Skip to comments.New York, New York Rudy vs. Hillary in 2008? [NOONAN]
Posted on 02/11/2007 4:34:50 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
According to polls, Hillary Clinton holds an early and significant lead among Democratic voters (43%, compared with 22% for Barack Obama in a Fox News poll 10 days ago). She is of course the killer fund-raiser of the race, with one of her contributors crowing this week that she'll raise more money than all the other candidates combined. So let's call her the likely Democratic nominee, even though Mr. Obama hasn't even announced yet. On the Republican side it's Giuliani time, with Fox News putting him at 34% among GOP voters and John McCain coming in second with 22%. He hasn't announced yet either, but this week he filed all the papers. So at the moment, and with keen awareness that not a vote has been cast, it is possible to say the state of New York is poised to become the home of both major-party presidential candidates.
This is not unprecedented, but it is unusual. It happened in 1904, when New York was the home of the hero of Oyster Bay, President Theodore Roosevelt, and reluctant Democratic nominee Alton Parker, a judge on New York's Court of Appeals, who carried only the solid South. It happened again in New York in 1944, when Teddy's cousin Franklin sought a fourth term against the bland and mustachioed Thomas Dewey, the New York district attorney unforgettably labeled by Teddy's daughter, the chilly and amusing Alice Roosevelt Longworth, "the little man on the wedding cake." In 1920 both the Democratic and Republican nominees were from Ohio; Sen. Warren Harding, who seemed boring but proved sprightly, landslided Democrat James Cox, a dreamy Wilsonian who thought America wished to hear more about the League of Nations. (Illinois was the first state to enjoy dual nominees when Republican Abraham Lincoln beat Stephen Douglas,
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Here's another editorial on the improbable direction of the 2008 Presidential race.
Bush: another Bush? Sorry, but this is almost as bad as having another Clinton in the mix. Through in the Doles and you have presidential politics for the last 30+ years!
Thanks for the ping!
It'd be hard to complain about another Bush in the mix if the Dems run Hillary...Hillary's and Bills past should end any arguement about the past marriage of Guiliani, McCain, or Newt... I don't think the Clintons want fidelity to be an issue!!
Of course it is because it's so early in the game. But it's true at this moment.
Neither of them is even remotely electable...but if I they were and I had to choose between either of them and Hillary and Obama I'd vote for them...even though I really suspect Cheney of gross dishonety and selfishness. The Muslims are far worse for this country.
Nice poster. I wouldn't ever vote for Rudy unless he had a labotomy. Better a stupid pres than an evil, gun grabbing pres.
America is not a theocracy. In a free exercise nation, there is real danger in referencing God too much. Depending on the context, Bush may seem as deranged as Mullahs in Iran or Pat Robertson on TV. If W were conservative (rather than just claiming to be) and projected at least a marginal appearance of competence, his invocation of Almighty God wouldn't be so concerning.
The Bush's are killing the Republican Party. Bush 41 gave us Bill Clinton and a unified Dem gov't. They screwed up, fortunately, but now we're on the outside. It's going to be very hard to win the White House in 2008 but I want to win with someone who isn't crazy (McCain), two-faced (Mitt) or left of even W (Rudy)!
That, if the Dems are going to nominate someone from Chappaqua who runs well in Flatbush, that the Republicans need to counter with someone who really knows the Lower East Side?
Perhaps they should pick Daffy, then.
Unfortunately, they'll probably settle for someone less conservative, less popular, and less likely to win.
Oh, but you underestimate them. Of course they do -- if it's somebody else's!!!
Do you think -- think about this for a minute -- do you think Hillary would have run for the Senate in 2000 if a) Rudy were running and b) Rudy were not having an affair while married?
Rudy's extramarital affair, which of course lots of people would say, indignantly, was his private business, opened the door for Hillary to be elected to the Senate. And it may have opened the door to the White House.
Think about that for a bit.
But to go back to your point, would she have run for the Senate seat from New York, knowing that Rudy might possibly announce, if she wasn't prepared to play "duelling fidelities" with Rudy on the subject of matrimony and morality? Of course she was. Cynically, barfably, but of course she was ready, with brass-foreheaded hypocrisy, to fight that fight.
And she'd do it now in a heartbeat. When the prize is power, she's always ready.
Remember, it was she and Tom Daschle who bucked up Slick to fight the fight over the 1995 government shutdown, which was a bluff by Congressional Republicans to get Clinton to sign their budget bill and not veto it. Hillary was the one who argued to cut millions of people's Government checks off --- she knew what that would do to women who needed that check. She's extremely cold-blooded, cynical, and ruthless.
Don't underestimate her or her goat-footed consort.
Mia T, a penny for your thoughts on this.
He might appear electable, but he is definitely NOT the only person who could win the War on Terror. That part is not only preposterous, but insane.
Noonan misses this bottom line.
WILL HILLARY CLINTON RUN?
Actually this article is pretty good. Yes, she's had some odd clunkers lately, but your post is what is coming across as vindictive and spewing vile. To say that Noonan is the same as Pelosi is ridiculous.
Check out what the wonderful conservative warrior, R. Emmett Tyrrell has to say.
I hope and pray that Tyrrell is right, that all factions will come to their senses and unite in the end, around Rudy [or, I would add, whichever candidate gets the nod].
The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:
Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who
It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.
Do conservatives really want
I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.
I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all the others, will actually win.
The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.
We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.
Missus clinton is no victim.
Infidelity allows hillary clinton to play the victim for votes, yet again. Let's not fall into that trap. We must take the offensive.
It doesn't require more than half a brain and 10% of the data to understand why this self-absorbed, noxious, vacant pair must not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office ever again.
We must make sure the electorate get at least 10% of the data.
WE MUST TAKE THE OFFENSIVE. We must target the demographic missus clinton is targeting: women, and especially young, single women. (I will be posting more on this soon.)
For power and treasure, missus clinton abused women and the vulnerable all her life. Now, in her final assault, she is exploiting them, abusing them yet again. We cannot allow this to happen.
I will not advocate for Rudy, at least at this time. However, as of right now, I don't see anybody better able to gain the Republican nomination and the voter's support for the White House. I hope that changes, but that's the lay of the land right now.
I will certainly vote for him rather than ANY of the Demodogs who have announced to this time, and I will be delighted to work for his election in the general if he is nominated.
I'd hate to spoil the suspense. If you want to know the answer to your question read the last paragraph of the article.