Skip to comments.Giuliani: I'm Considering 2008 Bid
Posted on 10/02/2005 9:21:43 AM PDT by wagglebee
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said Sunday he will contemplate next year whether to run for president in 2008.
"I will be considering it next year," Giuliani said during a visit to Denmark. But he added that playing with the idea of running for the Republican nomination for president did not mean he would actually do it.
"Sometime you warm up and get ready and you don't get in and pitch," he told reporters, in a baseball analogy.
Giuliani who was praised for his leadership following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, thanked Danish firefighters who raised $8,400 in support for their New York colleagues.
"To us it was the only thing we could do, raise money and show our support," firefighter Jens Hjorth said.
Eight firefighters from the station raised the money by recording a CD with six songs called "The Skyline Changed." They sold 27,000 copies.
On Sunday, the band members handed over a copy of the CD to Giuliani, who in return gave them a New York Fire Department hat.
Giuliani was in Denmark to speak at a business leadership conference in the Danish capital on Monday.
In 2000, Giuliani ran for the U.S. Senate, but dropped out after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
I think you must be describing Coulter with both words - certainly not Hannity.
"Social conservatives love Bush."
I know of few who do.
However, we can understand that Mr. Bush may be as good a candidate as we can get and still win an election.
If the party nominates someone that represents a repudiation of social conservatism, such as Mr. Giuliani, a large percentage of social conservatives, and folks who are sympathetic to social conservatism, will not vote for the Republican ticket.
Enough that it is likely that the Republican ticket will be defeated.
Reading some of the comments here, I think I may need to wave to Hillary on her broomstick on the way to her inaugural.
I'll ask you the same question.
Name three Republicans- you would support- who you honestly believe can be elected in 2008.
"Diplomacy is the job of the Sec State. Talking about diplomats and government is the job of talking heads. Talking and doing are two different things."
There's more than one way to skin a cat. State has been less than worthless in the past. It tipped our hand with Iraq. We may have caught more WMDs if we didn't fiddle around with the UN first.
Baloney. Real Americans don't want some pro-abortion, faggot-loving, gun-grabbing liberal from New York City.
Rudy would be better off as Hillary's running mate.....as they have so much in common.
I didn't say Hannity WILL be president, I'm just saying it's his for the taking if he's willing to run. Doubt he's willing.
As for McCain and/or Giulianni, neither will ever be president of the US. I do predict that. And I think there's an excellent chance that someone to the right of Bush will be our next president. If anyone to the right of Bush, good on borders wins the nomination, he or she will win. If not good on borders, it's iffy. If left of Bush, he or she will lose.
Well, who is electable is a tough question right now. You don't really know until you're at least about a third of the way into the primaries.
It is the nomination process that helps determine just how electable a candidate is.
But anyway, I could hold my nose and vote for Sen. McCain, although I'm pretty sure he'd lose even with my vote. LOL.
I'd be willing to vote for Sen. Allen, although not terribly enthusiastically.
I'd vote for Gov. Owens of Colorado. I'd vote for Mike Pence.
Before you say this or that one is unelectable, save your breath, or your keystrokes. You don't know who is and isn't unelectable anymore than I do, or anyone else around here does. After his execrable performance at the 1988 Dammocrap National Convention, I never thought Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas could ever be elected to any office outside his state. In 1976, I certainly didn't see former Gov. Reagan as a particularly electable fellow. As well in 1976, we all laughed at the peanut farmer from Georgia running for president!
I remember all the folks who said that a certain Texan governor would just crumple under the pressure of a national campaign in 2000. I also heard he was just too dumb to win.
I've also been told that sitting US Senators just can't make it to the White House, yet Mr. Kerry came within a few inches of doing just that, and Mr. Dole would have made a much closer race of it without Mr. Perot gumming up the works.
The nomination process, itself, will grant stature to whomever comes out on top, and whomever DOES come out on top will instantly become electable. Highly electable.
I'll support my candidate(s) through that process, and watch it unfold. There are really only a few Republicans whom I could not support, who are mentioned as likely candidates for the nomination. One of them is Mr. Giuliani.
