Posted on 05/02/2006 9:42:32 AM PDT by Crackingham
Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said on Monday that he was seriously exploring whether he has "a chance" of winning the presidency in 2008, as he visited politically important Iowa and huddled with state advisers, donors to President Bush and other prominent Republicans. While Mr. Giuliani was officially in Iowa to attend two Republican fund-raisers, his behavior and remarks came close to politicking for himself. He ruminated openly about running, disclosed he was not sure what he would do if his friend John McCain also ran, and argued that if Republicans are to be a majority party, they need to accept politicians like himself who support abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.
"I've got a lot of places to go and a lot of people to talk to and a long process of figuring out whether it makes sense to run for president in 2008," Mr. Giuliani said before speaking at a daytime fund-raiser in Des Moines for a Republican congressional candidate. "I don't know the answer to that yet."
He added: "My effort this year will be to help Republicans get elected, and then, quite honestly, as part of it, saying to myself, does it look like I have a chance in 2008? And make that decision after the 2006 election."
At a fund-raiser in Davenport on Monday night, Mr. Giuliani offered a stout defense of President Bush's leadership, arguing that the economy was growing and that Mr. Bush would go down in history as "a great president."
"I don't know what we're all so upset about," he said, referring to concerns about the economy and rising costs, such as gas prices.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They'll be an efficient police state, rather than an inefficient one.
Actually, yes I have.
Let's see . . . 1988, who were the frontrunners? George Bush, Bob Dole and Pat Robertson? Bush, the winner, was not the most conservative of that bunch.
Fast forward to 1996. Frontrunners? Bob Dole, Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, and Phil Gramm. Dole was clearly not the most conservative of that bunch either.
2000? Well, George W. Bush was essentially pre-selected. However, he still was not the most conservative in the race either.
Historically, strong conservatives don't fare well in Republican primaries. Ronald Reagan is one of the few exceptions.
Additionally, I am very involved with the Republican Party and speak with some of the key players in Kentucky's Republican Party on a frequent basis. There are many of them who were STRONG George W. Bush supporters in 2000 (and they still are as well) who are saying that they think John McCain is our best bet in '08. Personally, I disagree, but I am not discounting his ability to win the primary.
I will not vote for a democrat or a RINO. That leaves me a third party or staying home. I will stay home.
Since Bush engaged the terrorists on their side of the world, and we seem to have gotten two pretty good jurists on the SCOTUS, would you vote for someone like Rudy who is pro-choice (though I think he would appoint jurists and not legislators to the courts) if you knew he was going to finish the war and be a champion of National Security? My friends and I always come back to the fact that he was on the ground on 9/11 and lost a good amount of friends and colleagues and he knows more than anyone the importance of finishing/continuing this war until we win. Seems the primaries will come down to the social issues, like abortion, in which case Rudy would lose, but I would trust the guy on National Security. Thoughts please.
So you would rather have someone that you agree with on absolutely nothing than someone that you agree with say 50% of the time? Because, if you and other GWB voters stay home, you will essentially be electing Hillary, Kerry, or whomever their nominee is.
I'm all for philisophical debates in the primaries, but in the general we all need to stick together!
This is true. But Arlen Specter, Pete Wilson, etc. did not have the automatic security platform in a post 9-11 world. Rudy is a much stronger candidate than any of them were simply on that one issue.
Don't get me wrong. I don't plan on casting my primary vote for him. However, if he is the nominee, I would happily cast my vote for him in the general election if he is opposed by ANY of the Democrat contenders that get mentioned frequently.
I totally see your point, and I have considered my potential position a great deal. But here is the thing, I am tired of settling for less or voting against someone instead of for someone. It is the duty of the Republican party to stay true to it's principals, or alleged principals. Perhaps, just perhaps, there needs to be an understanding or readjustment from time to time. I just could not bring myself to vote for Rudy or McCain and I surely could not vote for any democrat after what they have become.
My thoughts exactly.
That sounds good. As I said in my original comment on this, he seems OK to me, but I just don't find anything exceptional about him.
Those are just strike one and strike two.
His marching in the "gay pride" parade was strike three.
If it comes down to Giuliani vs. McCain, I will crawl across broken glass to vote for Rudy.
I hope it won't and we'll have a pro-lifer to vote for, but if it does I will vote for almost any Republican over McCain. He is far more trouble than his pro-life record makes up for.
Not that I'm on the Allen bandwagon, but if you had posted that in late 2007 it would be quite valid, but right now it means nothing. We have no idea where Bush's approval rating will be in the last 12 months of his term, and acting as if the low approvals are permanent would be a bad, bad strategy.
National security doesn't mean a damn thing when the guy in charge wages war on his own people and creates a police state. There's no justification for abandoning Freedom in any war with the jihadists. The US doesn't need his authoritarian RINO ass to save us.
I'm not an Allen supporter at this point (I'm in wait and see mode) but I'd like to point out that many people could legitimately have asked the same question about Dubya in late 1999 when people were saying he'd be a good president and Texans were raving about him.
He better watch out and not get in the way of Congressman Steve King. That guy has it all on the money. Congressman King should be running for President.
Wonderful analysis. I agree, he would be the best VP (appeal-wise) that I can think of. As far as VP competence, he'd be as good as Cheney in his way. Some of his party activism has shown that he'll gladly take a back seat on ideology to help the team, which is a great quality in a VP and something I can't see McCain doing.
I'm pretty sure I'll need to see them all on the campaign trail before I make a decision, but I think Allen's viable.
If that number gets us President McCain or President Hillary, they will have screwed us all like nobody's business.
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.