Rudy Giuliani for President

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:




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.

Your mistake in this entire analysis is that you forget that Bush is not on the ballot in 2008 and the Democrats actually have to put up a single candidate in the spotlight again. By far the favored nominees for the Democratic party are Hillary and Obama. You can't just analyze the potential weaknesses of McCain without looking at the Democrats weakness's. Why would the majority of people believe that Hillary or Obama would make a better Commander In Chief than McCain?

Romney at this time simply does not have the recognition that McCain has or the ability McCain has to win votes beyond the Republican party. The results of the 2006 mid-term elections make things easier for McCain in winning the Republican primary.
 
STING2 said:
Those that don't vote automatically approve of what ever the outcome is no matter how much they may object to that fact.

My issue was with your statement that a majority of Americans voted for Bush. It's a fact that no, a majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush. No matter how you slice it, Bush was not voted for by a majority of Americans.
 
martha said:


My issue was with your statement that a majority of Americans voted for Bush. It's a fact that no, a majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush. No matter how you slice it, Bush was not voted for by a majority of Americans.

Can you name a single president that was voted in by a majority of Americans?
 
STING2 said:


Your mistake in this entire analysis is that you forget that Bush is not on the ballot in 2008 and the Democrats actually have to put up a single candidate in the spotlight again. By far the favored nominees for the Democratic party are Hillary and Obama. You can't just analyze the potential weaknesses of McCain without looking at the Democrats weakness's. Why would the majority of people believe that Hillary or Obama would make a better Commander In Chief than McCain?

Romney at this time simply does not have the recognition that McCain has or the ability McCain has to win votes beyond the Republican party. The results of the 2006 mid-term elections make things easier for McCain in winning the Republican primary.

Your mistake in the analysis is that you are stuck. Not everyone votes based on "will they be the better commander in chief" mentality, and given that fact most are fed up with how horribly wrong this Republican administration has steered this war I doubt they are excited about another Rep lead.

So if that's not the driving factor what will be? Will it be another election where the nutjobs are looking for another "moral" vote? If so count McCain out.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Your mistake in the analysis is that you are stuck. Not everyone votes based on "will they be the better commander in chief" mentality, and given that fact most are fed up with how horribly wrong this Republican administration has steered this war I doubt they are excited about another Rep lead.

So if that's not the driving factor what will be? Will it be another election where the nutjobs are looking for another "moral" vote? If so count McCain out.

Yeah, but were not just talking about any old election are we? Were talking about an election during a war, and that factor will be on peoples minds more so than it was during other presidential elections prior to 2004.

Again, Bush is not on the ballot in 2008, the Dems are going to have to put up a candidate, and the Republicans are going to want someone who can capture the center of the political spectrum again and McCain is the person to do that. Why else would the parties largest fund raisers already be lining up behind McCain as the did for Bush in 1998?
 
No shit Bush isn't on the ballot, what does that have to do with anything?

Believe what you want, your alternate universe usually does entail ignoring such factors...
 
Bush wasn't on the ballot last month either.

Didn't Republican candidates try to hammer that point home over and over and over again? And didn't they fail?

Bush will be de facto on the ballot in 2008, not personally, but in terms of his failed policies and how many of them the Rep candidate will choose to endorse.

If you think Bush won't be a factor in 2008, well keep wishing.
 
anitram said:
Bush wasn't on the ballot last month either.

Didn't Republican candidates try to hammer that point home over and over and over again? And didn't they fail?

Bush will be de facto on the ballot in 2008, not personally, but in terms of his failed policies and how many of them the Rep candidate will choose to endorse.

If you think Bush won't be a factor in 2008, well keep wishing.

I've not said that Bush would not be a factor at all, just that the Democrats would not be able to ride disatisfication with him to victory as they did in a mid-term election in 2006. The Democrats made the campaign about Bush. Mid-terms are notoriously difficult for sitting Presidents because the President receives all the fire, while not having a specific target to fire back at unlike years that involve the other party putting up a candidate.

Again, the biggest factor in 2008 will be the Republican candidate VS. the Democratic Candidate. This is the first election since the 1920s that does not have a member of the current administration running for office, primarily because Dick Cheney never had any intention of an 08 run back when they ran in 2000 and that has not changed. There for, the current administration in power in many ways will have less impact on the 2008 election than in any other prior election.

