Are you a moderate or a liberal?

[BaliBabyDoc]

AP via Yahoo

WASHINGTON - Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of ultraliberal New York City, supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, domestic partnership benefits for gay couples and gun-control measures ? and he's a Republican.

Strikingly, such moderate positions haven't thus far impeded his efforts to win the GOP nomination.

Most people support abortion rights, so I guess you can call that moderate. My guess is that domestic partnership benefits have less support . . . probably have to be firmly left-of-center. Gun-control is probably somewhere in between. In the abstract, it's probably a little sketchy to call that platform 'moderate.'

Giuliani then emphasizes his mayoral successes in reforming welfare, reducing spending, cutting taxes and curbing crime. He talks of challenges facing the United States ? fighting terrorism and improving education. And, he usually only mentions hot-button social issues directly when asked about them.

His strategy is to convince Republican primary voters that they agree on most other conservative principles and that his proven leadership ability supersedes his left-leaning views on abortion, gays and guns.

Other than 'cutting taxes' . . . what exactly about those issues appeal to most conservatives? IMO, every mayor of a major city in America is concerned and actively intervening with all of those issues. I would guess virtually all of them wouldn't stand a chance at getting the GOP nod.

_On abortion, Giuliani supports abortion rights. In 1989, he declared: "There must be public funding for abortion for poor women." Last month, he said: "I believe in a woman's right to choose."

Note, Giuliani says he would support judges such as Roberts and Alito . . . but didn't mention Thomas or Scalia. Regardless, I wonder if DHHS under Rudy will provide public funding for abstinence-only sex education and impose a gag rule (or blacklist) international family planning organizations that don't oppose abortion?

_On gay rights, Giuliani backs benefits for same-sex couples and says "gays should be protected." In 1997, he signed a bill creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City. "We should be tolerant, fair, open and we should understand the rights that all people have in our society," he said recently.

IMO, a lot of people support civil unions (for heteros and homos), but no major politician has been willing to step out on that limb to say many modern Americans aren't interested in marriage . . . but committed couples shouldn't be penalized for it. Maybe Rudy should be the one to make the case, since marriage isn't exactly second nature for the man . . .

_On gun control, Giuliani is perhaps best known for suing two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors in 2000. Three years earlier, Giuliani advocated for a federal law that bans all assault-style weapons and said: "If, in fact, you do need a handgun, you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions ? and really stronger ones ? that exist for driving an automobile."

"The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun," he said then.

Truth is that a lot of people probably support uniform licensing and comparable (if not greater) restrictions/qualifications to driver's license. The Constitutional question is different from a person's political leanings. Conservatives don't really believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution. They believe in strict adherence to THEIR interpretation of the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
My guess is there are FEW GOP pols that haven't endorsed laws that favor the establishment of Christianity or 'allegedly' Christian principles. Most of them argue their laws guarantee the free exercise of religion. But it just seems odd that compulsory prayer, federal funding for religious schools, deity endorsement in the Pledge and on money, and almost any religious (Christian) display by government . . . are supported despite a rather clear statement to the contrary in the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[ProfJohn]

Rudy is 'right' on the issues that really matter to the country right now.
Which are the war on terror, defense, spending etc.

Now if there was someone running who had all that, plus the social conservative part, and had a chance to win then maybe Rudy wouldn't be doing so well.

But remember, the Republicans have a history of picking the person they think will win, as opposed to the person who fits all their views.
Which is why we have semi-conservative Bush as President.
And a certainly liberal Kerry is still as a senator.

It is also explains why we have had 2 Democrat Presidents in the last 40 years. One of which won after Watergate (during which any Democrat would have won) and one that won during a bad economy. And if the Democrats win in 2008 it may not be because they picked a great candidate, but because of the backlash against the war.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

While it's true that there's only been 2 Dem Presidents in the past 40 years, there's only been 5 Republicans. Of which, one resigned (Nixon), one got the job b/c his boss was a crook (Ford), another got the job b/c his boss was popular (Bush41), and the last got his job despite more people voting for the other guy (Bush43). That's nothing to brag about.

Oh yeah, starting from the first true postwar President (JFK) that would be 4 Dems and 5 Republicans.

Rudy is 'right' on the issues that really matter to the country right now.
Which are the war on terror, defense, spending etc.

