Some of us believe in Principles over Party...and believe that "wiiiining" should not mean selling out! Nor does having an (R) after their name exclude them from actually upholding the Constitution!
Posted on 12/14/2005 7:00:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the Empire State want a former New York City mayor to run for president in 2008, according to a poll by Strategic Vision. 62 per cent of respondents say they would like Rudy Giuliani to launch a White House bid.
Giuliani—a Republican—garnered national and international attention in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The former mayor currently heads Giuliani Partners, LLC—a consulting firm.
Last week, Newsday reproduced the comments of John Dennehy—a strategist during the 2000 presidential run by Republican Arizona senator John McCain—on Giuliani’s possible presidential bid. Dennehy declared, "In my humble opinion, Rudy wouldn’t get out of the gate."
Support is lower for New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at 33 per cent. Rodham Clinton—a Democrat and former first lady—was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, defeating Republican Rick Lazio by 12 per cent. She ruled out a presidential bid in 2004.
A prospective candidacy by current Republican governor George Pataki garners the backing of 31 per cent of respondents. In July, Pataki announced he would not seek a new term as governor. In August, an advertisement discussing his possible White House bid began airing in Iowa.
No Republican has carried New York in a U.S. presidential election since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Polling Data
Do you want former Rudy Giuliani to run for president in 2008?
|
|
|
|
Yes |
62% |
|
No |
18% |
|
Undecided |
20% |
Do you want George Pataki to run for president in 2008?
|
|
|
|
Yes |
33% |
|
No |
49% |
|
Undecided |
18% |
Do you want Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president in 2008?
|
|
|
|
Yes |
31% |
|
No |
57% |
|
Undecided |
12% |
Source: Strategic Vision
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,200 registered New York voters, conducted from Dec. 2 to Dec. 4, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Our side has been telling the libs to be more flexibile on their social issues and agenda in the time after 911, and making national security the priority.
Nice to see our side has no intention of following their own advice.
It sucks. It makes the rest of us look phony and shallow. And the sad thing is, it appears many of us are indeed phony and shallow.
Unbelievable. They are either not conservatives and are here to cause trouble or they are the kind of conservatives I don't want any part of.
how about resurrecting the post of war secretary and giving it to him?
I'll take him over Hillie.
I get the impresion that you must be one of those people who, living in their mother's darkened basement, hunched over your HAM radio equipment and surrounded by World War II memorabilia, has forgotten to take his anti-psychotic medication.
No one has disputed your right to own a gun. No one has overturned the Second Amendment. No one has showed up on your doorstep to disarm you, leaving you helpless in the the face of a dangerous world full of thugs and jack-booted gub'mint revenooers intent on confiscating your still. No one, especially on the Republican side of the isle, is advocating that.
Especially not Rudy Giuliani and certianly not us folks here in Sodom-on-the-Hudson. We have bigger fish to fry and expect our politicians to a) practice what they preach and b) to be effective. You'll probably counter that neither Hilary nor Chuckie Schumer falls into this category, but I do remind you that they certainly bring in more Fed'ral funds for their constituents than any two other Senators alive. I wouldn't vote for either of them (and have not), but it's not as if the GOP here in NY state is actually effective in finding qualified individuals for the Senate.
You have another problem. This problem is that you aparently don't read, or if you do, you don't comprehend. Maybe it's selective comprehension and you only remember and abosorb that which reinforces your own, limited and pitiful, worldview.
Rudy Giuliani, despite his "deficiencies" in some areas of policy or his personal life(according to you) is still more qualified (on the basis of accomplishments) for the Office of President of the United States than John McCain, Hilary Clinton, Even Bayh, Condoleeza Rice, John Kerry and about 99% of the rest of the American political illuminati. I daresay he's far more qualified than George W. Bush, and I voted for him --- twice. The point of many posts here has been to illustrate his effectiveness. You seem to keep missing these posts.