Presidential elections are more about the individual candidates rather than their party, the administration in power, than what is seen in a mid-term election.

The Democrats have to field a seriously competitive candidate for the national election and they have yet to do that. Hillary and Obama can't win the national election.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
No shit Bush isn't on the ballot, what does that have to do with anything?

Believe what you want, your alternate universe usually does entail ignoring such factors...

The tactics used by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-terms will not be effective in a Presidential election in 2008 when no one from the administration is running for the office of President.

Continuing to focus on Bush instead of the candidates or in fact who the Democrats are going to put up as their candidate is indeed a way to insure a Republican presidential victory in 08. It won't matter how bad people think Bush is in 08 if the Democrats cannot put up a candidate that can compete with John McCain. Hillary and Obama don't cut it in that playing field.
 
STING2 said:


Hillary and Obama can't win the national election.

Is that because one has a vagina and the other is one of them black people?

th_innocent.gif
 
I would think that McCain has a better chance against Hillary. She voted to authorize the war, as did he.

Obama had nothing to do with the vote. He can take a stance that contrasts McCain's more than enthusiastic support for the war, including STILL wanting more boots on the ground.

Obama, lacking experience, has the difficult task of facing a war hero, a "maverick", and a man who had the support of many Democrats in 2000.

I like the Obama McCain matchup best.
 
STING2 said:


The tactics used by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-terms will not be effective in a Presidential election in 2008 when no one from the administration is running for the office of President.

Continuing to focus on Bush instead of the candidates or in fact who the Democrats are going to put up as their candidate is indeed a way to insure a Republican presidential victory in 08. It won't matter how bad people think Bush is in 08 if the Democrats cannot put up a candidate that can compete with John McCain. Hillary and Obama don't cut it in that playing field.

You really have a knack for not reading people's post, it gets old.:|
 
Dreadsox said:
I would think that McCain has a better chance against Hillary. She voted to authorize the war, as did he.

Obama had nothing to do with the vote. He can take a stance that contrasts McCain's more than enthusiastic support for the war, including STILL wanting more boots on the ground.

Obama, lacking experience, has the difficult task of facing a war hero, a "maverick", and a man who had the support of many Democrats in 2000.

I like the Obama McCain matchup best.



wow. reasoned analysis instead of magical, wishful thinking.

:)

i generally agree, but i still point to the need to rally the fundamentalists -- Romney will do that better than McCain, unless McCain hits a gay guy in the head with a baseball bat on TV and shoots a pregnant woman walking into an abortion clinic.

which he might have to do.
 
Will someone PLEASE explain to me what made Giuliani so great on 9/11????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What did he do that was so spectacular - or should I just say this...what exactly did he do that any other nornal competant mayor wouldn't have done. I'm sick and tired of this Giuliani = Superman 9/11 thing. He just did his job for crying in the soup. Having said that, the guy doesn't stand a chance in 08 - he's just not that interesting.
 
Harry Vest said:
Will someone PLEASE explain to me what made Giuliani so great on 9/11????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What did he do that was so spectacular - or should I just say this...what exactly did he do that any other nornal competant mayor wouldn't have done. I'm sick and tired of this Giuliani = Superman 9/11 thing. He just did his job for crying in the soup. Having said that, the guy doesn't stand a chance in 08 - he's just not that interesting.

Rudy G pre-9/11 accomplishments
-Associate District Attorney under Reagan
-as NYC DA he was largely responsible for bringing down the major new york organized crime families, as well as fighting big business corruption on wall street.
-took over for david dinkins as new york mayor... during dinkins' regime the city was emersed in social unrest, mostly on racial terms... crown heights riots come to mind... the crime rate was at an all time high, businesses were moving out of the city as fast as they could. the city was in shambles, ripping it's self apart at the seems.

rudy came in and immediately attacked "petty crime" at first... panhandlers, the squeege guys, etc. etc. the measures were largely unpopular at first from what i remember, but this more focused and direct approach to crime, cleaning up the small things first ultimately worked... the crime rate in new york city plummeted under rudy (and continues to do so... NYC now has the lowest crime rate of any major city in america).

