Rudy G., assuming he can ease fears of not trying to do the social stuff that he likes at the national level, will likely become the next President of the United States.

VP? Powell still looks good, but then again, so does J.C. Watts. If Tommy Franks would only make himself available, that would be another great option.

So, if McCain is the rep candidate for 08 and you refuse to vote for McCain, who do you vote for?

McCain will NOT be the Republican candidate. He would have better luck running for the Democratic nomination.

Chuck Norris can kill anything in under five seconds, including the English language.

JammieWearingFool on January 27, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Stop it, Jammie. Squirted half a beer out my nose over that one.

So, if McCain is the rep candidate for 08 and you refuse to vote for McCain, who do you vote for?

Hillary? Obama? Edwards?

This is the same stuff I heard in 92 when conservatives wanted to “teach Bush Sr a lesson” (for raising taxes) by voting for perot. We got Clinton for 8 years.

Bush Sr. raised taxes and pulled out of Iraq too soon. Except for the Bj’s, I don’t see how a second 4 years of him would have produced Nirvana. If you want to piss your vote away and vote for McCain, go right ahead. Except for being male, and having an R next to his name, I doubt Mr Amnesty, Mr Kyoto, Mr Terrorists must have their civil rights, is going to be much different than Hillary in how he wrecks this country. McCain-Feingold ring a bell? This guy doesn’t like free speech, especially if its critical of him, he says you’re a racist if you’re in favor of border control; WTF is the difference between him and Hillary? Nothing significant. I accept that our system is broken and we are stuck with feckless weasels on both sides. I accept that a majority of the American populace is willfully ignorant and unserious and that my vote is cancelled several hundred times over. Bearing that in mind, I accept that whoever we elect in 08 from the front runners is going to leave this country unrecognizable from when I was a child. I’m not going to vote for someone who is going to do that just because he has an R next to his name. In my mind, McCain is the greater evil, because he cloaks his true colors behind red meat rhetoric. But look at his actions and positions he supports; he is no better than Hillary. So, I’ll sit this one out, and we’ll get the government we deserve. No matter who wins.

Rudy is on the wrong side of the 2nd, 10th, and 14th amendments just for starters. He would amount to more of the same regarding illegal immigration, and he admits not being an economics type, so it would be determined by who he hires as advisers where that issue goes. Embryonic medical research, gun control, abortion, GLBT privileges…

Gingrich is clearly capable and respects the Constitution. But if he runs will we see the “Gingrich who stole Christmas” headlines again? He was the target of a thousand declarations of “mean-spirited” in 1994, and I don’t see the attacks lessening. I’d vote for him. I’d vote for anyone who places the rule of law above any other agenda, and who has a passion for the sovereignty of this nation. So far the only one who talks like that is Tancredo.

President:Rudy Giuliani
Speak of the House: Nancy Pelosi
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Peter Pace
Two SCOTUS Justices

I can go on… but my people are starting to make it Italian top heavy in DC.

Guiliani is a decent man and his decency is apparent. With undecided / independent / swing voters ( the names change with the times, but a large chunk of voters know little about issues and often don’t vote ), a decent and capable man, despite his flaws, is a very attractive thing to vote for. Politics is, in the end ( and yes, in politics the end does justify most of the means ) about winning elections SO THAT ONE CAN EXERCISE POWER. Rudy could win; Rudy ( I hope and beliebve ) would govern as at least as much of a conervative as Bush is / was; Rudy would make America better rather than worse

With him, at least I don’t have to support the rat snake…

“I have a daughter now,” Giuliani told TV’s Phil Donahue during his unsuccessful 1989 mayoral campaign. Giuliani continued: “I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views…I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman — my daughter or any other woman — would be that in this particular circumstance, to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it.”

But did Giuliani’s mayoral deeds match such words?

According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 — a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase compared to eight years before Giuliani, when 1985 witnessed 94,270 abortions.

What about Medicaid-financed abortions? Under Giuliani, such taxpayer-funded feticides dropped 22.85 percent, from 45,006 in 1993 to 34,722 in 2001.

The abortion ratio also slid from 890 terminations per 1,000 live births in 1993 to 767 in 2001, a 13.82 percent tail-off. This far outpaced the 2.84 percent reduction from 1985’s ratio of 916 to 1993’s 890. While abortions remained far more common in Gotham than across America (2001’s U.S. abortion ratio was 246), they diminished during Giuliani’s tenure, as they did nationally.

Giuliani essentially verbalized his pro-choice beliefs while avoiding policies that would have impeded abortion’s generally downward trajectory.

