Sure, Rudy Giuliani is a decent candidate. But let’s face it: he’s friendly with the gays, and—try as he might, he’s simply no Newt Gingrich
—Well, except for the whole cheating on his wife thing, maybe. Still, where’s the gray hair of conservative experience?
Campaign slogan alert:
One-eye of Newt
Imagine a Giuliani/Gingrich ticket.
Thompson in 08!
C’mon, he’s a natural..he’s already had experience as the president for Christ’s sake…..
For SHAME, Jeff. We all know that your “half-HEARED” title is supposed to be some kind of sideways insult of Rudy, who punctured his eardrums when he was younger. He punctured those drums while bravely serving our nation. What were YOU doing back then, Jeff? Gallivanting around Tuscany with Faye Dunaway and a donkey named Ramirez?
For SHAME.
Anytime I hear Mrs. Bill Clinton’s voice, I want to puncture my eardrums.
I like Thompson, but I think Giuliani would attract many more moderates and hawkish Dems.
Now a Giuliani / Thompson ticket? Gold.
Sorry for the typo in the title (now fixed). I was fantasizing about war porn and kinda got distracted.
Covered by the Grecian formula of vanity?
TW:respect27
Only if Thompson reprises his line about Russians and plans from “Hunt for Red October”.
Guliani would be a powerful and charismatic candidate *PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS* who has a real chance to reassure the moderate Dems *PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS* and the classical liberals. His recognized management and leadership skills will be welcomed by many *PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS* after the missteps, both perceived and actual, of the last six years. He will need to reassure second ammendment advocates that his strong stand *PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS* against gun ownership was reflected by his experiences in NYC rather than a deeply held anti-gun bias *PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS*
I think that there is a potential problem with social conservatives but I just can’t put my finger on it…
You heard it here first: Sanchez / Guckert 2008.
Slogan: “Because Of The”
where’s the gray hair of conservative experience?
It’s on Fred Thompson. Not in a literal way, of course.
Guliani for Attorney General or UN Ambassador in a heartbeat. President? Not so much.
Well, we’re finding out that you don’t have to be friendly with all gays; just the ones who vote your party.
BJTexas – I’ve decided that I can do a lot more on a local level to further my personal “pro-life” agenda (supporting crises pregnancy centers, for one), than I could rejecting Guiliani because of his stance on abortion.
Pubes.
He’s not gay-friendly enough to fancy ‘em up.
Carin:
Good on ya and I hope that my satirical little comment will be taken as a reflection of the sort of challenges Guliani will face rather than a statement of my own conclusions.
I mean, hey, I put the smiley gif in!
How can one govern as a Social Liberal who wants all citizens to take on the responsibility of funding abortions for those irresponsible citizens unwilling to use a .50 condom also govern as a Fiscal Conservative who wants all citizens to be responsible for their own actions relying less financially on government welfare?
BJTexas – I didn’t think you were starting a fight.
But, honestly, I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the pro-life “war” can’t be fought in the public arena anymore. Slippery slope and all. I’m putting my energy elsewhere.
He seems to be doing quite well in the straw polls. After all, he can’t just wave a magic scepter over the abortion debate—and he’s already said he’s committed to nominating SCOTUS justices like Alito and Roberts—so I’m not sure how much that hurts him.
And so long as he doesn’t push for the forced legalization of gay marriage, he should be fine on that front. After all, you can support such and still believe that the proper way to reach that goal is not by a 3-2 vote in Mass.
And of course, what is the Democratic party’s stance on same sex marriages?
I think the social cons would take their chances with Rudy over whomever the Dems annoint.
Giuliani gets support from me, and from a lot of people I know, not because of what he apparently believes, but because he appears to believe in something other than “I believe I’d like to get elected.”
This is supposed to be a republic. Our representatives are supposed to represent us by using their own judgement, and the election is supposed to be a way for us to select people whose judgement we trust. Congress and the President are supposed to be debaters and deciders, not a field full of whirligig weathervanes.
For conservatives, there are lots of reasons to dislike Giuliani on the basis of past policies he’s promoted. But I’d a whole Hell of a lot rather have somebody in office who can at the very least fake integrity convincingly than, e.g., Hillary.
Regards,
Ric
Well I dunno, how can a guy think he can get away with moving his mistress into Gracie mansion during his divorce while his kids still live there, even in NYC?
I think you guys are underestimating the power of the single-issue voters. Too many social conservatives will stay home if Giuliani is the nominee.
Although, do you think Giuliani could take NY? How many electoral votes is that? It’s still a gamble. Man…..that would be so awesome if Giuliani stole NY from Hillary. That would make my decade.
My heart is with Newt. He reminds me of Reagan in his ability to communicate the issues in a way that everybody understands, and his recent speeches are really resonating with me.
I have to admit, I’d love to see a Newt vs. Mitt hair-off.
News for you, Markg8: out here in the sticks, where Child Protective Services and “victim-friendly” jurisprudence have made formal marriage prohibitively expensive for all concerned, that sort of thing is so routine as to no longer cause comment.