I've also taken issue with someone else out here who keeps running down New Yorkers. You have no idea who real New Yorkers are, and persist in believing this television and movie-generated vision of New York City as a liberal bastion akin to what you see on "Sex in the City" or somesuch. You forget that New York City consists of FIVE boroughs, full of working-class people (i.e. Regan Democrats who hold conservative values) who happen to be outnumbered by the useless mouths of society (i.e. welfare queens,the grivance mongers and the perpetually poor). You mistake the facts (four Republican mayoralties in a row, a republican governor for the last 12 years) for the myth. Somehow, even being outnumbered, we manage to vote for, and retain, republicans. Perhaps Giuliani, Bloomberg, Fossella, et. al. are not YOUR kind of republicans, but they ARE republicans.
This is a city, much like the rest of the country, that votes based on it's own self-interest. When it came to cleaning the city up, putting it back in the proper fiscal shape, to improving the quality of life, to thinning the public dole, to rooting out corruption and incompetence in the city government, the education establishment, the police department, etc., then the people of New York have decided (for the last 16 years) that it's a republican who can do these things.
Yes, there is still much that goes on here that would make a "true conservative" (i.e. ultra-religious-semi-jihadist- self-righteous-Bible-thumper-who-discovered-religion-and- morality-because-it-was-cheaper-than-your-typical-12-step-recovery-program) puke. But it works. It works well.
And before you get on MY Case, I was raised and educated in the Catholic Schools in Brooklyn (12 years of them!). I am married to a wonderful Southern-baptist lady who attended church regularly before it became fashionable. I am fourth-generation military (three generations of Marines before I joined the Navy) and the son of NYC police officer. I was born in Manhattan, raised in Brooklyn and after having left home for a few years to live in Utah, North Carolina and Florida, returned to New York in order to avoid people just like you.
Because people like you are narrow-minded, ignorant and just as big a threat to the rest of us as Usama bin Hidin'. At least Usama is forthright in his advocacy of an armed theocracy, you merely try to package it as the logical continuation and apex of a Constitutional form of Government.
It's people like you that continue to make voting democrat/communist/socialist an attractive option for those with weaker minds than your own.
Keep your guns. See if I care. You'll probably wind up using it to kill yourself when your pig-headedness (and the pig-headedness of your compatriots) potentially winds up delivering a third Clinton presidency, only this time in a crusty black pantsuit.
He might be great in a crisis in NY but his messy background and his liberal politics concerning gun control and life lose the south and thus give the presidency to the dems.
Besides NY behavior since 911 concerning the war leaves me not caring a hill of beans what NY wants.
Nothing you said here dispells the notion that you are a Republican and not a conservative. The conservative areas of this nation will not support or nomminate someone like Guiliani for President. Not going to happen. At least not in states with sensible, closed primaries.
You've been living in the darkness so long you think grey is white. But it isn't.
SD
You have legitimate gripes. But electing more RINOs is not the answer. If your ship is sinking you don't drill more holes in it.
SD
Having recently returned to New York after living in the South for a while, I have this to say to you:
You have been overrun by transplanted Yankees who would gladly vote for Rudy Giuliani. After all, it's been transplanted Yankees who have brought hockey, indoor plumbing, no smoking areas, technology jobs and mass transit, and gourmet pizza to the south, and who got John Edwards elected in North Carolina.
I feel for you because, like my native North-Carolinian wife, you continue to believe in a south that is increasingly fading away.
PS - I miss the REAL south too. Progress is a bitch, ain't it?
PPSS - just one thing that always got my goat; a Yankee is a denizen of New England (for whom the term was orginally coined by the Dutch of New York), not a NEW YORKER. Please learn to use the word properly? Drove me nuts to be called "damned Yankee" every fifteen minutes for two years just because I could eat with a fork and count beyond 20.
(Just kidding!).
I don't consider it "drilling holes" -- I consider it to be more along the lines of pointing out hypocrisy.
You either stand for what you believe in or you don't.
But remember, folks, New Yorkers aren't arrogant and rude.
No one has disputed your right to own a gun. No one has overturned the Second Amendment. No one has showed up on your doorstep to disarm you, leaving you helpless in the the face of a dangerous world full of thugs and jack-booted gub'mint revenooers intent on confiscating your still. No one, especially on the Republican side of the isle, is advocating that.
I thought you lived in New York? Never heard of the Sullivan laws? That ain't freedom, and it ain't Constitutional. Excuse the rest of us who aren't conditioned from birth to think this is normal.
The comments about stills and revenuers shows your bigotry again. Not that people from NY are arrogant or anything.
