Panic on the Right as America’s Mayor takes lead in polls

[Taco John]

Panic on the Right as America’s Mayor takes lead in polls

Conventional wisdom that Rudy Giuliani is too socially liberal and combustible to win the next Republican presidential nomination is taking a battering.

A slew of polls show the former Mayor of New York opening a lead of up to 20 per cent over his declared rivals among likely Republican primary voters.

The phenomenon of a thrice-married supporter of abortion, gay rights and gun control creating such enthusiasm in a party dominated by Christian conservatives is a cause of puzzlement, bordering on panic, among Washington’s pundits.

Some insist that it cannot last and that Mr Giuliani’s popularity will evaporate once voters are reminded of the positions he has taken and his tarnished record as an arrogant mayor with dubious connections in New York City.

Others are trying to find a reverse gear for their opinions because no Republican candidate in modern history has been so far ahead at this stage in the contest and then failed to win the nomination.

In Virginia, where Republican activists gathered for their annual dinner to hear him speak at a Marriott Hotel on Monday night, it does not take long to discover his appeal.

Michael Hines, 61, a lawyer from Arlington, said: “He has demonstrated strong leadership on security matters and that is top of my list.”

Although both he and his wife, Patricia, describe themselves as religious conservatives who are in “a different place” to Mr Giuliani on social issues, being “America’s Mayor” on September 11, 2001, trumps everything.

Mary Gail Swenson, 63, could scarcely take her hands off him as she posed for pictures with Mr Giuliani and whispered in his ear. What did she say? “I wanted to thank him for being so strong in the face of fear. When 9/11 happened he made us feel safer.”

Mr Giuliani has since made a fortune as a motivational speaker, commanding fees of up to $100,000 (£51,000) a time. On Monday he told Virginia Republicans, who are smarting from defeat in November’s midterm congressional elections, why they should feel good about themselves and confident for the future.

He swiftly returned to the subject of 9/11, saying the lesson of the day is that “we need to go on the offence against religious extremists”.

Although he supports President Bush’s plan for a surge of troops in Iraq, he is not tied to it in the public imagination in the same way as John McCain, his main rival for the Republican nomination.

Instead, Mr Giuliani is a symbol of 9/11 who allows Republicans to wallow in the cosy nostalgia of America’s sense of righteousness after those attacks. “The reality is not that it is our war, but their war . . . this war is over when they stop planning to kill us.”

He got his loudest applause for comparing the current battle with the Cold War against Communism, saying: “Ronald Reagan foresaw the demise of the Soviet Union when nobody else could see it. I can foresee the demise of terrorism.”

Mr Giuliani also reminded the audience of his record as a tax-cutter and crimebuster in New York. But there was only the faintest hint of the social policies on which so many of those present have profound disagreements with him. “I’ve supported four or five hundred candidates in my time,” said Mr Giuliani “but I’ve not yet found one with whom I can agree completely. In fact, I don’t even agree with myself on everything.”

Indeed, he has tacked a little to the right over recent weeks, saying he would nominate “strict constructionists” for the US Supreme Court who “interpret, not invent, the Constitution”. This is seen as code for opposing the kind of “judicial activism” that brought about the Roe v Wade ruling legalising abortion across America.

He is being careful, however, not to squander the trust he earned on 9/11 by overdoing it. Rivals for the Republican nomination, such as Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, are being accused of “flip-flopping” in their effort to harvest conservative votes.

Audience member Richard Brown said that he consider voting for Mr Giuliani. This might not be remarkable except that he served as a US navy pilot on the same ship as Mr McCain in the Vietnam War and is worried that his former comrade is now trying “to grasp more of the right wing of our party”.

Asked if he was worried about Mr Giuliani’s social positions, he said: “There’s not a candidate with a clean skirt out there. Hell, I’ve been married myself three times.”