Regards,
Ric
I’m really afraid of what the really conservative social-cons are going to say about Rudy. They may stonewall us right out of a good candidate, or -dare I say – an election. Although Rudy has mentioned he would pick pro-life friendly judges (in kind),I doubt that will be enough for the Religious Right.
I’m still calling the nod for McCain.
Rudy has a problem with personal attacks, and trust me, the next two years are going to get U-G-L-Y you ain’t got no alibi, ugly.
Look at the rat-fucking going on in the Dem camp, and that woman needs a Veep. McCain still has the “I was screwed’ hardon after 2000, he’ll get Bush’s backing, even if it’s done quietly and he gets to badmouth the Prez on the trail.
I like Thompson, but I have to confess that the first thing I thought of when he was mentioned was “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it.” Which is kind of a motto of mine.
And really the reason I like Thompson is because I thnk it would be nice to have a guy in the oval office who doesn’t make me cringe every time he opens his mouth.
Primaries mean nothing out here, way too late, but I’ll vote to win the war and hold my nose doing it if I have to, but I’ll tell ya, McCain will get crushed in the general and I don’t trust Rudy as far as I could throw him.
Senator Kennedy, you want to weigh in on this one? President Kennedy? President Clinton?
I’m leaning towards Rudy, dislike McCain intensely, and while I like Newt, think it is unwinnable for him.
I also believe that the ‘conservative’ term is overbroad, and has been falsely painted as though single-issue social conservatism represents the party or the movement. I believe instead that basic conservative beliefs (national defense, small government) supersede most single issues when compared to the kowtowing by the national candidates of the other party in the general direction of the nutroots and far left.
I also generally don’t believe Senators are electable.
I agree, Carin.
But then, I love Rudy. There’s almost nothing he could do to lose my vote, and I’ve been waiting for years to vote for him.
His Frogginess- of course you will support who you like. Please don’t underestimate, however, how much Democrats hate Newt.
Sorry. I won’t believe your conservative bonafides until you show me your ‘300’ tattoo…
I’m starting a rumor Romney shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. It’ll make him sound tougher. Anybody wanna help?
How does that make him sound tougher than raiding the wagon trains for extra brides?
Markg8,
Johnny Cash crapped bigger than you.
Robin that’s not gonna help him get elected but it will help him keep his weight down.
Mencken’s Ghost I don’t remember JFK or Bill getting divorced let alone have live in mistresses in the White House.
But here’s some news you can use. Israel has problems with it’s diplomatic corps.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258299,00.html
JFK had an eighteen year old mistress in the WH typing pool. They used to make the poor girl hide in the Pres limousine when they took her on road trips…
And you are, please, kidding about Clinton, yes?
Well George it’s a fact, neither Clinton or JFK got divorced and neither one humiliated their wives by having live in mistresses in the WH. Like Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention said, “I mean, this is divorce on steroids,” Land said. “To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That’s rough. I think that’s going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren’t pro-choice and pro-gun control.”
Of course neither one married their second cousin like Rudy either, had the marriage annulled, then tried to claim he didn’t know she was his cousin and then admitted he knew since they were kids.
Maybe you ought to take a closer look at one of the other Republican flavors of the week cuz that’s not even the good stuff and Rudy’s not going to last long.
The man doesn’t even know the difference between a Pershing and a cruise missile.
Markg8—are you trying to pull a Mona or something? Have you forgotten Hillary’s own words from her own biography:
“I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, ‘What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?’” (Page 466)
And as long as we’re on the subject:
Kennedy Mistress Comes Forward
Thursday, May 15, 2003
NEW YORK  John F. Kennedy’s “Monica Lewinsky” has come forward and admitted her affair with the former president.
Marion “Mimi” Fahnestock tells the New York Daily News that she indeed was JFK’s mistress when she was just 19 years old. And while she doesn’t seem to be seeking publicity, she says finally having the secret revealed is a huge weight off her shoulders.
“It’s all true,” Fahnestock told the Daily News at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, where she’s an administrator. “I was 19 years old. It was 1962, ‘63, and it’s the truth.”
In a statement released Thursday, Fahnestock said, “From June 1962 to November 1963, I was involved in a sexual relationship with President Kennedy.”
According to the paper, Fahnestock met the president when she came to White House to interview Jacqueline Kennedy for her school newspaper. The first lady was an alumna of Fahnestock’s school, the exclusive Miss Porter’s in Connecticut.
JFK, known for being a ladies man, was taken by the young student, and a year later Fahnestock got an internship at the White House—even though she couldn’t type, the News reported.
Fahnestock said she left Washington just weeks before the president was assassinated, and she got married and had two children.
“For the last 41 years, it is a subject that I have not discussed,” she said in the statement. “In view of the recent media coverage, I have now discussed the relationship with my children and my family, and they are completely supportive. I will have no further comment on this subject, period.”
Now divorced and a grandmother of four, Fahnestock said she’d like to go back to her anonymous life.