IIRC, after the first WTC attack, Giuliani was told to put the city's emergency command center somewhere else (underground probably the Bronx). He chose to leave it in 7 WTC. Now it's underground . . . in the Bronx.

Business Week . . . liberal hack rag

Giuliani publically pronounced Bernard Kerik the best man for the job as Homeland Security Chief. And the Bush White House accepted Giuliani's word.

My memory is failing . . . how did that work out?

Even before the Kerik incident, can anyone tell me how a liberal New York City Mayor who has championed gay rights and marched in gay rights parades, admitted to cheating on his wife with a staff member while he was a sitting Mayor and had young impressionable children residing in the Mayor's mansion is supposed to win the Republican nomination for President in today political climate?

But he has so many other virtues.:roll:

Even after the revelations of Kerik's sordid life, Giuliani has still said: "The irony is he is the best man for the job." That's a soundbite worth keeping for the 2008 primary. Morning radio jock Don Imus had the best line: "As Homeland Security chief, Kerik would have been responsible for keeping illegal aliens out of the country. He can't even keep them out of his own house!" That's a reference to Kerik copping to the misdemeanor of paying an illegal off the books as a nanny and not paying any Social Security taxes for her.

I guess we can expect that Giuliani would be strong on immigration, rule of law, and public corruption . . . just not the people he appoints.

fiscal restraint per the NYT

So the first Giuliani budget is, in part, an extension of the spending plans from the mayoralties of David N. Dinkins and even Edward I. Koch.

Are those guys running in the GOP primary?

"The first capital budget of the Giuliani administration is an activist budget that will give the people of the city many of the facilities that have so long been lacking," said William J. Diamond, commissioner of the General Services Department, which would develop many of these projects on behalf of other agencies.

Uh, I'm not sure I've seen that GOP platform perspective before. Help me out . . . where would I find it?

 

[jjzelinski]

Rudy's a trend and once he becomes overexposed (as he inevitably will) his lack of substance and personal issues will swamp him. That's not a prediction, I'm that asian guy from Heroes.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the Republicans want to win they'd better nominate Rudy with McCain as VP. Given the choice between Hillary and Rudy I think I would vote for Rudy as would most Moderates and having McCain as VP would satisfy the Conservatives. Now if it was Obama vs Rudy the choice would be more difficult for me even though Obama is Liberal. The reason I would consider Obama is that he's intelligent enough to do what's best for this country which would mean shelving some of his Liberal tendencies and be more Moderate like Bill Clinton did when he realized the Country didn't embrace his and Hillary's liberal policies.

Hell anyone would be better than the assholes we have in charge now, even Al Gore.

 

[nageov3t]

McCain won't be a VP. it's kind of a demotion to go from senator to VP especially since it's very unlikely he'd run for president in '12 or '16... if his age is a factor now, imagine how it'd be in 9 more years.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
McCain won't be a VP. it's kind of a demotion to go from senator to VP especially since it's very unlikely he'd run for president in '12 or '16... if his age is a factor now, imagine how it'd be in 9 more years.

I don't see it as a demotion. I see it as a nice way to end ones political career. He could do both Rudy and his party a lot of good as VP. Anyway you might be right for those reasons you stated, it's hard to give up power though the current VP has more power than any Senator (or VP before him). Of course Cheney is more or less a Proxy President and I doubt that any competent man we elect as President will need a VP like Cheney.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Republicans want to win they'd better nominate Rudy with McCain as VP. Given the choice between Hillary and Rudy I think I would vote for Rudy as would most Moderates and having McCain as VP would satisfy the Conservatives. Now if it was Obama vs Rudy the choice would be more difficult for me even though Obama is Liberal. The reason I would consider Obama is that he's intelligent enough to do what's best for this country which would mean shelving some of his Liberal tendencies and be more Moderate like Bill Clinton did when he realized the Country didn't embrace his and Hillary's liberal policies.

Hell anyone would be better than the assholes we have in charge now, even Al Gore.

I usually don't like being a naysayer . . . but admittedly I'm in the ABH camp as well. The problem is that we arguably NEED a Democrat to undo the disastrous Bush Era. Now if we were talking about Hagel or Powell . . . sign me up . . . twice. But Rudy is going to be even MORE beholden to the right-wing than Bush. Why? Because if the radical right votes for Rudy in the primary they are going to DEMAND payback in far more than just appointing judges like Roberts and Alito.