Good times, bad times

— The first Republican Mayor of notoriously liberal New York City in 20 years

— Dogged by ethical questions including links to former aide and disgraced NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik

— Achieved a 57 per cent drop in the NYC crime rate Informed his second wife, Donna Hanover, that he was filing for divorce at a press conference. His first marriage of 14 years was annulled because he had married his second cousin

— Strong leadership in aftermath of 9/11, working around the clock to coordinate rescue efforts earned him the title of “America’s Mayor”

— Withdrew from the 2000 Senate race against Hillary Clinton because of prostate cancer, now in remission

Source: Times archives

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1449743.ece

[Claythan]

Wow. Whoever these republicans are, they need to remove their heads from their asses.

[Kraut]

I don't agree with Rudi on a lot of issues, but the guy is a leader. I don't know if he will make it due to dirty politics. His opposition will try to pull everything out of the closet that they can. But this guy might be the LEADER this country needs. But for me I will have to wait for the general election to vote for him if I do. In that aspect it sucks being an I.

[chagrin]

Panic on the right?

Good God man, stop being a drama mama

[patteeu]

To be honest, I don't detect much panic on the right over Giuliani. I think he's playing his cards pretty darned well. He's emphasizing points of agreement and mitigating the damage that his social positions could cause him with the social conservatives. Sure, some will be purists, but I think Giuliani is working both hard and smart to minimize that.

[Kraut]

To be honest, I don't detect much panic on the right over Giuliani. I think he's playing his cards pretty darned well. He's emphasizing points of agreement and mitigating the damage that his social positions could cause him with the social conservatives. Sure, some will be purists, but I think Giuliani is working both hard and smart to minimize that.
I think your right on :thumb: Well said

[jAZ]

To be honest, I don't detect much panic on the right over Giuliani. I think he's playing his cards pretty darned well. He's emphasizing points of agreement and mitigating the damage that his social positions could cause him with the social conservatives. Sure, some will be purists, but I think Giuliani is working both hard and smart to minimize that.
He's doing the same thing Hillary, McCain and Obama are doing. Republicans are just afraid of losing and Giuliani looks like a winner.

Same is true with Obama for the Dems.

Hillary and McCain look like calculating double talkers, even though they are basically doing the same thing that Rudy and Barack are.

With the 4 candidates we have, I'm going to be much happier in 2008 than I've ever been since 2000.

[RedDread]

I would love to see Giuliani vs Obama in 2008, I honestly wouldn't be dissapointed whoever ended up winning.

[Radar Chief]

Panic on the right?

Good God man, stop being a drama mama

I thought the same thing when I opened this topic, ‘till I read this.

The phenomenon of a thrice-married supporter of abortion, gay rights and gun control creating such enthusiasm in a party dominated by Christian conservatives is a cause of puzzlement, bordering on panic, among Washington’s pundits.

See, it’s the “Washington pundits” that are panicked ‘cause republicans like someone they’re told they shouldn’t and the pundits can’t figure out why.
My first thought there is, maybe we’re just not the bible thump’n rednecks they want to demagogue us as. :shrug:

[patteeu]

He's doing the same thing Hillary, McCain and Obama are doing. Republicans are just afraid of losing and Giuliani looks like a winner.

Same is true with Obama for the Dems.

Hillary and McCain look like calculating double talkers, even though they are basically doing the same thing that Rudy and Barack are.

With the 4 candidates we have, I'm going to be much happier in 2008 than I've ever been since 2000.

The reason that McCain and Hillary look like calculating double talkers and Giuliani doesn't is because he ISN'T doing the same thing they are. They are reversing themselves, as much as they try to pretend otherwise. Giuliani is, for the most part, being honest about his personal social views but he's found a credible way to reassure voters that those views aren't going to lead him to govern in a way that will be unacceptable to most of those who have different views on those issues. Obama is in a third category because he doesn't have as much of an established record to have to run away from.

[Direckshun]

The Republicans will be pounding the 9/11 drum as long as its there to pound.

In the year 2048 I swear they'll find some kid from the WTC who grew up conservative and run him for office so they can say they have the jump on the "post-9/11 world."

[StcChief]

The real panic is in the media.

