Giuliani

There seem to be increasing odds that Giuliani will run for President: With Rudy Giuliani often saying he'd probably run for office again, there were three options: governor, senator, President. When an aide said last week the first two were out, only one choice remains standing.

Rudy's running for Prez.

It's unofficial, of course, but there's no other way to read Giuliani's decision to skip the governor and senate races next year. Win or lose, running for either would have made it impossible to run for President in 2008.

The development brought to mind a conversation with a Giuliani friend in 1988, when Giuliani was Manhattan U.S. attorney. Amid chatter even then that Giuliani had his eye on Washington, his friend argued he was already a national player. "If you had to name 100 people who have a chance to be President, Rudy's name would be on the list," the friend said then.

When I reached the friend last week and reminded him of our conversation, he quickly said, "The list is now down to five."

If any pro-choice Republican would have a chance to win the Republican nomination, it is Giuliani. He certainly would do well in New Hampshire. Also, he leads every national poll on the Republican nomination, and he has a gaudy favorable / unfavorable ratio.

Of course, the grassroots on the Republican side would be well, uneasy. Looking at just a few blogs, Outside the Beltway and Red State commenters have a pretty lukewarm response to this news. Free Republic is downright hostile (then again, is there any other emotion ever expressed over there?). I can only imagine what evangelicals would think.

Still, I wouldn't assume that he would have no chance, if I were you. And he would be very dangerous in the general election, as a recent poll actually shows him beating Hillary Clinton, in New York, for President, in 2008.

Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)

Comments

74 Comments

I wouldn't rule him out, either...
...but I sense his personality wears on people the more you see him.  The events of 9/11 cast an angelic glow to him on his way out of office, but once his in-your-face obnoxious self is on TV every day, I'm not sure that glow will last. Especially in an era of 18-month+ elction cycles.  
by danielj 2005-04-13 12:26PM | 0 recs
You never know, but
Millions of people only know Giuliani as the hero of 9/11.  But New Yorkers, love him or hate him, all know his tawdry past, and everyone will be reminded of the sordid details time and time again by the end of a presidential campaign.  And I wouldn't count on all those red states being quite as tolerant of such things as New York is.

I also don't know how the national African-American community would view him, but I tend to think the national vote might follow New York, where he would be lucky to get one vote.

by Steve M 2005-04-13 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Giuliani as the hero of 9/11.
That itself is a joke. This CW should be destroyed. It's nothing but a hollow image created by pictures on TV. Most people have no idea what really happened on that day and what Giuliani did or didn't do but should have done.

Not only he didn't do anything special on that day (in fact he failed to do some really basic things like contacting South Tower after the first crash and telling them to evacuate the building immidiately, which is exactly what others said who unlike Giuliani knew something about al Qaeda) but he was all for Bush  in 2000 despite the fact that Bush was utterly unqualified for the presidency. Or didn't he realize that? He sure had a chance to realize that on 9/11. After all , how did that attack happen? Who was president in June and July of 2001?
Instead of questionin ghis own judgement about Bush in 2000, he started to praise him all day and all night long. He gots it upside down.

Hip hip hurray! Bin Laden made a fool of Bush. He caught him with his pants down. He had no idea what to do to prevent a large scale simultanous attack in the continental United States so obviously he is a strong leader. Thank God Gore didn't win. Right?

Actually that's Giuliani's mindset about 9/11.

Would his favorable rating go down if people knew that if Al Gore had been president (against whom Giuliani never missed baseless and silly attack in 2000)  9/11 would have been prevented just like the Millenium Attacks? You bet.
Bush knew nothing about al Qaeda before 9/11. He was totally clueless. He had no idea what to do in the summer of 2001 with all the warnings he got. He just couldn't imagine that something like that can ever happen because  he didn't read things like the "Terror 2000" report  and didn't study the Bojinka plot or the plot against the Eiffel Tower in 1994 and a bunch of other material about transnational terrorism and al Qaeda. Gee! If you don't learn you don't know. Is that too difficult to understand for Rudy, Bush and their fans?

