Many people claim Republicans would never nominate a pro-choice, anti-gun, thrice-married, New York City champion of gays and illegal aliens for president in 2008.

They're wrong. One issue trumps all others among conservatives: defense. By that criteria, no one of either party inspires confidence like Rudy.

“Yes, he has a very inclusive record on gay rights,” says Patrick Sammon, executive vice president of Log Cabin Republicans. “But ultimately, people are most concerned about who’s able to keep their family safe. And that’s certainly going to be more important to people than what the candidate might feel about gay rights.”
What about evangelicals and social conservatives?
A few weeks ago in Florida, he did the drop-by of all drop-bys as the "surprise guest" at the annual convention of the Global Pastors Network. He wowed them with his energy and his revival-style witness to his faith in Jesus. Ralph Reed, a godfather of religious conservatives, thinks Giuliani's charisma may help him overcome his social-issues liberalism in the Bible belt. "He can take control of a room better than any politician I've seen," said Reed.
When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani. And when I look ahead on social issues like gay marriage, the greatest threat I see is that the Supreme Court with two or more appointments from Hillary Clinton, will decide that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a national constitutional right to whatever social liberals have decided is the latest civil rights battle.
And there's one other reason Republicans will vote for Guiliani, they like to win:
It's hard to see a state that George Bush won in which Rudy Giuliani will not beat Hillary Clinton. And he will put a whole slew of new blue states into play: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, to name just three. (The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Giuliani in a dead heat with Clinton in Connecticut.)

Which puts people like me, who care very deeply about marriage and life issues, in the position of thinking hard about Rudy.
And Rudy beats all comers in polls whether his opponent is Hilary, Obama, Edwards, or other.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11677334/site/newsweek/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20070220/cm_ucmg/thinkinghardaboutrudy

He probably has one of the best chance among the Republicans, and I'm sure many Democrats would vote for him too.

I think it's way too early to declare a winner though.

He probably has one of the best chance among the Republicans, and I'm sure many Democrats would vote for him too.

I think it's way too early to declare a winner though.
You're right, of course. But I really believe Rudy will be the next president. And what the hell, we've had an Obama thread for quite some time. Why not a Rudy thread?

So long as he gets the Republican nomination, he will crush any Democrat that goes up against him.

I predict McCain will handily win the Republican nomination. Giuliani is damned by the Bible Belt folk if only for having had a mistress (hypocritically, those people are biggest judgers of others). That's half of the Republican vote right there.

Many Republicans (myself included) hate McCain. The media loves him (that's reason enough for me to hate him), not the Republican base. If it's him or Hilary, I suppose I'd hold my nose and vote for him, but I might just go Libertarian instead. I really hate that guy.

You're right, of course. But I really believe Rudy will be the next president. And what the hell, we've had an Obama thread for quite some time. Why not a Rudy thread?

So long as he gets the Republican nomination, he will crush any Democrat that goes up against him.

You are right.

Similarly, anyone who thinks Hillary would win or Obama would win (or declare that either would win) is prematurely thinking.

Honestly, I don't care who wins as President. As long as (s)he can do a good job of fostering stable economic growth, implementing a foreign policy that unites and gets admiration from the world, investing in health care for an aging population, and unites both sides of the political spectrum, then that person will get my vote.

Giuliani is damned by the Bible Belt folk if only for having had a mistress (hypocritically, those people are biggest judgers of others). That's half of the Republican vote right there.

That may be the excuse, but more than that he is Italian. We will see a woman first, i think.

Giuliani is also handicapped by his name. A four syllables name is too long for most Americans nowadays, let alone Republicans. And worse, it doesn't sound American. Can you imagine "God, country, apple pie and... Giuliani"? Dukakis didn't win largely because of his name too. There are exceptions to the rule though, like "Schwarzenegger"--he could win the presidency easily if only he were native born.

There are exceptions to the rule though, like "Schwarzenegger"--he could win the presidency easily if only he were native born.

this is a joke? Guilianni would get alot of Democrat votes, he would make a good President.

Giuliani is also handicapped by his name. A four syllables name is too long for most Americans nowadays, let alone Republicans. And worse, it doesn't sound American. Can you imagine "God, country, apple pie and... Giuliani"? Dukakis didn't win largely because of his name too. There are exceptions to the rule though, like "Schwarzenegger"--he could win the presidency easily if only he were native born.Dukakis was an idiot. I'll never forget that ad with him in the tank!

It wasn't his race or the "kis" at the end of his name that was the problem, it was him.

Anyway, if Giuliani is too hard to say/spell, go with Rudy.