Problems:
1) Obama is green. Infinitely more competent than Bush from an intellectual and moral perspective but still inexperienced. The next President has to deal with all the problems Bush created, all the problems Bush did nothing about, and all the new problems sure to come.

2) Edwards . . . uh . . . yeah . . . right.

3) Rudy wants the job. But it really is a stretch to say his record in NYC (and his subsequent activities) present exemplary qualifications for the responsibility.

4) McCain 2000 . . . the right man at the right time. McCain 2008 . . . same face . . . but that's about it.

5) Hagel has the experience, common sense (enough intelligence to do the job but not so much he thinks he knows everything), humble, independent (without being an arsehole), and truly cares more about his country than anything else. But he's from Nebraska, has little money, even less name recognition, and the powers that be in the GOP don't want him.

 

[ElFenix]

part of it may be that republicans know they'll need someone with very strong appeal to the middle to have any chance of winning the presidency unless, suddenly, all the violence in iraq stops and osama is found. part of his popularity is infatuation, certainly. but part of it is probably a recognition that the old GOP line isn't going to work. whether that is enough for the truly conservative wing of the republican party, i don't know. (unlike the dems, the republicans' base doesn't have a history of coming out to support a candidate, who won't do anything for them, merely because he's a republican. the dems' voters are considered professional voters, almost).

it'd be nice to have a candidate pull out a strong win regardless of political party. nothing like a landslide to stop the red state/blue state divisiveness. how much better would this country be had the old money not stopped mccain before he got started in 2000?

Because if the radical right votes for Rudy in the primary

hopefully, it won't. hopefully, they'll vote for someone on the right, and rudy will take in moderate voters and win the nomination. i seriously doubt it is the hard right giving rudy these big early poll numbers.

as for issue that appeal to conservatives, cutting taxes, reducing spending, reforming welfare, and more cops on the street all appeal to conservatives. why? i dunno. the first three pretty much go hand in hand, and if you do enough of the middle two, you can do the last and do the first.



anyway, what is this thread about?

 

[Balt]

The Christian Right needs to come to terms with the fact that:

1) No Republican president will ever be able to ban abortion.
2) No Republican president will ever be able to bring prayer into public schools.
3) No Republican president will ever be able to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
4) A Republican president may be able to continue not federally funding embryonic stem cell research, but perhaps not.
5) No Republican president will ever be able to ban every violent/sexual TV show and/or video game.

They waste all their time trying to find the 'right' candidate who will make promises and perhaps even waste time trying to get the legislation passed, but actually knows that none of it will ever pass. It's a complete crock. If they ever realize this they might actually nominate a Republican who will have a responsible budget and run the "War on Terror" by actually targeting terrorist threats to our country.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If the Republicans want to win they'd better nominate Rudy with McCain as VP. Given the choice between Hillary and Rudy I think I would vote for Rudy as would most Moderates and having McCain as VP would satisfy the Conservatives. Now if it was Obama vs Rudy the choice would be more difficult for me even though Obama is Liberal. The reason I would consider Obama is that he's intelligent enough to do what's best for this country which would mean shelving some of his Liberal tendencies and be more Moderate like Bill Clinton did when he realized the Country didn't embrace his and Hillary's liberal policies.

Hell anyone would be better than the *assholes we have in charge now, even Al Gore.

No we wouldn't. He is not conservative. He's the joke at conservative fundraisers. Also VP he'd never go for that it's a sucky job.

And Osama Obama bin Laden (Love *Sen. Kennedy fellow asshole) is lucky to be in washington at all the stupid jokers in IL could not find a decent candidate to save their ass. If it wasn't for that Hot Star star Trek chic getting a divorce and ratting her sex club crazy hubby out Obama would still be flippin burgers in IL. He won by default and it is funny how everyone thinks his crap don't stink.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

hopefully, it won't. hopefully, they'll vote for someone on the right, and rudy will take in moderate voters and win the nomination. i seriously doubt it is the hard right giving rudy these big early poll numbers.

A poll of likely primary voters would not give Rudy much of a lead. The truth is the bread/butter social conservatives would far prefer Huckabee or even Brownback. It's the party chieftains that are more consumed with an unprincipled (but competitive) candidate that are leaning towards Rudy.

More cops on the street doesn't appeal to Republicans in Congress, they typically derided Clinton's attempts at it.