Apparently Giuliani is not bothered by Bush's inexusable ignorance and incompetence and laziness. Instead, he is just benefiting  from a tragedy that could have been easily prevented by an administration that would have had basic understanding of the al Qaeda threat in 2001.
And Gore had that. So did his national security advisor (Leon Fuerth )and would be defense secretary (Sam Nunn). And the head of the CSG wouldn't have been kicked out of the cabinet in a Gore administration. And John O'Neil wouldn't have left the FBI in the summer of 2001. And the FBI wouldn't have had only one analyst in its bin Laden unit. And so on and so on.

Nevermind. According to Giuliani it's a great thing that Bush became president because he was a strong leader AFTER 9/11.

Duh! Too little too late, Rudy! Never forget that when you exploit 9/11.

by stardate 2005-04-15 09:17PM | 0 recs
Yeah, right
He may do ok in New Hampshire, or even Iowa.

But #3, South Carolina?  Um, no.  And if Alabama gets thier way-HAHAHAHA.

Frist is going to win the nomination and then lose the general election to Feingold.

by Geotpf 2005-04-13 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, right
Feingold???

I like the guy, but his divorce pretty much seals that particular deal against him.  Sad to say, but I think true.

by DrFrankLives 2005-04-13 12:53PM | 0 recs
The problem is...
...the rest of the canidates (except Clark) are "centrists".  I don't think a "centrist" can win-we saw that with Kerry.
by Geotpf 2005-04-13 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
Kerry wasn't a "centrist." He may have ran a bad campaign, and he may not have been good at declarative sentences, but he was not a "centrist". He was a liberal, and every scoring of his record shows that. Bill Clinton was a centrist. Al Gore was somewhat of a centrist, though a bit more liberal than Clinton.
by srolle 2005-04-13 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
You are right that Kerry is a liberal but instead of running as a liberal he ran as George Bush lite.

Remember all the arguing about whether Kerry really was the most liberal member of the Senate? Democrats fell all over themselves trying to dispute that instead of standing tall and standing up for what they believe. Presumably Kerry is comfortable being a liberal but apparently he or his handlers felt they had to try to lie and obscure that fact.

by Curt Matlock 2005-04-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Well...
...voting for the Iraqi war eliminated any pure liberal qualifications Kerry had in this campaign.
by Geotpf 2005-04-14 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
That loud thumping noise you hear is the sound of a dead horse being beaten.

That having been said, Kerry isn't and wasn't a centrist. His voting record shows 20-odd years of being one of the most liberal members of the Senate. That's why I was quick to vote for him rather than the essentially moderate (based on record, not rhetoric) Howard Dean in my caucus. (Which isn't to disrespect Dean, whom I've always admired too.)

Of course, Kerry then spent the general election season making little but convoluted, mush-mouthed statements calculated to avoid alienating any moderates. That doesn't make him a centrist, just a weak campaigner. (What we probably needed was Kerry as mouthpiece candidate, with Dean hiding in the wings, Cyrano-style, whispering bon mots into his ear.)

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-04-13 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
Kerry was the most left-liberal candidate in the field--bar none.  Take a look at liberal-conservative interest group ratings and issue agendas.

Kerry was to the left of Holy Joe.
Kerry was to the left of Breck.
Kerry was to the left of Screamer.
Kerry was to the left of the General.
Heck, Kerry was to the left of Kucinich.  (less so if you ignore votes on reproductive choice)

The voters knew this.  They also knew Kerry was trying to play at being a centrist, so Kerry lost the far lefties' enthusiasm and the swing centrists' trust at the same time.  If that's what you're saying, then say that, but don't reject true centrists (Clinton, Carter) in the process.

by Newt 2005-04-13 03:56PM | 0 recs
Kerry is a douche
Everything you need to know about Kerry was summed up in his support for the Automatic Weapons Ban, while giving an interview to a guns and hunting mag extolling the wonders of his arsenal that would slot a more right-wing person to be attacked by the ATF.
by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
Kerry to the left of Kucinich? Excuse me, I think I just busted a gut. Come on, the only man in Congress more liberal than Kucinich is Bernie Sanders, who is an actual member of Democratic Socialists of America.