That's just what I'm talking about. The people who damn someone for looking silly in a tank are the same people who won't vote for a name like "Giuliani". Look, John99 can't even spell it. Do we really want a president whose name we can't spell? Republicans sure don't. (Unless it's "Schwarzenegger". Then who cares how it's spelled? It just sounds meaty.) And no self-respecting Republican is going to call their Commander in Chief "Rudy". That's un-American.

Yeh, Commander Hillary would be the bomb.

With Commander in Chief Clinton you get two-for-one. Don't think millions of people won't be thinking the same.

If the Hillster wins, I can't wait to see how Bill handles being "The First Gentleman," yeeee haaaaa, party time in the Lincoln bedroom!

That's just what I'm talking about. The people who damn someone for looking silly in a tank are the same people who won't vote for a name like "Giuliani".
Dukakis looked ridiculous because he was a dove, trying to prove his manliness by driving a tank. It was absurd.

There was also Willie Horton, the wife rape question in the debate, the economy was doing well. There were a lot of reasons for Dukakis' defeat.

I wanna see Hillary in a tank with a helmet on, with that big grin, or sitting on a cannon like Jane Fonda.

Guilianni would get alot of Democrat votes, he would make a good President.
Maybe true on both. Too bad we won't find out, since he can't pass the hurdle of a Republican nomination. Even if his mistress and name weren't deal breakers, his New York City connection would doom a nomination. What God-fearing Republican wants a city slicker telling him what to believe? Even silver-spooned Bush has a ranch to look rural on. But Giuliani is city all the way.

Zanket, do you actually think that "Keating Five" McCain can beat Rudy?

I know many Republicans who think McCain is a clown.

I wanna see Hillary in a tank with a helmet on, with that big grin, or sitting on a cannon like Jane Fonda.
You'll never see it. She's too smart to let that happen. Bush's marketing is eclipsed only by the Clintons'.

Yes, I think McCain will easily beat Giuliani in a Republican nomination. Keating Five, c'mon. That's an asset. Theft and deception is status quo for a Republican. We're talking about the same Republicans who just blew a trillion dollars attacking a country based on a lie, you know. Their voters love it, especially since future generations pay for it all.

Wow zanket, that was deep.

So zanket, if Hillary wins the Democrats' primary, that must mean that Democrats love corrupt politicians.

Dukakis looked ridiculous because he was a dove, trying to prove his manliness by driving a tank. It was absurd.
No, it was his face. Too boyish. If he looked like Pat Tillman, with a solidly square jaw, nobody would remember the tank photo now.

There was also Willie Horton, the wife rape question in the debate, ...
Every Democratic candidate throughout the future of the country will be saddled with similar issues, thanks to Republican strategists turning molehills into mountains (easy to do since their base is so gullible). For example, Dukakis' Willie Horton was Kerry's flip-flopping. Every Republican candidate could be saddled with similar issues too, if it weren't for Democrats actually caring about the public good.

Cue the heart-warming music.

Many Democrats are the enemies of the freedom of speech and religion.

So zanket, if Hillary wins the Democrats' primary, that must mean that Democrats love corrupt politicians.
"Corrupt politician" is redundant, don't you think? The only politicians who don't have to fully bend over to lobbyists are the rich ones. And a Republican prez panders to the wealthy by choice. That means that, unless you're wealthy, you want Clinton or Edwards, both rich. Bill has netted $40 million in speaking fees so far. Imagine what he'll command as First Gentleman. It might even be enough to keep up with the legal bills for the next Republican witch hunt.

Many Democrats are the enemies of the freedom of speech and religion.
Oh yeah, they hate the ACLU.

The ACLU is by and large the enemy of Christianity, and of the religious rights of Americans.

Zanket, first you say the Republicans are corrupt, then you admit the Democrats are corrupt, so why did you cite it initially only against the Republicans, did you conveniently forget about the Democrats?

The ACLU is by and large the enemy of Christianity, and of the religious rights of Americans.
Suuuure, that's why they fight for the right of Bible thumpers to protest outside abortion clinics.

Check the rest of the record.

The American Center for Law and Justice is constantly at odds with the ACLU, and the ACLU is like an arm of the Democrats' party.

Zanket, first you say the Republicans are corrupt, then you admit the Democrats are corrupt, so why did you cite it initially only against the Republicans, did you conveniently forget about the Democrats?
Republican corruption vs. Democrat corruption is like comparing night to day. Republicans blow trillions (well, they borrow it anyway). Whereas Democrats blow only millions, and they more than make up for it by balancing the budget and even creating a tidy surplus.

Check the rest of the record.
Uh huh. You could not show one instance of ACLU activity that doesn't paint them as absolute sticklers for freedom of speech and/or religion.

The American Center for Law and Justice is constantly at odds with the ACLU, and the ACLU is like an arm of the Democrats' party.

I haven't heard of it, but I don't even have to look to know that the "American Center for Law and Justice" is intentionally misnamed, like a "Spotted Owls Council" for a logging lobby. I can tell just by your context.

