-
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.
Rudy Giuliani for president
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
kage69
Lifer
Hell no.
While I applauded his performance during the aftermath of 9/11, his live interview with Jon Stewart after the last round of presidential debates in 2004 made me lose any and all respect I had for the man. It was a lucid look into what a partisan tool he had become, quite McCain-esque.
No, the Republican party won't be getting any more votes from me until I'm convinced it's not being led by brainwashed ideologues.
While I applauded his performance during the aftermath of 9/11, his live interview with Jon Stewart after the last round of presidential debates in 2004 made me lose any and all respect I had for the man. It was a lucid look into what a partisan tool he had become, quite McCain-esque.
No, the Republican party won't be getting any more votes from me until I'm convinced it's not being led by brainwashed ideologues.
ProfJohn
Lifer
You must be on drugs if you believe that.
If Hillary wins it will NOT be because Republicans have abandoned their party to vote for her, or not vote at all.
If you want to watch Republican RUN to the polls in record numbers put Hillary on the Democratic ticket. She is the most hated Democrat in the country (from a Republican POV)
That is not to say that she couldn?t win, she could get enough middle of the road and females to vote for her, but it would be a tough battle.
Now about Rudy? I believe that Rudy has very low negative numbers. Not too many people dislike Rudy, right now. And as much as they will try to smear him with the three wives and the like all that goes out the window in the general election.
In a general election all of the negatives that Rudy has on his social ideas will be meaningless because ANY Democrat will sit the left of Rudy on ALL these issues.
Siddhartha
Lifer
I might vote for Mr Giuliani if the Democrats put up a neo-Nazi, KKK member, skin head, you get the idea.
But after 8 years cringing caused by GWB and the Republicans running the country it is time for a change and Mr Giuliani does not offer a big enough change for me.
Didn't he push to censor an art show when he was NYC's mayor? I would not vore for someone who does not support the First Amendment.
But after 8 years cringing caused by GWB and the Republicans running the country it is time for a change and Mr Giuliani does not offer a big enough change for me.
Didn't he push to censor an art show when he was NYC's mayor? I would not vore for someone who does not support the First Amendment.
There is only 1 thing that would be worse than Hillary Clinton winning the White House... and that would be John Edwards winning.
Love him or hate him, President Bush has gone nearly 2000 days without a terrorist attack on the United States, the economy is strong (some would disagree, but they are refuting the facts), and the gun laws have been repealed. Sure President Bush (and Congress) have screwed up Iraq, they didn't do anything illegal or morally wrong. They just got it wrong in terms of post-war occupation (and pre-war intelligence). A lot of people hate President Bush. They claim that Halliburton is rolling in the doe (they made less than 1.5% profit in Iraq), the market is in recession (its not), and government spendings are in a deficit (that happens in all wars). He has also maintained a strong character in the face of some real jerks. Sure he has pretty much ignored a lot of important issues like illegal immigration, trust me, I don't think he is the best President ever. However, I do respect him for his accomplishments. I don't think anyone sain would call him the greatest President, but you are also a little off the end (or a lot) if you claim he has committed war crimes and should be impeached.
I think our country needs someone who will be strong (like President Bush) on foreign threats and someone who will address the issues at home. For that, I really like Tom Tancredo (http://www.teamtancredo.com/letter.php). John McCain is also a better prospect than many on the left. Couple them with a moderate running mate like Joe Lieberman, Newt Gringridge (or even Rudolf Giuliani) and they would have it made. God I wish Collen Powell would run....
Love him or hate him, President Bush has gone nearly 2000 days without a terrorist attack on the United States, the economy is strong (some would disagree, but they are refuting the facts), and the gun laws have been repealed. Sure President Bush (and Congress) have screwed up Iraq, they didn't do anything illegal or morally wrong. They just got it wrong in terms of post-war occupation (and pre-war intelligence). A lot of people hate President Bush. They claim that Halliburton is rolling in the doe (they made less than 1.5% profit in Iraq), the market is in recession (its not), and government spendings are in a deficit (that happens in all wars). He has also maintained a strong character in the face of some real jerks. Sure he has pretty much ignored a lot of important issues like illegal immigration, trust me, I don't think he is the best President ever. However, I do respect him for his accomplishments. I don't think anyone sain would call him the greatest President, but you are also a little off the end (or a lot) if you claim he has committed war crimes and should be impeached.