You were doing good, and then you WAAAAAAAY overstated your case.

by craverguy 2005-04-13 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
You're forgetting Kucinich's 100% Right=to-life record.  That will seriously dilute your Democratic Party consensus voting percentage.
by Newt 2005-04-13 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem is...
It's academic. The only people that will be put off by one more divorce are the 'wingers, and they wouldn't vote for Feingold if you put guns to their heads.

The GOPers would be dopes to use this. There are a lot of divorced voters out there, and many of them are Republicans. You think they might start to reconsider their party affiliation if the Republican nominee starts burning Feingold, and, by extension, them, in effigy?

Plus, if Rudy bends the laws of common sense to become the nominee, all of this really is a moot point, since he not only got divorced, he even did specifically so he could openly date his mistress.

by craverguy 2005-04-13 07:33PM | 0 recs
Or Rather...
Frist will win the nomination and then get the general election stolen for him like last year
 (unless we get this whole vapor trail/electronic voting machine mess straightened out before then). I really would like to see a big push starting now to clean up our voting system, ideally for 2006 but most definitely by 2008.
by ItsBeenCalmingForSomeTime 2005-04-13 03:44PM | 0 recs
Frist isn't "in" with Bush
The Bushies don't seem to lend their CIA-inspired machinery to other GOPers.

They're not for-the-party types.  They're doing their thing, and when GWB goes away, we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 06:53PM | 0 recs
Hide your pussy
I agree Cat Killer Frist is the almost certain R nominee.  Republicans always follow primogeniture. The last R candidate who could not be predicted easily four years in advance was nominated in 1964!

The next in line (assuming Jeb doesn't jump in) is Senator Cat Killer.  And Cat Killer will probably be the next president if we don't get our act together and nominate a statewide office holder from FL or OH or a candidate who can carry NM, NV, AZ, and CO.

by Newt 2005-04-13 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hide your pussy
Unless Jeb jumps in or one or two other possibilities (Rick Perry perhaps), Frist is almost certainly the next Republican nominee (if circumstances - like Frist getting dead or something - don't change drastically).
by burritoboy 2005-04-14 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hide your pussy
Yea, you are right, Bush then Frist is the order. But I'm hoping for a '64-like candidate.  Brownback, Tancredo, Santorum, hey, we can hope.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-04-14 05:22AM | 0 recs
he'll never get the nomination
I'm not spending any time worrying about Rudy.

Fellow GOPers will drag out all that kerik corruption and hang it around his neck.

Not to mention the fact that his stand on social issues will kill him. McCain won NH in 2000-so what? He got beat almost everywhere else. If Giuliani did win NH, he would be slaughtered in SC and most of the other states too.

Oh, and if McCain runs as well in 2008, he and Giuliani will split the "relatively sane Republican" vote in NH.

by desmoinesdem 2005-04-13 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: he'll never get the nomination
Too early to write him off, there's gonna be a lot of twists and turns on the GOP path to the nomination.

It's interesting that both of the early swooners by the netroots for '08 peaked already. Feingold & Rice. On our side, there's no obvious progressive that would replace Feingold; but on their side, Giuliani seems a natural second for the Ricers.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-04-13 02:51PM | 0 recs
If Guiliani wins SC
The Republicans are officially just fucking retarded and we should all arm to the teeth, because that will be the only way to fix this country.

It would be official proof that GOPers would vote for my cat if I could teach him to meow, "Jesus!"

