A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

<exultant dance with belly undulations and colorful sashes>

What do you like?

0 Replies

I like Rudi too, because he's not a fanatic about christian issues.

0 Replies

Not ignored, no. Being mayor of New York City is different from being mayor of, what, Peoria. But it's still just a mayor, and nobody has gone straight from mayor to the White House, ever. Only two former mayors have made it, and they had stints at higher elective office. Coolidge became prez because he was VP when the prez died. Cleveland was Governor of NY before running for president.

Can Rudy do it? Sure, maybe, quite possible, I dunno. I agree with George that it's still really early to tell. But "relative inexperience" seems like kind of a no-brainer here.

0 Replies

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

George, are you actually arguing that he DOESN'T have a relative lack of experience? He's been a mayor. That's it.

Even Obama has more years of experience in elected office -- 8 years, not 2 as you stated, in the Illinois Senate, and will have 4 years as a U.S. Senator by the time the election rolls around. Rudy doesn't hold elected office now, hasn't since 2001. He was mayor for 7 years. So as of now, Obama has 10 years' experience in elected office to Rudy's 7 -- as of election day, that will be 12 to 7.

And Obama is about the least experienced of the Democratic and Republican contenders.

You are forgetting Guiliani's earlier experience as Attorney General of New York and as Federal Prosecutor.

By your own measures both Hillary Clinton & Edwards have less experience than Obama. Why do you then get it backwards?

Not all years are equal. Twenty years experience on a school board is not usually considered as adequate preparation for executive office. I would speculate that a week as chief executive of one of the major cities of the world is more than the equivalent of a year in a state legislature. In terms of population, budget and job complexity the Maypr of New York faces a far more comples set of issues than the governor of (say) Arkansas.

Finally, why do you restrict relevant experience only to elected office? Presidents Eisenhower & Grant had no prior elected office experience.

0 Replies

But experience isn't apparetly everything either. Wasn't it Ross Perot who said that a governor of Arkansas claiming the experience to run the country is akin to the manager of the corner market being qualified to run Wal-Mart?

But any way you cut it, Giuliani does seem to have as much or more success in governing than any of the competition at this time. (Eisenhower and Grant both ran large armies--I would imagine that would have easily as much headaches as running Arkansas. Smile

)

0 Replies

"Success" isn't what was being discussed, though.

George dismissed the article because it said that Rudy is "relatively inexperienced." Seems to me like that's a perfectly credible assertion.

<shrug>

I don't really have anything to add to what I've said so far, so moving on...

0 Replies

Oh and the article didn't even say that Rudy was relatively inexperienced; it said, and I quote, "There are the questions about his health as a survivor of prostate cancer, though he is fully recovered, and his relative lack of experience."

There ARE questions.

0 Replies

Well, that's what I thought.

But I'm neither a native AE nor BE speaker - as often enough has been told.

0 Replies

Where is the National Review coming down? Where the chances, in their estimation, look best for retaining the presidency. This is a very serious crowd when it comes to extreme lust for power. If Rudy screws up or begins to look a liability, they'll dump him in a flash. If Gingrich had any chance at all, he'd be their boy. They DO NOT want McCain to win because they suspect he'll go his own way.

Quote:

Let's Make a Deal
Social conservatives, Rudy Giuliani, and the end of the litmus test.
by Noemie Emery
03/12/2007, Volume 012, Issue 25

Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/370rvrau.asp

0 Replies

This bit is hilarious...Dubya as pussy

Quote:

They see him as a more ruthless version of George W. Bush, someone who would not have consented to less-than-aggressive rules of engagement; who would have taken Falluja the first time, and not have had to come back later; who would not have let Sadr escape when he had him; who would not have been fazed by whining over Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo, and would have treated critics of the armed forces and of the mission with the same impatience he showed critics of the police in New York. As nothing else, the terror war sits at a nexus of issues dear to the heart of the base: the need to use force when one's country is threatened; the need to make judgments between good and evil; the need to protect and assert the moral codes of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the need to defend the ideals of the West.