They know Rudy can win...and Rep party can circle the wagons to make it happen.

and that would just frost their a$$ if a Rep is in the WH for 4 more years.

[HolmeZz]

Panic on the right?

Good God man, stop being a drama mama

That's the name of the article.

[recxjake]

ROFL

I can't wait for his campaign to get into full swing.... He will calm all of the "panic" once more people hear him.

The guy is 90% Republican. His views are much more electable in this kind of a political climate over someone who is more like a Bush Republican.

If you are a Republican and quesiton Rudy... watch this video...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VMAXw3ZZuYU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VMAXw3ZZuYU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2bM-r3dDMd8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2bM-r3dDMd8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[recxjake]

I just ordered my first tshirt and bumper sticker... you should too!

http://www.rudy2008store.com/

[patteeu]

ROFL

I can't wait for his campaign to get into full swing.... He will calm all of the "panic" once more people hear him.

The guy is 90% Republican. His views are much more electable in this kind of a political climate over someone who is more like a Bush Republican.

If you are a Republican and quesiton Rudy... watch this video...


What is a Bush Republican? I think a Bush Republican who doesn't have the name Bush and doesn't work in the current administration would do just fine right now if he/she had the same charisma/reputation that Rudi does. Rudi is on-board with the neocon aspects of the Bush administration, so that can't be the difference. Other than that though, I agree with your post.

[Taco John]

I would love to see Giuliani vs Obama in 2008, I honestly wouldn't be dissapointed whoever ended up winning.



I feel the same way. I just think it's interesting that social conservativism appears to be dead. It's suprising to me that there isn't a star on the right to take up the banner for their social issues.

[Kraut]

I would love to see Giuliani vs Obama in 2008, I honestly wouldn't be dissapointed whoever ended up winning.
You know maybe it wouldn't be bad to have them run in the general election. I really don't like either when it comes to many of the issues, but they are new blood and we need that more then anything in D.C.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I would love to see Giuliani vs Obama in 2008, I honestly wouldn't be dissapointed whoever ended up winning.That would be great.

[Cochise]

I feel the same way. I just think it's interesting that social conservativism appears to be dead. It's suprising to me that there isn't a star on the right to take up the banner for their social issues.

I don't see how he represents the threat to social conservatism that you perceive. He's said he will appoint pro-life supreme court justices. The gay marriage issue is over with it being overwhelmingly passed by voters at every opportunity. Immigration I see as a negative but let's see what he says he'll do about it. Sure, I have reservations about him but I have them about anyone. I think he is better President material than anyone else who is a realistic possibility.

And to pronounce conservatism dead is a total misreading of the situation. I think this is simply a case of there being no real outstanding candidates besides him. The Republicans in congress are all married to Iraq, McCain doesn't seem to excite anyone, Gingrich was a has-been 10 years ago. The others are all non-factors. No one else has even a little name recognition. The problem is not that there are no conservatives in the race, there are just none with the notoriety to win.

The Republicans have lost the Iraq issue with the public, that is why most of them are inviable, not because a centuries-old archetype of political philosophy suddenly died in the past two weeks since Rudy declared his candidacy.

[jAZ]

The reason that McCain and Hillary look like calculating double talkers and Giuliani doesn't is because he ISN'T doing the same thing they are. They are reversing themselves, as much as they try to pretend otherwise. Giuliani is, for the most part, being honest about his personal social views but he's found a credible way to reassure voters that those views aren't going to lead him to govern in a way that will be unacceptable to most of those who have different views on those issues. Obama is in a third category because he doesn't have as much of an established record to have to run away from.
First of all, Rudy and Barack are rock star media darlings.
The media has taken a wait-and-see-it's-still-6-months-early hands off approach to both.

And Rudy and Obama are blank slates from a voter perception standpoint. They have (and will both continue to) benefit from the "Jordan Rules" of super star benefit of the doubt from the media.

McCain and Hillary are easy targets.

McCain had that through all of Bush's first term, but when he started his double talk primary strategy, he lost the goodwill of the public (and gave the media all the excuse they needed to take the gloves off).