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 06:51PM | 0 recs
I don't think Feingold has "peaked"
Unless everybody thinks his being single (and twice divorced) is completely fatal-I most strongly disagree.
by Geotpf 2005-04-14 07:17AM | 0 recs
The GOP Primary will be fun
I am so looking forward to:

Frist vs. Pat Buchanan vs. Rudy Giuliani vs. Gary Bauer vs. Rice vs. McCain whatever other wierdos show up (Santorum? Brownback? Ahnuld? Lieberman?)

Of course, the freepi are salivating over the Hillary vs everyone else contest in which they get to relive all their greatest moments of Clinton-bashing. It's going to be ugly, nasty, and expensive.

by quoi 2005-04-13 12:48PM | 0 recs
It's Too Bad We Can't Get Hillary...
to "pretend to run" as a stalking horse to get the wingers all oriented on her, and then drop in a different candidate at the last minute to take the wind out of their sails.

But that would require Party team play, and couple of friends commented that Hillary would rather go for the brass ring herself.

by ItsBeenCalmingForSomeTime 2005-04-13 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: It's Too Bad We Can't Get Hillary...
It would be very funny if she played it up that way, only to let them all down with a big Nelson-style "ha ha". In the meantime she'd be giving cover to  someone like Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer or Va's John Warner.

(After last election I'm certain that if a Senator from either party runs, that party is going to lose.)

by quoi 2005-04-13 06:11PM | 0 recs
Doesn't matter!
Even if we run Evan Bayh, he's going to be called a pinko queer-loving ISlamofascist baby killer.

What we really ought to do is promote Bayh, so the country can see just how fucked up and insane the GOP is when they say that Evan Bayh and the Jews killed Jesus.  And Terry Schiavo.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 06:58PM | 0 recs
JRE 2008
Edwards is going to win, y'all.
by DrFrankLives 2005-04-13 12:54PM | 0 recs
Nope
To be president, you need some sort of experience.  One term as senator, which ended four years prior to the election, is not nearly enough experience to be president.  His only chance to become president was after eight years as being vice president, which is now not going to happen.
by Geotpf 2005-04-13 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope
Captain moron certainly has proven that it is not necessary to have some sort of experience in order to be ELECTED president.  

to govern, that's another story, but from all the people constantly whining "no more senators", I don't think that governing effectively is a concern.

by Valatan 2005-04-13 05:54PM | 0 recs
Don't forgot the little girl
Who lost 30 feet of her intestines to a pool filter.  John Boy covered that.

Plus, who doesn't want to buy a puppy after their basset hound (John kerry) dies?

I want Big Al.  But only if he goes with the beard.  And the heavy drinking.  And the Frenching Tipper.

I want Al Gore to run a "See If I Give a Fuck" campaign.

And, I want to hear Chris MAtthews babble about Nixon in '68.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't forgot the little girl
Hell yes! Matthews ranting about pre-Reagan elections is ALWAYS awesome! And I swear to God I am not being sarcastic! Chris Matthews is God!

Mountain-man Gore is great; I'd love to see him pair up with someone equally weird and disheveled, like Robert Byrd or Hunter Thompson's corpse. Actually, Gore might have a shot, especially if he drops this foolish tv station idea.

by PantslessYoda1 2005-04-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
HST is a no-no
"Hunter Thompson's corpse"

There is no corpse.  He's ashes.  And he's going to be shot out of a cannon.

The most Gore could do is run with him in spirit.  That would be fun!  Especially if he stuck to it and made it a feature of his campaign.