I think our country needs someone who will be strong (like President Bush) on foreign threats and someone who will address the issues at home. For that, I really like Tom Tancredo (http://www.teamtancredo.com/letter.php). John McCain is also a better prospect than many on the left. Couple them with a moderate running mate like Joe Lieberman, Newt Gringridge (or even Rudolf Giuliani) and they would have it made. God I wish Collen Powell would run....
>>>>>>.<<<<<<
-The economy is entirely debt financed, passing the burden onto the next generation, which is already burdened with baby-boomer retirement. Additionally, while the numbers are excellent in many respects, we are also seeing a significantly depreciating dollar, middle class real wage drops, and the most ridiculous national debt in the history of the country.
-Didn't do anything illegal or morally wrong? Meh, I guess bypassing FISA courts, fudging intelligence reports on Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay are all Grade A, USDA approved moral acts.
-Oil company profits are at record highs. CEO pay is at record highs, etc., yet the Real Wage for the Middle Class is dropping and we've more Americans than in any time since the Depression qualifying for fitting into the poor definition.
-Strong character? The man flip-flops very frequently, possibly even more than John Kerry. In addition, it even leaks out he couldn't give a damn about a significant base of his supporters and that he makes fun of them behind closed doors.
Meh, who cares about the truth when there's Faux News and Darth Cheney there to tell you everything's just fine...
imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
it should scare Democrats even more, because she will virtually guarantee a Republican Congress in '10 and '12. Hell, it was more because of her than her husband that the Republicans got control in 94
Giuliani is the Schwarzenegger candidate for 2008: a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican. While he doesn't have the same star power, he does have an extreme level of public notoriety for a former mayor.
I also think he is the only Republican with a shot to win the election considering the current political climate toward conservatives. If anything, the guy is a moderate who probably still wants to see every asshole terrorist hunted down for what happened on 9/11.
Obama and Giuliani are the only two candidates I'm considering at this point.
I also think he is the only Republican with a shot to win the election considering the current political climate toward conservatives. If anything, the guy is a moderate who probably still wants to see every asshole terrorist hunted down for what happened on 9/11.
Obama and Giuliani are the only two candidates I'm considering at this point.
Last time I checked we lived in a capitalist economy. Are the oil companies committing a crime because they are making a lot of money? Should we cap CEO's salaries. Why don't we just elect Mao?
I hear all this bad stuff about the middle class and all. Yet I really don't experience it anywhere around me. why? My family is middle class and their wages are increasing. My friends are middle class, and their wages are rising. I guess we must live in a anomaly.
What has President Bush flip-flopped on?
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (they need to ban that phrase). That is pretty clear, they used them on there people. How many did they have? Well, I don't think we will ever know. They are probably all spread across the middle east now. Sure the intelligence estimates were wrong. However, I do not believe that they were intentionally screwed up by President Bush any high level official. I truly believe that President Bush believed those intelligence reports were accurate and that he was doing the best for his country. He was wrong, sure. But I don't believe he wasn't lying. I specify "believe" in my argument because there is no way to "know" the motives of the people in power.
Finally, what is with people and attacking Fox News? If they are such a horrible news source then you wouldn't bother mentioning them. But you do. And they have significantly higher viewers and rating than the other news shows. Why do you think that is? Why do you think news papers, and television networks that take left hand turns have declines in popularity? Maybe because people want to see a moderate and traditionalist view side to things? Note I did not say conservative.... While FOX may have a large number of conservative employees, there agenda is to appeal to the majority of Americans, who are traditionalist. Read some facts, Fox News does lean to the right, but their displacement is not more than CNN is to the left...
kage69
Lifer
As I recall, he shut it down due to some controversial depiction of Jesus.