You have another problem. This problem is that you aparently don't read, or if you do, you don't comprehend. Maybe it's selective comprehension and you only remember and abosorb that which reinforces your own, limited and pitiful, worldview.
Again, New Yorkers are not rude or arrogant.
Rudy Giuliani, despite his "deficiencies" in some areas of policy or his personal life(according to you) is still more qualified (on the basis of accomplishments) for the Office of President of the United States than John McCain, Hilary Clinton, Even Bayh, Condoleeza Rice, John Kerry and about 99% of the rest of the American political illuminati. I daresay he's far more qualified than George W. Bush, and I voted for him --- twice. The point of many posts here has been to illustrate his effectiveness. You seem to keep missing these posts.
He is qualified to be mayor of a big city. Attorney General or Homeland Security czar. That's what his resume recommends him for. He is not representative of contemporary Republican thought.
I've also taken issue with someone else out here who keeps running down New Yorkers. You have no idea who real New Yorkers are, and persist in believing this television and movie-generated vision of New York City as a liberal bastion akin to what you see on "Sex in the City" or somesuch. You forget that New York City consists of FIVE boroughs, full of working-class people (i.e. Regan Democrats who hold conservative values) who happen to be outnumbered by the useless mouths of society (i.e. welfare queens,the grivance mongers and the perpetually poor). You mistake the facts (four Republican mayoralties in a row, a republican governor for the last 12 years) for the myth. Somehow, even being outnumbered, we manage to vote for, and retain, republicans. Perhaps Giuliani, Bloomberg, Fossella, et. al. are not YOUR kind of republicans, but they ARE republicans.
Blah blah blah. New Yorkers vote for liberals Democrats and liberal Republicans. This is not what this country needs in a President.
Yes, there is still much that goes on here that would make a "true conservative" (i.e. ultra-religious-semi-jihadist- self-righteous-Bible-thumper-who-discovered-religion-and- morality-because-it-was-cheaper-than-your-typical-12-step-recovery-program) puke. But it works. It works well.
Not that New Yorkers have a skewed view of the rest of the nation, mind you. Just that we're all inbred idiots and they know what's best for everyone.
It's people like you that continue to make voting democrat/communist/socialist an attractive option for those with weaker minds than your own.
We can see you have succumbed.
Keep your guns. See if I care. You'll probably wind up using it to kill yourself when your pig-headedness (and the pig-headedness of your compatriots) potentially winds up delivering a third Clinton presidency, only this time in a crusty black pantsuit.
Ah, yes. The traditional New York Christmas greeting.
SD
> Nothing you said here dispells the notion that you are a Republican and not a conservative.
Like everyone else to whom I directed my posts, you are hung up on labels. The only label I'm interested in is Results. If Giuliani can't win the nomination, then he can't. I accept that, though it seems some don't want me to because then it means they can't pigeonhole me to their own satisfaction.
It's more than two years before the first primary, and I'm not drafting anybody. That said, I see nobody more qualified.
And I'm not interested in "what NY wants." That's nothing but a red herring of a lightning rod to invite scorn on people who live here. You people who project that scorn should just think, just for one moment, about capitalism & what goes on here every business day & why it's so important. And why people get carried away with the idea of how important this place is to our country. I don't, because I don't see the point in losing the ability to keep things in perspective. But I don't heap scorn on other parts of the country that I might take issue with for this or that reason, and I can only let what some people hate about NYC bother me so much. I walk by the tomb of Alexander Hamilton on a near-daily basis & seeing his name there tells me what this city means to this country.
Sorry of some of you don't like that.
President Hillary Clinton. That's the reality if YOU aren't willing to take the step the liberals did here starting 10 years ago & consider the potential merits of a point of view other than yr own, and what results the policies that espouse those points of view may yield.
Wombat's post is outstanding. Kudos. Thks to A51 too. There are too many people on this site who just don't seem to be interested in anything but their own pet issues. That's not what I thought this board was about. I guess I was wrong.
What in the world are you talking about? We are to look at the liberals over the last ten years and copy their plan for success?
Would you like to rephrase that so it make an iota of sense?
