Rudy Giuliani for President - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-08-2006, 05:45 PM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
tiny dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: small town Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 87,290
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Pro-choice and pro-gay marriage winning the Republican primary? Hahahaha!!

Good one.
I so agree with you anitram. Also he has a some baggage behind him that I don't think will get him the Christian Right's vote.

John McCain will be 76 if he runs in 2008. Reminds me of Bob Dole who ran against Clinton in 1996, and he was also 76 at the time. If he got elected he said that he would only serve one term.
__________________

__________________
Into the heart of a child...
tiny dancer is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 07:39 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Democrats have no strong runners remotely comparable to McCain. As long as McCain gets his party's nomination, he will win the general election. Hillary and Obama would not stand a chance against McCain, especially when the country really focus's on the two contenders after the primaries.

Winning the Republican nomination will be easier now that the Republicans have suffered such a heavy defeat in Congress. The upside to such a defeat is that its a wake up call to those who either did not vote, or thought they could afford to go with candidate a or b in 2008. For the Republicans now, the issue becomes more about electiblity and defeating the Democrats rather than ones personal preference or ideology for a particular candidate. In addition, the party "elites" and key fundraisers had already started to line up behind him before the November elections.

The Democrats will do their best to go after McCain, but going after McCain won't be like going after W.
Well, this would be the standard hardcore Republican rosy view.
It's a four horse race, aside from Giuliani, whom I think has little chance, I'd say McCain, Romney and Gingrich aren't all that far apart. I know what recent polling says and I know the size of salt to take it with. McCain has a public persona of moderate, nice guy, self-effacing, war hero. When he starts getting beat up again, even worse with the Bush baggage, all those hardcore Reps will be looking at Gingrich and Romney with wide open eyes.
Then again, McCain is a true conservative, but so are the other two. I'm just saying, it's not the slam-dunk that conventional wisdom says at this point.

In fact, in those silly polls, Giuliani's lead is widening over McCain.
Did Rudy become more conservative or is McCain becoming less desirable....to Republicans? I don't think those polls mean anything but if that's the justification for this rosy view for McCain, I think it's misguided, personally.

Lastly, if you underestimate the Clinton machine, it makes me wonder if you were in a coma throughout the 90's. Hillary will be tough to beat, Obama will have no easy task and neither will the Rep nomination. Those silly polls alos say something about that supposed 'gap'. McCain vs Hillary head up is now a 4-8 point lead for McCain, where a year, two years ago it was at least 15.

A common sense approach here, how can the Republicans reconcile Iraq by 2008 with the Bush agenda? They basically can't. Nothing short of a miraculous turnaround. So if an objective common sense says that the Bush agenda is doomed in 2008, what does that do to John McCain, coupled with being beaten up in the campaign itself, the elephant in the room is his support of the Bush agenda. Republicans will be running from the Bush agenda like the plague in 2008. McCain will be the lone torch bearer of the current policy. Gingrich will eat him alive in the debates. Romney may coast, I say McCain doesn't get the nomination. Romney vs Gingrich.

So not only do I scoff at the idea of an invincible McCain in 2008, a man I supported in 2000, I don't think he'll even get the nomination. I certainly could be wrong, it's just an opinion.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 10:47 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but how is McCain going to stimulate the Christofascist Republican base?

everyone else -- moderates, independents, even some protestant evangelicals, and certainly everyone who isn't a straight white male -- abandoned the Republicans in 2006. Bush has steered this Exxon Valdez of a party aground; it will take them decades to rebuild and redefine. Republicanism, as we have come to know it since 1994, is dead and buried, and Bush is to blame.

and Iraq is going to hang around McCain's neck like a noose, especially with 71% of Americans disapproving of Bush's handling of the war. all of McCain's reckless support of a thoughtless, pointless, catastrophic invasion and occupation is going to come back to haunt him -- he's arguing for more troops. sounds politically suicidal.
No the fact that McCain supported removing one of the worst threats to US and Global Security as well as one of the great mass murderers of history is not going to come back to haunt McCain. McCain is on the right side of history there.

McCain is correct to call for more troops. Withdrawing troops prematurely will not improve the situation in Iraq. McCain has a level of leadership that most of the candidates in the current field simply don't have and that is why he'll be able to succeed even with policies that may be temporarily controversial to the current majority of voters.

The fact that the Democrats have nothing of substance to offer and were only selected by a majority of the population recently as a protest vote will come to haunt the Democrats in 2008. Its one thing to win in an off presidential year election, its another to win when twice as many people will be focused on the race.

The Republicans defeat in 2006 will only make it easier for McCain in 2008. There is too much about Hillary that divides the population. Her negatives are too high. McCain's positives are still enormous and outweigh any known negatives. Hillary and Obama can't beat McCain. The Dems need someone else if they want to be competitive once the primaries are over.