Reforming welfare has been done. Poorly executed but it's been done. Now if we could fix 'corporate' welfare (subsidies, tariffs) that would be an achievement but I don't see that as a conservative clarion call . . . particularly in the farm belt.

Reducing spending only works if you reduce spending on things conservatives dislike. Otherwise, they are just as far from fiscally prudent as the most liberal of Democrats.

Everybody likes the idea of cutting taxes. Again, not a left/right or liberal/conservative or Dem/Rep argument.

The broad point is that Giuliani has little that differentiates him from the top of the Dem ticket other than being a registered Republican and mayor of NYC during an unnatural disaster and managing not to look totally incompetent (say My Pet Goat). Make him mayor of New Orleans during Katrina and he would be . . . just the mayor of New Orleans planning to run for Congress.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: EXman
Osama Obama bin Laden (Love *Sen. Kennedy fellow asshole) is lucky to be in washington at all the stupid jokers in IL could not find a decent candidate to save their ass. If it wasn't for that Hot Star star Trek chic getting a divorce and ratting her sex club crazy hubby out Obama would still be flippin burgers in IL. He won by default and it is funny how everyone thinks his crap don't stink.

Well Boy, since you put it such a well thought out convincing manner I'll take your POV into consideration..NOT

 

[piasabird]

He can speak in complete sentences!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Balt
The Christian Right needs to come to terms with the fact that:

1) No Republican president will ever be able to ban abortion.
2) No Republican president will ever be able to bring prayer into public schools.
3) No Republican president will ever be able to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
4) A Republican president may be able to continue not federally funding embryonic stem cell research, but perhaps not.
5) No Republican president will ever be able to ban every violent/sexual TV show and/or video game.

They waste all their time trying to find the 'right' candidate who will make promises and perhaps even waste time trying to get the legislation passed, but actually knows that none of it will ever pass. It's a complete crock. If they ever realize this they might actually nominate a Republican who will have a responsible budget and run the "War on Terror" by actually targeting terrorist threats to our country.

that reminds me: the religious right is very concerned about being used by politicians. if they feel like they're being used (by coming to the realizations listed above) they'll go back to generally not participating in politics (see: anything prior to 1980). having the smart money behind rudy may be a hedge against that (of course, it might cause that).

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While it's true that there's only been 2 Dem Presidents in the past 40 years, there's only been 5 Republicans. Of which, one resigned (Nixon), one got the job b/c his boss was a crook (Ford), another got the job b/c his boss was popular (Bush41), and the last got his job despite more people voting for the other guy (Bush43). That's nothing to brag about.

Oh yeah, starting from the first true postwar President (JFK) that would be 4 Dems and 5 Republicans.

Actually Bush #1 won because
a. He was VP
b. the Democrats didn't put up a viable opponent.

Clinton may have only won because of Perot for the first term, by the second he had the power of being in office and having been relatively benign the first 4 years.

Bush #2 still got more votes than Clinton ever got, and he won the electorial process. He definitely did amazingly well versus Kerry. Still he only won both times because the Democrats put up weak opponents. Gore should have never gotten the nod, he was just to unremarkable to be President. Kerry was the second worst choice they could have made (Dean being the first).

The next President should be a Democrat unless the Democrat Congress just implodes, the war backlash could actually hurt them more than Republicans because it was one of the major reasons they got to be in power. I just wish they would actually do it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While it's true that there's only been 2 Dem Presidents in the past 40 years, there's only been 5 Republicans. Of which, one resigned (Nixon), one got the job b/c his boss was a crook (Ford), another got the job b/c his boss was popular (Bush41), and the last got his job despite more people voting for the other guy (Bush43). That's nothing to brag about.

Oh yeah, starting from the first true postwar President (JFK) that would be 4 Dems and 5 Republicans.

Actually Bush #1 won because
a. He was VP
b. the Democrats didn't put up a viable opponent.

Clinton may have only won because of Perot for the first term, by the second he had the power of being in office and having been relatively benign the first 4 years.

Bush #2 still got more votes than Clinton ever got, and he won the electorial process. He definitely did amazingly well versus Kerry. Still he only won both times because the Democrats put up weak opponents. Gore should have never gotten the nod, he was just to unremarkable to be President. Kerry was the second worst choice they could have made (Dean being the first).

The next President should be a Democrat unless the Democrat Congress just implodes, the war backlash could actually hurt them more than Republicans because it was one of the major reasons they got to be in power. I just wish they would actually do it.