Wombat's post is outstanding. Kudos. Thks to A51 too. There are too many people on this site who just don't seem to be interested in anything but their own pet issues. That's not what I thought this board was about. I guess I was wrong.
This board is about advancing the cause of conservatism, not about winning at any cost by abandoning your prinicples. Rudy would make a hell of a Senator from NY, being about as "conservative" as NY could tolerate at this time.
He would be a horrible selection for the GOP presidential nomination.
SD
I'd hardly consider it rude and arrogant to reply in kind to someone who keeps pigeonholing me with stereotypes.
I originally responded to him in reasonable and logical terms, he persists in not seeing the argument for what it is (i.e. an honest discussion of qualifications) and instead sees it as an ideological battle.
As for the Sullivan laws, they make sense in a city with a population of 9 million people. I managed to own three weapons despite the Sulliivan laws (two of them semi-automatic and now considered assault weapons), and although you must go through hoops to obtain (and retain) the proper permits in NYC, it's certainly better than letting people buy their guns at the local Wal-Mart. Once I realized that except for the occasional satisfaction of shooting paper mobsters at the gun club, having children in my house necessitated getting rid of the weapons. They certainly were not of much use sitting on closet shelves in locked boxes. Like I said, it was a personal choice.
As for all the RINO talk out here, I do remind you that it is the REPUBLICAN party and that CONSERVATIVES are merely a part of a larger entity. Neither stands on it's own, so we'd better find ways of compromising. Unfortunately, Conservatives control the money and the majority of the super delegates, which keeps candidates for higher office from running unless they are willing to kowtow to conservative positions (or have we forgotten that GHW Bush, for example, was pro-choice before Reagan wanted him on the ticket?), while excusing the actions of the "conservative faithful" who routinely forget them.
But, I note with interest that all you have done to counter any of my arguments is to simply argue that I'm rude and arrogant and not refute them with reasonable, logical discourse. Except for that "drilling holes" retort, which while pithy, was not exactly a major intellectual insight.
Sure. Tit for tat leaves everyone looking foolish.
I originally responded to him in reasonable and logical terms, he persists in not seeing the argument for what it is (i.e. an honest discussion of qualifications) and instead sees it as an ideological battle.
Sorry, but you can't divorce the "qualifications" for the Presidency from ideology. And it is true that New Yorkers have a different view than the mainstream of the country.
For example:
As for the Sullivan laws, they make sense in a city with a population of 9 million people. I managed to own three weapons despite the Sulliivan laws (two of them semi-automatic and now considered assault weapons), and although you must go through hoops to obtain (and retain) the proper permits in NYC, it's certainly better than letting people buy their guns at the local Wal-Mart. Once I realized that except for the occasional satisfaction of shooting paper mobsters at the gun club, having children in my house necessitated getting rid of the weapons. They certainly were not of much use sitting on closet shelves in locked boxes. Like I said, it was a personal choice.
This entire paragraph strikes me as a fundamentally non-conservtative utterance. You have a problem with gun rights and think jumping through expensive and burdensome gov't hoops is preferential to freedom. This is your perogative, but it is not in the mainstream of conservative thought.
Ditto for your equating of guns in the home with bad parenting. Some may feel this way, but the general conservative idea is that having a family means it is more important to have the means to protect them.
As for all the RINO talk out here, I do remind you that it is the REPUBLICAN party and that CONSERVATIVES are merely a part of a larger entity. Neither stands on it's own, so we'd better find ways of compromising.
This is true. However, compromise in this case is far to the right of a New York Republican. The GOP faithful around the land are not going to support Rudy, for many reasons given above. It is not just abortion, but that is the litmus that divides the parties today, because of the importance of the judiciary. If abortion questions were returned to the states, normal politics could resolve issues. As it is, we must hope for good justices and judges to resolve things. As such, abortion cleaves the parties. Democrats will not consider a pro-life candidate. There is no reason the GOP should abandon its stance now that it is on the verge of winning.
SD
>What in the world are you talking about? We are to look at the liberals over the last ten years and copy their plan for success?
Time out. You're going on about whether or not what you seem to consider a RINO is qualified for high office. My point is that he connected with & communicated to the people that those of us here seem to think are misguided. Or even seditious, or traitorous.