Always nice to see a guy with a mistress getting his religious sensibilities incensed.
I'm sure he'd make a better president than Bush (which really isn't saying a lot) but I'd like to think the GOP can do better.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Your profile says central Florida, Bush Country and DisneyCountry.
Try moving to Michigan and say the same thing.
You and your friends live in a "fantasy" world, literally.
Take away Mickey and what do you have left?
ProfJohn
Lifer
Dave, the economy of Michigan has sucked for 20+ years. Remember "Roger and Me"? The piece that got Michael Moore all his fame? It came out in 1989.
There are a ton of factors that go into why Michigan sucks economically. They relied on high pay factory jobs that went away. They are also, or were, a high tax state. etc etc
All that was great when GM and Ford were the only players in town, but once Japan and Germany etc started selling cars in America the competition killed GM and Ford and they had to cut back. And hence Michigan went to hell.
And BTW central Florida is not immune from bad economic times. After 9-11 killed tourism the area went through some seriously tough times. People working 4 day work weeks etc.
ProfJohn
Lifer
I believe he shut it down because it was being held on a site paid for by the people of New York City. He felt it was not appropriate for the city to support that type of art work.
This was the whole Virgin Mary made with elephant dung thing.
Here is a description via PBS of some of the 'art' on display here, and this show actually went on.
BTW the show you claim he tried to 'censor' went on at another place free of public spending.
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
The fundies don't care what you actually do. If Giuliani's wife had had an abortion or they had a gay child whom they loved and supported anyway (witness the Cheney family), that would indeed fly right under the religious right's radar, alongside his failed marriages.
What kills Giuliani is his public rhetoric. Pro-gay rights, pro choice. Unless he does a complete about-face on his stances on those topics (which would, of course, totally alienate him from the moderates), he'll simply will be reviled by the Reps as a queer-loving baby-killer, no matter how many Muslims he says he wants to kill.
Heck, even if he does flip-flop on them, he'll still get crushed in the Republican primaries. Look what Bush and Rove did to McCain. After that display, you think the other contenders wouldn't hesitate to feed Giuliani to the wolves to remove him from the running?
Talking about Giuliani's chances always requires a clear distinction between his chances of winning the general and winning the primary.
Dobson et. al are very Machiavelian. They don't critisize Rush and Gingrich because they promote the cause. And I have no doubt that once past the primary, the leadership of the Christian base will be happy to annoint him St. Rudy, as Atrios likes to say and apply their double standard in judging character.
Never divorced Hillary or Obama will be judged to be poor Christians compared to philanderer Guiliani. It happens every election cycle.
But in the primary, I can't see them supporting him over other candidates with more favorable anti-abortion, anti-gay positions. Your basic premise seems to be that he can make up for that becase he's such a hardliner on Middle-east issues, but is that really unique in a the Republican field?
The Republican party absolutely depends on the Religious Right. Without it, they've got nothing. I don't think it's actually possible to overestimate the RR's power in the GOP. Nearly every issue is interpreted by prominent Republicans for its religious/spiritual implications first, real world consequences second.
Rudy's gonna get to the primaries, and they will start talking about his position on abortion. And I've seen that crowd at work. Anyone even suggesting that perhaps doing everything in their power to overturn Roe v Wade isn't the best way to spend their time literally gets booed off the stage. And no way can he avoid the issue; the other Republican candidates will use it against him.
The irony here is that Rudy could very well win the actual election. He's competent and progressive enough that a lot of independents could stomach voting for him rather than, say, Hillary. But there is no chance whatsoever that he will make it through the primaries with his hide intact.
The Republican party simply will not run a pro-choice, gay-rights candidate anymore than they would run one who said he'd increase taxes or "take away their guns"
What kills Giuliani is his public rhetoric. Pro-gay rights, pro choice. Unless he does a complete about-face on his stances on those topics (which would, of course, totally alienate him from the moderates), he'll simply will be reviled by the Reps as a queer-loving baby-killer, no matter how many Muslims he says he wants to kill.
