Giuliani wins in 08

Great Debates
1

Hillary will get the Democrat nomination, which will ensure that they spend another 4 years looking at the white house from outside the fence. If you think she actually has a chance to be elected, you’re fooling yourself. People do not like her. End of debate, on that issue.

So it all comes down to who wins the Republican nomination. They can put up anyone they like and they would beat Hillary. Daffy Duck would beat Hillary, but how many Republicans realize this? I think they’re too timid in the wake of anti-Bush-mania to put a real conservative up to the plate. They want someone with broad appeal, which means the McCain clones are out. They have to choose their issues carefully, and sacrifice ground on others.

And what do Republicans sacrifice by electing Giuliani, really? They don’t get a frontman that will TALK about anti abortion issues, but he’ll still appoint conservative judges that will erode abortion rights.

What else are they losing? He’s a big-city man, and might not cut medicare and social security as much as the conservatives would like. He might not keep all the tax cuts Bush killed our government with.

But they get what they want most, by electing Rudy. They get a tough guy! Everyone loves a tough guy, and when it comes to sticking it to the badguys, there’s NOBODY tougher than Giuliani, except maybe His Majesty the Deciderer, himself. Rudy’s in charge, Guantanemo stays. Rudy’s in charge, troops stay in Iraq. Rudy’s in charge, and those Iranians will have to think twice before they act up. Rudy’s in charge, and the government expands its wire-tapping program. Badguys won’t get lawyers. Badguys won’t get trials. Badguys won’t even get CHARGED, because we’re the biggest, baddest motherfuckers on the block and we don’t take shit from NOBODY. The most important issue near and dear to conservative hearts will be fulfilled.

That’s why the Republicans are going to sabotage front runners around Giuliani, like they did to McCain 8 years ago. That’s why Giuliani is going to be our next president. All hail the chief!

2

The prospect gives me pause to reflect and take comfort in living so close to the Canadian border.

But there are fleas in your ointment. First off, there are any number of people (myself, included) who just flat don’t like Mrs. C. But I suspect our numbers are exaggerated, because, well, if most people felt like us, she’d be running dead last,and she’s not.

As for Rudy, the game is young, the fat lady is still in the cab on the way to the theater, long time before she sings. Most people don’t know that much about Rudy, and they will, and a lot of it ain’t all that attractive. The saga of Bernie Kerik is for starters. Skeletons? He doesn’t have a closet so much as an ossuary. And them bones gonna get up and walk around, rattle thier booty.

Everything there is to know about Hillary, we know. She has been subject to one of the most massive dirt digging expeditions in history, if they found it, they used it. That’s all there is, there ain’t no more.

She might win, she might lose, but it sure ain’t over.

3

I tired of doomsday political scenarios a long time ago. Be it Hillary or be it Rudy, I’m fine with either one as president. Generally, if people don’t want something to happen bad enough, then it doesn’t happen, regardless of who is or is not president.

4

If people don’t like her, why is she a huge frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, as well as ahead of every Republican in hypothetical head-to-head matchups? :confused:

5

While I dislike Bush and think he’s a terrible president and all that, I find it endlessly amusing that there are people in the world who hear about “Tax cuts” and “Spending cuts” and actually believe in such things, and that the U.S. government is taking in fewer taxes. It’s so cute.

6

I’m one of those people contributing to Hillary’s “huge negatives”. I don’t care for her. If she wins the nomination, however, she gets my vote. Republicans suck at running the government.

7

On a list of “candidates you hate” she’s number 1 by a long shot. 3 or 4 percentage points more than the highest republican. Didn’t I say this part of the debate is over? Well, it is. Hillary will not be our next president, so can we just move on to hating Giuliani please?

8

Does this sound realistic?

“What’s your opinion about Hillary Clinton?”
“She’s the incarnation of pure evil. If she is elected she will declare America a communist republic and make Christianity illegal on her first day in office. Then she’ll order all American troops to surrender and turn over their weapons to Al Qaeda terrorists. Then she’ll unlock all the prisons doors and tell the prisoners they’re free to rape and murder white people. Then she’ll eat some babies and her head will spin around several times and she’ll summon Satatn to rule over the Earth. A Hillary Clinton administration would be the end of humanity.”
“What’s your opinion about Osama Barack?”
“Well, I’m not sure about his foreign policies but I like what he’s saying about education.”

Let’s face it, the people who hate Hillary Clinton are going to hate any Democratic candidate. They’re not going to vote for Barack or Edwards or Richardson. They might not even vote for Guiliani or Romney or McCain.

9

Of all the candidates currently in the Democratic running I think there are several who are more electable than Hillary.

I think Bill Richardson would probably win against most of the Republican field, in fact I have a hard time thinking of a Republican who would beat him. The problem is, Bill Richardson will not win the nomination.

I think he is the most electable Democrat in the primary field. I think Kucinich is probably the least electable.

I’m not sure who is more/less electable between Obama and Hillary, I personally would vote for Obama before I’d vote for Hillary, so I lean to saying Obama is more electable (since I, a Republican can imagine some far-out scenario where I’d cross party lines to vote for Obama, but I’d probably even vote for Sam Brownback over Hillary.)

I dislike both Hillary and Giuliani because I think they’re cut from the same mold. There are (to dumb it down immensely) three types of people who run for President.

Type 1: Someone who is experienced politically (or has some strong public persona–like a military leader), and has come to feel that they “are entitled to it.” It is the “top job” in politics, and they think they have put in the work, developed the organization, the public persona and et cetera and that they are now entitled to the Presidency. Hillary has been married to Bill for decades, been involved in politics for much of her life, she’s been an over-achiever probably since she was ten years old (if not younger.) She’s established her own, independent Presidential credentials, not only is she “entitled” to be President, she’s going to be the first female President, she views this as her birthright.

