Would you support Rudy Giuliani for president in 08?

[Marc]

Rumor has it he's running.
He's pro gay rights and pro choice. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[Togm]

Did he get past his cancer scare ok?

he seems like an ok guy.

[jIgG]

maybe
if he doesn't pander to the righ-wing nutjobs which if he doesn't he may not get nominated.

[Matt 26z]

He was a real nice guy throughout 9-11, so he should be our next President. That's about how it would go. He's still riding high on that day. The rest of the country wouldn't even know who he is otherwise.

[chadknowslaw]

I would like to see him as the Republican candidate and then a good Dem. Wouldn't it be great if BOTH candidates for President were gay-friendly this time?

Kerry was not a good candidate in my opinion. He just did not inspire people to vote for him -- I voted for him while really voting AGAINST GWB. Edwards was the candidate I voted for in the primary and I think he was much more inspiring than Kerry--I really WANTED Edwards to win, unlike in the general election I just wanted GWB to LOSE. I just didn't feel excited about Kerry, and I think many voters felt the same way.

Ideally, there will be a good candidate from the Repubs and a good candidate from the Dems. Rudy seems like a decent Repub since he is more of a true conservative -- they are the party that is supposed to keep government OUT of our lives instead of meddling, which is what the current administration loves to do. I would hate to see another President that panders to the far-right and fundie christians in office~ GWB has done so much damage to liberty already and another god-fearing president would be a disaster .

[Squirt]

Giuliani is anti porn if I remember correctly VERY anti porn... so if he did win we'd see a continued assault

He looks like a hairless Hitler IMO :francais:

but seems like a nice guy..... but don't they all :pimp:

[basschick]

i think it would depend on who else was running.

btw, jIgG - anyone who doesn't get the right-wing nutjob vote won't be our next president. they are feeling their oats and voting in force.

[Squirt]

VOTE HILLARY 2008 :thumbsup:

[Matt 26z]

I would like to see him as the Republican candidate

Giuliani is anti porn if I remember correctly VERY anti porn... so if he did win we'd see a continued assault

So this is why Chad Law wants him to win. All the more business! j/k

[chadknowslaw]

NO NO NO NO!!

Given the field of potential candidates, including wacko Dr. Frist, Guilianni would be a good repub candidate.

I will be voting Democrat~

[davespeedoevans]

I know you guys are prolly sick of the election stuff but being an Aussie (where politics are pretty black and white) I really enjoyed being in the US through the last election and the whole candidate election stuff.

I'm right wing on fiscal policy but left on 'new' social values (choice and gay rights have already been mentioned) - but a Republican who is liberal on social issues but conservative on economics - that is the kinda guy I would vote for.

I wasn't stateside before Sept 11 but my impression before then was that Giuliani was a bit of a Nazi (that is way the wrong word and not mean literally) with the whole police crack down thing. I really don't know that was more of a question than a statement.

And as always... Chad is a man who makes sense... Edwards over Kerry - absolutely.

[desslock]

I can't imagine Guilianni ever possibly winning the Republican primary, not so much cause of gay rights...but the really big reason those people hang around - abortion. With the religious right, it's all about abortion. And Guilliani is to them an "avowed baby killer." And another big reason - I don't think he'll have the national team necessary to win primaries.

I'd probably vote for John McCain though. Just because he talks to social conservatives doesn't make him a villian. They are people too. And he has voted against a Federal Marriage Amendment twice, which they know.

But the thing to remember is that historically Senators naturally get the itch to run for President of the United States, but in practice they always have a really hard time convincing the voters to elect them. There are some examples of Senators who have won election - John F Kennedy or Warren G Harding come to mind, but generally they go nowhere.

John Kerry and Barry Goldwater are recent examples of Senators who lost election for President. Senators just don't sell well to entire America. They appear aloof and long winded, and they are over in Washington all the time, never in their district.

That's why for Democrats I'd look at Governors like Bill Richardson of New Mexico, or one of those midwetern Democrat govs as serious contenders.

But really, we aren't even at the midterm electios yet. Handicapping is silly. And the Democrats could win Congress this year, if they ran on a unified platform to reform their institution to make them accountable for their spending. But all they are still doing is just running against Bush, defining themselves as what they are not.

I'm looking at today's New York Times which carries the funny headline: "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit, Tops '05 by $250 Billion"

You have to laugh because the President's entire policy of lowering taxes over the past five years has been supposed to make tax revenues increase. But that kind of economic policy is unaknowledgable. So today's news is presented as a surprise. Compare that to New Jersey which is raising their taxes, on top of years of rising tax burdens, so the state's revenue woes always continue with just more of the same.

Steve

[dannyz]

I definitely wouldn't vote for Giuliani, not only because he panders to big business and Bush, is way into a police state and anti-porn, but also just because I don't trust him.

While I like Hillary, I know the repubs are praying for her to get the nomination because her chances of winning would be so slim.

I think the best bet for dems would be Virginia governor Mark Warner, he has a good stance on most of the issues I care about and seems like the safest bet for democrats to get back the power since I think he could woo over some of the southern voters.

Just take a look at what he did for Virginia:

Highest score in protecting the public from disease, disasters, & terrorism
Turned a $6 billion deficit into a $544 Million surplus
Eliminated or merged more than 70 duplicative or unnecessary boards and commissions and eight state agencies
Salvaged Virginia’s threatened AAA bond rating
Double-digit unemployment has plummeted in 12 of 13 of the most distressed counties
2nd lowest jobless rate in the nation
97% of all eligible children enrolled in heath care
Single largest investment in K-12 education in state history
Second largest increase in college and university funding in the nation
Highest math SAT score increase in the nation
The Council of Chief State School Officers Most Prestigious 2005
Distinguished Service Award
700 miles of broadband connecting nearly 700,000 citizens and more than 19,000 businesses

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

Cheers,
DannyZ

[Squirt]

I think the best bet for dems would be Virginia governor Mark Warner, he has a good stance on most of the issues I care about and seems like the safest bet for democrats to get back the power since I think he could woo over some of the southern voters.

There is no way this guy could win.. and I mean absolutely no offense here but he looks inbread and stupid... looks go a looooooooooong way in an election, I know it's shallow, but it's true, and this guy looks like his Daddies brothers sister is his mother and he got hit in the face with a frying pan. No offense.. just superficially speaking.. and the fact he comes from Virginia, not Texas

[dannyz]

In my opinion, he has a much better chance then Hillary, and we've had far uglier presidents. Look at Nixon, I mean his face looked like it was just bashed in by the ugly stick and he was voted in twick.

Anyways, read this and learn Squirt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10401164/site/newsweek/