That, or we could have a Gore-Boxer ticket, based on America's love for all things violent.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Say it enough, it might become true.
Fact is, voters do not give a shit about "experience," at least as some bloggers define it.  If nothing else, the relative success of Edwards' primary campaign proves that; the candidates that the blogosphere identified as "electable" because of their "experience" proved to be anything but, winning fewer votes combined than Edwards did alone.
by Drew 2005-04-13 09:10PM | 0 recs
Don't count him out
I'm NJ, and there are a lot Democrats I know that like Giuliani, even prior to 911.  Yeah, I too think he'd get slaughtered in the South, but republicans nationwide may be starting to wise up and start picking moderates.  If he can make it past a few bad south showings and make to the coasts and mid west, i think he has a real shot at the nomination.  And if he is in the general election, he will be tough.  Bad things people are saying about him, i.e. divorce etc., are not going to come from dems in the general, it's not their style.
by JAmbro 2005-04-13 01:35PM | 0 recs
Rudy
Rudy isn't a threat.  The more people see of him, the less they will like.  He's mean-spirtied, shrill and vindictive.  He had no political future until 9/11 (to be fair, his performance in NYC during that time, was outstanding), but he's not a guy you're going to want to deal with day after day.  Many people vote for the guy they liked the best, and they aren't going to like Rudy.

I can't imagine him ever surviving the Republican primaries in the South, either.  Conservatives will beat him like a drum on gays and abortion.

by alhill 2005-04-13 01:40PM | 0 recs
Which is why we need him
Because Guiliani would be the ideal opponent.  He's a pervert and a freak and a loser.  He's a dago who hates the mob!  How uncool is that?!  

Plus, baldies never do well.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why we need him
except that he doesn't hate the mob.  He pretended to while he was a prosecutor, but his police commissioner was close allies with the Gambino family.  There's no way this is not going to come out during the primaries (it's already been in the papers and Kerik is sooner or later going to go to trial for something).
by burritoboy 2005-04-14 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Which is why we need him
Flip Flopper!  Haha!

See?  We need Guiliani.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-14 05:57AM | 0 recs
He's dirty
Guiliani is dirty in about seventeen different ways.  Mob ties, kickbacks, sexual scandals, you name it.  I would hope he got the nomination, but I seriously doubt it's going to happen.  It's going to be Frist, who, frankly, is a lousy canidate in his own right.  In fact, other than McCain, every canidate on thier side will go down fairly easily, unless we pick an equally lousy canidate.
by Geotpf 2005-04-14 07:36AM | 0 recs
Condi would be tough
But as a single, purportedly lesbian, educated black female from California, I'd eat my hat if the GOP actually gave her the nod.
by jcjcjc 2005-04-14 06:32PM | 0 recs
The right wingnuts will have a say
The right wingnuts will have a say in who gets the nomination. Rudy Giuliani would "triangulate" them out of the next general election - they will not let their power go easily or gladly. They'll be sure to savage him in the primaries.
by Michael Bersin 2005-04-13 01:40PM | 0 recs
rudy has no shot.
If we had a different election type, without primaries, of course he would win.

Republicans will not support him. Look at McCain. He was much more conservative on GOP bread-and-butter issues and was a shoe-in to crush Gore, but primary voters had no taste for him. The temptation of getting a guaranteed trip to the White House doesn't sway primary voters as much as would be necessary for Guiliani to get the nod.

Take the average primary voter in "low intensity primary states". I say Iowa and NH prolly get a more representative mix of the population. At later primaries, the proportion of party faithful will go up, and Guiliani will get crushed.

He's pro-gays, pro-choice, and anti-guns. Probably 20% of country votes single-issue on one of those 3 issues. Primary voters are nearly a majority of these voters, and they will never vote for Guiliani.

Maybe he has other motives. Kinda like the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton model. Even though winning is a long shot at best, the act of running did alot for them in terms of prestige and credibility.

by srolle 2005-04-13 02:15PM | 0 recs
Good, I hope he does. He's a complete joke!
by JamBoi 2005-04-13 02:17PM | 0 recs
Wanna frame below the belt?
Stop calling him Rudy.

Isn't his name Rudolph?

by catastrophile 2005-04-13 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Wanna frame below the belt?
I like Rudy.  Rudy reminds me of the Cosby Show.  If we really wanted to frame below the belt, we'd call him after one of the many Jump the Shark characters that ruined the Cosby Show.
by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 07:05PM | 0 recs
Look for Guliana to slowly change his positions...
I say this with respect to being pro-choice.  First, he'll say that his position is a personal one that he'd rather not discuss.

