• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rudolph Giulianai for President 2008.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I liked him more before he campaigned for Bush this past election and repeated the same lies that Rove's talking points are full of.

If 9/11 hadn't happened, he wouldn't even be a blip on the radar screen when discussing 2008 candidates. I agree with earlier posters who said they would like to see him in a FEAM/HLS role instead.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
It's possible that Giuliani will run in 2008 but I don't think it's likely he'd get the nomination. Much depends on how active Rove stays in the GOP after this miserable failure of a President leaves the Oval Office.

I do expect to see VA. Gov. Mark Warner in the thick of things for the Dems.

Much better choice than Hillary.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
It's possible that Giuliani will run in 2008 but I don't think it's likely he'd get the nomination. Much depends on how active Rove stays in the GOP after this miserable failure of a President leaves the Oval Office.

I do expect to see VA. Gov. Mark Warner in the thick of things for the Dems.

Aye, Warner is definitely a possibility...

Other names being kicked around (I'm sure you're aware)...

Bayh
Feingold
Clark (I think he's the most electable)
Biden (I'd rather rip out my eyeballs before I vote for him.)
Richardson

Clark has stepped up his chops in the last couple of years... doing the speaking circuit over the last few months has helped him define his platform much more effectively.
 
Clarke needs to do a helluva lot of fundraising. I know he's been on speaking tours and has done a great job but he's not politicking. I suppose it is still rather early.

I don't thnk Hillary will seek the nomination. She'd be better off staying as a Senator (same for the other Sens./Reps. in your list).
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke needs to do a helluva lot of fundraising. I know he's been on speaking tours and has done a great job but he's not politicking. I suppose it is still rather early.

I don't thnk Hillary will seek the nomination. She'd be better off staying as a Senator (same for the other Sens./Reps. in your list).

I agree they would be...

Clark is improving in his "politiking"... in 2003, he was umm... not good.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke needs to do a helluva lot of fundraising. I know he's been on speaking tours and has done a great job but he's not politicking. I suppose it is still rather early.

I don't thnk Hillary will seek the nomination. She'd be better off staying as a Senator (same for the other Sens./Reps. in your list).

First, I really can't see Giulini winning the nomination. Again, he is a pro-choice, pro-gay, NYC mayor who cheated on his wife. Regardless of what he did during 9-11, he won't really get the conservative base once Frist, Allen or some governor runs to the right of him and McCain claims the moderate Republicans. People in NYC hated this guy on 9-10-2001. He did a good job of calming the city down after 9-11 but really that's it. I don't see him doing well in the early primaries.

Clark may be the darkhorse if Iraq continues to be a mess and if he can continue to develop a coherent policy to resolve this issue. I think he has some good ideas from his recent WaPo editorial. Feingold will run as the anti-war/withdraw troops candidate though his two divorces may hurt him and the low name recognition. Bayh as I have mentioned previously can be a good moderate candidtate that can flip a deeply red state with 11EVs (Indiana) blue and have midewestern appeal. Warner can possibly compete in the South and win his state of Virginia (13EVs). A test of his popularity in Virginia will happen this Nov. to see if Warner can pull his guy to the finish line to replace him as governor. Richardson will maximize the hispanic voting block and be competitive in the Southwest.

Hillary will run. Many signs point to this not the least of which is Bill Clinton trying to rehab his image (hurricane and tsunami relief with daddy Bush) and playing nice with the Republicans. More telling is Hillary taking a more centrist position on abortion, Iraq and illegal immigration (she is actually is to the right of GWB on this issue). She will run, and steamroll over her primary opposition unless someone can become THE alternative.
 
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: SNiPeRX
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I don?t think democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

They will and she'll have my vote.

Vote for communist leader then.... not good.

LOL, where do you people come from? You have nothing to say, you just throw around words like communist which of course never fit in context. Please, when you get out of the 9th grade, do some research into communism. Then do some research on Hillary's record. Then crawl in a hole.


Yeah she was involved in that GTA thing not to long ago. Her stupidity ceases to amaze me.

The GTA thing was pointless political pandering. All politicians do it. Remember the "Gay Marriage Ammendment" ... I wonder whatever came of it. I haven't heard anything since the election.
 
Dean won't put up with a DLC-dandy being the party nominee (and I think Warner would fall under this, too). Dean needs to try and mold someone to get out there and stop trying to be GOP-lite. It's possible to be centrist but the whole pro-corporate, pro-free trade BS has to stop. Hillary would be a mistake for this nation.

Clark needs to work on expanding his platform to cover education, economy, deficit reduction, health care, etc.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: SNiPeRX
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I don?t think democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

They will and she'll have my vote.

