Posted on 10/04/2007 1:21:58 PM PDT by sitetest
OMG (laughing so hard, can hardly type). The words "Giuliani raised" are a laugh riot.
I guess Giuliani's supporters in Kazakhstan (in the Ukraine) are REALLY EXCITED about Giuliani being their candidate. (/sarc) Or his supporters in South America? Or maybe his supporters in Asia are coughing up the money? (/sarc)
Good thing Giuliani's got global support----b/c Americans are holding their noses, waiting for him to leave the premises.
Giuliani is the high school nerd following the popular kids around hoping their popularity rubs off on him. You tell the idiot to "bug off" but the nerdy airhead keeps hanging around.
Kazakhstan is in the Strategic Energy Ellipse and is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization with China and Russia. A focal point of influence between the West and the East.....(can you say oil and gas pipelines?)
=====================================
Meet Global Rudy. Here's The Rudester's global connections (that we know of):
(1) Giuliani Capital Advisors, LLC (AKA Giuliani Partners LLC),
(2) Giuliani Group,
(3) Giuliani-Kerik (re-named Giuliani Security and Safety, after the departure of the tainted ex-Police Commissioner),
(4) Giuliani-Van Essen,
(5) Bracewell & Giuliani LLP law firm (based in Texas with global interests),
(6) Bracewell & Giuliani has two offices in Kazakhstan (in the Ukraine), and,
(7) Giuliani Security & Safety, Asia
Bracewell & Giuliani's Almaty, Kazakhstan (in the Ukraine) (January closings totalled $1.625 Billion---they have two offices there). NOTE WELL: ROOTY IS HOLDING A CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISER IN KAZAKHSTAN.
Bracewell & Giuliani's Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., a Spanish transportation company (lobbied for Privatization of Toll Road in Texas)
Bracewell & Giuliani's Banco Santander Central Hispano, S.A. (SAN.MC, STD.N) (a bank that traded with a blacklisted Iranian Bank)
Bracewell & Giuliani's company tied to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, who has called President Bush "the devil." Bracewell & Giuliani lobbies on behalf of Texas-based Citgo Petroleum, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company controlled by Chávez.
=====================================
Rooty's campaign is engaged in a VERY dirty game played by remorseless people: religious cleansing of the party.
The "Everything For Us Nothing For You" types are squatting in the Repub party, plotting to ditch social conservatives, and take over the party.
Oh, speaking of "takeovers"----let's not forget what happened to ex-RNC chair Kenny Mehlman. He's got a lotta time on his hands after being ushered out the door after the 2006 election debacle.
Sweet Jesus, Lord God Almighty. Thank God Kenny LOVES shopping for matching satin sheet sets at Bed, Bath and Beyond. ROTFLMSO.
So far, Bob’s right. You can’t point to one single poll where Fred wins ANY non-southern state. None. That’s a fact. The polls aren’t a lot better for Rudy, but we had one here in OH where he was slightly ahead of Hillary; and in WI he was tied. Fred trails in all of these. . . badly.
It remains to be seen whether Sen. Thompson can win the whole thing, that’s true.
However, Rasmussen’s poll reported today shows that it’s almost a certainty that Mr. Giuliani will lose, as 27% of Republicans indicate they’d vote third party before voting for the baby murdering liberal with an “R” plastered to his back.
sitetest
>>A person who believes in the principles of law and order, the free market and being strong on the war against Islamo-facisim would have to be an idiot to vote for a 3rd party candidate and not for Giuliani if, in fact, it’s him vs. Clinton.<<
My advice: save your breath. I’ve been arguing for months with the idiots on this board and its beyond frustrating. I’ve read more than one poster who has actually referred to RG as a “socialist” being (evidently) unaware that the free-market Cato Institute gave him very high marks as a tax and budget cutter.
If you try to argue that half a loaf is better than none — a concession one often has to make in a two-party system — then you will be met with the one-issuer voter (typically abortion) who just repeats the same thing over and over, impervious to any argument. If you try to argue that even on abortion he would be preferable given his announced intention to appoint strict constructionist judges, you will be laughed at. Yet his two top legal advisors are Ted Olsen and Steve Calabresi — isn’t it at least possible that one or both could be appointed to SCOTUS? And isn’t it totally impossible for anyone even remotely that good to be appointed by Hillary?
And if you cite his electability — he is running ahead of every Republican against Hillary — the response is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the social conservatives won’t back him. Well, convince them and maybe they will!
I don’t know what world a lot of the people on this board live in. They talk to their like-minded friends and think that the country is ready to elect some 100% purist conservative — and, as you’ve no doubt noticed, even Newt Gingrich is regarded as suspect in these circles.
The reality is: in 2000, the leftists Gore and Nader pulled an absolute majority of the vote. In 2004, the incumbent Republican barely won re-election. In 2006, the Democrats swept both houses. And in 2008, the generic Democrat is winning by a landslide. Under these circumstances, only a Republican candidate than can add substantial numbers of moderate voters has a prayer. We are so very fortunate that the Democrats are going to nominate Hillary, who has a lot of negatives. If we pull together and are willing to overlook imperfection, I think she can be defeated.