If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

I'm curious as to why Gore wouldn't want a president with a 66% approval rating campaigning for him...

What an idiot.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

I'm curious as to why Gore wouldn't want a president with a 66% approval rating campaigning for him...

What an idiot.

Yep and he and America paid dearly for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to bring up old sore subjects... but Gore really DID win that election guys. Not only did he win the popular vote, but lets face it. It's very unlikely that all those Jews in Florida went out of the way to vote for Pat Buchannan the raging anti-semite.

I'm not trying to argue that he should be president... what's done is done, but nobody would be second guessing him or talking trash if he had won by 500 votes instead of lost. (can you believe how different the world would be today if 251 or so people had changed their mind?)

 

[Hacp]

He had an affair. Nough said.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Gore had allowed Clinton to campaign for him he would have been elected and America wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

I'm curious as to why Gore wouldn't want a president with a 66% approval rating campaigning for him...

What an idiot.

Because he was extremely concerned about being seeing as mini-Clinton, he wanted to "be his own man" (his words, I believe). Basically, he made the mistake of overestimating the importance of the hatred the far-right has of Bill Clinton. They hate him like they've never hated anyone before, to be sure, but I don't think they got the majority of the country on their side. And whatever you thought of Clinton personally, I don't think too many people could find a lot of fault with that period in our history. Running as "more of the same" to some degree might have actually been quite helpful.

Gore fell into the all too common Democratic trap. Bush was running as "I'm not Clinton", so Gore decided HE should run that way too. Out-Republicaning the Republicans never works very well...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Balt
The Christian Right needs to come to terms with the fact that:

1) No Republican president will ever be able to ban abortion.
2) No Republican president will ever be able to bring prayer into public schools.
3) No Republican president will ever be able to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
4) A Republican president may be able to continue not federally funding embryonic stem cell research, but perhaps not.
5) No Republican president will ever be able to ban every violent/sexual TV show and/or video game.

They waste all their time trying to find the 'right' candidate who will make promises and perhaps even waste time trying to get the legislation passed, but actually knows that none of it will ever pass. It's a complete crock. If they ever realize this they might actually nominate a Republican who will have a responsible budget and run the "War on Terror" by actually targeting terrorist threats to our country.

I think they're going to realize that sooner or later, because the Republicans know all that too. In fact, the Republicans don't WANT to actually do anything they promise in their campaigns...because however much it might please their base, it will infuriate the vast majority of the country. Running as anti-abortion is fine, as it's legal now so the pro-choice folks don't really care but it helps you among the pro-life crowd. If abortion is banner tomorrow, the Republicans won't gain any more votes from the pro-lifers, but abortion will move up the list of important issues to the pro-choicers, the majority in this country. Same goes for a lot of that other stuff, it's a much better campaign issue than a feather in the Republicans' collective cap.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
While it's true that there's only been 2 Dem Presidents in the past 40 years, there's only been 5 Republicans. Of which, one resigned (Nixon), one got the job b/c his boss was a crook (Ford), another got the job b/c his boss was popular (Bush41), and the last got his job despite more people voting for the other guy (Bush43). That's nothing to brag about.

Oh yeah, starting from the first true postwar President (JFK) that would be 4 Dems and 5 Republicans.

Ok... since Truman (war President) left office in 1952 there have been 14 elections.
Republicans have won 9 of them.
Democrats have won 5.
Meaning the Republicans have won nearly twice as many as the Democrats. On top of that, 2 of the Democrat victories came with less than 50% of the popular vote, while only 1 Republican victory came with less than 50% of the popular vote.

When Bush leaves office in 2009 we will have had 20 years of Republican rule verse only 8 years of Democratic rule since the post Wategate victory of Carter.
No mater how you look at it, Republicans have dominated the national elections for the past 50 or so years.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: EXman
Osama Obama bin Laden (Love *Sen. Kennedy fellow asshole) is lucky to be in washington at all the stupid jokers in IL could not find a decent candidate to save their ass. If it wasn't for that Hot Star star Trek chic getting a divorce and ratting her sex club crazy hubby out Obama would still be flippin burgers in IL. He won by default and it is funny how everyone thinks his crap don't stink.

Well Boy, since you put it such a well thought out convincing manner I'll take your POV into consideration..NOT

Well he does have A point. Obama went from beating Alan Keyes to Presidential front runner? huh? Even Dave could have beat Keyes...