Regardless of what you think "Republicanism" stands for and whether its dead or alive, McCain has always been his own person in a way few other politicians have been. He is not someone who defines "Republicanism" which is why as long as he gets the nomination, he will receive votes from every party and group in society. He is liked by a much broader part of the political spectrum than any of the other candidates. That equates to victory in the national election.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-08-2006, 11:23 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan




Lastly, if you underestimate the Clinton machine, it makes me wonder if you were in a coma throughout the 90's. Hillary will be tough to beat, Obama will have no easy task and neither will the Rep nomination. Those silly polls alos say something about that supposed 'gap'. McCain vs Hillary head up is now a 4-8 point lead for McCain, where a year, two years ago it was at least 15.

A common sense approach here, how can the Republicans reconcile Iraq by 2008 with the Bush agenda? They basically can't. Nothing short of a miraculous turnaround. So if an objective common sense says that the Bush agenda is doomed in 2008, what does that do to John McCain, coupled with being beaten up in the campaign itself, the elephant in the room is his support of the Bush agenda. Republicans will be running from the Bush agenda like the plague in 2008. McCain will be the lone torch bearer of the current policy. Gingrich will eat him alive in the debates. Romney may coast, I say McCain doesn't get the nomination. Romney vs Gingrich.

So not only do I scoff at the idea of an invincible McCain in 2008, a man I supported in 2000, I don't think he'll even get the nomination. I certainly could be wrong, it's just an opinion.
Well, its not the first time someone has underestimated McCain. In fact, I think its great that there are still some people out there that do, it takes the spotlight off. Few Americans know who Romney is, and the Republicans would not nominate Gingrich in 100 years, he is way to far to right to appeal to anyone except people in the Republican party. The Republicans are searching for a candidate that will be able to appeal to the moderates and independents as well as a few Democrats, and there is not another Republican that can do that to the degree that McCain can.

If the Republican party is as dead as some people claim it to be, and the religious right will not vote in the numbers some people claim they do, then you need a Republican candidate that has as much pull as possible with people outside his party in order to help insure victory. I don't think things are that desperate, but obviously if things have really deteriated along those lines, the way to make it up is with someone who has appeal outside the party. Thats why the party's money machine has already started to line up behind McCain.

The only thing thats preventing McCain from being the "invincible" candidate in 2008 is the Iraq war, NOT any of the big name opposition he would face in the Democratic party. When you ask the population who would make a better "Commander In Chief", they will never vote for Hillary or Obama over McCain despite their feelings on the Iraq war now or whatever it might be in 2008. The Dems need someone else.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 10:47 AM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


No the fact that McCain supported removing one of the worst threats to US and Global Security as well as one of the great mass murderers of history is not going to come back to haunt McCain. McCain is on the right side of history there.



nope. 71% disapprove of the war. 71%!!!!

it has been the worst foreign policy mistake the US has made ever in its history. EVER!

McCain will have to jump through hoops to distance himself from Bush who is well on his way to being regarded as the worst president ever in the history of the United States. EVER!

the best hope for McCain is his ability to run on specific policy points where he has differed from the insanely corrupt Republican congress (who's more concerned with boys kissing and pet pork projects than with protecting poor people in New Orleans or managing a semi-competent post-war) that the American people have sent packing because they know that George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States and that Iraq is an embarassment and is currently deteriorating. 2006 was the most important, most closely watched, mid-term election in our lifetimes, and it was a sound rejection of everything Bush and Republican. all you have left is Dixie, and all that gives you Dixie are good old fashioned Republican racism, homophobia, and religious fascism.

so, if McCain can stand in front of the nation and repudiate all things Bush, perhaps some tears and a mea culpa, maybe then he might have a chance. but everyone is going to remember how he bent over and took it from Bush in the 2004 election, which is when i lost my respect for McCain.

but until he does that, it doesn't look good. it's looking more and more like the party is going to go with Romney anyway -- he's got the Christofascist credentials that McCain just doesn't have, no matter how much he panders to the Republican base by speaking at Bob Jones U or talking with Jerry Falwell.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 11:17 AM   #21
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Who's kidding themselves? Giuliani will flip-flop and pass himself off as a doting Christian conservative, just like Romney and McCain before him.

In the dying days of the Ohio gubernatorial election, Giuliani was brought in to campaign for Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, and had a big television ad that gushed about him--despite the fact that Blackwell is so far to the right that he was one of test candidates for "Focus on the Family" to see if they could engineer a future Christian takeover of America.

(For the record, Blackwell lost by over 20 points in the election).

McCain has already demonstrated that he's a "maverick" in name only, by continuing to gush for the Bush Administration when push came to shove. I hope that if he runs again for 2008 that he loses resoundingly in the primary just like in 2000. He squandered all of his "maverick" goodwill in the last eight years, as far as I'm concerned.

