3d5554a5304e90d5795a…

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy! Me? I prefer Newt, but I have reliably voted for a lot of losers before. Principles before popularity and all that. Meh, standards, they're overrated…….

This country desparately needs another Ronald Reagan, who was the best President of the 20th century. Or another true friend of the Constitution, like my favorite all-time U.S. President, James Madison.

KfB: Normally, I totally agree with you – but I just can’t allow the progressive agenda to take over all the social issues such as gay marriage, judges, abortion, etc. just to see some fiscal responsibility happen in Washington. I want it ALL, baby!!

pullingmyhairout on August 16, 2006 at 3:01 PM

I already addressed this, but I’ll recycle.

President Giuliani would quickly discover that Congress is not the New York City Council, so good luck with guns, abortion, judges, and gay marriage. Think about it.

Kid from Brooklyn on August 16, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Anybody But McCain.

Newt Gingrich would make a great President. He is well spoken, well educated, and he doesn’t run from the liberals at the drop of a pin. Liberals charged him with Three Hundred crimes, he went to court on several of those, and was found innocent on all counts. He thus has the right to deamonize democrats for abusing their power.

Newt will certainly be another candidate worth watching. I’d love to see him debate (read: clobber) John McVain one on one, since he’s about 8000 times smarter than Mr. Double Talk Express.

In general, Newt is an ideas guy and will raise the level of debate on the Republican side. But his personal life could be a big liability in his ability to win the primary.

Rudy’s a fiscal conservative, and if his approach on defense and foreign policy comes close to his approach on crime, then stand the hell by. Rudy’s social liberalism is what moderates him. Thus, his social policy is something I would hold my nose with.

KfB: Normally, I totally agree with you – but I just can’t allow the progressive agenda to take over all the social issues such as gay marriage, judges, abortion, etc. just to see some fiscal responsibility happen in Washington. I want it ALL, baby!!

Who do you suppose he’d pick as a running mate? I can’t see it happening, but is a Giulliani/McCain ticket possible?

I’d love to see John Bolton run but I doubt he could win.

Chelle

As much as I don’t want America nuked by alibabalu, the SPP highway to dismantle America means my country is already gone. I cant give away my country to save it. Literally. Inside of me is a rock and a certainty that I cannot give on this issue. Ask me to kill my brother. I can’t do that either. But, if I had to let him die to save our country for his kids, I would, and he would. This nation is the ground I am allowed to stand on. No deal.

I really like Rudy. He has a complete brain, both halves. He has courage. To accomodate the pro life crowd he would (as said above) have to be able change the focus to returning decisions to the state level to get past the reality of his own position. Same with gay marriage. Immigration too. It supercedes terrorism even today with people I meet.

Evangelicals won’t be scared into voting for Rudi, since he shares ungodly ideas with the DEMs.

He has trust. Maybe people will give up their values and go for safety. More likely Evangelicals will stay home.

we need a new hero.

The MsM isn’t going to want any part of that debate, not when the likely Dem nominee can be accused of tolerating adultery for the purpose of seeking higher office. Those whose champions turn their interns into humidors don’t get to frame character and marital fidelity debates.

Sure they will. See it’s much worse when the Republicans do it, because they like those family values so much. Or something like that.

Just like supporting Anita Hill without question and not believing a word any woman has ever said against Bill Clinton.

1) Conservative Catholics and Evangelicals will see the Republican nomination to a pro-abortion candidate as a dangerous precedent–rightfully so. You will have entire conservative Catholic dioceses campaigning against Giuliani. In the 2004 election, for example, in the conservative Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, where I live, most priests were actively campaigning for Bush in homilies (not mentioning the candidates by name but being clear who they were referring to), simply because of the pro-life and pro-family issues. You had many people voting for Bush, who would not normally vote Republican.

Imagine whole Catholic dioceses and Protestant Evangelical churches turning against Republicans and endorsing a 3rd party candidate. That would be a shoo-in for Hillary.

2) As soon as Giuliani runs against Hillary, there will be sob story after sob story about how he dumped his wife (plus the constant bad photos by AP, negative stories, and positive propaganda for the Democratic nomination). Soccer Moms will turn against Giuliani, and Democrats will play up Hillary’s “victim” status of being a cheated wife.

Giuliani will NOT win a general election.

So long as he continues to be Churchill On The Hudson, he will, and they will.

They won’t turn out to vote, and worse they will turn against the Republican party.

A much better choice would be Mitt Romney with George Allen as Vice-President.

Giuliani could change his pro-choice stance to pro-life– admitting like Romney did that he was really pro-life all along but knew he couldn’t get elected in a liberal state with that stance–but he would still have the marital infidelity baggage.

Pullingmyhairout has it right. The last thing republicans need is more moderates. If conservatives would run on conservative issues, and push correcting our border problems, they would win easily.

Rudy would make a great VP.

Condi is not the President. She serves as he directs, so place the blame where it belongs which is on The Moderate President.

That issue aside, I’m with others here who’ve already pointed out that the electorate in 2008 is going to want someone who showed strength and sound management/leadership ability under stress – and on 9/11, Rudy demonstrated those characteristics in spades. Contrast him with whoever the donks offer up, and it’s a pretty stark choice (and consequently an easy one to make).

I don’t know, KfB. I think i’m done with “moderate republicans.”

Rudy’s a fiscal conservative, and if his approach on defense and foreign policy comes close to his approach on crime, then stand the hell by. Rudy’s social liberalism is what moderates him. Thus, his social policy is something I would hold my nose with.

President Giuliani would quickly discover that Congress is not the New York City Council, so good luck with guns, abortion, judges, and gay marriage. Think about it.

If Rudy became the nominee, I would happily vote for him. I’m not a fan of some of his positions, but I think Rudy’s might have a more fight in him than Bush does. Rudy’s taken on the Mob and won big time, and he also cleaned up NYC – those are not small accomplishments. Rudy’s a fighter for sure.

One thing he does have to get it right on though – immigration. For someone that subscribes to the broken windows theory, he cannot allow the lawlessness to continue on our southern border.

Oh pleeze, this is the guy that goes to parties and puts a dress on. I can just see the campaign commercials.

He recently made a speech in honor of David Rockefellar supporting the One World Order plan,the SPP or North American Union. He supports open borders and Amnesty.

Tom Tancredo is the best choice to bring the RNC back to Conservatism.

Oh pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease.

I thought you was a Condi fan, baby.

Further, he’s left of center just enough to not be fairly painted as a GOP nut, but stands with the base on enough issues to qualify as a moderate-conservative.

Newsflash: George W. Bush was considered a ‘moderate’ governor from Texas. Look at what that got us – the largest U.S. budget ever, new entitlements (that prescription drug fiasco), soft on immigration, soft on terrorism, etc.

I don’t think that electing ANOTHER moderate is going to do us much good. just more appeasement to the looney left.

So long as he continues to be Churchill On The Hudson, he will, and they will. A conservative VP nominee will keep the whole thing glued together.

I don’t know, KfB. I think i’m done with “moderate republicans.” I don’t think a conservative VP is going to make much difference to those of us who want REAL conservatism back in the government. IMHO, we need a CONSERVATIVE presidential nominee and a moderate VP, not the other way around.