Love ya Rudy but this is hopeless. They aren't going to vote for you down in the bayou or in the Shenandoah.
Is this some kind of a joke? I laugh in your general direction! This isn't a prime time infotainment program we're staffing, it's the president of the United States. Even I think Hillary would be more qualified.
I don't like Senators or Representatives as candidates because they learn quickly in congress to talk a long time without ~saying~ anything. They bore me to tears. Every single one of them.
I think you overlooked ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION which is becoming more and more of a "hot button", especially in California and other border states.
Nonsense. In the end, Hillary is still just one vote out of 100. Rudy has my vote if he runs for the oval office.
Don't make me laugh. Tancredo couldn't even win a statewide election in Colorado. He has..no chance as a national candidate.
What??? You mean principles and morals aren't things to be traded off and discarded as to fit into the latest "group"? You mean being on the winning team shouldn't mean more than actually standing firmly for something?,p>Yeah, I'm being sarcastic. Principles and morals are not things to be tossed to the side just so we can "win". Because if we do that, we haven't really won anything.
Hillary or Rudy in 2008. Not much difference. If it comes to that...
Post 169 is very wise, very well written. I do, however, see trends. Our nation is growing ever more polarized. It's only natural, now that our choices of news sources has so abruptly expanded. Each side is certain that it's news sourcing is more accurate. This is a healthy, yet turbulent process. And like I said, polarizing.
Some are banking that being 'more centrist' is in. I don't think so. The energy level of each base is a vast powerhouse just begging for leadership that fits it's agenda. Centrists do not reach either base.
I don't want some smoke-filled room calling the shots in the primary process and pick some worthless centrist and then find out that all their strategery was folly. As you noted, many of us will vote for the winner of the primary. After all I said about Giulianni, when it comes down to primary time, what am I supposed to do? Let some rat win?
Once the primary is over, there are only three choices: vote for one, vote for the other, or protest. Only one choice is clear at that point: the lesser of two evils.
We NEED, ABSOLUTELY NEED, to pick a conservative before the primary, someone who can rally conservatives the way Howard Dean rallied the left. The primary is front loaded now. It moves very quickly. That means, unless we want some rolodex to pick our candidate, we need to hash this out ahead of time.
I'm sympathetic to your plight. Frankly, I really can't stand listening to Mr. Bush speak, but I gave money to his campaign and voted for him four times - twice in the primaries, twice in the general election.
I think that Sen. Allen would overcome that handicap, because he's had a successful experience as a governor, and knows how to turn on the "execu-speak."
Having watched him since he was a congresscritter from across the river, I believe that it is possible that given the limelight of the national stage, he would do well, and could win the nomination and the election. He is smart, personable, easy-going, affable, moderately conservative, and not scary.
I'm not exactly thrilled by his candidacy, personally, but might scratch out a small check to his campaign, and I could certainly vote for him, as would most social conservatives. He is way far better than most of the alternatives.
He might also wilt under the national exposure, and that's what the nominating season's for - to separate the men from the boys. But at this point, he seems to have as good a shot as any.
Sen. McCain is also a fellow who knows how to mimic straight-talk. I don't think he could win the general election, as he has abdicated leadership of much of the base of his own party over the past 10 or so years. I personally could hold my nose long enough to throw the lever for him (although most days, I'd rather throw the switch on him), but I think I might be in the minority of social conservatives.
Rep. Pence seems also to be a possible exception to your general rule, although my own feeling is that for him, '08 would be a trial run. I'd like to see him run and get elected governor of his own state, and come back in '12 or '16 as a guy with a few terms in the House, a couple of terms as governor, and maybe part of a term as US Senator.
I could vote for Rudy if he is the GOP canidate. I cannot vote for McCain if he were to make it.Hopefully Allen or another conservative is the standard bearer. I do wish Jeb would rethink running.
I agree with you about McCain and his ability to talk, and though I don't detest him as much as some do, he's such a maverick neither side trusts him.