Vote for communist leader then.... not good.

LOL, where do you people come from? You have nothing to say, you just throw around words like communist which of course never fit in context. Please, when you get out of the 9th grade, do some research into communism. Then do some research on Hillary's record. Then crawl in a hole.


Hillary had a game off the shelves because of an aftermarket mod that could be done to it. Hillary is everything I wouldn't want in a Pres or VP. I normally vote democrat, however I would NOT vote for any ticket that has Hillary on it. I'd rather see John McCain or Wes Clark running for their respective parties in '08 🙂 (Though Clark needs to campaign a bit harder, I did like how he was only online. Made him seem more tech savvy which is probably why he would've got my vote had he made it through the primaries)
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Dean won't put up with a DLC-dandy being the party nominee (and I think Warner would fall under this, too). Dean needs to try and mold someone to get out there and stop trying to be GOP-lite. It's possible to be centrist but the whole pro-corporate, pro-free trade BS has to stop. Hillary would be a mistake for this nation.

Clark needs to work on expanding his platform to cover education, economy, deficit reduction, health care, etc.

You have to appeal to moderates if you want to win.

How many times do the Democrats have to learn this lesson?

Being moderate on some issues does not mean GOP-lite. It is thinking like this that drove me to the Republican party.

Run someone like Clinton again (with the crazy wife and the scandals) and Democrats will win every single time and I would be first in line to vote for a Democrat.

Keep nominating Kerry, Dean, etc and you will continue to lose.

 
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: conjur
Dean won't put up with a DLC-dandy being the party nominee (and I think Warner would fall under this, too). Dean needs to try and mold someone to get out there and stop trying to be GOP-lite. It's possible to be centrist but the whole pro-corporate, pro-free trade BS has to stop. Hillary would be a mistake for this nation.

Clark needs to work on expanding his platform to cover education, economy, deficit reduction, health care, etc.

You have to appeal to moderates if you want to win.

How many times do the Democrats have to learn this lesson?

Being moderate on some issues does not mean GOP-lite. It is thinking like this that drove me to the Republican party.

Run someone like Clinton again (with the crazy wife and the scandals) and Democrats will win every single time and I would be first in line to vote for a Democrat.

Keep nominating Kerry, Dean, etc and you will continue to lose.

Exactly! I don't want to vote for someone just because they are the total opposite of the other party. A majority of the US is in the middle. We need a "middle" party and neither is stepping up to the plate. They're too busy enlarging the chasm between themselves and allowing the US to fall in.
 
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: conjur
Dean won't put up with a DLC-dandy being the party nominee (and I think Warner would fall under this, too). Dean needs to try and mold someone to get out there and stop trying to be GOP-lite. It's possible to be centrist but the whole pro-corporate, pro-free trade BS has to stop. Hillary would be a mistake for this nation.

Clark needs to work on expanding his platform to cover education, economy, deficit reduction, health care, etc.
You have to appeal to moderates if you want to win.

How many times do the Democrats have to learn this lesson?

Being moderate on some issues does not mean GOP-lite. It is thinking like this that drove me to the Republican party.

Run someone like Clinton again (with the crazy wife and the scandals) and Democrats will win every single time and I would be first in line to vote for a Democrat.

Keep nominating Kerry, Dean, etc and you will continue to lose.
Where did I say being moderate means GOP-lite? If you'll note, my post referred to the moderates (the DLC, typically) as being pro-corporate. The Clintons, Lieberman, Biden, etc. The DLC-dandies. It's possible to be moderate and also be someone that won't kiss-ass to the global conglomerates and their fat wallets boosting campaign coffers.
 
Didn't Giuliani enforce (or try to enforce) the RICOH (did I "spell" that right?) to seize cars that police officers claimed looked drunk? If I remember correctly Giuliani said that the cars would not be returned unless ordered by a court even if the "offender" were not found guilty.

Nope, with us not owning our own homes I certainly don't want someone who will abuse their authority. Such a person might send federal troops into a state without the Governors permission, and more specifically, at their request. I wouldn't want such a person in office.
 
Originally posted by: SNiPeRX
Vote for communist leader then.... not good.

Welcome comrade to the People's Nation of America. We will take your home for redistribution. You may be able to keep a spare bedroom. The party welcomes your cooperation in this effort.


Regardless, I agree with the others who say that the Republican ticket will never back the man. Its run by people like Rove who live and die by cutthroat politics, and Rudy is just too good of a guy for them to control.
 
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I don?t think democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

This is the same party that nominated Mondale... and Dukakis... and Kerry... and they put in Dean as their chairman. So long as Soros is writing the checks you can bet your house they will give Hill the nom.
 