Then he'll say there are two sides to the issue, and that he can certainly understand where the anti-choice people are coming from.

Then he'll say that although he understands the pro-choice viewpoint, that's not how he feels about it personally.

Then he'll say that after much prayer and thought, he's decided that abortion should be discouraged after all.

Eventually, he'll declare himself to be 'pro-life' and deny he's ever been anything else.

by Technowitch 2005-04-13 02:30PM | 0 recs
If Rudy is the nominee. . .
Won't Judge Roy Moore get about 6 to 10% nationally.
by Painter2004 2005-04-13 02:38PM | 0 recs
Rudy as nominee
If you really wanna see a shake of the whole blue/red state map, imagine if Rudy were the Repub and someone like Mark Warner were the Dem.  I could see Rudy taking NH and maybe places like Maine or even NJ, and Warner taking places like VA and AR
by MattyR 2005-04-13 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy as nominee
I agree, with him vs. Warner or some other southerner, the map in the east may flip.  He can't win in those intense Bible- belt states, although he may take some states like NJ, CT, and PA.  
by Max Friedman 2005-04-13 03:21PM | 0 recs
LOL
He'll never win the GOP primary. Once South Carolina rolls around, some wingnut from Dixie (Frist perhaps?) will cream him. I'm not worried about Giuliani. Democrats actually like him more than Republican primary voters. So, forget him until the Republican Party adopts a socially moderate platform.
by raginillinoian 2005-04-13 02:59PM | 0 recs
Rudy [can] fail
This is one possible scenario, but seems to me this is what awaits Rudy in February 2008:

Week 1: Iowan Republicans seem like a mix of Bible thumpers and cranky populist/maverick types (after all, they put Pat Robertson on the map in 1988). Rudy finishes 4th behind McCain, Frist, Santorum.

Week 2: There are enough moderates and pragmatists in New Hampshire to give Rudy a boost, but mostly they loves them some McCain up there. Rudy finishes 2nd behind McCain.

Week 3: Let's assume Alabama gets their wish of moving up in the order. Alabama Republicans are well-known for their love of pro-choice cross-dressing Northeastern Catholics. Rudy finishes 6th behind Frist, Santorum, McCain, Haley Barbour, and George Allen.

Week 4: National media starts sticking fork in Rudy. Moderate South Carolinians stick finger in wind and decide they're better off trying to boost McCain's sagging chances. Rudy finishes 8th behind everyone above plus Gary Bauer and Strom Thurmond's corpse.

Week 5: Rudy returns to profiteering off the War on Terror.

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-04-13 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy [can] fail
I have a feeling that Santorium's loss in his re-election bid will knock him off of the political map for '08
by Valatan 2005-04-13 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy [can] fail
I agree. If Bob Casey Jr. manages to run a decent campaign and raise a lot of money, Santorum will be another pretty-boy wingnut could've-been in 2008.
by raginillinoian 2005-04-13 09:15PM | 0 recs
The Safe Money Pick is Still Bush or Hagel
Giuliani might run for President to be named Veep, but it's a far cry to think he can actually win the nomination of the Republicans. (Maybe he wants to run as an independent). He does not have what it takes to win over those conservatives who seem themsevles vindicated by Bush. There is too much of a sense, down to even perhaps a Calvinist ethos, that the "white Christian nation" of America has succeeded and will succeed and that Bush merely reveals our power and glory.

So, Frist or Jeb are possibilities as the "elephant grabbing the tail candidates". They will be more about continuity than extending an "agenda" into the future. This will be seen positively by the Republican insiders that they are malleable to the "BushKampf" worldview.

Should military debacles or other foreign problems hit home before '08, there's always Chuck Hagel to talk to the economic, red-meat conservatives and distance himself from the nut-job unilateralist neo-cons.