Heck, even if he does flip-flop on them, he'll still get crushed in the Republican primaries. Look what Bush and Rove did to McCain. After that display, you think the other contenders wouldn't hesitate to feed Giuliani to the wolves to remove him from the running?
Talking about Giuliani's chances always requires a clear distinction between his chances of winning the general and winning the primary.
Dobson et. al are very Machiavelian. They don't critisize Rush and Gingrich because they promote the cause. And I have no doubt that once past the primary, the leadership of the Christian base will be happy to annoint him St. Rudy, as Atrios likes to say and apply their double standard in judging character.
Never divorced Hillary or Obama will be judged to be poor Christians compared to philanderer Guiliani. It happens every election cycle.
But in the primary, I can't see them supporting him over other candidates with more favorable anti-abortion, anti-gay positions. Your basic premise seems to be that he can make up for that becase he's such a hardliner on Middle-east issues, but is that really unique in a the Republican field?
The Republican party absolutely depends on the Religious Right. Without it, they've got nothing. I don't think it's actually possible to overestimate the RR's power in the GOP. Nearly every issue is interpreted by prominent Republicans for its religious/spiritual implications first, real world consequences second.
Rudy's gonna get to the primaries, and they will start talking about his position on abortion. And I've seen that crowd at work. Anyone even suggesting that perhaps doing everything in their power to overturn Roe v Wade isn't the best way to spend their time literally gets booed off the stage. And no way can he avoid the issue; the other Republican candidates will use it against him.
The irony here is that Rudy could very well win the actual election. He's competent and progressive enough that a lot of independents could stomach voting for him rather than, say, Hillary. But there is no chance whatsoever that he will make it through the primaries with his hide intact.
The Republican party simply will not run a pro-choice, gay-rights candidate anymore than they would run one who said he'd increase taxes or "take away their guns"
BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
Some more thoughts on this...
A huge factor in the GOP 2008 Presidential primary likely will be the losses sustained by Republicans in 2006. Twelve years can be an eternity in politics and that was how long conservatives were in power prior to the midterm elections. But two years out of power will seem far longer to these conservatives. Those who grow accustomed to control and have it taken from them, value it most highly.
Especially given that authoritarian streak that inhabits evangelical conservatives.
Here's what "could" happen:
Many evangelicals will support Presidential candidates whose views on social issues mirror their own. Especially in the South. However, if their "favorites" appear to lack competitiveness in the general election, then political expediency in pursuit of power "could" prevail.
Evangelical Conservative Republicans and Southerners will temper their choice with concerns of electability. This concern will be driven by fear of losing the Presidency after having lost Congress in 2006.
If Congress had remained in GOP hands, evangelicals would have rejected Guiliani and McCain in favor of more ideologically compatible candidates. But now the fear of completely losing all political control will push radicals to accept a more moderate candidate in pursuit of electability to regain power. Which will play into the hands of the Democrats, just as their electability concerns harmed their prospects in 2004.
The GOP base will just not be motivated to campaign for a moderate like they would for one of their own ideological firebrands. And a significant number will stay home on Election Day.
This could doom the moderate GOP candidate to defeat in November 2008. The GOP evangelicals would be better off sticking with their first choice and running toward their base.
I think in 2008, voters are going to be looking toward a break from the Bush era. And if faced with a choice between a real Democrat and a Republican Democrat, they will choose the real thing. Its likely Republicans will lose either way. If they chose Rudy or McCain as their candidate, and for evangelicals, they lose twice, once in the election and again by turning against their own moral convictions.
As for the Democrats, their "nightmare" GOP candidate is one who opposed the Iraq war, but otherwise was solidly socially conservative.
Such as Chuck Hagel....
But I believe the conservatives can't bring themselves to vote for an anti-war Republican. That's more an anathema to them than supporting a pro-choice candidate.