his redevelopment of the area in and around times square transformed midtown manhattan from an area filled with strip clubs and hookers to the "Disney-fied," clean, safe family friendly area it is today.

and you can't ignore his response to 9/11, when bush was hding in his airplane, rudy was on the frontlines, at the site of the towers as they fell. and for those who say his response to 9/11 was just rudy "doing his job," well take a look at how poorly ray nagin handled the katrina disaster, and the argument that rudy was "just doing his job" does not hold water.

all this aside, there are controveries that will clearly hurt him with the republican base... he's been married three times, he's pro-choice, supports civil-unions and is in favor of stem-cell research. i'm sure his unwavering support of the NYPD, even in times of controversy such as the Louima and Diallo cases. and i'm sure bernie kerik's recent troubles will be used against rudy, also.


to sum it up... the man took over a city that was split at the seems from a mayor who mis-managed crisis after crisis in the city. sound familiar?

that said, i can't see him gaining enough support from the republican base to gain election.

i'd vote for him in a heart beat... unless he was up against an independend mike bloomberg. then i'd have a really tough time deciding who i'd vote for.

when was the last time New York was dead smack in the middle of the presidential elections like it will be in 2008? from rudy to mike to hill hill to pataki. should be very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Headache in a Suitcase said:

i'd vote for him in a heart beat... unless he was up against an independend mike bloomberg. then i'd have a really tough time deciding who i'd vote for.



any truth to the rumors that Bloomberg is mulling over a completely self-financed run at the presidency?
 
Irvine511 said:




any truth to the rumors that Bloomberg is mulling over a completely self-financed run at the presidency?

he hints that he will why denying it at the same time. so who knows. it would be a dream come true... an independent candidate who can run a completely self-financed campaign with enough money to compete with anyone and no need to be influenced by special interest dollars :drool: here's hoping

there's an article in today's newsday about the 4 potential new york candidates...

Road to the White House starts in NY
New Yorkers at center of 2008 presidential buzz

By Emerson Clarridge, Craig Gordon, Glenn Thrush and Bryan Virasami
Newsday Staff Writers

To be sure, New Yorkers have launched bids for the presidency before.

New York City Mayor John Lindsay and Gov. Nelson Rockefeller unsuccessfully sought the nomination in the 1960s.

Several candidates who were born or were in politics in the Empire State did make it to the White House. They include Martin Van Buren, who took office in 1837; Millard Fillmore, who became president in 1850; Chester A. Arthur, who took office in 1881; Grover Cleveland, who was elected in 1884 and 1892; Teddy Roosevelt, who became president in 1901; and his fifth cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to four terms beginning in 1932.

As the 2008 presidential cycle gets under way, it is unusual, though, that the state has four prospective candidates. And it would be unprecedented if, in the end, all of them remain in the race until the nominating conventions. Many political observers think it's a long shot. -- Emerson Clarridge

Rudy Giuliani

Can a thrice-married New Yorker on the wrong side of his party on the Big Three -- gays, guns and God -- really get elected to the White House?

Rudolph Giuliani wants to find out.

By all accounts, "America's mayor" is looking at becoming America's president, and he's taking carefully calculated steps to set up a campaign.

Giuliani has been scooping up sorely needed national talent to bolster his City Hall brain-trust, including a Bush-Cheney campaign honcho.

He held one confab with Republican money-types and is planning another to crack open the checkbooks Dec. 19. And he visited a California think-tank for foreign-policy tutoring.

Even without lifting a finger this summer, Giuliani consistently polled even with or ahead of John McCain, the Arizona senator. But while Giuliani is just now moving to run, McCain has been working for months on a 50-state organization.

Giuliani also risks being outpaced by new conservative heartthrob Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts governor.

Giuliani is riding high on 9/11 name recognition, and some believe that alone can take him far into the race -- perhaps if only as McCain's running mate.

If Giuliani did get the GOP nod, it could set up a Rudy-vs.-Hillary matchup that would be like the Subway Series of presidential politics.

But count on Giuliani foes to point out other parts of his record that won't sit well with hard-right and evangelical Christian voters in places like South Carolina.