Hillary has never had any favorable treatment from the media since the period between Monica Lewinsky and starting her "Carpetbagger" run for the Senate in NY.

Rudy will only be a clean slate in the voters eyes until the religous right's campaign machine gets going. They will not get behind Rudy in a primary (they will in the general though, unless they run a 3rd party candidate, which I doubt).

You are right that Obama truely is a clean slate (unlike Rudy), and even when the media takes the gloves off on the two rock stars, (with the help of the opposition researchers from the other candidates/parties) the media's behavior will change. Unfortunately for Rudy, they will have a lot more meat to bite into with his history, than they will with Obama.

Point is that Rudy's lead today is nothing like it will be 6-8 months from now. He'll be back in the pack, the religous right will be mobilized behind someone else. Rudy's "I support Rove v Wade, but I'll tell you I'll nominate someone to the court who will overturn it" schtick will sound more like McCain than Bush to them.

His best hope at eeking at a win in the primary is the large lead now and hoping for that sense of inevitability.

In the end, I'd trade Bush for Rudy any day of the week. Rudy is America's version of Tony Blair. I won't agree with some of what he advocates, but I will have my respect for the person holding the office restored 10-fold.

[jAZ]

That's the name of the article.
Do you get Drama Mama points for calling someone out in such a mello-dramatic fashion as "Good God man, stop being a drama mama"????

ROFL

[recxjake]

What is a Bush Republican? I think a Bush Republican who doesn't have the name Bush and doesn't work in the current administration would do just fine right now if he/she had the same charisma/reputation that Rudi does. Rudi is on-board with the neocon aspects of the Bush administration, so that can't be the difference. Other than that though, I agree with your post.

I disagree... Moderates are leaning to the left... they aren't happy with the "Bush" Republicans... perfect example was the 06 election... most of the moderate left wing candidates won.

Rudy can still get all the Republicans because they see him as a better choice then Hillary and Obama, and Rudy can swing those moderate independents to his corner

[Cochise]

I disagree... Moderates are leaning to the left... they aren't happy with the "Bush" Republicans... perfect example was the 06 election... most of the moderate left wing candidates won.

Rudy can still get all the Republicans because they see him as a better choice then Hillary and Obama, and Rudy can swing those moderate independents to his corner

Only if he chooses Newt, right? I thought Newt was our only hope.

[recxjake]

Only if he chooses Newt, right? I thought Newt was our only hope.

NOPE... I love Newt, but he is not the right guy

[Baby Lee]

I feel the same way. I just think it's interesting that social conservativism appears to be dead. It's suprising to me that there isn't a star on the right to take up the banner for their social issues.
I 'm not sure it's as much dead as pushed as far as it can go.

What big socially conservative movements would you posit have not been sufficiently pushed and vetted?

I certainly don't see big liberal pushes on the gun, abortion or gay marriage front on the horizon. I certainly don't see the SC going activist any time soon.

They've stemmed the tide, and I anticipate realism staving them from pushing further, but dead, that's a different story.

[Direckshun]

He's said he will appoint pro-life supreme court justices.
Ah. So he doesn't fight for his principles, is the thing.

[Baby Lee]

Ah. So he doesn't fight for his principles, is the thing.
Why does having personal pro-choice inclinations oblige him to make it a central principle for which he's a warrior.
If he feels that welfare continues to be more of an albatross on the poor than a safety net for the poor, is he honor bound to eradicate all vestiges of entitlement programs, or is he granted the leeway to accept the reality that people are dependant on said programs, while personally wishing it weren't so?

[patteeu]

First of all, Rudy and Barack are rock star media darlings.
The media has taken a wait-and-see-it's-still-6-months-early hands off approach to both.

And Rudy and Obama are blank slates from a voter perception standpoint. They have (and will both continue to) benefit from the "Jordan Rules" of super star benefit of the doubt from the media.

McCain and Hillary are easy targets.