I think Hillary is closer to being a socialist with her failed attempt at universal healthcare and her intentions/threats of the redistribution of wealth.
 
Originally posted by: slimrhcp
I think Hillary is closer to being a socialist with her failed attempt at universal healthcare and her intentions/threats of the redistribution of wealth.

Nothing wrong with a little socialism. We pay the most per capita for our for-profit, big business health insurance system and 40 million people aren't covered. Very inefficient and immoral.

And all government redistributes wealth. Its just that different people in power redistribute differently. The Bush regime has been quite effective in redistributing my hard earned money to Haliburton and various other military contractors.
 
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I don?t think democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.

america needs a woman in the WH, someone who can clean out all that made in china chit.
 
Originally posted by: rickn
america needs a woman in the WH, someone who can clean out all that made in china chit.

And Hillary (Mrs. Whitewater) is going to be the one to do that?

ROFLMAO.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: rickn
america needs a woman in the WH, someone who can clean out all that made in china chit.

And Hillary (Mrs. Whitewater) is going to be the one to do that?

ROFLMAO.

Exactamundo. Well put. Watch out for the flaming libs to nail you for that one though Pabster... But in the meantime enjoy a nice cold :beer:
 
Between January 1, 1994 and January 1, 2002, Giuliani famously supervised a 57-percent overall drop in crime and a 65-percent plunge in homicides.

Giuliani curbed or killed 23 taxes totaling $8 billion. He slashed Gotham's top income-tax rate 21 percent and local taxes' share of personal income 15.9 percent. Giuliani called hiking taxes after September 11 "a dumb, stupid, idiotic, and moronic thing to do."

Giuliani's spending increases averaged just 2.9 percent annually. His fiscal 1995 and 2002 budgets actually decreased total outlays.

While hiring 12 percent more cops and 12.8 percent more teachers, Giuliani sliced manpower 17.2 percent, from 117,494 workers to 97,338.

Rather than "perpetuate discrimination," Giuliani junked Gotham's 20 percent set-asides for female and minority contractors.

Two years before federal welfare reform, Giuliani began shrinking public-assistance rolls from 1,112,490 recipients in 1993 to 462,595 in 2001, a 58.4-percent decrease to 1966 levels. He also renamed welfare offices "Job Centers." According to Giuliani's book, Leadership, in fiscal 2001, City Hall placed 151,376 welfare beneficiaries, a 16-fold increase over 1993's 9,215 assignments under Democrat David Dinkins.

Foster-care residents dropped from 42,000 to 28,700 between 1996 and 2001, while adoptions zoomed 65 percent to 21,189.

Giuliani privatized 69.8 percent of city-owned apartments; sold WNYC-TV, WNYC-FM, WNYC-AM, and Gotham's share of the U.N. Plaza Hotel; and invited the private Central Park Conservancy to manage Manhattan's 843-acre rectangular garden.

Giuliani advocated school vouchers, launched a Charter School Fund, and scrapped tenure for principals.

While many libertarians frowned, Giuliani padlocked porn shops in Times Square, paving the way for smut-free cineplexes and Disney musicals.

Giuliani barnstorms for conservative candidates. Last fall, he addressed 38 post-convention Bush-Cheney rallies and stumped for Senator Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), Senator Mel Martinez (R., Fla.), gubernatorial hopeful Dino Rossi (R., Wash.), Rep. Pete Sessions (R., Tex.), and Senator John Thune (R., S. D.), the man who toppled Tom Daschle. "We also taped get-out-the-vote phone messages for 20 candidates," one Giuliani aide recalls. This February, Giuliani spoke at a fundraiser for Senator Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.).


Sounds pretty good to me! All of this and he is one of the few politicians that was able to show truly great leadership in the face of a national disaster.

The religious right hates this guy, even better!!
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: rickn
america needs a woman in the WH, someone who can clean out all that made in china chit.

And Hillary (Mrs. Whitewater) is going to be the one to do that?

ROFLMAO.

bush loves to outsource, and Laura loves to decorate with her 99 cent made in china vase. someone needs to clean that sh!t out
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Nothing wrong with a little socialism. We pay the most per capita for our for-profit, big business health insurance system and 40 million people aren't covered. Very inefficient and immoral.

And all government redistributes wealth. Its just that different people in power redistribute differently. The Bush regime has been quite effective in redistributing my hard earned money to Haliburton and various other military contractors.

Yeah nothing wrong with a little socialism. Ask any Russian immigrant how much they liked socialism. Yeah money is redistributed to big business and it makes sense. When was the last time you were hired by a poor person?
 
Back
Top