0 Replies

On Drudge last night:

CPAC STRAW POLL RESULTS:

Mitt Romney 21%
Rudy Giuliani 17%.
Sam Brownback 15%
Newt Gingrich 14%
John McCain, 12%,

Of course CPAC being one of the most if not THE most conservative group among Conservatives, is going to acknowledge the person who espouses the most of their core conservative values, and Mitt did really well on that score. The others made a reasonably strong showing, however, and a straw poll is generally based more on gut feelings of the moment than having any other significance.

I don't know if McCain would have done better or worse had he participated in the conference. He's already getting some flack for his current initiative to team up with Ted Kennedy on another Senate immigration bill. Early reports is that this one will be even worse than the last one, and most of the conservative base found the last one to be quite unacceptable.

0 Replies

What makes this story interesting re the GOP is they didn't even a name a Republican. No way to know if any Republicans were named in the polling questions though.

GALLUP: Is Al Gore Boom for President Just Hype?
By E&P Staff
Published: March 01, 2007 2:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Former Vice President Al Gore is enjoying a boom in the wake of his Oscar win earlier this week for "An Inconvenient Truth." You'd think that the "Draft Al for President" movement was pretty strong or wide. But is it?

A new Gallup poll released today finds that, actually, relatively few Democrats think he could win the White House next year.

The survey found that 74% thought Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a good or excellent chance to win, with 71% feeling the same way about Sen. Barack Obama. A still healthy 52% gave former Sen. John Edwards this kind of chance. But only 31% gave good or excellent odds on Gore.

Sixty-eight percent give Gore a "slim" or "no" chance to beat a Republican next year.

Even among Democrats only, Gore was seen by only 44% as having a good or excellent shot. This contrasts with 90% feeling that way about Clinton.

The poll of 1,018 adults was taken Feb. 22-25.

SOURCE

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What makes this story interesting re the GOP is they didn't even a name a Republican. No way to know if any Republicans were named in the polling questions though.

Why should Republicans be named here?

Democrats View Hillary Clinton as Most Electable Democratic Candidate

They got an own poll:

Giuliani Edges Out McCain in Perceptions of Viability for Presidency

0 Replies

Between former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain, I predict that the majority of voters will swing towards Giuliani by a big margin by November of next year.

Giuliani's personal life issues have become an asset, because the GOP did a overkill on Clinton while subsequent revelations of graft and immoral charges against high ranking GOP public servants without any outrage by their own party members shows the hypocrisy.

McCain has been his own worst enemy; he has shown no ethics to win votes by switching his support for different legislations that Americans cannot swallow. The contradictions of McCain's votes shows voters he cannot be trusted. It doesn't help that many are now aware of his uncontrolled temperament.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What makes this story interesting re the GOP is they didn't even a name a Republican. No way to know if any Republicans were named in the polling questions though.

Why should Republicans be named here?

Democrats View Hillary Clinton as Most Electable Democratic Candidate

They got an own poll:

Giuliani Edges Out McCain in Perceptions of Viability for Presidency

It would have been interesting to see if the numbers would have changed when different people were named. The story did mention that the respondents indicated who they thought would beat a Republican. I just wondered if they thought their guys would beat some Republicans more than others. This is a thread referencing Republicans after all.

0 Replies

Just saw an interesting results of a poll on tv; Giuliani 44% and McCain 21%. We're seeing progress!

0 Replies

I think McCain's had it. He's out of it, perhaps in more ways than one.

Quote:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/03/mccain-staffers-bail-off-his-crazy-train.php

0 Replies

It's good to know some people begin to realize that they are in support of a loser, and quit.

0 Replies

McCain has shot himself in the foot more times than most Presidential candidates that I can remember. And this is WAY before the primaries.

Put a fork in him. He's done.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know