OK, I looked and sure enough I was right on.

The ACLU is like an arm of the Democrats' party because they are both for the public good, not just for the benefit of a minority at the expense of everyone else, like the Republicans are.

Check the record, go to the website of the American Center for Law and Justice for a refresher.

The "Democrats" balanced the budget because Bill and Hillary blew the '94 elections for the Democrats, with the Republicans taking control for the first time in forty years, Bill had to go along, you know how he and Hillary are.

If the Republicans are not for the public good, then why do they have so much success?

Check the record, go to the website of the American Center for Law and Justice for a refresher.
Nah, sites like that disgust me. You brought it up. Tell me one case where they were at loggerheads with the ACLU. I'll show you how the ACLU was for the public good, whereas the ACLJ only pretended to be for the public good. How do I know? Because the ACLJ is connected to Big Religion, the meanest bastards on the planet.

The "Democrats" balanced the budget because Bill and Hillary blew the '94 elections for the Democrats, with the Republicans taking control for the first time in forty years, Bill had to go along, you know how he and Hillary are.
Suuure. That explains how a Republican House, Senate, and White House trifecta for six years put us squarely in the black. Keep believing what they tell ya, man.

If the Republicans are not for the public good, then why do they have so much success?
Simple--their voters are largely gullible mean-sprited morons who talk a good game about family, but rush to stick it to their descendants. If they voted Democrat, they might actually have to pay for the things their votes buy. (The rest are the selfish rich.)

You sinketh your own boateth.

I speaketh the truth, and it hurts, doesn't it?

Huh?

You call Republicans mean spirited morons, and look how you talk.

Like I said, the truth. They are demonstrably mean-spirited (how many Iraqi kids got killed or maimed just today because of their meanness?), and demonstrably moronic for voting against their own best interests.

You call Republicans mean spirited morons, and look how you talk.

one poster's behavior on an online discussion forum has NO bearing on the republican party.

im a libertarian, and look at me!

He'll never win it.

SamCDKey:

Why say you that?

SamCDKey:

Why say you that?

1. He's Italian.

2. He's a New Yorker.

3. He's divorced.

4. He had an affair.

He will NEVER be elected President.

Arnold has a higher chance of winning than he does.

Whose interest do you vote for zanket?

Not sure what you mean by "interest". I vote Democrat because they're the best viable party in our two-party system. If we had vote prioritization with instant run-offs, like Australia has, allowing a third party a decent chance to win, I'd probably vote differently for my first choice.

Arnold has a higher chance of winning than he does.

Good points. I agree with 2 through 4, but why #1? He doesn't even look Italian to me.

Zanket, what do you dislike about the Democrat program?

Arnold can't run Sam.

Zanket, what do you dislike about the Democrat program?
I dislike that they are not total public servants. Most are only partially so. The rest of their efforts, perhaps even the bulk of their efforts, are directed toward satisfying the minority-interest lobbyists who pay for their campaigns. (In contrast, Republicans are almost entirely private servants.) For this reason we don't live in a democracy; it's really a pseudo-democracy.

The fact that we don't have total public servants in Congress and the White House is the biggest problem by far in the US, if not the world. It is the root cause of many other problems. I consider the Constitution to be flawed, and our country ultimately doomed, because voters don't have the ability to prioritize their votes, and because elections are not fully funded by the public. I think we'd have a much higher standard of living if these flaws were fixed.

Good points. I agree with 2 through 4, but why #1? He doesn't even look Italian to me.

An American President named Joolianee?

Never.

Arnold can't run Sam.

Yeah, his IQ is obviously too high.

Maybe he'll get much of the Jooish vote.

I dislike that they are not total public servants. Most are only partially so. The rest of their efforts, perhaps even the bulk of their efforts, are directed toward satisfying the minority-interest lobbyists who pay for their campaigns. (In contrast, Republicans are almost entirely private servants.) For this reason we don't live in a democracy; it's really a pseudo-democracy.
what is the difference between a public and private servant?

SamCDKey:

I think you misunderstand American politics greatly.

1. He's Italian.

So is a significant portion of the House and Senate. Scalia, one of the most hardcore Republican supreme court justices is as Italian as spaghetti.

2. He's a New Yorker.

So have three presidents beforehand. Martin van Buren (upstate - Kinderhook), Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt (four times).

3. He's divorced.

So was Reagan.

4. He had an affair.

So did Clinton.

Recent polls say he is liked nationally. He has a VERY strong chance if he can make it through the primaries. The Dems do not have someone on par with him.

Also, if he runs? He is most likely to win NY. NY hasn't gone for a Republican since Reagan. If he wins New York, Florida, and Texas, he has essentially won the presidency - that is nearly 100 electoral votes right there.