“I have a wonderful job … a close family, a lot of friends,” she told the News. “I have a life to live.”
However, it’s unlikely that she’ll be able to fade into the background now that her story is public. Lewinsky, for instance, has been unable to stay out of the public eye following her famous affair with President Clinton. She most recently was the host of the reality show, Mr. Personality.
Typical Hillary, showboating again.
It was Monica who had the choker down her gizzard, and you don’t hear her complaining.
Well, occasional muffled grunt maybe.
{said in a high pitched, nerdy girl’s voice}
“This one time, in the oval office…..”
Isn’t it amazing Bill And Hillary got through all that? There daughter still talks to them both and everything. We’ll never know if JFK would have divorced Jackie will we?
But we do know about Guiliani and it isn’t any prettier than Newt’s lovelife. Say what you want about Clinton or anybody else but that’s not the topic in this thread and it sure as hell won’t be among the hardcore religious Republican base in the primary and the general. You’re going to have a hard time getting religious wingnuts, not to mention women, to pull the lever for the likes of these men.
“Hey look! A unicorn!”
markg8,
I’m an agnostic, gun-toting, small “l” libertarian. George W. Bush signed the excreable McCain/Feingold Incumbent Protection Act (in my opinion, the most unconstitutional measure allowed to stand by the Supremes in my lifetime), increased the size of the Federal bureaucracy after running as a small goverment conservative, voiced his support for extending the ludicrous “assault weapons” ban, and has placed his faith front-and-center throughout his terms in office.
I have voted for him twice. If I could do it over again knowing what I know now and given the same opposing choices, I would vote for him again both times. Even after his administration has drastically degraded working conditions in my own field.
I’m not expecting anything better than a lesser of two evils choice again this time. (There are two candidates in the current field that I CANNOT vote for under any circumstances, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. If those are the choices next November, I’ll be otherwise occupied on Election Day.) As of right now, Guiliani leads the others in a pretty undistinguished pack. His demonstrated leadership after 9/11 and his pledge to nominate Constructionist judges for any Supreme Court openings outweigh his support for gun control. To borrow a page from Carin in the thread above, I’m going to be using my energy to support my beliefs, rather than opposing every iteration of what I am against.
For me, the whole ugly divorce thing is a non-starter. I have been fortunate to avoid being involved in a divorce (either as a spouse or as a child of parents going through divorce.) I have seen enough of them from the outside to know that the only people that really know what happened are Guiliani and his ex-wife, and they probably don’t know the same things. I also think that this was a factor when he dropped out of the Senate race against Hillary Clinton, but that the event has since been processed by potential voters and his current standing already has the divorce factored in.
Good for you Richard. My point about the people who actually man Republican party phones and knock on doors stands though.
markg8;
I’m not stalking you but you’ve managed to annoy me on two different threads which is quite an accomplishment.
As a Reagan “social” conservative and Evangelical Christian I must say that you have fallen into a conclusion trap that many progressives (and some conservatives) commonly endure. For myself I’m somewhat amused by this massive power over the Republican party that us Christofascist godbags (man, that never gets old) have over the entire electoral process. Why, we are the fanatic legions, waving our crucifixes and bibles, stomping to the polls at the head of some torchlight parade (no doubt wholesale burning synagogues and Planned Parenthood Clinics along the way) to smite the heathen regardless of politics (yea, that’s right, Goldstein, we’re coming for you too!)
The bare truth is that the vast majority of Conservative Christians are not theology centric one issue voters. Oh, yes, we have our idealogues (none of those on the left, eh?) and they can be noisy, but most of us take a pretty broad view of the election question and don’t vote on any one issue over any other. We actually embrace separation of church and state (as long as it’s not freedom from religion) and are more than content to overlook certain “flaws” in arriving at a decision that befits our entire personal philosophy; moral, spiritual and policy political.
What that means, markg8, is that while I may be Pro-Life and opposed to gay marriage (but not to civil unions) I’m also a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights (even though I have never owned a gun in my life), a great believer in limited government and taxation and a strong supporter of a vigorous, measured campaign to wage the GWOT. I’m looking for leadership skills, core principles and a certain sense of personal uncorruptability. In Rudy’s case, the divorces are of less concern than his gun control views. However, I’m trying to look at the big picture. Leadership skills and strength of character are at the top of the list.
So while you would dismiss “my people” (I always wanted to say that) as cute little bible thumpers at best or dangerous lunatic religiso-fascists at worse you just may find that the vast majority of “us” want certain core principles to have the best shot of winning. The prospect of a very liberal candidate winning a national election just may cause us to “choke down” our concerns about candidate views and actions both trivial and important and allow us to do something amazing: We just might make an informed, nuanced decision come election day.
Don’t think it will happen? Just ask John Kerry what happened in ‘04. Many of “us” were less than thrilled with Bush’s overall performance but “held our noses” to insure that the the good Senator would not see the White House.
Try to keep all this in mind when you project your desire for a divided Republican Party.