New York pro-lifers concede that Giuliani never attempted anything like what current Mayor Michael Bloomberg promulgated in July 2002. Eight city-run hospitals added abortion instruction to the training expected of their OB-GYN medical residents. Only those with moral objections may refuse this requirement.

Giuliani could have issued such rules, but never did.

Interestingly enough, after Giuliani left, Medicaid abortions under Bloomberg increased 5.19 percent from 34,722 in 2001 to 36,523 in 2003.

Asked if he could cite any Giuliani initiative that advanced abortion, New York State Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long told me, “I don’t remember, and I don’t think so.” He added: “I never remember seeing him promote the issue, to my knowledge.”

“I like him a lot — although he doesn’t share my particular point of view on social issues,” televangelist Pat Robertson said May 1, 2005 on ABC’s “This Week.” “He did a super job running the city of New York and I think he’d make a good president.”

If Giuliani can sway Pat Robertson, can he attract other pro-lifers? Short of dizzying himself and others with a 180-degree reversal from a pro-choice to a pro-life posture, Giuliani should embrace parental-notification rules, so minors who seek abortions need their folks’ permission, as they now do for ear piercing. He should oppose partial-birth abortion, which even Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and liberal stalwart Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont have voted to prohibit.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19019

Me myself, I would give anything ( okay, almost anything ) to see Newt sworn in as Prez. But the media combined with some of what Newt has done and said have made that impossible

Me myself, I think Jeb should run and could win, but won’t run….

Janos Hunyadi on January 28, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Of course. If it’s between Giuliani and Hillary there’s no doubt I go with Rudy. But I’m just not understanding why it would come to that. I’m lost on why conservatives so pissed off at the RINOs would be campaigning for a candidate who is even further left than those they’re already complaining about.

Why is there even a discussion? Why are we even considering it when we have several true conservatives available?

Come on people! Please!

Gregor on January 28, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Okay, Gregor, because you said “please”:

You don’t get to pick the Best Possible Candidate in politics; you pick someone who can win

If only Rudy can defeat Hillary–if The Choice for President is either Guiliani or Hillary–does Rudy seem better now?

If I had a choice between a yellow ‘rat’ snake and Hillary Clinton, then……………”Rat Snake in 08″ it is

When I look at the important issues and the next 4 to 8 years I’m looking at economics, security, and our Constitutional Rights(in no particular order).

Economics: There’s no greater topic impacting economics today than immigration. Illegal immigration is destroying us. Giuliani is for Bush’s comprehensive reform package which is AMNESTY.

Via Wikipedia:
Giuliani has been criticized for embracing illegal immigration. Giuliani continued a policy of preventing city employees from contacting INS about immigration violations. He ordered city attorneys to defend this policy in federal court.[11] Giuliani has also expressed doubt that the federal government can stop illegal immigration.[12] In April 2006, Giuliani went on the record as favoring the US Senate’s comprehensive immigration plan which includes a path to citizenship and a guest worker plan. He rejected the US House approach because he does not think House Resolution 4437 could be enforced.

Security: Again, border security and immigration issues. Overstayed visas, illegals, and no fence. Giuliani is on the wrong side of all three. I would challenge anyone to show me a single quote from Giuliani that indicates he’s going to enforce immigration laws. And I’m referring to the laws PRIOR to the amnesty going into effect.

While Giuliani perhaps agrees with pro-choice side, is that really going to be a pressing issue form the executive office in the next four years?

For Christian conservatives? Hell yes. Good luck winning without it. And by the way … Giuliani is not just pro-choice. He favors partial-birth abortions!

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.
Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999

Come on people! Please!

Just some thoughts, its getting late…

Vincenzo on January 27, 2007 at 11:43 PM

You made some good points, Vincenzo, and don’t let the Lack of Appreciation deter you. It’s up to Guiliani to “re-define” himself in a national context. The media loves re-definition, and for a while they will love Rudy enough to give him a platform. If he can make the case for himself as a ‘practical’ conservative and maybe wiggle to the right, he might convince enough people.

Or not

It’s going to be an interesting two years…

Just why is Hillary more conservative?

I would agree that he’s not as left as Hillary, but honestly I don’t think by much. I’ve already pointed out the reasons for that in previous posts above.

We are never going to get a 100% conservative candidate elected in a general election. Conservatives have to speak to the center on certain issues.

So how did Reagan win? How did Bush win by pretending to be 100% conservative? He certainly didn’t campaign toward the middle. I realize Bush is a RINO, but that’s not how he ran. He ran as a Reagan conservative and it wasn’t until after he won that he proceeded to unmask.