I still stand by my statement.

Americans will not elect a black man or a foreign sounding man, especially one who has been divorced and had an affair.

I would say a woman too, but Hillary is smart where PR is concerned. She might make it.

SamCDKey:

The polls are so far proving you wrong. He also has huge credit for 9-11, which Americans who are patriotic (re: Republicans) actually did care about, regardless of the fact that it was New York and not Dallas, Nashville, or Denver.

SamCDKey:

The polls are so far proving you wrong. He also has huge credit for 9-11, which Americans who are patriotic (re: Republicans) actually did care about, regardless of the fact that it was New York and not Dallas, Nashville, or Denver.

Kay. Lets wait and see.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Although as noted, I am waiting for Giulianni to give his view on illegal immigration before I throw my support behind him or any other Republican candidate. Although as of right now, I do belong to the John McCain 2008 Newsletter.

why do repubs dislike McCain? too radical?

I love McCain. He is hardly "radical" and has balls bigger than watermelons.

The only problem most people have with McCain is his lousy view on illegal immigration.

what is the difference between a public and private servant?
public = works for the good of the public in general

private = works for the good of select corporations & individuals, at the expense of the rest of the public

An American President named Joolianee?

Never.
Ah, then I agree with you on all four points. I mentioned the name impediment above. I think the problem is not so much that it's Italian, but it has too many syllables and sounds wimpy. Republicans are apt to vote superficially, so I doubt he'll win his party's nomination.

The odds that McCain beats Giuliani are about a hundred to one, and won't the Euros like an Italian-American as President, Rome and all.

Won't that bother you, you Protestant sow.

No, I will keep sowing.

Good response.

I love McCain. He is hardly "radical" and has balls bigger than watermelons.

The only problem most people have with McCain is his lousy view on illegal immigration.
McCain's campaign finance "reform" is an abomination. It directly limits free speech and could, if intrepreted correctly, put any site that discusses politics out of business.

He also is with Ted Kennedy on immigration and global warming.

He is good on defense and cutting pork.

James Dobson (head of focus on the family, a major conservative group) has come out and said he would not vote for McCain under any circumstances. He had no complaints about Guiliani. Ralph Reed also had good things to say about Rudy.
Dobson says 'no way' to McCain candidacy
Christian leader declares he couldn't support senator 'under any circumstances'
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53743

McCain's campaign finance law has gagged many conservative groups and they hate him for it. It is clearly unconstitutional, but someone survived judicial review.

Given a choice of McCain, Hilary, or Guiliani; Republicans will soon close ranks and throw their support behind Rudy.

A nice summary of Republican contenders:
Mitt Romney is a man who truly deserves the description "empty suit." As far as I can tell, he has no firm convictions and a record of swinging with the swing voters. The best description of Romney is from a writer at The Politico: "Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up." He wants to be all things to all people.

McCain is not an empty suit. He stands for something. Unfortunately, he stands for the worst kind of political altruism. He has repeatedly preached about the need for the individual to "sacrifice for something greater than yourself," and he's built up a pretty good list of what he thinks you should sacrifice. He think you should sacrifice the right to free speech; the campaign finance law he championed imposes limits on the ability of independent political groups to criticize politicians during an election. And he also thinks you should sacrifice your prosperity: he opposed President Bush's tax cuts, and more recently he has vigorously promoted the global warming hysteria.

Two of the most critical legislative attacks on liberty in recent decades may end up being named after him: McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance law that launched this nation's first direct assault on the freedom of political speech, and McCain-Lieberman, a proposed bill to choke off power production by capping America's carbon dioxide emissions.

Of course, McCain has been relatively good on the war, but my line on that (which you may have noticed) is that if John McCain saves us, who will save us from McCain?

while other candidates have attempted to alter their views on abortion, "gay marriage," and other parts of the agenda of the religious right, Giuliani has not done so--which has actually worked to endear him more to conservative voters. The article I linked to above, about Romney's and McCain's meanderings on abortion, ends with this observation: "Meanwhile, Giuliani soars despite offering social conservatives few concessions. Perhaps the moral of the story is this: If you can't respect life, at least try to respect pro-lifers' intelligence." Giuliani is earning points just for taking a stand and sticking to it.

Giuliani "call[ed] on the Republican Party to redefine itself as 'the party of freedom,' focusing on lower taxes, school choice, and a health care system rooted in free market principles." In particular, Giuliani defined the difference between Democrats and Republicans in this way. "[I]He said that while Republicans believe that the American economy is 'essentially a private economy,' Democrats 'really believe, honest, that it is essentially a government economy.'"