For many of the true-believers (and they freely admit this), they’d rather see her win than vote for a moderate Republican. Maybe, as the election nears, and they contemplate the thought of waking up day after day to a future where THAT is the leader of the free world and commander in chief of our men in uniform, they will relent. But I’ve concluded its a decision they will have to make, you or I will never change their mind.
OK, no masks on here: My candidate of choice is Hunter. Guess what—if Hillary and Brownback were the two partys’ nominees and if I were to write in “HUNTER!!!”, I would, in effect, cast my ballot for Hillary, and another Clinton gets elected with a significant minority of the vote.
I voted Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush. You can’t tell me the last three of those were “rock-ribbed” republicans.
I’ll give in to you a little here and retract (just a little) my little lecture on Reagan’s ideal of not talking bad about other republicans. The heat on candidates pushes them to move away from the heat, and that can be good if it’s followed by action and not just words.
But this talk of “I’ll NEVER vote for so-and-so” shows a lack of serious consideration of the effects of that. Now encourage your candidate to kick some liberal butt—I want to see these guys LEAD. I WANT a serious conservative to win. But given the choice of going to hell at 30mph with a RINO that will lead us to victory in this war and not appoint Ginsburgs to the court, or to go to hell with Hillary in zone 5 afterburner and covered with Crisco...I’ll take the RINO. I’ll vote for ANY of the current slate of guys that could be the nominee. ANY OF THEM.
And why bring JimRob into the discussion like calling your big brother? If I see a post of his I disagree with and feel compelled to address, I will. I don’t argue people, I argue ideas.
“I voted Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush.”
Me, too!
“You can’t tell me the last three of those were ‘rock-ribbed’ republicans.”
I’d say that the first Mr. Bush was center-right, Mr. Dole in many ways was a moderate Republican (although more of a part of the previous generation’s “green-eye shade” crowd than the Reagan Revolution’s supply-side crowd), and the second Mr. Bush is a center-right to moderate-conservative with a bad penchant for trying to co-opt his adversaries by basically adopting large chunks of their agendae.
But none of these folks was an outright liberal.
Mr. Giuliani is a liberal. I don’t view him as quite a socialist, or an extreme liberal, but he’d be right at home in the mainstream of the Democrat party, except on the issue of the war. Frankly, it’s hard for me to distinguish between his political record and that of Sen. Lieberman.
I wouldn’t vote for Mr. Lieberman for president under any circumstances, either. Does that bother you?
I’m a pretty tolerant guy in terms of the conservatism of my candidates. In fact, many of the Hunter folks (and the two or three Tancredo, Paul, and other backers of nearly-dead candidacies) have taken me to task over my support of Mr. Thompson, because he just isn’t conservative enough.
Well, they have something of a point. Sen. Thompson probably isn’t as conservative as I am. I’m not entirely enamored of all his positions, or all his possible solutions to things. I like to think I’m a federalist, but Sen. Thompson takes it considerably farther than I would.
That being said, he’s more conservative than Mr. Bush II, or Mr. Dole, or Mr. Bush I, and in some ways, is as conservative, or perhaps even more so than Mr. Reagan (who proposed and signed into law the original illegal immigrant amnesty).
I can vote for a conservative, even a moderate one. Heck, I can even vote for someone who is moderately right of center.
But I’m not going to vote for a liberal for president, even if he’s got an “R” on this back.
Mr. Giuliani is a liberal.
He used to be a pretty honest liberal. He was honest about the fact that he was an extremist on abortion, close to an extremist on gun control, that he was against tax cuts, that he was for giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants, that he was a statist on issues of personal liberties (Did you know that he pressed to confiscate the cars of folks ACQUITTED of drunk driving while he was mayor?).
And I kinda liked him, even though I wasn’t going to vote for him just because he was an honest liberal.
But now, he’s a liberal trying to hide his liberal leanings, and now, he’s not even so likable.
A Giuliani presidency would do greater harm to the United States than even a Clinton presidency. Not because he’s more liberal, he’s not. But because it would destroy the Republican Party as a home for conservative principles.
Look what’s happened in the last eight years. After the 1994 election, what would you have told me if I told you that a Republican-majority Congress would acquiesce to a president’s program including No Child Left Behind, or Medicare Part D?
Certainly, if a President Gore had proposed these asininities, the Republican Congress would have told him to get bent. But it’s tough for a Republican Congress to refuse a Republican president.
And a “Republican” President Giuliani would gain the acquiescence of Republicans in Congress to all his liberal policies as he reverted to true form.
And the Republican Party as the party of human rights, of right to life, of limited government, of individual liberties, would be eviscerated for a generation or two.
Sorry, the Republican Party survived eight years of Bill Clinton, and managed during and afterwards to do some good things. The Republican Party would be destroyed by President Giuliani, and leave us without any vehicle to promote conservative principles for a long time to come.
