Giuliani: Worse Than Bush?

[The Chairman]

I like Guiliani, but I don't think he has winning power. I really say the big person to watch in the Republican party is Fred Thompson. He seems to "get it" in a way the others do not. And he helped take down Nixon. That's a pro on his side.

Not really. Outside of Watergate, Nixon was seriously a good president. And had he not been impeached he was planning on cutting the work day down to 4 days instead of 5.

 

[musclesforsupes]

Randor?

 

[jaguarr]

i'll bash anyone who hires proven dirtbags to run their campaign. like mccain, who hired one of the guys responsible for the new hampshire phone jamming scam a few years ago. when one party has displayed a majority of the corruption and unscrupulousness in washington over the last few years, then yes, i will point that out. the republican party is rotten to the core. you need to look no further than their siding with big business like the oil companies and haliburton over the needs of the american people for proof of that. hell, the fact that they present themselves as the party of morality and religious piety and then continually get caught in corruption scandals is enough to convince me that i'll never support the republican party. there's a few random party members that are decent people, like ron paul, but you see what happens when someone like him tries to speak the truth, he gets **** on and ostracized by his own party.

Randor?

Indeed, you know how to just cut to the heart of the matter don't you, muscles?

jag

 

[Mattchew]

Think you know everything you need to know about Rudy Giuliani? Think again.

Read this Rolling Stone article. It might open your eyes.

jag

i've read this before... yeah, America has NO IDEA the truth about this guy. 'Values' voters alone will run for cover.... to Fred Thompson.

 

[Mattchew]

Ps McCain and Giuliani are near dead in the water already. McCain is too old and on both sides of every issue it seems, and Giuliani just can't possibly get the republican nomination without being against a woman's right to choose.

If Fred Thomson's smart, he'll be the nominee.

 

[jaguarr]

Ps McCain and Giuliani are near dead in the water already. McCain is too old and on both sides of every issue it seems, and Giuliani just can't possibly get the republican nomination without being against a woman's right to choose.

If Fred Thomson's smart, he'll be the nominee.

I honestly don't like Thompson. He's another G.W. Bush only more eloquent as far as I can tell. But, he's probably the best bet the Republicans have at this point in time. I think you're right about McCain and Giuliani. Romney's got an uphill battle because of his Mormon roots and his history of flip-flopping on some issues.

I'm waiting to see what the Dem's do. I can't stand Hillary, and really don't want her as a President. She's another G.W. Bush only with ovaries. Plus she's got the added problem of always trying to say what she *thinks* the largest amount of people want to hear, which I find annoying. Obama could be great, but he's black and also inexperienced, both of which will work against him. Edwards....I just don't know about him, yet. The one everyone's wondering about is Al Gore. The rumor about him considering another go at it has been floating for awhile, now. He's lost the "Wooden Man" image and learned how to be a personable guy, which is really what killed him the last time he ran, to be honest. He was just so stiff during that election it just made him hard to like. Lot's to shake out before the strong contender for the Dem's starts to materialize.

jag

 

[sinewave]

Not really. Outside of Watergate, Nixon was seriously a good president. And had he not been impeached he was planning on cutting the work day down to 4 days instead of 5.

for reals? man, that would be sweet. my lazy ass would be much happier then. i should move to europe...

 

[sinewave]

Ps McCain and Giuliani are near dead in the water already. McCain is too old and on both sides of every issue it seems, and Giuliani just can't possibly get the republican nomination without being against a woman's right to choose.

If Fred Thomson's smart, he'll be the nominee.

damn that hollywood elite!

 

[The Chairman]

for reals? man, that would be sweet. my lazy ass would be much happier then. i should move to europe...

Yes. We learned about Nixon in global, and my teacher, who's fairly liberal, defended Nixon, saying that outisde of Watergate he was a great president, and then told us of this plan.

****ing Congress.

 

[Dangerous]

Basically no.

 

[Mattchew]

I honestly don't like Thompson. He's another G.W. Bush only more eloquent as far as I can tell. But, he's probably the best bet the Republicans have at this point in time. I think you're right about McCain and Giuliani. Romney's got an uphill battle because of his Mormon roots and his history of flip-flopping on some issues.