So far, however, Giuliani looks like he is the best candidate for advocates of the "secular right": that is, for those of us who favor free markets and a vigorous war against totalitarian Islam overseas--while opposing the intrusion of religion into politics here at home. And fortunately, he's now decisively in the lead. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/02/giuliani_out_front_obama_gaini.html?xid=rss-rcp

Madanthonywayne:

We should start a thread on Campaign Finance Reform.

Also, as I've said before: I'd really like Giulliani to be quizzed on his stance on illegal immigration. If he can say, right off the bat, he is utterly against it, is willing to erect a wall, increase border spending, and increase expulsions of illegals from this country, I will personally give a campaign contribution and otherwise participate in his campaign to get him elected.

New Poll
TIME Poll: Giuliani's Lead Widens
The core of Giuliani's strength is in the Northeast, where he has a 50% to 23% advantage over McCain. But even in the West, he leads McCain by 5 points. The poll, conducted for TIME by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas Public Affairs (SRBI), surveyed 1,144 registered voters by phone from Feb. 23 to 26. It has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

Third among the Republicans in TIME's poll, with 12%, was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was at 7%. The rest of the Republican field polled in the very low single digits. If the G.O.P. field were limited to Giuliani, McCain and Romney, the former mayor would have a slightly more commanding lead, 49% to McCain�s 30%, with Romney at 12%.

In a general election, the poll showed that a Clinton versus McCain contest would be a virtual dead heat, while she would lose to Giuliani by 3%. Obama, according to the poll, would beat McCain by 4 points; but would trail Giuliani by 5 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1594847,00.html

I'll be shocked if McCain gets the nomination.

He probably has one of the best chance among the Republicans, and I'm sure many Democrats would vote for him too.

I think it's way too early to declare a winner though.What a coup it would be if the fundamentalist driven Republican Party shifts waaay to the Left and nominates him. That would be great news. He's less conservative than many Dems! I only get along with the OP author in one thread and I've repeated myself so many times but just once more: Giuliani alienates the base of his party. The party that gave us Very UN-Giuliani Reagan, the Bush Dynasties, Newt, and Cheney and the rightwing neocons. A candidate that supports abortion rights!? GAY marriage?! Are you serious? Republicans aren't moving to the left of center in case you hadn't noticed. They will put up a social conservative. Thinking Giuliani will get the GOP nod is like believing Lieberman will be nominated by the Dems! It just ain't happenin. Though I hope so!

What a coup it would be if the fundamentalist driven Republican Party shifts waaay to the Left and nominates him. That would be great news. He's less conservative than many Dems! I only get along with the OP author in one thread and I've repeated myself so many times but just once more: Giuliani alienates the base of his party. The party that gave us Very UN-Giuliani Reagan, the Bush Dynasties, Newt, and Cheney and the rightwing neocons. A candidate that supports abortion rights!? GAY marriage?! Are you serious? Republicans aren't moving to the left of center in case you hadn't noticed. They will put up a social conservative. Thinking Giuliani will get the GOP nod is like believing Lieberman will be nominated by the Dems! It just ain't happenin. Though I hope so!As the OP author, and a "militant rightist" (your term), do you find me to the left of many democrats?

I have priorities. Of all the possible candidates running or thinking about it, Guiliani is the only one I'd call a leader. He is the one I want as commander in chief. He also stands the best chance of winning.

Have you read thru this thread, Genji? James Dobson has nothing bad to say about Guiliani. Ralph Reed is impressed by him. Republicans are closing ranks around Guiliani.

You will get what you wish for Genji, Rudy beats the Dem 55% to 45%, ouch.

MadAnthonyWayne:

What about John McCain's heroism in Vietnam? He spent 5 years in a prison camp and gave up a chance to go home two years earlier because he refused to abandon his fellow prisoners.

Sometimes he looks like he's still in the prison camp, he looks pretty disturbed to me, and he was one of the Keating Five, and his campaign finance reform deal was big brother at its grandest, so he should be satisfied that he's a senator from Arizona, a state that's being overrun by illegal immigrants.

I've never got a sense of "disturbed" from him.

His temper is apparently right up there with the Clintons.

I've never seen him pissed.

I've known people who've met him and said he was awesome.

Though living in NYC all throughout Giulianni's reign as mayor, I sadly never got to meet him.

As the OP author, and a "militant rightist" (your term), do you find me to the left of many democrats?

I have priorities. Of all the possible candidates running or thinking about it, Guiliani is the only one I'd call a leader. He is the one I want as commander in chief. He also stands the best chance of winning.

Have you read thru this thread, Genji? James Dobson has nothing bad to say about Guiliani. Ralph Reed is impressed by him. Republicans are closing ranks around Guiliani.Looking forward to seeing him grovel at the feet of the religious right like McCain and renounce his social liberalism. My sister is a Dobson fundie and the pamphlets I've seen are no where near supportive of Giuliani. But, We've run side by side on this stationary bikeride to hell before so I'll exit the thread! Again I hope he does get the nod. But $50 in Genjiite currency says it won't happen.