“And why bring JimRob into the discussion...”
Because your name-calling applied equally to him.
sitetest
One thing is certain: either guy is going to lose some of the GOP base that elected Bush twice. The only question is whether Rudy draws more from “blue states” and slips out some EVs there to offset his (heavier) defections in the Red States. For example, here in OH, Rudy would have a much, much greater chance of carrying the state than any other Republican as of right now.
“One thing is certain: either guy is going to lose some of the GOP base that elected Bush twice.”
I don’t think that Mr. Thompson will lose much at all of Mr. Bush’s base (at least the ones who would still vote for Mr. Bush). I also think that Mr. Thompson comes across as enough of a moderate to get some folks who otherwise might not vote for a Republican.
Nonetheless, what you’re saying is that it’s a bit of a gamble with either man as the Republican candidate.
That’s certainly true.
I have a firm belief that anyone who receives the nomination to the presidency from either major party has a real chance to be elected president. Thus, either Mr. Thompson or Mr. Giuliani could certainly lose the election to the Democrat nominee, even Mrs. Clinton (whom I believe is actually not a particularly strong candidate for the Dems in the general election).
That being said, I’d much rather gamble on an actual conservative, imperfect though he may be, than on an outright liberal.
In fact, nominating a liberal for the Republican nomination seems to me to be utterly self-defeating.
If it’s Rudy vs. Hillary, conservatives - or at least we social conservatives - will have already lost. No matter who won, a liberal would become president. For us, it will be about how to rebuild for the future.
And having Mr. Giuliani at the head of the party as president isn’t the way to do that.
sitetest
Sorry, I was out!
Ping list is on my info page, FYI!!!
rats! I thought I posted my response.
Anyway, I appreciated your well-reasoned response, and that hollering “buncha babies” simply feels good, like yelling “I’LL NEVER VOTE FOR ROOTY!!!”.
The main point I hope people will consider is that yes, we survived Clinton1 and We can survive Clinton 2. But what would cause a century of harm is Ginsburg2 and Ginsburg3. That’s where we lose our guns, the babies, and our freedom.
I really want Thompson to ignite and inspire us all. I’m just preparing for what I see as an uncomfortable, but important situation that we’ll have to face. And do what’s best.
Regards,
Redquill
APPLAUSE!!!!
“Anyway, I appreciated your well-reasoned response,...”
Thanks.
“...and that hollering ‘buncha babies’ simply feels good, like yelling 'I’LL NEVER VOTE FOR ROOTY!!!.”
But I’m not yelling. I’m stating calmly and seriously, I won’t vote for Mr. Giuliani under any circumstances save one:
He publicly announces his repentance of his former views on life, on human rights, and crawls down Broadway, rending his garments and throwing ashes over his head, begging God for forgiveness for being a baby murderer.
Then, I’ll think about it.
Until then, it’s just not an option. I won’t vote for a baby-murdering liberal.
“But what would cause a century of harm is Ginsburg2 and Ginsburg3.”
In that Mr. Giuliani has voiced his approval of her appointment to the Court, I have every confidence that Mr. Giuliani - who thinks that one can be a “strict constructionist” and STILL find a “right” to abortion in the Constitutions - will nominate precisely just that sort of justice.
“I really want Thompson to ignite and inspire us all. I’m just preparing for what I see as an uncomfortable, but important situation that we’ll have to face. And do what’s best.”
It will be very ugly if we’re presented with Giuliani vs. Clinton. However, my own personal opinion is that a Giuliani presidency would be more disastrous for the United States in the long run than a Clinton presidency, because it would destroy the Republican Party as a vehicle for conservative principles.
When your house is on fire, don’t burn down the fire station.
sitetest
No problem. Thanks.
Re: Looks like Mr. Giuliani is on the fast track to oblivion.
Huh?
The recent Quinnipiac poll had him well in front of Thompson.
I may be alone here, but I agree with you 100%.
So you have not a problem at all in handing the keys of the nation over to a woman who will most certainly socialize medicine, hand out $5000 checks to every child born, open the borders up to everyone to pad the voting rolls, talk with Iran and NK like they were coming to tea, and most certainly go after your guns?
You have no problem at all with living with this scenario for possibly 8 years simply because you did not get your candidate?
Selfish is the most apt word to describe that.
Life is about making choices, not sticking one’s head in the sand and pretending that you don’t need to.
All that Rockefeller & globalist money can only go so far.
That's a knee-slapper, because conservatives won't vote for him, and Rudy will drive away libertarian & independents because of his authoritarian views.
Rudy's a loser.
As bad as Mrs. Clinton would be, my own view is that Mr. Giuliani would be worse for the future of our country.
Perhaps in the short-term, Mr. Giuliani would be a slightly less evil president, and we would suffer a bit less.
But in the long-term, our nation would suffer far greater harm due to the selfish desires of those who would sell their souls by voting for this moral horror to make a bit more pleasant their descent into the chains of slavery.
sitetest
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.