Posted on 07/30/2005 5:55:36 AM PDT by Uncledave
roosevelt v. dewey in 1944 were both from New York
He was a good, maybe great, Mayor. He is not Presidential material.
Among many other things that irk the hell out of me. His using taxpayer money for security detail for his mistress while Mayor. No thanks.
"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they're intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we're talking about all dangerous weapons."
Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000 via On the Issues
Which Reagan would live to regret and later said was one of his biggest mistakes as governor of CA.
A**hole Thomas Roeser, can you hear me?
Rudy cannot use Gipper's game plan because he is NOT the gipper. Neither philosophically, morally, politically...or in any other way IMHO. Rudy is Rudy.
but it's fun to strategize.
"Does this statement by Giuliani on gun control fit the definition of "gun grabber?""
Yes. Gun grabbers lie about their end goals all the time. It's always just this one little measure that they think should be passed, and then we'll be safe- and then another, and another, and another.....
he wouldn't bring that agenda to the presidency, and in any case, he would be checked by congress in the blink of an eye.
Rudy is the only person with whom the american people have any connection with regarding 9-11, in the positive sense for leadership, etc.
I say he's the VP candidate - Allen/Rudy is looking good to me.
he is not for gay marriage, he is for civil unions.
"he wouldn't bring that agenda to the presidency, and in any case, he would be checked by congress in the blink of an eye."
You mean just like Bush was on the budget?
If Bush can get enough strong, conservative judges on the SCOTUS and lower courts, Rudy's abortion views won't matter because Roe would be overturned (or at the very least, severely restricted) and abortion would be an issue left to the states.
Unless the general population takes a major shift to the left (and with no liberal court to legislate from the bench?), gay marriage could be a nearly dead issue.
I like him. He's almost "untouchable" by the democrats due to his 9/11 performance and his past moderate views. Plus, all of his dirty laundry is already hanging out there, so no surprises...
I think he could win it all.
If Republicans play this right, we could actually claim to be on both sides of every issue. What would the democrats do then?? Attack us for our "big tent?" LOL
Rudy like all Northern Republicans have to be liberal on some social issues merely to survive politically in those states. It is very often the fact that once a politician leaves the home state for national politics their platforms change radically.
I believe a Guliani/Rice ticket would be unbeatable and would so hurt the demonrats that they may even cease to exist as a party. A Guliani/Rice ticket would give Republicans the Catholic vote, The New York vote, and the Black vote. It would be a landslide not seen since Reagan.
"If Republicans play this right, we could actually claim to be on both sides of every issue. What would the democrats do then??"
Attack us the same way we attacked John Kerry last election: as not being able to take a stand on the issues.
Also Rudi might be more attractive to social conservatives if the Supreme Court has already overturned Roe v. Wade prior to 2008 election. President, there would be little damage that Rudi could do, especially if the Republicans continue to have anywhere near half of the Senate.
two different issues. yes, republicans in congress have jumped on the pork bandwagon, but I see no evidence they would jump on an anti-2nd amendment wagon. hell, even the Dems are afraid to propose new restrictive gun laws.
Works for me. Rudy is a well suited
That really is the most important issue: just as many GOPers insist that dems should stand down and do whats best for national security, they should take their own advice and select a president well suited for the next phase on the war on terrorism, and realize that, for example, on the abortion issue, abortion isn't going away in our lifetimes (that battle was lost) and that Rudy needs to be on the right side of the 2008 abortion issues (parental notification/public funding/partial birth) and not on the right side of the 1973 abortion issue (should abortion be legal).
We lost the 1973 issue but should win the 2008 issues. Change in abortion policy nationally will only come when there is a generational shift in opinion - that's a long way away.
Further, as I have pointed out on FR in the past, those fixated on Roe and Casey decisions need to understand that should Roe/Casey get overturned, the decision to regulate it will be left up to the states. I don't see any states in the union where abortion would be enforced as outright illegal.
Any pro lifer who beleives that it would needs a reality check. Sad to say, a change in abortion policy will only come when more people change their minds about it. That's a long way off: passing a law won't do it.
Rudy is Not anything like Ronald Reagan and if the GOP thinks they can sell him as such...they need to THINK AGAIN!
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.