Giuliani is already proving that he's just as much of a sell-out. Romney, McCain, and Giuliani will pretty much say anything to get elected.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 11:21 AM   #22
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Well, its not the first time someone has underestimated McCain. In fact, I think its great that there are still some people out there that do, it takes the spotlight off. Few Americans know who Romney is, and the Republicans would not nominate Gingrich in 100 years, he is way to far to right to appeal to anyone except people in the Republican party. The Republicans are searching for a candidate that will be able to appeal to the moderates and independents as well as a few Democrats, and there is not another Republican that can do that to the degree that McCain can.
I am forced to agree with this. McCain has one major advantage: that Americans have demonstrated, time and time again, that they vote solely on image, and not on substance. This will make him a formidable candidate...barring any racist push polls in the Republican primary.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 02:10 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




nope. 71% disapprove of the war. 71%!!!!

it has been the worst foreign policy mistake the US has made ever in its history. EVER!

McCain will have to jump through hoops to distance himself from Bush who is well on his way to being regarded as the worst president ever in the history of the United States. EVER!

the best hope for McCain is his ability to run on specific policy points where he has differed from the insanely corrupt Republican congress (who's more concerned with boys kissing and pet pork projects than with protecting poor people in New Orleans or managing a semi-competent post-war) that the American people have sent packing because they know that George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States and that Iraq is an embarassment and is currently deteriorating. 2006 was the most important, most closely watched, mid-term election in our lifetimes, and it was a sound rejection of everything Bush and Republican. all you have left is Dixie, and all that gives you Dixie are good old fashioned Republican racism, homophobia, and religious fascism.

so, if McCain can stand in front of the nation and repudiate all things Bush, perhaps some tears and a mea culpa, maybe then he might have a chance. but everyone is going to remember how he bent over and took it from Bush in the 2004 election, which is when i lost my respect for McCain.

but until he does that, it doesn't look good. it's looking more and more like the party is going to go with Romney anyway -- he's got the Christofascist credentials that McCain just doesn't have, no matter how much he panders to the Republican base by speaking at Bob Jones U or talking with Jerry Falwell.
The poll you refer to asked about Bush's handling of the war, NOT whether removing Saddam was the right thing or not. In addition, some random poll taken of just a 1,000 couldn't further from any sort of an accurate gauge of predicting who will end up being on the right side of history in 20 years time.

Protecting US National Security interest in the Persian Gulf has never been and will never be, the "worst foreign policy mistake in US history". You may want it to be that, so as to improve Bush's chances of being the so called "worst President in history", but that not going to be the case. In terms of both casualties and money being spent per year, it still ranks as one of the least costly wars in history, but has stakes that are much higher than any war since World War II with the exception of Gulf War I.

Oh by the way, who did the majority of Americans vote for in the last election that Bush ran in? Yep, thats right, the "worst President ever"? If Bush's position was as terrible as you claim it to be, he would never have received the first majority victory of any President since 1988!

In any event, Bush is not on the ballot in 08, and the Democrats are not going to be able to succeed anymore on just throwing mud at the person in office. Their actually going to have to put up a candidate and some plans of their own.

Obama and Hillary cannot beat McCain! Unless your party finds someone new, John McCain is your next president!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 02:15 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


I am forced to agree with this. McCain has one major advantage: that Americans have demonstrated, time and time again, that they vote solely on image, and not on substance. This will make him a formidable candidate...barring any racist push polls in the Republican primary.
McCain has more substance than any Democratic candidate planning to run. Presidential elections are not like mid-terms where one party can just bash away at the stitting president without a similar response because they don't have a single person in that big of the spot light. Its going to be about whoever the Democrats nominate and how good a "Commander In Chief" they will make.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 03:02 PM   #25
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Oh by the way, who did the majority of Americans vote for in the last election that Bush ran in?
He was elected by the majority of the Americans who voted, not by the majority of Americans.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 03:07 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Oh by the way, who did the majority of Americans vote for in the last election that Bush ran in? Yep, thats right, the "worst President ever"? If Bush's position was as terrible as you claim it to be, he would never have received the first majority victory of any President since 1988!
Maybe the majority of your voters are slow learners.

They seem to have caught on now. A few years later than the rest of the world, but I guess better late than never.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 04:01 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The poll you refer to asked about Bush's handling of the war, NOT whether removing Saddam was the right thing or not. In addition, some random poll taken of just a 1,000 couldn't further from any sort of an accurate gauge of predicting who will end up being on the right side of history in 20 years time.

Protecting US National Security interest in the Persian Gulf has never been and will never be, the "worst foreign policy mistake in US history". You may want it to be that, so as to improve Bush's chances of being the so called "worst President in history", but that not going to be the case. In terms of both casualties and money being spent per year, it still ranks as one of the least costly wars in history, but has stakes that are much higher than any war since World War II with the exception of Gulf War I.