Immigration etc are those issues that if a hard conservative line is held, we might as well mail the election to the socialist democrats.

I totally disagree. How is that possibly true when 85% of the population wants secure borders and no amnesty?

I believe the challenge of our times is the war on extremists. Both Rudy and McCain are very conservative on that issue.

I think Giuliani talks a good game when it comes to the war, but how exactly do you list McCain as conservative on that issue? He’s blasted Bush consistently for the last four years on war issues. For God’s sake … he doesn’t think there’s ever a reason to torture the enemy! And we’re going to vote for this guy?

It’d be nice to have Newt, but in the absence of him, ANY conservative who will fight the war on terror is better than ANY liberal.

I agree with that one as long as they also stand on immigration enforcement. There are three solid candidates. Newt, Tancredo, and Steele. I prefer them in that order.

All are 100% conservative, so why even discuss the fakes?

Things I’d do more with if I had more time: …

While Giuliani perhaps agrees with pro-choice side, is that really going to be a pressing issue form the executive office in the next four years? Probably not. I would, however, need Mayor Giuliani to make a firmer stance on where he stands with stem cells.

He also needs to state his clear stance on immigration. Not a quote from his time as mayor, but his stance from a national standpoint. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Giuliani will look at it from a secuirty standpoint and say our borders need to be secured.

Another touchy topic is gun control, and once again I’ll be looking to the Mayor to state that while Mayor, it was his job to keep his streets safe, which he did, and did it incredibly well. He will state that from a Federal standpoint though, he honors the right to bear arms. He will say that mayors have the right to add more stringent controls in cities, due to population and crime.

Where I really expect Giuliani to shine though, with middle grounders AND conservatives, is affirmative action and welfare. As mayor of NYC, Giuliani got rid of SO MANY affirmative action laws that actually hindered minorities. He leveled the playing fields, and pushed for equal treatment of all citizens. Giuliani is not afraid to tackle these issues, and this is one of the most pressing social issues I think America faces outside of terrorism. We need a man who is not afraid to say that people don’t get special treatment becuase of the color of their skin or their sexual preference.

Just some thoughts, its getting late…

Gregor on January 27, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Just why is Hillary more conservative?

We are never going to get a 100% conservative candidate elected in a general election. Conservatives have to speak to the center on certain issues. Immigration etc are those issues that if a hard conservative line is held, we might as well mail the election to the socialist democrats. I believe the challenge of our times is the war on extremists. Both Rudy and McCain are very conservative on that issue. It’d be nice to have Newt, but in the absence of him, ANY conservative who will fight the war on terror is better than ANY liberal.

Newt to lead and Rudy to carry a few states like New York. (Though I would really rather see Steele in the Veep spot)

- The Cat

Newt/Steele that’s a ticket I’d like to see! I might like a Newt/Tancredo, or maybe a Romney (uncertain.)

Themes I want to hear: control our borders, or what is now an “outside” war will be “inside” eventually; pro-life is a basic; fight the war to win (GWOT including Iraq). There are other issues, but these are most pressing/basic.

BTW: MSM coverage on war protests in D.C. even now, but did not hear a word about pro-lifers on Monday.

No MSM bias, right. /sarc

You really can’t appreciate his conservativity(is that a word?) unless you see it applied.

Vincenzo on January 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM

To me, that sounds like political babble. The fact remains that he stands on the left of every major conservative issue and that is not a misconception. Saying you have to see his politics applied to appreciate it is pretty much the same as saying “trust me and ignore what you see.”

Ask any New Yorker on the street that lived through Giuliani’s reign in NYC, and wether they like him or not.

Vincenzo on January 27, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Yeah, that’s what scares me. Are you referring to the same city which elected Hillary to two consecutive terms? The same city which voted for John Kerry for President in 2004? Are you aware that Kerry won New York City by an overwhelming 73.82% to 22.76%? NYC WAS ground zero, right?

You’re asking us to base our opinion of Giuliani’s conservatism by asking NYC voters if they like him?

Maybe he should run for the Democratic nomination.

Forget what I said about Giuliani, it’s a Gingrich / Tancredo dream ticket for me.

The entire tone of the upcoming election needs changed from Iraq to illegal immigration and national security where well over 80% of all voters support drastic changes to our present stuck on stupid agenda (from both parties). The GOP needs to define itself once again as a conservative inclusive party and a Gingrich / Tancredo ticket would please me greatly, but politics being what they are if Rudy could swing NY votes a Gingrich / Giuliani ticket (in that order) wouldn’t upset me too much.