enough time here.
Not the case. Not by a longshot. You're deeply overestimating the damage that Rudy will suffer from his past, and underestimating his appeal as a tough, effective leader to the average non-partisan voter.
Do you want to go out in a blaze of glory? Fine, we'll even give you your own opus thread, but if you want to stay at FR, please knock off the personal attacks!
Allow me a question. Let's assume that Hunter wins the nomination and is elected president. And believe me, I would love to see it happen..In what position ( if any) in a Hunter administration would you like to see Rudy serve?
You two need to knock it off too.
Actually he was the Solictor General which "[a]mong lawyers and jurists, the office of United States Solicitor General is generally considered to be the highest office for a practicing lawyer in the United States." [wiki def] I remember Janet Reno being referred to as "General Reno" and while I can't find a cite to confirm, I'm thinking that the SG has a similar courtesy.
As far as Gatun, you could have 300 lawyers in yer family and that would still mark you an imbecile for your obloquy against General Olson.
Thank you for proving what I've said about you. You're textbook Exhibit A of ignorance.
Imagine--a Republican actually citing the 10th Amendment. Next thing you know they'll be putting Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS.
I'm sure he'll miss you.
Are we having a problem,'mopardons'?
I thought our conversation wasn't anything a Mod would object to?
Did I say something you found offensive?
It wasn't right with Reno and it isn't now. But feel free. You can be wrong as often as you like.
Oh gads. You need a serious brain transplant. Quit with the “ifs” you mentally challenged twerp.
I did find this on The Atlantic my condescending FRiend:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/letters (paid website):
In many southern states (south of Boston, anyway) it has long been proper to address an attorney general as "General." In the Supreme Court of the United States—a higher court than Word Court—the U.S. Attorney General, the U.S. Solicitor General, and state attorneys general are addressed as "General" by the justices.
It is therefore both legitimate and appropriate for Secretary Fleischer to refer to "General Ashcroft."
Wayne E. Uhl
Carmel, Ind.
Barbara Wallraff replies:
I called Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio's legal-affairs correspondent, to ask if she agrees with Wayne Uhl. "He's generally right," she told me. "I've always heard the Supreme Court justices call the Attorney General of the United States 'General.' I don't normally hear them call the Solicitor General 'General'—they don't usually call him anything; he's there all the time. When state attorneys general argue cases before the Court, if the justices are going to address them as anything, they usually call them 'General.'"
You are seriously pushing your luck.
Well then, if The Atlantic and NPR say so, who am I to disagree.
My snotty Friend.
Funny, did not realize that he offered to return the millions in federal dollars for NYC welfare. Got a link to 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.