Oh by the way, who did the majority of Americans vote for in the last election that Bush ran in? Yep, thats right, the "worst President ever"? If Bush's position was as terrible as you claim it to be, he would never have received the first majority victory of any President since 1988!

In any event, Bush is not on the ballot in 08, and the Democrats are not going to be able to succeed anymore on just throwing mud at the person in office. Their actually going to have to put up a candidate and some plans of their own.

Obama and Hillary cannot beat McCain! Unless your party finds someone new, John McCain is your next president!


gee, first you say that a poll isn't indicative of whether or not a policy will be good in 20 years, but then you make the vastly premature statement that "Obama and Hillary cannot beat McCain!" if that isn't rich irony for you, i don't know what is.

i think McCain is electable, but he'll only get more electable the further and further he pushes away from Bush -- simply by saying that we need more troops is a deviation from the current Bush non-strategy. Bush is the polonium-210 of politics. everything he's touched since 2004 has turned to shit, and McCain, and the Republicans, know this. the more McCain can define himself in opposition to Bush and away from Bush, and to appear as an adult to Bush's spoiled man-child status, the better of he will be.

and i'm a fan of divided government. the 1990s were a golden age of political progress when you had the single most talented, intelligent president of the 20th century in office who was able to work most effectively with an oppositon Congress that, sadly, has grown more and more Christofascist with each passing election. thankfully, the democratic process works, so these architects of failure in Iraq have been rejected by the American people!

Bush has eeked out two victories and every single democrat who has run against him has received over 250 electoral votes! you only need 270 to win the presidency! Bush hasn't even gotten 290 electoral votes, which is pathetic for a president who has won 2 terms. his approval rating hasn't been above 50% since the 2004 election and he's been more unpopular for a long period of time than any president in the past 50 years. the American people resoundingly rejected his policies, with the failure in Iraq as the centerpiece, in the 2006 mid-term elections, not to mention the clear majority of governorships now held by Democrats.

as for Democrats throwing mud -- hilarious! rich with irony, since mud is precisely what Rove threw at McCain in the 2000 primaries.

just like the Civil War in Iraq, we're going to have a Civil War within the Republican party. the small government/libertarians (who ran screaming from the party in 2006 and now reject and repudiate all that Bush stands for) are going to hope for McCain, but the Republican party knows that they cannot ever win an election without both these people and the evangelical base. McCain must reach out to both these constituents (something Bush was able to do, pretending he's an evangelical when he's really the incurious spoiled brat of a political dynasty) and that's going to be very difficult for him to do. he has NO credentials within the evangelical community (and good for him, imho), unlike Romney who's doing a 180 on the political speech that got him elected governor of Massachusetts. if the Republican party decides that it cannot win the election without the evangelicals, McCain will NOT get out of the primaries. if the Republican party decides that it can win the election without the evangelicals, McCain WILL get out of the primaries but he'll have a nearly insurmountable hill to climb as he'll have to both distance himself from the train wreck of Iraq that he helped create as well as win an eleciton without the traditional Republican base of evangelicals.

which is why i think they're going to go with Romney. he can speak to the evangelicals, and he can speak to the wealthy. i don't think McCain can manage to keep the two groups together -- critical for the Republicans to eek out a win like they did in 2000 and 2004 -- in the way that Bush did and Romney possibly could.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 05:38 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:13 AM
[Q]unlike Romney who's doing a 180 on the political speech that got him elected governor of Massachusetts.[/Q]

I like what you said...but this is not what got him elected. It was the debate hosted by Tim Russert, in which his opponent who said that minors should be able to get an abortion without parental consent.

Up until that point, centrists like my wife, were either undecided or leaning towards her.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 06:19 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


He was elected by the majority of the Americans who voted, not by the majority of Americans.
Those that don't vote automatically approve of what ever the outcome is no matter how much they may object to that fact.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-09-2006, 06:25 PM   #30
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
McCain has more substance than any Democratic candidate planning to run. Presidential elections are not like mid-terms where one party can just bash away at the stitting president without a similar response because they don't have a single person in that big of the spot light. Its going to be about whoever the Democrats nominate and how good a "Commander In Chief" they will make.
"Substance" being relative. I'm not impressed with McCain's "substance." But, again, I'm forced to agree that the Democrats have not formulated an alternative. And, again, I agree that they have to formulate substance, rather than just flinging mud at their opponents.

Call me quite jaded these days. I have not been impressed with the Democratic Party these last few years, and I won't vote Republican, because of their incestuous relationship with kooky religious fanatics.

Maybe I'll get more faith in the Democratic Party over the next two years, but I'm not holding my breath.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com