McCain had that through all of Bush's first term, but when he started his double talk primary strategy, he lost the goodwill of the public (and gave the media all the excuse they needed to take the gloves off).

Hillary has never had any favorable treatment from the media since the period between Monica Lewinsky and starting her "Carpetbagger" run for the Senate in NY.

Rudy will only be a clean slate in the voters eyes until the religous right's campaign machine gets going. They will not get behind Rudy in a primary (they will in the general though, unless they run a 3rd party candidate, which I doubt).

You are right that Obama truely is a clean slate (unlike Rudy), and even when the media takes the gloves off on the two rock stars, (with the help of the opposition researchers from the other candidates/parties) the media's behavior will change. Unfortunately for Rudy, they will have a lot more meat to bite into with his history, than they will with Obama.

Point is that Rudy's lead today is nothing like it will be 6-8 months from now. He'll be back in the pack, the religous right will be mobilized behind someone else. Rudy's "I support Rove v Wade, but I'll tell you I'll nominate someone to the court who will overturn it" schtick will sound more like McCain than Bush to them.

His best hope at eeking at a win in the primary is the large lead now and hoping for that sense of inevitability.

In the end, I'd trade Bush for Rudy any day of the week. Rudy is America's version of Tony Blair. I won't agree with some of what he advocates, but I will have my respect for the person holding the office restored 10-fold.

I agree with much of what you say here. I disagree with some of it (for example the idea that Hillary hasn't had favorable treatment from the media). But you are now talking about how others will treat or see the candidates not about what the candidates themselves are doing, which was the point of your earlier post. My post was a response to that earlier post and I definitely don't see what Giuliani is doing as the same as the double talking of Hillary and McCain.

[patteeu]

I disagree... Moderates are leaning to the left... they aren't happy with the "Bush" Republicans... perfect example was the 06 election... most of the moderate left wing candidates won.

Rudy can still get all the Republicans because they see him as a better choice then Hillary and Obama, and Rudy can swing those moderate independents to his corner

It is only a very narrow set of issues on which Bush is more conservative than Rudy and none of those had anything to do with the election results of 2006. No one won on left or left-center positions on guns or abortion or gay marriage or greater influence of religion in schools and public policy. Giuliani is with Bush, more or less, on GWoT and Iraq and immigration and taxes and welfare and law enforcement. The only possible area where Giuliani might be able to claim a difference from Bush that could have had an impact on the 2006 elections is the vague issue of fiscal responsibility.

[jAZ]

I agree with much of what you say here. I disagree with some of it (for example the idea that Hillary hasn't had favorable treatment from the media). But you are now talking about how others will treat or see the candidates not about what the candidates themselves are doing, which was the point of your earlier post. My post was a response to that earlier post and I definitely don't see what Giuliani is doing as the same as the double talking of Hillary and McCain.
I actually did touch on what Rudy is doing... he's trying to get people to believe this with confidence

"I support Rove v Wade, but I'll tell you I'll nominate someone to the court who will overturn it"

That's the path he's taking with his primary campaign.

You can't say it's outright dishonest, but if it's not, then he's created another problem.

He's either

1) abandoning his own views to gain the support of primary voters who don't represent the views of the general election voters who would eventually elect him... or

2) Holding true to his own views and those of the general election voters who elected him and going back on what he said in the primary

He's painting himself into a corner, though he's tried to leave himself an out. My bet is that there's nothing particularly noble of trustworthy about his position here. The only thing that Rudy has to hope for here is that the religous right will vote pragmatically, rather than with thieir interests.

[Bootlegged]

BushCo.

[pikesome]

The only thing that Rudy has to hope for here is that the religous right will vote pragmatically, rather than with thieir interests.

If it's Hillary vs Rudy, it most definitely will be in the religious right's interest to vote for him. Even if they don't want to.

[patteeu]

I actually did touch on what Rudy is doing... he's trying to get people to believe this with confidence

"I support Rove v Wade, but I'll tell you I'll nominate someone to the court who will overturn it"

That's the path he's taking with his primary campaign.