Even silver-spooned Bush has a ranch to look rural on.
Brilliant!:)

MadAnthonyWayne:

What about John McCain's heroism in Vietnam? He spent 5 years in a prison camp and gave up a chance to go home two years earlier because he refused to abandon his fellow prisoners.
I definitely respect him and thank him for that. He was a hero. But that doesn't mean he'd be a good president.

If he didn't agree with Ted Kennedy so often, I might reconsider. But he's with Ted on Campaign Finance, on Global Warming, and the border.

I definitely respect him and thank him for that. He was a hero. But that doesn't mean he'd be a good president.

If he didn't agree with Ted Kennedy so often, I might reconsider. But he's with Ted on Campaign Finance, on Global Warming, and the border.This from a guy that voted for GW Bush! Ought to dustoff those evaluation skills, your last selection was a DISASTER.

Till Monday Night!

Genji's off to church.

Some people mentioned that Giuliani would carry NY, NJ, Connecticut and many other "Blue" states. Although its very early, it seems as though Giuliani is the frontrunner in Pennsylvania as well. I just read the other day in the Philadelphia Daily News that a recent poll had both McCain and Giuliani beating Obama and Clinton handily.

I agree that if Giuliani can win the primary. He will dominate the next election. I feel like the Dem's are totally blowing it by giving so much money/press to Hilary and Obama.


And also...zanket....

I hope you realize that you have made yourself look like an ignorant, stereotypical, close-minded fool in this thread.

A good article on the Guiliani juggernaught. The whole article is good and reviews the history of "litmus test" politics, but the crux of the argument is this:

There is the war, which overwhelms everything as the major issue in the eyes of the base. No group in the country backs the war on terror as fervently as social conservatives, whose main
criticism of the president's policy is that it has not been aggressive enough. To them, Rudy is the ultimate warrior, a man who not only survived 9/11 and rallied the city, but whose success in routing the gangs of New York is a template for engaging the Islamic terrorists, and an indication that he has the resolve and the relentlessness to carry this bloody task off.

They see him as a more ruthless version of George W. Bush, someone who would not have consented to less-than-aggressive rules of engagement; who would have taken Falluja the first time, and not have had to come back later; who would not have let Sadr escape when he had him; who would not have been fazed by whining over Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, and would have treated critics of the armed forces and of the mission with the same impatience he showed critics of the police in New York. As nothing else, the terror war sits at a nexus of issues dear to the heart of the base: the need to use force when one's country is threatened; the need to make judgments between good and evil; the need to protect and assert the moral codes of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the need to defend the ideals of the West.

"For a majority of the GOP primary electorate, it is the war, the war, the war (and judges)," writes the influential radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt. "The war on terror hasn't just changed Giuliani's profile as a crisis-leader," writes columnist Jonah Goldberg. "It's changed the attitudes of many Americans, particularly conservatives, about the central crisis facing the country. It's not that pro-lifers are less pro-life. . . . It's that they really, really believe the war on terror is for real. At conservative conferences, on blogs, and on talk radio, pro-life issues have faded in their passion and intensity. . . . Taken together, terrorism, Iraq, and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue." http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/370rvrau.asp?pg=1
That is it. That is what I feel. It's what a large portion of the Republican base feels. It is why Guiliani will be the next president.

Hmmm...I don't know, madanthonywayne.

I do think that 2007-2008 will be critical years for the Republicans. If the current state of Iraq is maintain or gets worse (which is a very real possibility), I think it's absolutely over for any Republican candidate (even Guiliani).

On the other hand, if there is a very tangible improvement in the situation in Iraq in 2007-2008, I think the Democrats will lose, no matter who they field.

The economy, energy, education, etc... , none of that matters, because Iraq is the central issue of 2008. It will make or break either party, and honestly, for now, it doesn't look too good for the Republicans. But there are basically 2 years for things to change.

I'm going to say this:

Giulianni is looking GREAT now.

And as a New Yorker, I have experience with him. He was a pretty okay mayor and then did very well on 9-11, even if his role was over-emphasized. He did awesomely on crime, that is what I remember most, and am most thankful for.

I'm also in love beyond words with his love of the Yankees.

I'm also glad for once that my Republican vote will matter a bit more in my state if he gets the nomination. Even if he goes against Hillary Clinton, I am sure he will get more votes.

But again: Where is his position on illegal immigration?

McCain is at least moving to a more conservative angle on everything, even if he has so far dodged the immigrant question.

Again, I'm still undecded, but I am going to be signing up for Giulianni's newsletter like I did for McCain.