Giualiani is pretty much the same way (obviously the first female President thing doesn’t apply to him.)

Historical examples: James Madison, James Monroe, W.H. Taft, Lyndon B. Johnson

Type 2: Is someone who genuinely feels that they have the best plan for the country, and that only by winning the Presidency can they enact this plan. I think Obama falls into this category, I think McCain in 2000 fell into this category (I think McCain in 2008 has moved into the Type 1 category.)

Historical examples: Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Theodore Roosevelt

Type 3: Is a powerful/influential person who has more or less been “handled” into the Presidency. They are essentially the “front man” of a “committee” of powerful associates who wants “their boy” in the Oval Office. Usually the front man is someone with strong business/political ties who has been active in politics for years, but who isn’t really someone with any visionary ideas.

Historical examples: William McKinley is probably the absolute best example, I think that it’s arguable that George Washington could fall into this category.

I think you’ll see a lot of Presidents who fall into two or all of the categories. For example I think Richard Nixon may have equally been Type 1 and Type 2, and Washington was probably a bit of 2 and 3.

Being one type over the other isn’t necessarily a guarantee that the President will be good or bad. For example William McKinley wasn’t a bad President. Nor was Dwight Eisenhower (I’d argue he’s a Type 1.) A lot of people will associate strongly with Type 2 Presidents because they are the idealists, but the idealists aren’t always the best candidates nor would they always make the best President, it is arguable as to whether Wilson’s idealism was a good or bad thing and whether it helped or hampered him politically. I think it made him unlikely to compromise and that was a blow.

(FTR I think GWB is strongly a type 3.)

I tend to dislike Type 1 candidates especially when I strongly doubt that they will perform well at the job, so that’s why I don’t really like Giuliani or Hillary.

I think Hillary will be the next Democratic nominee. The primaries keep getting closer and closer and I’ve really not seen anything out of Obama that convinces me he is going to be able to topple Hillary.

I think she can beat most of the Republican field, but I also think she’s beatable herself.

10

I never said that the government is taking fewer taxes. Tax cuts don’t necessarily mean fewer taxes in a growing economy, but it’s cute to see you trying to play grown-up with us. Now let mommy and daddy talk.

11

This is not true. The repubs have far less than 50% representation by the population, but 50% of likely voters will “never vote for Hillary”. You can reason with it all you want, but it’s the damned truth. Hillary will not be our next president, and that’s the final word. You can join this debate by trying to convince people that Giuliani isn’t necessarily going to be the republican candidate, but this is NOT a thread about how Hillary can win. She can’t. The end.

12

I was unaware that you were placed in charge of deciding these matters. I must have missed the memo.

13

Funny. Care to talk about Giuliani?

14

Not with anyone who is so belligerent, no.

15

I don’t hate Rudy, but I really don’t want him to be President. He’s corrupt, he lied about cleaning up New York (it started under Dinkins), & very possibly not remotely temperamentally suited to the office.

Of course, there aren’t many on the GOP side I like. Romney would be handled by others; he wants the status, not the responsibility. Brownback might have been better than Huckabee, but he’s gone. Actually, with Brownback out, Huckabee’s got all those religious right votes & will be the real front-runner soon. So your point is moot.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter how many people hate Hillary. A lot of people hated Bush in '04, presumably more than hated poor John Kerry. But the primaries don’t incorporate negative votes, & neither does the general. More’s the pity.

16

I agree that Giuliani isn’t going to make a good president. Who do you think would handle Romney, though? He seems like one of the least “handled” candidates on the Republican side, to me.

Huckabee might be the front runner soon, but it still doesn’t stop the overlords from sabotaging his campaign. It’s a historical precedent. The republicans want someone who can “steal” votes from Hillary, and in their mind Huckabee just can’t do that. The hero of 9/11 can, though.

17

I don’t know who. I hear that he was pretty much indifferent to his duties as governor. I expect that if he doesn’t already have people choosing his positions for him, someone would volunteer for the job between him getting enough delegates & the inauguration.

He’s GWB with better hair.

Point taken about the GOP “establishment.” But I think Giuliani’s skeletons will get in the way; he’s not going all the way if people start playing hardball, & his nomination will invite comparisons between his cronies & K Street in the Barbour/DeLay era. Or do you think HRC is too stupid to pull that?

In fact, I think a Hillary-Giuliani matchup might invigorate the “Unity '08” guys just due to the mud flung over corruption on both sides.

18

How’s Guiliani going to run against Clinton? Politically speaking, he’s Hillary Clinton with a penis. What’s he going to say? “Don’t vote for Hillary because she’s pro-choice and favors gay rights and gun control! Of course, so do I. But she’s got a bad marriage! Admittedly, not as bad as my first two marriages. But do you want some slick New Yorker telling you what to do? No wait, that’s not right…”

The bottom line is that Guiliani probably is the Republican candidate most likely to take votes from Clinton - and for the very same reason, he’s the Republican candidate who’s most likely to lose a Republican vote for every Democratic vote he picks up.

19

Giuliani is the most likely Republican to take votes from Clinton, but I don’t agree that the reverse is true. People hate Hillary for irrational reasons, like the tone of her voice, the clothes she wears, her “insincerity”, and the fact that her husband cheated on her. Those people are not going to jump ship and vote for her just because the other guy comes from the same city and has a similar stance on lots of issues.

20

I’ve said this several times before: I don’t know why the Democrats want the presidency right after Bush leaves. America’s foreign policy in the Middle East for the past 8 years is going to go tits up right in the lap of the next president. I think it should be a Republican, myself.

Of course, one could argue that by aggressively backing a black and a woman, each moderately controversial choices for other reasons as well, that the Dems are in fact playing to lose.