A huge factor in the GOP 2008 Presidential primary likely will be the losses sustained by Republicans in 2006. Twelve years can be an eternity in politics and that was how long conservatives were in power prior to the midterm elections. But two years out of power will seem far longer to these conservatives. Those who grow accustomed to control and have it taken from them, value it most highly.
Especially given that authoritarian streak that inhabits evangelical conservatives.
Here's what "could" happen:
Many evangelicals will support Presidential candidates whose views on social issues mirror their own. Especially in the South. However, if their "favorites" appear to lack competitiveness in the general election, then political expediency in pursuit of power "could" prevail.
Evangelical Conservative Republicans and Southerners will temper their choice with concerns of electability. This concern will be driven by fear of losing the Presidency after having lost Congress in 2006.
If Congress had remained in GOP hands, evangelicals would have rejected Guiliani and McCain in favor of more ideologically compatible candidates. But now the fear of completely losing all political control will push radicals to accept a more moderate candidate in pursuit of electability to regain power. Which will play into the hands of the Democrats, just as their electability concerns harmed their prospects in 2004.
The GOP base will just not be motivated to campaign for a moderate like they would for one of their own ideological firebrands. And a significant number will stay home on Election Day.
This could doom the moderate GOP candidate to defeat in November 2008. The GOP evangelicals would be better off sticking with their first choice and running toward their base.
I think in 2008, voters are going to be looking toward a break from the Bush era. And if faced with a choice between a real Democrat and a Republican Democrat, they will choose the real thing. Its likely Republicans will lose either way. If they chose Rudy or McCain as their candidate, and for evangelicals, they lose twice, once in the election and again by turning against their own moral convictions.
As for the Democrats, their "nightmare" GOP candidate is one who opposed the Iraq war, but otherwise was solidly socially conservative.
Such as Chuck Hagel....
But I believe the conservatives can't bring themselves to vote for an anti-war Republican. That's more an anathema to them than supporting a pro-choice candidate.
-When more people are fitting into the classification of working poor, the middle class real wage is dropping, and CEO/higher up pay is inflating at a significantly rapid pace, its the sign of a bad economy for most, not a Commie propaganda piece.
-You live in Florida, I live in the Midwest. Your middle classers are generally retired or service, ours our mostly manufacturing. Guess why our economy's in the crapper? OUTSOURCING. But ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG FREE TRADE CHEAP CHINESE GOODS ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG WALMART ZOMG ZOMG
-No benchmarks in Iraq. Osama being Target Numero Uno. Free Trade. Campaign Finance Reform. Social Security. North Korea. Nation building. Campaign finance. FISA courts.
-There's no dispute as to whether Iraq had WMD's. Whether they destroyed them our not is often is dispute, despite the conclusions of the Army, UN, etc. The point was that Bush has flopped around on what the reason for invading Iraq was for... WMD's, Helping Iraq, Fighting Fascism, Removing a Dictator, etc. New reason every week, once the old one is out of style.
The Faux News reference was the point that you're taking obviously slanted information as fact and considering it as the supreme reference.
kage69
Lifer
Oh sure, Giuliani himself specifically cites the display as "anti-Catholic" but accordingly to you he was really just acting out of a sense of fiscal responsibility. Which is why when the story broke all those years ago there was little to no mention of any of the other "art" displays, just the one involving the Virgin Mary. Riiight....
Giuliani used the location and nature of the show to aid him in trying to get rid of it, which he did successfully at first (a.k.a, censorship - remember, this all wasn't being rolled down in the middle of Time Square, it was an event behind closed doors that people had to choose to go see).
The show was indeed later moved to a different location; so? Hooray for Free Speech? Hooray for NYC saving money?
The eventual location isn't the point, the curious denouncement of something being "anti-Catholic," (thus inappropriate) coming from someone with divorces and a mistress under his belt is the point.
Bowfinger has (or had) a quote that fits rather well here I think...
I think this report sums it up, wha Rudy's problems might be :http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html
imported_Lothar
Diamond Member
Then why are most Republican "insiders" saying McCain will win?
There seems to be a disconnect...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