I can't understand why we keep trying to get Senators in the White House. We need people with experience in the Executive branch to run for the highest office. Governors and Mayors make the best candidates. You have to be able to make firm decisions, not vacillate and make compromises. Senators must make concessions to get anything done. There is nothing wrong with this, it is the nature of the job. But it makes it hard for them to articulate their stances, and even harder to justify their voting history.

I wish the Democrats had more going for them than two Northern, Liberal Senators. It is almost like they don't want to give me any choice but to vote for the Republican candidate. It is upsetting to not have a decent choice.

As someone who used to live in Lower Manhattan during Giulianni's tenure, I can vouch for what PJ is talking about. I just wonder if his name will hurt him with the Intolerance vote. Then again, if he is running against Obama or Hillary, he would get David Duke's support.

Let's just hope that this is the early days, and the best candidates haven't even thrown their hats in the ring yet.

That's a great point swivel, though Giulianni is a Yankee, the "rednecks" in the South are much more likely to vote for him than for card-carrying northern liberal Democrats.

Precisely: Any reservations over him being a Catholic and Italian are offset by the fact that he is still white, still a man, and still a Christian.

Also interesting:

Should Giulianni get in, he'll be the fourth New York president, but the first non-Dutch.

I like to pretend that the next president will be more moderate, and we will see an end to the political fanaticism which rules America today. But I think as the stakes keep getting higher, the extremism is going to keep increasing.

I hope I'm wrong.

Swivel, you appear to be accusing middle-of-the-road Americans of being extremists, how extreme of you!

EXTREEMEEE!

To the max!

GUITAR-SOLO!

Swivel, you appear to be accusing middle-of-the-road Americans of being extremists, how extreme of you!

um...no he doesnt.
he is saying that he hopes the extremism will end.

you cant honestly say that the current political atmosphere in america is moderate?

Having lived through Giulianni's regin of rasict politics and fake response on 9/11, I see no way this asshole will ever make it in office.

Cheated on his wife. His own son can't stand him. No, this would be a major mistake to elect this... thing.

Having lived through Giulianni's regin of rasict politics and fake response on 9/11, I see no way this asshole will ever make it in office.

Cheated on his wife. His own son can't stand him. No, this would be a major mistake to elect this... thing.

Oh, yeah. Americans HATE politicians that cheat on their wives.

Whooops. No they don't. They become the most-loved politicians of ALL TIME! JFK, Clinton, and we can assume that if FDR could get his pecker to walk, it wouldn't be with his dyke wife.

If I was running for president, the first thing I would do is cheat on my wife. Just to make sure I'm in league with these beloved men.

And thanks to Clinton, oral sex is actually not real sex, he got real popular with the youth vote after that.

And thanks to Clinton, oral sex is actually not real sex, he got real popular with the youth vote after that.

Yes. I try to get my girlfriend to "Not have sex" with me all the time. She hates "Not having sex". I happen to like it. A lot.

I thought Republicans were morally superior.

Well when you look at the Clintons and the Kennedys, I can see why you thought that.

Alas I was wrong....?

Well when you look at the Clintons and the Kennedys, I can see why you thought that.

and this is the problem, exactly.
republicans dont have a leg to stand on. using clintons and kennedys as their "moral platform" only appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Huh?

Huh?

exactly.

Roger.

Anyone who believes that any mainstream candidate is going to serve their interests is sadly being self-deceptive. Bill Clinton had two years with a Democratic House and Senate. Did he get healthcare for all Americans as he promised? No.

George W Bush had four years with a Republican House and Senate and Supreme Court. Did he loosen gun control laws? Of course not. These people are psychopathic liars. The electorate falls for their lies over and over again, like sexual spankings. By the end of a term they are convinced of the corruption of the sitting President and administration, and yet repeat the same cycle by becoming enthusiastic about the lies of the new liars who enter the fray.

As Draqon might say, it is all futile.

Go Ron Paul!

Oh, yeah. Americans HATE politicians that cheat on their wives.

Whooops. No they don't. They become the most-loved politicians of ALL TIME! JFK, Clinton, and we can assume that if FDR could get his pecker to walk, it wouldn't be with his dyke wife.

If I was running for president, the first thing I would do is cheat on my wife. Just to make sure I'm in league with these beloved men.

Well the folk you mentioned had there little flings AFTER they were in office. Big difference. Try getting the womens vote after having had cheated on your wife right before an election. Try getting the vote of Christian Conservatives. Cheating on your wife is not in vogue if you are running for office. After you get there, you can have sex with Michael Jackson and his little band of merry men and it wouldn't make a difference - unless of course your name was Clinton.

But Clinton didn't have real sex out of wedlock, allegedly.

Lord Hillyer:

Exactly. Representative Democracy does not work. Even with a majority, nothing is passed.