Romney can't will Repub nom as a mormon.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Romney can't win the nomination because no one knows who the f**k he is and doesn't have support. Hell, the only reason why he's at 12% of the polls is because he's a flip-flopper and raised a whole lot of money.

Look at McCain, his campaign is going horribly and even he's doing better at the polls than Romney. Fred Thompson isn't even in the race and he's doing better than Romney. Romney just needs to give up because he ain't going to win it.

 

[Mattchew]

Fred Thompson's position in the polls has everything to do with the fact that nobody knows anything about him...

That's not to say that when people do learn about him they'll hate him... Its just that people like the idea of 'not the guys we have already'.

once he's just another candidate, he'll have some real heavy lifting.

 

[jaguarr]

Mitt Romney's magic underwear are going to help him. You'll see.

jag

 

[Chris B]

Romney can't win the nomination because no one knows who the f**k he is and doesn't have support. Hell, the only reason why he's at 12% of the polls is because he's a flip-flopper and raised a whole lot of money.

Look at McCain, his campaign is going horribly and even he's doing better at the polls than Romney. Fred Thompson isn't even in the race and he's doing better than Romney. Romney just needs to give up because he ain't going to win it.

For awhile now, I've held the belief that he could end up as the VP nominee for the Republcans. My own prediction at this time is that the Republican ticket will be F. Thompson/Romney

 

[Mattchew]

Thopson Romney is not really smart... Romeney wont play well with the people who like Thopson's 'good ole boy' thing.... cause we haven't had enough the president people wanna drink with.

 

[Chris B]

Part of my reasoning was that Romney as the VP candidate could move back to the left and present himself as a balance to Thompson who could be portrayed as another Bush clone. Given Romney's history with flip-flops, this would probably only cement his image as an oppurtunist though.

 

[Mattchew]

Thompson's only chance at getting the nom is by looking like a bush clone to the far right voters in the primary. in the election, im not sure what his strategy will be, since conservatives want someone MORE conservative than Bush, and moderates are sick of anything resembling Bush.

 

[Majin Boo]

hillary for prez

 

[jaguarr]

Thompson's only chance at getting the nom is by looking like a bush clone to the far right voters in the primary. in the election, im not sure what his strategy will be, since conservatives want someone MORE conservative than Bush, and moderates are sick of anything resembling Bush.

I don't know about that. I think a lot of REAL conservatives have had it with Bush and his ilk. There's this new-fangled cross-section of the population called neo-conservatives that are the hardcore fundamentalist Bushie types. I'm not sure how many of those there actually are. There's quite a few, but Bush got elected on the votes of a lot of regular, more traditional conservatives who aren't going to vote for another neo-con. The neo-con's have basically destabilized the solidarity that conservatives once had and that takes away their voting power.

jag

 

[Mattchew]

I don't know about that. I think a lot of REAL conservatives have had it with Bush and his ilk. There's this new-fangled cross-section of the population called neo-conservatives that are the hardcore fundamentalist Bushie types. I'm not sure how many of those there actually are. There's quite a few, but Bush got elected on the votes of a lot of regular, more traditional conservatives who aren't going to vote for another neo-con. The neo-con's have basically destabilized the solidarity that conservatives once had and that takes away their voting power.

jag

one things for sure... until 'conservatives' start voting against, 'neo-conservatives', I'll feel more than comfortable calling them all 'conservatives'.

that's the joke... conservative weren't using the term 'neo-cons' till the second Wednesday in November last year. All the sudden, 'Bush isn't conservative enough' and 'Bush is a liberal' was repeated in mass by the right.

The STUPID reaction by the republican party was to see the results of the 06 election and to not move to the center as a result, but rather to move even farther to the right.

This means the strategy is to rely EVEN MORE on big-business repubs, and fundamentalist chirstian repubs.

the power in the republican party is right on board the George Bush train, ideologically speaking... Politically, Bush is poison, but republican leaders aren't clamoring for a new type of republican politician... they want another Bush, without the baggage.

a news flash to any conservative who doesn't know it... conservative is starting to be a dirty word becasue nobody's buying the whole neo-con thing. vote for a moderate in the 08 primary, and that trend can be fixed

 

[jaguarr]

one things for sure... until 'conservatives' start voting against, 'neo-conservatives', I'll feel more than comfortable calling them all 'conservatives'.

that's the joke... conservative weren't using the term 'neo-cons' till the second Wednesday in November last year. All the sudden, 'Bush isn't conservative enough' and 'Bush is a liberal' was repeated in mass by the right.

