Posted on 12/16/2004 11:18:44 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON — The stink of Bernard Kerik's rotten bid to become homeland security czar hasn't stuck to his chief cheerleader, Rudy Giuliani, who is a top pick for the presidency among Republicans, a new poll shows.A whopping 68 percent of Republican voters want to see Giuliani run for the White House in 2008, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll — showing little fallout among the party base in the wake of Kerik's embarrassing exit.
[snip]
And it shows that if party faithful get their way, Giuliani would face off against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in an Empire State showdown — which Giuliani would win, 45 percent to 43 percent.
[snip]
Although she's a favorite among Dems, 50 percent of all voters don't want to see the former first lady run for the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Why am I not surprised.
How about JC Watts. He is a strong figure and a staunch conservative
He's a great man because he cleaned up a city that had no hope -- it was completely gone. Call it off.
IRL, I'm in a pretty corporate environment and he has two assets which make for a great CEO. He's a "turn around" guy and he's a "crisis management" guy. We've seen him in action twice and he's done great.
He might not have the chops to be president based on his views, although I say boo to those of you making comments about him cheating. GW and mispent youth anyone? And before Reagan entered politics (as SAG president) he didn't make that much of his life. We all have our faults, but character is how you act when the chips are down, and Rudy has out-performed twice. Once with NYC and once with 9/11.
Let me turn the question around... would anyone here vote against a SOMEONE/RUDY ticket (Rudy as vp?) Unlike dems I like to think we pride ourselves on being big tent as long as someone isn't threatening core values.
I have no problem with log cabin republicans or anti-gun republicans or pro-choice republicans as long as they realize that some of their views differ from the party platform which republicans sign on to. And I bet that most of you feel that way. Afterall, I don't see that many threads about Specter now that he towed the line...
Thank goodness for small favors .... :)
As for Giuliani, the more I cogitate on his pre-9/11 history, the more I think he is not viable as a presidential candidate. BUT, I think he would be a terrific vice presidential candidate, and here's why. Yes, he still has the divorce baggage, but that's not as important in a VP. His assets are his 9/11 cachet, his considerable charm (unlike Silky Pony, who just thought he was charming!), his obvious willingness to get out there and stump for the GOP, and, if God forbid something happened to the Prez, I think he has shown he is perfectly capable of stepping up to the plate in a crisis. (And that's important in a VP. That was one of Edwards' main failings, that he just seemed too callow to actually be President if it became necessary.) Giuliani should also pull a lot of voters from the middle, and maybe even some from the left. If we could harness him with someone who is conservative but not so conservative that he's scary, I think Giuliani would be awesome and an asset to the office.
Dunno about Jeb for '08. I like him but I have great doubts about that proposition. I think that would backfire amongst all but the very faithful -- it just smacks too much of "dynasty." Maybe in '16 (or '12, if necessary).
"He's an adulterous, pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment RINO. That doesn't make for a "great man" in my book."
I'll ignore "adulterous" -- he has faults, like plenty of leaders. You don't believe the NYT press has their long knives out for him on this? Should Jack Ryan have gotten killed this last political cycle as well?
You can not get elected in that part of the country without being pro-abortion to some degree. The debate on this is clearly shifting in the country but that doesn't determine a candidate for an executive office.
You do know Cheney has pretty much admitted to not supporting a gay marriage ammendment, right? But he's been clear in his support for the president.
I would expect that if Rudy would want to get ellected or fill a leadership role there would be certain expectations for him as well.
But views which are different from mine do not bar an individual from helping lead. If you had been in NYC at the time of 9/11 (I was, with family), you would have seen a great man who lead people well. Instead, many sit here reading this with a cynic's eye and applying a litmus test preemptively to quash an individual who has much potential to expand the influence of this party beyond 150k votes in Ohio.
Doesn't make selling out any more right. What's next? Selling out the Second Amendment as well?
Sorry...there are just some issues that are non-negotiable.
Rudy is my first choice.
No way.
I will not vote for Giuliani.
I'd hate to see what your second choice is then...
I dunno. We'll have to agree to disagree. But someone can have different views than me and that does not preclude them from leading me as long as they don't try and impose those views on me.
I feel disheartened when Rudy fails a FR litmus test without even considering his better qualities. I take it as a *given* that any politico running for national office on a republican platform has to support the party line on abortion or be put in a position (such as homeland security) where their views on the matter are marginlized.
It's a real shame that we are agreeing with the liberal media that Rudy isn't ready for prime time. They'd like to get him off our bench.
I like Santorum, but I'll bolt if Tancredo is on the ticket, and I speak for a lot more Republicans than you'll ever admit.
I can overlook some disagreements...but the issue of abortion, the Second Amendment, and the creeping gay agenda are not issues I can overlook in any way. Especially when the candidate in question is on the wrong side of all three (pro-gay, pro-abort, anti-gun).
Not Reagan. I served on three of Reagan's presidential campaigns and picked delegates to all three of his conventions.
Reagan let us down so many times, beginning with his pick of Bush Sr. for VP and Jim Baker (whom I served as a regional campaign coordinator in 78) as chief of staff and transition chair. Conservatives were massacred by Reagan. As much as I still love him, Reagan wasn't half the man that Bush is.
Bush admired Reagan more than his own father. The Bush Presidency isn't a continuation of his father's presidency, it's a continuation of the Reagan presidency.
Reagan was a great communicator. Bush has a great compassion for people, a strong religious foundation, a fundamental understanding of right and wrong, an ability to manage people and delegate responsibility, a natural political instinct honed by an incredible lifetime of political involvement, and the Harvard MBA training (turned around a baseball team) to head two flawless presidential campaign organizations and the Executive Branch.
We will probably never see as strong and capable President, much less as conservative one as George W. Bush.
But if making fun of him in order to make yourself look more conservative makes you feel better, go right ahead.
Okay, I'll bite. How can you like Santorum but dislike Tancredo?
If Tancredo is pro-Life, he rates far ahead of Giuliani in my book.
I'll say it. I doubt a black man could take the South no matter how conservative he is.
NYC is done for. Three years after 9/11, most NYC residents hate Bush and Republicans more than they do Bin Laden and Al-Queda.
How old is Bob Dole? Isn't he getting long in the tooth?
It's really a matter of priorities. Santorum is a well rounded conservative who I agree with most of the time, and disagree with some of the time. Tancredo is really a one note wonder. He may give the occassional non-immigration issue lip service, but in reality the man is consumed with the Mexican border and little else. He'd make a horrible president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.