Bush had four years to pass the full gamut of the Republican party platform and did nothing. Two years for Clinton.

broadandbeaver:

Racist politics? You mean putting the black people in jail that ruin New York City with their crime?

You know, makiong New York a livable city? Where even the elderly don't have to fear being mugged constantly, unlike in the 70's and 80's?

Few people seem to remember how accurate "The Warriors" was.

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Giuliani McCain Romney Gingrich Spread
RCP Average 02/22 - 03/04 - 38.0 20.5 7.2 10.3 Giuliani +17.5
USA Today/Gallup 03/02 - 03/04 424 A 44 20 8 9 Giuliani +24.0
Rasmussen 02/26 - 03/01 546 LV 34 19 9 12 Giuliani +15.0
FOX News 02/27 - 02/28 RV 39 19 6 7 Giuliani +20.0
Time 02/23 - 02/26 RV 38 24 7 12 Giuliani +14.0
ABC News/Wash Post 02/22 - 02/25 Adults 44 21 4 15 Giuliani +23.0
Zogby 02/22 - 02/24 LV 29 20 9 7 Giuliani +9.0

Hillary did a really silly kinda' old-man-river southern accent for the Black people in Selma the other day, she really looked foolish, but not quite as foolish as when she told a crowd about a week ago that she's "had alot of experience dealing with evil men," which of course, brought the house down, laughing at her (these, her own supporters), so Giulianni may just have a cake walk to the White House.

More Reality Leaks Into Madantland

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17521261/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17521712/

Early favorites never keep their traction. The GOP will nominate a social conservative, as always, that hates gays, immigrants, women's access to abortion and contraceptives, someone that the current rulers of the GOP approves of and someone from the South. Also the candidate will be opposed to stemcell research.

Abortion is not as cool as it once was, for a variety of reasons, so Christian conservatives will come out in droves for Giulianni, to defeat the Hillster or Obama.

Giuliani is PRO ABORTION- PRO GAY MARRIAGE. You haven't heard that?:rolleyes: Now back to Ignore.

Abortion is on the wane, and gay marriage is more a media display than millions of same gender people wanting to get hitched "but can't."

I'd have thought IAC would be backing Brownback, Gingrich or Frist. Giuliani? You're such a reactionary religious fundamentalist. Giuliani?

I'd have thought IAC would be backing Brownback, Gingrich or Frist. Giuliani? You're such a reactionary religious fundamentalist. Giuliani?
You see, Genji. All of us reactionarys are closing ranks around Giuliani. We want to win, Guiliani can do it. And we trust him to kick ass.

Also, you're incorrect about early frontrunners not winning. In the Republican Party, the early leader almost always wins. It's the Democrats who nominate dark horses.

I'm watching Jerry Falwell on the Glenn Beck show saying good things about Guiliani right now. Freakin' Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority. He just called Guiliani a "great man".

Guiliani will get the Republican nomination and he will kick the ass of whoever the Democrats nominate.

Then he'll kick Islamofascist ass.

You're right madanthony (no pun intended), Republicans across the board (and many Independents) think Hillary is as bad as it gets, she will have a long and embarrassing campaign if she gets past Obama, and Obama, if he survives the primary against the Hillster, will be so beat up, with tons of crap which Hillary dug up still to deal with, that he would stagger through the general election to end up with about 45%, so it's looking good for Rudy.

Most people see Hillary as a snake in the grass, but we'll see if she can change that perception, which will certainly be difficult to achieve.

Hillary's disapproval rating is about 40%, I bet Rudy's is only about 20%, a big advantage for Rudy.

It seems that the war on terror by republicans is far more important than choice, guns.

The right to bear arms is an American institution, constitutionally.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17737674/
Like I said, the religious right will not back a pro choice, pro gay, thrice divorced candidate.

He's the only one who could beat Hillary or Obama, conservatives understand this.

I really hope Giuliani gets the nomination. The Dems would rip him a new one. What did he do on 9.11 anyway but show up and tell lies? His interest in excavating ground zero extended only to recovering the gold and money buried beneath it. As soon as that was done, he stopped pretending to care about recovering dead firefighters.

No US president has had a 4+ syllable last name. That's a deal-killer to superficial Americans, especially Republicans. So is a foreign-sounding name. The typical Republican knows next to nothing about the candidates, and big religion isn't going to tell their pawns to vote for Giuliani. Those who vote based on name alone, and church-goers who are told to vote for someone else, will tip the tide away from Giuliani. Whatever he did in relation to 9/11 is unknown to those who still think Saddam did it, and that's the majority of Republicans.

No US president has had a 4+ syllable last name.

No US president has been black or female... :)

There is always a first, that's why we call it precedent...

Democrats may well elect a black or woman candidate. But we're talking about Republicans here, where "family values" still means a white male president with 3- syllable American-sounding name.