He changed a lot of minds about a lot of things. Doesn't seem to count for much here, which leads me to believe that the people here are more interested in snide insults that we've all heard a million times about this or that ridiculous liberal position or outrageous liberal comment or repulsive liberal personality. If yr idea of productive use of bandwidth is another sarcastic 'it's Bush's fault' post, that's yr affair. I disagree, but that's up to the site admin here.
I will say that I do tire of having the obvious trumpeted so often. We get it.
If you think that this site & the people who post here are more interested in getting across the positives of conservatism to non-conservatives, rather than simply insulting liberals...I used to think that existed here. I'm now starting to reconsider. I've laid out my priorities. They may be counter to the objectives of this site. I consider it a waste of time to ridicule people when some of them may be amenable to reason & therefore worthy of communication. Wherein you pose certain tenets of conservatism, and try to show why it makes more sense, why it works, what the strengths are versus liberal weaknesses.
If there's a better example to point to in the recent past than the mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani in that regard, please tell me what it is. I'm happy to share it with people I know who are liberal, but reasonable & willing to listen. Giuliani's accomplishments in office are not lost on them.
> Would you like to rephrase that so it make an iota of sense?
Sorry if that was unclear, though I fail to see how it could've been misconstrued in the first place. Is it clear now? I'm interested in presenting evidence that can change people's minds for the better. That's a process that today, in my view, starts best with the sort of economic & crime issues that Giuliani excelled at working on. Start with those, and then you'll get people to listen to reason on abortion instead of hiding behind 'pro-choice.' A lot of those people aren't really familiar with certain elements of that issue & like to go to rallies & feel like they're rooting for a football team instead of the issue of unborn humans.
When you can communicate with those people in a way where they may be willing to accept a reasoned look at conservative ideals, then you'll be more on yr way to results, in my estimation, than the approach taken by many on this site who think everyone who thinks differently than them should just change their minds overnight. It just doesn't work that way. Giuliani resonates with liberals because of his conservative accomplishments in what was an extremely liberal city. And he's the best guy that I can see to connect with & communicate towards those with whom we disagree, but may come to agree with us.
But Rudy's a gun grabber, and I'm a Republican, but not a Conservative.
Sorry.
> This board is about advancing the cause of conservatism
I see. Did you happen to notice the keywords at the top of this thread?
"BABYKILLER; FAGLOVER; GUNGRABBER; NOBODYELSEDOES; POLICESTATIST; WORTHLESSRINO"
So, it's about advancing the cause of conservatism to hurl these insults at a politician whose policies caused an unprecedented reduction in crime--heck, the murder rate went down 70%. If using these keywords is about advancing the cause of conservatism, then we define conservatism differently. As I said previously, to someone else, I think, Barry Goldwater would be proud.
You think?
Sorry if MY "ny" rudeness & arrogance bothers anyone. The intense dislike of Giuliani is absolutely irrational so far as I'm concerned, and may well lead towards something I don't think anyone on this site wants to see, and I don't need to repeat it again at this point.
In the meantime, there's a press conference going on that I need to take a look at. Regarding the impending transit strike, which looks like it will actually happen this time.
There are people who will likely die as a result.
The MTA seems to be run by a bunch of chuckleheads who should have to answer for a very few of the issues raised by the union, but overall the union's leadership is characteristically disgusting. A strike should be accompanied by a penalty of at least one year in prison per striker. The makeup of the financial services industry, not to mention the other industries based here (but I list that one only because it's the most important) is different than during the last strike 25 years ago, when an awful lot fewer Americans had money invested in the stock market. This is big trouble looming, and for the moment I'm going to have to devote more attention to the coverage of it than arguing with people (not you necessarily, whoever did this) who label Rudy Giuliani a 'baby-killer.'
Jeeze I was hoping at the last minute it won't. That just ruined my Christmas plans. I live in Queens and take the #7 which means if I need to get into Manhattan on Christmas I have to walk.
Some of us believe in Principles over Party...and believe that "wiiiining" should not mean selling out! Nor does having an (R) after their name exclude them from actually upholding the Constitution!
and you know what, at this time in 1991, I am sure Pat Buchanan was leading in some poll SOMEWHERE and we know how THAT worked out.
I hope he mops the floor with Hillery....
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.