You can't say it's outright dishonest, but if it's not, then he's created another problem.

He's either

1) abandoning his own views to gain the support of primary voters who don't represent the views of the general election voters who would eventually elect him... or

2) Holding true to his own views and those of the general election voters who elected him and going back on what he said in the primary

He's painting himself into a corner, though he's tried to leave himself an out. My bet is that there's nothing particularly noble of trustworthy about his position here. The only thing that Rudy has to hope for here is that the religous right will vote pragmatically, rather than with thieir interests.

No. I don't think you are interpreting what Rudy is doing correctly.

First, Rudy hasn't said he'd appoint justices who would overturn Roe v Wade, he's said he would appoint justices who would have a judicial philosophy similar to that of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. That philosophy would have almost certainly led to a different decision in Roe v. Wade, but it's not at all clear that after 40 years it will lead to RvW being overturned.

Second, he is claiming a middle ground on the abortion debate by saying that he thinks it should be a matter for the legislatures to decide rather than the judiciary.

And finally, he is suggesting that it should be a state decision which limits the importance of the President in the decision-making process.

It might be that this nuanced position is born of cynicism rather than conviction, but on the surface, there is nothing dishonest about it at all. In fact, this is what makes Rudy so much different than Hillary and McCain.

What social conservatives lose if they elect Rudy is a President who will champion the pro-life cause, but what difference has that actually made in the last 30 years? What they gain is a President who will not champion the pro-choice cause and who will appoint justices who are favorable to traditionalists on a wide variety of issues including abortion limitations. That's a pretty big net positive if you ask me, although I'm admittedly not a strong social conservative.

[BucEyedPea]

To be honest, I don't detect much panic on the right over Giuliani. I think he's playing his cards pretty darned well. He's emphasizing points of agreement and mitigating the damage that his social positions could cause him with the social conservatives. Sure, some will be purists, but I think Giuliani is working both hard and smart to minimize that.
No, I think he is being a typical politician in some areas....like promising to appoint strict constructionist justices. If anybody thinks he will deliver on that, when even allegedly conservative and conservative presidents haven't always, is just being naive.

Other than that, I think the real reason he may be winning amongst the Connized GOP is that they think the WoT is real— aka exaggerated Bush version at least. And the fact that many Christians have historical rancour toward Muslims in general even prior to 9/11 predisposing them to accept Bush's version on the WoT.

[Cochise]

No, I think he is being a typical politician in some areas....like promising to appoint strict constructionist justices. If anybody thinks he will deliver on that, when even allegedly conservative and conservative presidents haven't always, is just being naive.

Other than that, I think the real reason he may be winning amongst the Connized GOP is that they think the WoT is real— aka exaggerated Bush version at least. And the fact that many Christians have historical rancour toward Muslims in general even prior to 9/11 predisposing them to accept Bush's version on the WoT.

Good lord.

[pikesome]

Other than that, I think the real reason he may be winning amongst the Connized GOP is that they think the WoT is real— aka exaggerated Bush version at least. And the fact that many Christians have historical rancour toward Muslims in general even prior to 9/11 predisposing them to accept Bush's version on the WoT.

Uh, this makes me want to link that tinfoil hat picture. Don't you think your rhetoric is a little bit too extreme here?

[StcChief]

No, I think he is being a typical politician in some areas....like promising to appoint strict constructionist justices. If anybody thinks he will deliver on that, when even allegedly conservative and conservative presidents haven't always, is just being naive.

Other than that, I think the real reason he may be winning amongst the Connized GOP is that they think the WoT is real— aka exaggerated Bush version at least. And the fact that many Christians have historical rancour toward Muslims in general even prior to 9/11 predisposing them to accept Bush's version on the WoT.

When Muslim terrorists appear in FLA. you might change your tune.

[BucEyedPea]

Uh, this makes me want to link that tinfoil hat picture. Don't you think your rhetoric is a little bit too extreme here?
No I don't. These people want a tough guy who will continue support for the Bush Doctrine. I prefer the Reagan Doctrine. I feel the WoT should be a different approach, more limited to those who attacked us on 9/11 and not as much reliance on nation state warfare or socially engineering the ME. I am not for empire.