The STUPID reaction by the republican party was to see the results of the 06 election and to not move to the center as a result, but rather to move even farther to the right.

This means the strategy is to rely EVEN MORE on big-business repubs, and fundamentalist chirstian repubs.

the power in the republican party is right on board the George Bush train, ideologically speaking... Politically, Bush is poison, but republican leaders aren't clamoring for a new type of republican politician... they want another Bush, without the baggage.

a news flash to any conservative who doesn't know it... conservative is starting to be a dirty word becasue nobody's buying the whole neo-con thing. vote for a moderate in the 08 primary, and that trend can be fixed

One of the things I've heard people who consider themselves true conservatives complaining about with Bush Co. is that they (the Bushies and neo-cons) are all about big government and scratching the backs of their corporate and evangelical buddies. True conservatives are really against those things and it's killing them to see people hide behind the conservative cloak while either overtly or covertly endorsing and engaging in those things.

jag

 

[Kritish]

Mitt Romney's magic underwear are going to help him. You'll see.

jag

If only Chris Benoit had worn a pair.

 

[Mattchew]

One of the things I've heard people who consider themselves true conservatives complaining about with Bush Co. is that they (the Bushies and neo-cons) are all about big government and scratching the backs of their corporate and evangelical buddies. True conservatives are really against those things and it's killing them to see people hide behind the conservative cloak while either overtly or covertly endorsing and engaging in those things.

jag

again, the PROBLEM with that, is where were these people in 2004.... or in 2000 for that matter?

I get that Bush isn't the definition of a goldwater conservative, but he wasn't a goldwater conservative in 1999, nor has he ever been. In other words spend spend spend as long as you don't raise MY taxes and they way in which you spend doesn't inhibit big corporation in any way (abortion and gays are in the mix too).

Bush hasn't changed. And when he was wildly popular, it was touted as the golden age on American Conservatism.

The REALITY is, conservatives don't vote on small government. They vote on taxes, government regulation issues, and 'values' issues.

In other words, the word 'conservative' as it pertains to American politics doesn't mean what Barry Goldwater intended.

We got the the present as a result of the 'conservative revolution', not the 'neo-conservative revolution'.

A solid republican congress rubber stamping Bush to the point that he'd only Veto in a year ago next month. Now these smae guys are blaiming Bush for everything.

This is not a one-person problem. Its a problem with conservatism... Not as defined in the 70's, but as practiced for the last 12 years.

 

[jaguarr]

again, the PROBLEM with that, is where were these people in 2004.... or in 2000 for that matter?

I get that Bush isn't the definition of a goldwater conservative, but he wasn't a goldwater conservative in 1999, nor has he ever been.

Bush hasn't changed. And when he was wildly popular, it was touted as the golden age on American Conservatism.

The REALITY is, conservatives don't vote on small government. They vote on taxes, government regulation issues, and 'values' issues.

In other words, the word 'conservative' as it pertains to American politics doesn't mean what Barry Goldwater intended.

We got the the present as a result of the 'conservative revolution', not the 'neo-conservative revolution'.

A solid republican congress rubber stamping Bush to the point that he'd only Veto in a year ago next month. Now these smae guys are blaiming Bush for everything.

This is not a one-person problem. Its a problem with conservatism... Not as defined in the 70's, but as practiced for the last 12 years.

I don't disagree withyou , really. I think part of the issue is that, at least the first time around, Bush Co. were selling themselves as true conservatives and trying to speak to the talking points as if they were. The first time around, I think a lot of conservatives got fooled. I have NO idea why any of them would have voted for him the second time around, to be honest. The cat was out of the bag that he is a corporate ****e who only pushes the agenda of his rich buddies and his personal hard-on to finish what his daddy started in Iraq. It truly boggles my mind that he got elected at all, but especially for a second term.

jag