He will have to explain support for gay rights, abortion rights and gun control, as well as what some may see as a less-than-godly personal life, with a messy divorce marked by allegations of an extramarital affair. -- Craig Gordon

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

If she's not running, she's walking as fast as she can.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to engage in a slow rollout of her presidential campaign this month, but the New York Democrat seems to have speeded things up, possibly to deal with the looming threat posed by emerging star Barack Obama.

Technically, she's not committed to a run. But like her beloved Chicago Cubs in baseball's winter meetings, Clinton has gone on a hiring spree, tapping a national fundraising director, a sharp-elbowed spokesman to go with her coterie of other sharp-elbowed spokesmen, a national field director, and a campaign manager.

Clinton aides claim she hasn't been flustered by Obama's flirtation with a run, but some supporters have privately taken to slipping some salt into the sugar when it comes to the freshman Illinois senator.

"Do you know what his middle name is?" one booster asked recently. (Answer: "Hussein!")

A nationwide Fox poll shows Obama trailing Clinton 33 percent to 12 percent among registered Democrats. Al Gore and John Edwards poll 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

But those numbers are meaningless if Clinton can't win some early primaries. She began courting officials for 2008 about 10 days ago when she met with New York politicians. By the middle of last week, she'd gone national, letting slip that she was bringing to Washington key Democrats from New Hampshire and Iowa to discuss a possible bid.

The next step for Clinton would be to create a presidential exploratory committee. Curiously, the only organization Clinton has created recently is a Senate committee for 2012, according to federal filings. -- Glenn Thrush

Gov. George Pataki

That outgoing Gov. George Pataki is merely considering a presidential bid didn't stop him from making yet another trip last week to New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary.

Pataki is expected to make his decision in the next few weeks, spokeswoman Alicia Preston said Friday. "He's been spending time weighing the options with his family," she said.

Pataki hosted a lunch Wednesday for Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire on his 12th trip this year to that state.

Bad weather forced him to cancel a trip to Iowa, which he has visited nine times this year.

Although Pataki lost three key Republican advisers in Iowa last month, he opened a campaign office in a suburb of Des Moines and named a new leader for his political action committee, a former political director for Vice President Dick Cheney.

A moderate Republican who supports abortion rights and gay marriage, Pataki has been criticized by conservatives for state spending increases. But he has said his "vision and a proven record of leadership" could help him win.

According to a WNBC/Marist Poll last week, Pataki had 1 percent support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani led the poll with 24 percent, and Arizona Sen. John McCain was a close second with 23 percent.

Michael Dawidziak, a Bohemia political consultant who works mostly with Republicans, agreed Pataki would be a long shot. But he added, "He's run against the odds before. He was elected governor of a blue state that's got 2 million more Democrats than Republicans."

Some observers speculate that Pataki is keeping his name in circulation to be considered as a vice presidential running mate. -- Emi Endo

Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Mayor Michael Bloomberg insists he's not a candidate for the White House but is confident he would make a good president. He plans to focus on philantrophy after City Hall, he has said, and yet he has declined to rule out a run for president.

Often described as a firm and decisive executive, Bloomberg prefers to ride the wave of speculation about whether he will run.

While he has denied he would change his mind about running, Bloomberg's contradictory comments in a New York magazine cover story last week suggested his staff members aren't the only ones dreaming of Washington.

"The answer is yes," he said when asked if he would be a good president. He also criticized the partisan environment in Washington, suggesting that someone with middle-of-the-road views would be an asset.

Political observers say he could free up $500 million of his own funds to run as an independent.

"He's not running for president," spokesman Stu Loeser said Friday. But on Thursday night, at a staff party at Gracie Mansion, there was food, drink and presidential fantasy.

Dressed as Bruce Springsteen with a white T-shirt and blue jeans, Bloomberg reportedly was joined by costumed deputy mayors and aides singing a takeoff on "Born to Run."

"Baby we were born to run! We'll win, you'll see -- and beat the GOP and Democrats. Unite the country -- make more jobs. And banish all trans fat! Fix the schools -- make profits grow. Get the White House painted saffron by Christo."

Loeser said the song was "an inside joke intended only for the mayor's staff." -- Bryan Virasami
 
Back
Top Bottom