I'd say those who are paranoid about the scope of the terror threat are wearing tin-foil suits. It's far more complicated and nuanced threat than it's being made to be. And that is a libertarian and old right conservative pov on the matter.

[BucEyedPea]

When Muslim terrorists appear in FLA. you might change your tune.
They already were...in flight schools.

[pikesome]

No I don't. These people want a tough guy who will continue support for the Bush Doctrine. I prefer the Reagan Doctrine. I feel the WoT should be a different approach, more limited to those who attacked us on 9/11 and not as much reliance on nation state warfare or socially engineering the ME. I am not for empire.

I think you're reading too far in this at this moment in time, we can have this arguement closer to Election Day. Let's wait until the primaries are over before we start reading the minds of the voting public.

And the fact that many Christians have historical rancour toward Muslims in general even prior to 9/11 predisposing them to accept Bush's version on the WoT.

Would you like to rephrase this? I'm really hoping that it came out different than you intended. Applying negative stereotypes based on religion isn't a good thing, period.

[Chief Faithful]

ROFL

I can't wait for his campaign to get into full swing.... He will calm all of the "panic" once more people hear him.

The guy is 90% Republican. His views are much more electable in this kind of a political climate over someone who is more like a Bush Republican.



I think you are right much because he is a nature communicator with a very refined wit. He will be very entertaining to watch on the national media.

[StcChief]

They already were...in flight schools.

No the ones that start cutting throats in the general population.

[HolmeZz]

No the ones that start cutting throats in the general population.

mmmmm luvz me sum fear mongerin'

[BucEyedPea]

I think you're reading too far in this at this moment in time, we can have this arguement closer to Election Day. Let's wait until the primaries are over before we start reading the minds of the voting public.
That's my opinion on Guilietta's primary rhetoric.


Would you like to rephrase this? I'm really hoping that it came out different than you intended. Applying negative stereotypes based on religion isn't a good thing, period.

If I answer you, then I'll be accused of hijacking. That's my take on Giulietta being favored in the GOP primaries to date.

[BucEyedPea]

No the ones that start cutting throats in the general population.
I don't see that happening in America.
Another time for another debate, even if I already stated my position a dozen or more times about what American foreign policy should be.

[BucEyedPea]

I'd like to add for the righties here (I'm a rightie too btw) that aside from social issues, y'all need to take a look at his stance on illegal immigration. Rudy favors welfare for them. He's with Newt here. That's a top issue for me and a deal breaker, nearly.

[Cochise]

(I'm a rightie too btw)

:LOL: You're doing a better job reciting the left's talking points than they do.

[pikesome]

That's my opinion on Guilietta's primary rhetoric.




If I answer you, then I'll be accused of hijacking. That's my take on Giulietta being favored in the GOP primaries to date.

While I concede nothing on this topic, kudos for the cross-thread humor. ROFL :thumb:

[BucEyedPea]

:LOL: You're doing a better job reciting the left's talking points than they do.
:LOL: Cochise is projecting as he accepts the NeoCon line.

Just posting to clarify:
I have consistently stated that what is passing on the right today in some areas of the WonT, is not old right conservatism. Traditional conservatism is opposed to something like the Bush Doctrine. This is why I keep referrring to it as NeoConservatism. I have consistently posted it as being left as in hard Wilsonianism which is progressive. It's actually a veering off of the what is deemed the traditional conservative movement. Making the world safe for democracy is exactly what this is. Just check out some conservative sites that have been consistently anti-war aka the Bush approach. Just check out the Baker branch of the GOP.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Giuliani is certainly enjoying popularity right now but it is a long way to go until election time. Don't count out Mitt Romney. I like his chances in the Primary AND the General election.

[Adept Havelock]

No the ones that start cutting throats in the general population.

:rolleyes:

Must be nice living in fear. Enjoy yourself.

.