And if economic and military problems arise before '08, the GOP will likely let any poor ol' sap run...figuring that he or she would lose badly to a challnger.

My own prediction is that most of the economic consequences of Bush and the GOP Congress won't hit until after '08...leaving us with President Frist or Hagel for a term before the bottom falls out and we wind up with Eliot Spizter turning corporate accountibility into a law and order issue in 2012.

Just as the last period of Democratic dominance began with the Governor of New York becoming President in rough economic times, I expect to see history repeat itself once more.

by risenmessiah 2005-04-13 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Safe Money Pick is Still Bush or Hagel
What are the odds that Iran is phase 3 on the War on Terror?
by falcon4e 2005-04-13 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The Safe Money Pick is Still Bush or Hagel
Fortunately, the GOP is afraid of losing votes over a draft. (Iran is waaay to big for the current military, plus the country's been making oil deals right and left with China, a very oil-thirsty superpower.) So we won't be invading Iran this June unless they're ready to lose a lot of ground in 2006.
by quoi 2005-04-13 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Safe Money Pick is Still Bush or Hagel
LOL.

Yeah, what if Spitzer repeated the FDR years? That'd be ironic.

Reliving the 30's in the 2010's will be a mixed bag - the good part will be complete Democratic domination. The bad part - the Democrats struggle to undo the damage of Bush.

Of course, I'm optimistic about 2006 and 2008.

But if we do find ourselves repeating history exactly, I can't wait to relive 1980!!! Get out the popcorn, folks! We can all keel over watching the second coming of Reagan in 2060!

by raginillinoian 2005-04-13 09:27PM | 0 recs
Rudy vs. Schweitzer?
Wouldn't that be a match, red state Dem. vs. blue state Rep! LOL! Everything would be all mixed up in the moral values land! Rural family guy dem vs. cheating New Yorker.
by adventuregeek 2005-04-13 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy vs. Schweitzer?
It'd help Schweitzer. Schweitzer would win Montana, most of the other Mountain states, the less loyally Republican South (Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), and much of the Midwest (but not Nebraska, Kansas, or Indiana). Whatever inroads Giuliani made into the Northeast would be cancelled out by Schweitzer's inroads into the "heartland". And then the map would be a throwback to 1916 - the latte-drinking states go red, the Bible Belt goes blue.

But this is all a game. It'll never happen. Once South Carolina's primary comes, cross-dressing pro-choice pro-gay rights urban liberal Rudy will be toast. Of course, he could upset us all by doing what every moderate Republican does - appease the right by denouncing his stances and finding Jesus and still convincing the left that he is moderate.

by raginillinoian 2005-04-13 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy vs. Schweitzer?
Guiliani wouldn't win as much of the Northeast as you imagine.  He wouldn't win Mass. or Vermont. New York wouldn't be sure either (really - upstate New York is Republican, but not hugely fond of Guiliani perse, and New York City and suburbs don't love him anywhere near as much as he pretends - in fact, many New Yorkers hate his guts).  He may do OK in Penn, but CT and NJ would by no means be locks or anything close.  They may well prefer to vote for Schweitzer over Guiliani. There's no particular assurance California would like Guiliani (quite the converse, actually).

So, Guiliani loses support from the die-hard-right in the South (they'll still vote R - but much less enthusiastically, providing many more competitive states) while NOT in turn providing safe, uncompetitive states anywhere else.

by burritoboy 2005-04-14 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Rudy vs. Schweitzer?
I forgot about the California thing. I think that in LA we are required by law to vote against anyone from NYC ;-)
by quoi 2005-04-14 10:26AM | 0 recs
No way
I still don't think Giuliani can win a primary. As serious as Republicans are about their 9-11 stuff, they just can't nominate a pro-choicer. Pro-life voters are "the oppressed" with regards to current laws, so they vote on the issue more solidly than pro-choicers, so it would actually be even tougher for Giuliani to get the nomination than it would be for a pro-life Dem to.
by PantslessYoda1 2005-04-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Dead man walking
Rudy isn't going to make it. That appt. of
a freaking criminal to head up Homeland Security
ruled it out.

You of all people should know that the republican
party is a monarchy. Its McCain in 2008.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-04-14 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Dead man walking
McCain? No way. If Chimpie could beat him in 2000, then with an even more right-wing GOP in 2008, he's done for.
by raginillinoian 2005-04-14 07:14AM | 0 recs
McCain is the only Republican who can win
IMHO, a good canidate on our side will just slaughter any of thier canidates-except McCain.  McCain beats everybody.  But he's not enough of a wingnut to win the Republican primaries (this goes for Guiliani doubly so, of course).  He could probably even win if he lost the primary and ran as an independent, which I don't think he would do, but his ego is huge, so it can't be ruled out completely.
by Geotpf 2005-04-14 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain is the only Republican who can win
If he'll proabably win, how does that make his ego huge?
by Valatan 2005-04-15 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Dead man walking
McCain is way too old. He'll be 72 in 2008 (he looks that old now). They'll want a younger one they can install in office for at least eight years.
by quoi 2005-04-14 10:29AM | 0 recs
I checked up on this.
The GOP will run Guiliani to destroy hillary.
He is a sacrificial lamb.

Even in my field, with my mathematical background,
I find that I am not one to really put weight
into statistics.

Everyone always wonders how the GOP pulls the
rabbit out of the hat..

Well.. if you're a junkie... you have to buy junk.
Its that simple.

the GOP will play the pundits against themselves
again. Thats my info.  

If the dems want to win, they will need unprecedented secrecy on their ticket selection
in 2008, and better still - announce, out of the
blue that they're dissolving the party and
renaming it and really blasting its own
members that still try to pull strings
(see... the "national security democrats" post..)
and aggressively pursue radical reform.

Or that 60% statistic that says the American
people want the Dems to stand up to the Bush
administration will NEVER turn into 60% of
the American people voting for the Dems.

Yep. Guilianis for all those people who
think they know everything. He set it up
for speakers fees, and a fake run.
New york - if you can make it there..
you can make it anywhere...

BAAAA

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-04-14 05:15AM | 0 recs
Hillary & Rudy
I suspect that neither will get the nomination. I have more hope for Hillary. She's shown a capacity to win people over. She's not afraid of hard work. She's really something in person--I always saw too much of the Goldwater girl from the suburbs in her tv persona, but live, Hillary impresses. OTOH, Feingold, divorce aside, may do much better with teh Dem base---I think there's a desire for somebody new and someone who brings energy and ideas to the fore. Kerry lacked that.

Rudy strikes me as a lazy and all the money he's making is likely to make him feel even more entitled than he has in the past. He'll have to "flipflop" to get grassroots people to support him, which will make him an easy target for his competition. The social issues tuff will not do well in the South. A New Yorkish personality doesn't wear well elsewhere, although it doesn't really effect me one way or the other.

McCain is bucking and weaving his way toward a Bush endorsement and I think he's the closest thing a moderate who has a chance in the GOP.

by rich 2005-04-14 05:41AM | 0 recs
Rudy in a dress
How could anyone not want this man as our next President?

Rudy in drag

by Curt Matlock 2005-04-14 07:11AM | 0 recs
No, No, No
It's going to be George Allen, for the simple reason that he does what he's told.

The RNC wants somebody malleable.  And Bush was their wet dream:  A guy who did EXACTLY what he was told, was rich enough to finance his own campaign, and had gobs of rich buddies.  (Oh, and of course the GOP/Media helped, too.)

George Allen fulfills most if not all of these requirements.  Rudy's too dangerously independent (by GOP standards), not to mention too "ethnic" for the highly-racist folk that make up the GOP's base nowadays.  

by Phoenix Woman 2005-04-14 07:44PM | 0 recs
by hpvv 2005-12-19 10:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads