View Full Version : Giuliani 2008
Roguish Lawyer
09-12-2006, 20:16
I just sat next to a guy who works for him on a long plane flight. Interesting discussion we had.
Here's my question for you guys:
Assuming that he has the best chance to beat Hillary or whoever the Demo candidate is, what, if anything, could he do to earn your vote?
If you would stay home and let Hillary win, please explain why.
:munchin
The Reaper
09-12-2006, 20:45
I would be tempted to stay home. Note that I have up to this point voted in every Presidential election since I was old enough to vote.
My opinion is that I am tired of people professing to be Republicans while simultaneously better representing Dems on the majority of issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, taxes, bureaucracy, religion, immigration, reverse discrimination, etc. Chaffee, McCain, Giuliani, etc. exemplify the RINOs that I am referring to.
Four years of Hitlery and her hacks, and the people may be sufficently disgusted with the Dems to throw them out and elect some real conservatives.
I fail to see how she could harm me more than Rudy could, given his positions (or McCain's for that matter) on most issues.
I respect Rudy tremendously as a mayor and as a human being. I don't trust him to look after my rights on the above issues. He could start by explaining his positions on the above issues, especially with reference to his stand on the Second Amendment. Otherwise, I have no support him for a run for POTUS. Against Hitlery for the US Senate seat? Without a doubt he is the better representative.
Currently, I am strongly considering staying home this November as well. The Congress has largely done nothing to deal with the deficit, pork barrel spending, the Patriot Act, growth of the Federal government, the backlog in Federal judiciary appointments, and most of all, illegal immigration and border security. They had chances to address every one of those issues with a long-term solution while holding majorities in both houses, and a Republican President. Instead, they did little more than to get their snouts further into the trough.
I helped put them in office. Since then, what have they done to appeal to me or to help my country?
TR
Peregrino
09-12-2006, 22:23
Ordinarilly I hate to chime in with a "me too" but this time it's not worth the effort to come up with another way to say what TR has already said so eloquently. I used to believe voting was a civic duty - I probably still do but my faith is wavering. Poll numbers (excepting the 2004 elections - talk about a polarized electorate) have reflected a growing apathy for political participation on the part of the general public. Mid-term elections are usually even worse. Conventional wisdom has blamed the trend on a complacent, disinterested citizenry but an interesting alternative theory merits discussion. The alternative suggests that people are "witholding their support of the government by not (actually refusing to) participate in the electoral process." The old "I didn't participate, nobody else I know did either therefore it is not a government representative of the people and thus it is not a legitimate government" argument. According to polls, many citizens believe elected officials no longer represent the electorate. Sadly, the Republicrats have done much to lend weight to this argument. At the very least they have done nothing to dispell it. Personally, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Tell Guiliani to address the issues TR brought up and I'll consider supporting him. Otherwise he's just another illigitimate politition on a personal power trip. 06 will be a weather vane for 08. If a true conservative can galvanize the electorate and win in 08, this country (and its Constitution) have a chance. Electing a RINO in 08 is just marking time, continuing the "lesser of two evils" theme we've been forced to follow in recent years. If the Dems win and we pull out of the ME, I don't think this country as we know it today will still exist in 100 years (maybe a lot less if other factors, e.g. avian flu, - come into play). Makes me wonder if maybe the Nihilists don't have something to recommend their viewpoint after all. :( FWIW that's my .02 - Peregrino
CoLawman
09-12-2006, 23:07
The lesser of two evils is still less evil. I will vote for the Republican candidate. I fully understand that the GOP is not addressing or representing my wishes on alot of issues. But Katie bar the door if Hitlery gets in office and we begin to see the likes of Reno sliming the halls of the White House again.
aricbcool
09-13-2006, 00:45
The alternative suggests that people are "witholding their support of the government by not (actually refusing to) participate in the electoral process."
Along those lines, I stopped voting locally after we voted to keep term limits and the legislature repealed them anyway.
As to the original question: Following Zell Miller's line of reasoning, I voted for Bush in 04 because of his foreign policy track record. While domestic issues took a back seat to foreign policy, there are some things that have to stop being ignored this time around. In addition, I am sick to death of the "centrist" strategy that is being employed in today's politics. Each party compromises and compromises until they both end up saying the same thing. Meanwhile you end up choosing based on promises you hope they'll keep and ultimately don't have to because nobody calls them on it. I think I would stay home in 08 if I saw another election where each candidate highlights how cooperative he is with the opposition party, and starts every answer with "I agree with my opponent only I have a better plan for it."
I want a candidate who will stir things up in DC, someone opinionated and aggressive, someone who will fight tooth and nail to get our freedoms back. Someone not afraid to do what needs to be done about all the things TR mentioned and more. Things like social security, the engergy crisis, the 1st ammendment (specifically political correctness), and on and on. Ultimately, I want a candidate who refuses to compromise on issues that he and I both agree on.
If Guiliani can do that, I'll vote for him.
--Aric (Just now noticing that in RL's list of options, none of them mentioned going out and voting for Hillary. :D)
Jack Moroney (RIP)
09-13-2006, 05:27
I agree with TRs sentiments about the current political process and assessement, however I do cannot agree with the non-participation sentiment. Most of you have spent time in uniform and have bled for the right to maintain others' voice in government and many of our brethern have died or are now dealing with maladies giving those is SWA the same ability to determine their own destiny. It is certainly your call not to vote for anyone but a silent protest is still silent and will only allow those who exercise the priviledge you have earned for them the ability to determine their destiny and deny you yours. Just my opinion.
i share TR's frustration, but echo Col. M's opinion reference non-participation...there are several local and state-wide offices that i have an interest in...and of course, there's the opportunity to vote against the Peanut Man's progeny...
i've lived in Red States since retirement and, while not registered with any party, am disgusted at how both major parties treat the electorate...in SW Colorado, Utah and here in Nevada, the Pubes seem to think that they can nominate a pig wearing lipstick and the voters will turn out en masse to vote it into office simply because of the Party...the current 2nd District Congressional candidate is, at best, vaccous, yet he is the best the Republicans are willing to offer (the two ladies he beat in the primary were stereotypical blondes)...the Dims are offering the wife of a large-animal vet whose attempts to appeal to the Sagebrush Rebellion ("I'll tell you what we'd do on the Ranch...") are pretty lame as well...the candidate for Govenor isn't much better...his answer to every question is that he was a fighter pilot in the First Gulf War...Illegal immigration is a hot-button topic for Republican office-seekers from Lieutenant Govenor to dog catcher...i'm not sure anyone in the party's brain trust has a brain, but if so, i am sure it is not being put to any good purpose...both party's seem more concerned with the party than with the country and that is contrary to my world view...
once again, my $0.02
incommin
09-13-2006, 07:55
Elected officials have several priorities:
1. Get reelected.
2. Raise $$$ to support item #1.
3. Reward your family and $$$ friends who contributed to get you reelected.
4. Support the party.
5. Do what you can for the average citizen as long as it follow party lines.
As for the government keeping us safe, they can't. The cops can't. Both are generally reactive and not proactive. The country is too big wih too much open borders. You want to keep your family safe, buy a 1911, learn how to use it, and keep your eyes and ears open to what is going on around you>
My 2 cents.
Despite problems that some of us may have with Giuliani's liberal positions on certain issues, the overwhelming difference between the 2 potential NY candidates is their character. This attribute is one of the more essential in dealing with crisis or international issues, and I believe Giuliani's is so far superior to H Clinton's that a vote for him would be warranted.
Hillary will not be beaten - tell him to stay home.
The Reaper
09-13-2006, 10:10
Hillary will not be beaten - tell him to stay home.
I disagree.
What is your basis for that declaration?
TR
Hillary will not be beaten - tell him to stay home.
Just on money alone she will get destroyed if she runs.
x SF med
09-13-2006, 11:03
Ah Ha!! I smell a rumble brewing here - prediction - TR wins.
JMI - you do realize you have pegged yourself a liberal, left leaning Hitlery lover, and Democrat.
and this is why I run away from most of the political issues.... I hate politics, but read up on the issues - and think all true politicians need to be reeducated and/or shot, for GP.
Loyalty to the party has superceded loyalty to the country, constitution, and one's own independence. I could care less who is a Democrat or who is a Republican, but at the end of the day, are those leaders and people a slave to their parties and toot along as a team with their agenda, or does anyone keep the American public in their sights and do what is right for the country. Are politicians ready to go back to the management of fundamentals (like pork, spending, continual investment in infrastructure, etc.) maintaining good governance (a forgotten word)?
Time is ripe for a Teddy Roosevelt type to set an aggressive agenda cleaning house.
Will I abstain from voting? Probably not because I don't see what will be achieved by not doing so. Hillary may be the 'darling' for some, but letting her walk into office when someone more qualified (however more marginal) than her exists, IMHO, would be a mistake.
I am kind of in agreement that the lesser of two evils still gives us more evil that we deserve. I guess it is true that the really smart folks don't want to go thru the poltical hoops to get in office, which leaves us with sub-par choices to begin with.
Maybe I will vote Libertarian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Or maybe not?
http://www.lp.org/
Roguish Lawyer
09-13-2006, 18:12
Did anyone here vote libertarian or Perot or stay home when Clinton ran against George Sr? I did. On the same theory now esposed by TR.
Did I make a mistake? Did you? :munchin
Time for x sf med to buy me drinks . . .
Did anyone here vote libertarian or Perot or stay home when Clinton ran against George Sr? I did. On the same theory now esposed by TR.
Did I make a mistake? Did you? :munchin
Time for x sf med to buy me drinks . . .
I did. In hindsight, I think it was a mistake.
But then hindsight is always 20/20, right? ;)
JMI - you do realize you have pegged yourself a liberal, left leaning Hitlery lover, and Democrat.
Oh hell no. I might shadow to the left sometimes, but I never lean. Hillary lover? That is just plain, mad dog mean man. :eek:
Did anyone here vote libertarian or Perot or stay home when Clinton ran against George Sr? I did.
Did I make a mistake? i did as well...i have no regrets...i don't consider voting out of frustration to be a mistake...besides, i didn't stay at home (i was in Kuwait at the time) and did participate in elections beside that for President...
I disagree.
What is your basis for that declaration?
TR
Opinion, Sir.
The Republicans are not doing a good job of leading the party. Much like the Dems, I beleive there is confusion between what the conservative movement stands for, and what the leadership is accepting and allowing.
The platform of the Republicans/Conservatives is watered down from what I thought it was - it is bastardized and wayward.
It is becoming sort of unrecognizable to me what the party stands for whan the very leadership (manily the POTUS) does not practice fiscal conservatism; not securing the border would seem to me a a very weak point the Dems are sure to attack; their stance on abortion is somewhat consistent, but I and many others are very turned off by the Presidents stance on stem cell research; the inability of the POTUS to think a little further ahead before toppling Saddam is going to be HUGE for the Dems; the inabilty of the POTUS to ever get his message across to the American people other than his stalwart resolve - very commendable, but that does zero for the next Republican running for President.
I am the last person that wants Hillary for President. But I am a realist and nobody we send up there is going to beat her - nobody.
There is so much for the Dems to attack that this is not going to be an election about what you stand for, but for what you stand against.
There is just too much subject matter for the Dems to use.
I think the POTUS has done an amazing job - the economy being number fooking one! I don't see anyone surviving in his wake as a rational contender to HRC.
And believe it or not, Clinton was a vastly popular President, and many people who rode the fence in 2000 and 2004 and finally chose GWB will undoubtably choose his bitch of a wife in 2008.
And lastly, like it or not this wench is as good or better than Bush at getting elected. Bush was way underestimated - HRC is much better.
IMHO.
CoLawman
09-13-2006, 21:43
Hillary will not be beaten - tell him to stay home.
JMI,
One of the key tenants in public speaking is to Know your audience!!!!
I believe it is germain when posting in forums.
With all due respect; Edward Kennedy had his Chappaquidick when he decided to run for President. Kerry had his Viet Nam. Have you forgotten that there is an abundance of skeletons waiting in Ms. Clinton's closet:
1. White Water
2. Webster Hubbell/ Castle Grande
3. Susan McDougall
4. The Travel Office Case.
5. Johnny Chung
6. Rose Law Firm billing records.
7. etc. etc. etc..............
This woman should have been indicted in each of those instances. She might be able to get a free pass in New York and in Chicago...........but there are far more Peorias and Southbends that frankly dislike criminals.
My prediction is she won't make it through the primaries regardless of her claims of a "right wing conspiracy" involved in her demise.
Excellent points regarding party loyalty trumps loyalty to country. The Dems are just as guilty of this. In fact the Dems take it one step farther and that is personal advancement trumps loyalty to country. I doubt the founding fathers ever presumed that the likes of Kerry and Clinton would ever grace national politics. In my mind the founding fathers imagined like minded individuals that would sacrifice personal gain and fortune for the good of the country. How many of the original signers of the constitution were killed, imprisoned, or died in poverty?
I believe two notable statesmen of late have shown that they place country ahead of party loyalty and personal gain. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. Regardless of their stance on most issues they remained true to their principals.
Off my soapbox!
This woman should have been indicted in each of those instances. She might be able to get a free pass in New York and in Chicago...........but there are far more Peorias and Southbends that frankly dislike criminals.
My prediction is she won't make it through the primaries regardless of her claims of a "right wing conspiracy" involved in her demise.
Couldn't agree more with this, not to mention her posturing as a "moderate"; it's so transparent it's disgusting. However, this Chicagoan won't give her a free pass. ;)
One thing I do know, I will never vote for HRC...ever. If that means I must choose a "lesser of two evils" come 2008 (or beyond) then so be it.
JMI,
One of the key tenants in public speaking is to Know your audience!!!!
I believe it is germain when posting in forums.
With all due respect; Edward Kennedy had his Chappaquidick when he decided to run for President. Kerry had his Viet Nam. Have you forgotten that there is an abundance of skeletons waiting in Ms. Clinton's closet:
On the first part, I really am not trying to stir the pot. I know what you mean, but I know the audience here. It is not meant as anything other than opinion.
On the second part, Ed and John are not HRC. Hate the bitch with a passion, but now I know how Dems felt when GWB beat their Gore and Kerry - she knows how to run, to get her message across, to manipulate the votrers. GWB had a little of that as well - she's better, and may just as underestimated.
I am not throwing my support her way. Just opining!
The Reaper
09-13-2006, 22:44
On the first part, I really am not trying to stir the pot. I know what you mean, but I know the audience here. It is not meant as anything other than opinion.
On the second part, Ed and John are not HRC. Hate the bitch with a passion, but now I know how Dems felt when GWB beat their Gore and Kerry - she knows how to run, to get her message across, to manipulate the votrers. GWB had a little of that as well - she's better, and may just as underestimated.
I am not throwing my support her way. Just opining!
Need I remind you that she hasn't won anything outside New York?
The rest of the country does not vote that way, and her negatives are far too high in the other states.
TR
Need I remind you that she hasn't won anything outside New York?
TR
Respectively, I remember Ann Richards , among others, saying the same about GWB and how Texas politics would not translate into a successful national election.
People underestimated GWB, and I see it happening again with HRC.
Look, I cannot win a debate here or anywhere because I am not smart enough. I go on gut feeling a lot and this is one of those times.
I think that JMI has a good point. I also personally despise her, her husband, and every slimy thing that they represent, but on the other hand she and her husband are also supremely talented politicians seemingly made of teflon. It would be a mistake to think she will not be a force to be reckoned with in '08. Notice I use the term politician and not leader. Rudy Giuliani may be a moderate Republican, but he is more importantly a leader. I personally would vote for Giuliani any day of the week before voting for HRC. Is Rudy perfect? Hell no, but he sure as Sh*t has more character in his pinky finger than Hillary would ever dream of having.
Do I think that she can beaten? Hell yes. It could be difficult, but then again we have another two years before all of this comes to fruition. Never underestimate the Dems' ability to ruin any headway they've made. Even if the Dems take control of the House (God forbid) or the Senate (Please No) I'm sure they'll do something to screw it up.
In fact the Dems take it one step farther and that is personal advancement trumps loyalty to country.
I think Repubs and Dems are equally selfish this day and age. I was quite disappointed to hear what a man like Randy Duke Cunnigham did here in San Diego. A decorated veteran, Congressman, and he took on bribes from a defense contractor.
It isn't a war or two that is going to undercut the United States, it is our own excesses, lack of personal integrity in governance, and inefficiencies. Congress squibbles over dollars for necessary infrastructure or military equipment, yet no one is willing to cut down on pork which could take care of it and a whole lot more.
Hillary won't win. I can see how people may underestimate her, but the Democrats have no real strategy/strategist working for them to unite their message. Like or hate Karl Rove, the man is a genius. Republicans made steady gains through the 90s with the climax being GWB as President. Congress, Senate, Presidency. Dems may win more seats as a result of Republican mistakes, but I seriously doubt they'll take the presidency. Bill Clinton isn't around anymore and Hillary has more baggage than GWB when he became president. Hillary lived in the national spotlight for 8 years. GWB was an unknown to most Americans (that being his greatest advantage).
Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing George Sr. run again. I'd vote for him in a blink of an eye, but I don't think he has the strength or will to do so.
Its going to come down to McCain, Guliani, and some Republican governor for the nomination. With the Presidential track record, a governor isn't all that bad of a place to be in recent times (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter).
Roycroft201
09-14-2006, 00:24
some Republican governor for the nomination.
Gov. George Patacki of NY has been mentioned.
HRC has been effective in changing the minds of some folks in NY state. One is James Houghton, Chairman of Corning, Inc., who held a fundraiser for her. His brother, Amo Houghton, was a nine term Republican Congressman.
In Fall, 2004, 4 out of 10 Americans had a negative opinion of her. (a Marist poll). I haven't seen a more recent poll.
After reading her book, Living History, it is a very scary thought to think of her as POTUS.
Guiliani has honesty and integrity going for him, in a head to head battle with HRC. The numbers I've seen show that he is stronger than Rice or McCain.
Did anyone here vote libertarian or Perot or stay home when Clinton ran against George Sr?
I voted for George Sr. the first time Clinton ran. When he ran for his second term I voted for Perot. I didn't feel we could trust Dole, and Clinton is nothing more than a criminal.
I don't know who I will vote for, but it sure as hell won't be HRC or any other Democrat.
Bravo1-3
09-14-2006, 01:35
How can Rudy earn my vote? He can show me a track record of supporting private gun ownership, low taxation, minimal government involvement in my life, and at least support of sensible restrictions on abortion. Since he can't do that, he will not earn my vote. He can stay home or go VP for all I care.
I voted for GHW Bush in 1988. In 1992 I voted for Perot because GHW Bush did not earn my vote. I voted for Dole in 1996. I don't regret it either. When the GOP fields someone who earns my vote, I will vote for them. I don't have to agree with every position they take, but I won't vote for them when we're that far apart in agreement.
This mid-term election I plan on voting for a Republican-ish Senator who I agree with 85% of the way... that and the fact that I can't stand Maria Cantwell (Hillary Lite). I'm not going to vote for the House seat because the GOP candidate is a flake. Aside from the Senate, I will vote for a State Appellate Judge and to re-elect one of the local Superior Court Judges. Other than that, my ballot will be blank, or will have write-in candidate names.
That might seem to be a waste of my ballot, but I can't think of anything more disgusting than a member of any party who thinks that they should just get my vote because they are the party nominee.
incommin
09-14-2006, 05:28
Everyone keeps talking about the Dems and Repubs. It will be the independents that decide the next election!
Peregrino
09-14-2006, 09:55
Everyone keeps talking about the Dems and Repubs. It will be the independents that decide the next election!
Just like Ross Perot decided the '92 election.
incommin
09-14-2006, 13:44
No. Like the independents that voted for GWB!
About one third of the population (27-29%) do not identify with either major party. About 32 % claim the Dem party and about 29-30 % claim the Repubs. And it appears that the independent block is growing.
If the info I have is wrong, show me where I can find the correct #s.
Jim
CoLawman
09-14-2006, 23:42
No. Like the independents that voted for GWB!
About one third of the population (27-29%) do not identify with either major party. About 32 % claim the Dem party and about 29-30 % claim the Repubs. And it appears that the independent block is growing.
If the info I have is wrong, show me where I can find the correct #s.
Jim
Ask and you shall receive!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20060901/pl_rasmussen/partisantrends20060901
The number of Americans calling themselves Republican has fallen to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years. Just 31.9% of American adults now say they're affiliated with the GOP. That's down from 37.2% in October 2004 and 34.5% at the beginning of 2006. These results come from Rasmussen Reports tracking surveys of 15,000 voters per month and have a margin of sampling error smaller than a percentage point.
The number of Democrats has grown slightly, from 36.1% at the beginning of the year to 37.3% now.
Those who claim to be unaffiliated have increased to 30.8% this month. That's the highest total recorded since Rasmussen Reports began releasing this data in January 2004.
Add it all together and the Democrats have their biggest net advantage—more than five percentage points—since January 2004. In the first month of 2006, the Democrats' advantage was just 1.6 percentage points. Last month, 32.8% of adults said they were Republicans and 36.8% identified themselves as Democrats.
incommin
09-15-2006, 05:04
The numbers are close to what I have found. I expect every poll/survey to be slightly different. Even your numbers indicate no clear victory for either major party without the votes of the independents.
Jim
Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2007, 14:32
I saw an interview of him a couple of weeks ago. With respect to gun control, he said that he has been pro-gun control largely because that's what people in New York want. He said that gun control should not be a federal issue, and each state should do what is best for that state. He said that he does not intend to support gun control at the federal level.
Do these remarks move any of you? :munchin
The Reaper
03-01-2007, 14:45
I saw an interview of him a couple of weeks ago. With respect to gun control, he said that he has been pro-gun control largely because that's what people in New York want. He said that gun control should not be a federal issue, and each state should do what is best for that state. He said that he does not intend to support gun control at the federal level.
Do these remarks move any of you? :munchin
Yeah, he said that he favored gun bans in NYC because they worked there. I guess they worked in Nazi Gertmany as well, and that thew citizens of NYC do not deserve the same Constitutional rights as the rest of America.
Can we deny First Amendment rights to the residents of NYC and San Francisco?
Sounds like an excuse. At one point, most people in the US favored slavery, too. Did that make it right?
His comments have caused me to lose respect for him. I thought that he would stand by his convictions, if he really believed them, not make excuses for them.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2007, 14:55
I got a biscuit for TR, our junkyard dog . . .
http://www.examiner.com/a-591689~Draft_questions_cloud_Giuliani_s_chances.ht ml
Draft questions cloud Giuliani’s chances
(AP)
Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Feb 28, 2007 9:04 PM (19 hrs ago)
WASHINGTON - If this presidential campaign is anything like the last, John McCain’s Vietnam service will inevitably be contrasted with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s avoidance of a war that he opposed.
“Any suggestion that he was dodging the draft is totally, factually inaccurate,” said a senior Giuliani campaign adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “He opposed the war on tactical and strategic grounds.”
But as far back as 1993, when he successfully ran for mayor of New York, Giuliani has been dogged by accusations that he pulled strings to avoid the draft. By contrast, McCain has long been feted as a bona fide war hero for his harrowing stint in a Vietnamese prison.
Anyone who dismisses the significance of Vietnam as a potential issue in the 2008 campaign is forgetting how surprisingly potent it proved in 2004, when there was enormous interest in the military records of both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Four years later, with the nation still at war, Americans likely are to again scrutinize the military records of those who seek the job of commander in chief.
Giuliani, who once said of the Vietnam war, “I disagreed with it,” obtained an occupational deferment in 1969, when he was a law clerk. Although critics say such deferments were rare, the Giuliani campaign disagrees.
“He wanted an occupational deferment, which was very common at the time, because he wanted to be a lawyer,” the Giuliani adviser said.
When Giuliani’s deferment expired in 1970, he drew draft number 308, which was never called. His campaign suggests this proves he was not a draft dodger.
“This is an important point: After his deferment, his name was entered into the lottery — at least once — and he had a high number,” the adviser said.
Still, Giuliani has always been politically sensitive to the issue. During his 1993 mayoral campaign, he commissioned a “vulnerability study” that listed “draft dodger” as one of the epithets that might be hurled against him.
In blunt language, the consultants who prepared the study articulated how adversaries might frame the issue.
“Giuliani received special treatment from a friendly federal judge to avoid military service during the Vietnam war, when thousands of less fortunate people were dying,” they wrote. “Then, as a member of the Justice Department, he hypocritically prosecuted draft dodgers.”
Mark Salter, McCain’s chief of staff, said he had “no idea” whether Giuliani’s deferment would become a presidential campaign issue.
“Who knows?” he told The Examiner. “One assumes just about everything these days gets examined.”
He added: “I don’t think McCain would want it to be an issue. I know that sort of suggests a false modesty, but I really don’t.”
The “false modesty” remark was an allusion to the Arizona senator’s extensive military background. The son and grandson of admirals, McCain graduated from the Naval Academy and served 22 years in the Navy, including five and a half as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.
Thus, if Vietnam becomes an issue in the 2008 campaign, McCain might find himself in the role that Kerry had hoped to play in 2004 — unassailable war hero. That status eluded Kerry when his combat record was challenged by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, who also denounced the Democrat for accusing fellow Vietnam veterans of war crimes.
Giuliani, on the other hand — who had a 2-to-1 advantage over McCain in an ABC poll of Republicans this week — could find his record subjected to the sort of intense scrutiny that Bush experienced in 2004. Some of that scrutiny came from Kerry himself, who questioned whether Bush had fulfilled his stateside duties in the National Guard.
CBS News raised similar questions in a “60 Minutes” broadcast that backfired because the network used documents that could not be authenticated. The ensuing scandal, known as “Memogate,” ended up inoculating Bush against further attacks on his military record.
Swift Boats co-founder John O’Neill said the only reason Vietnam became a major issue in 2004 was that Kerry kept bringing it up.
“I do think Kerry was a special case,” O’Neill said. “Whatever Rudy Giuliani or the rest of these people did or didn’t do in terms of the Vietnam War, I don’t think that’s a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign of 2008.”
During an interview with The Examiner last fall, when he was mounting a second bid for the White House, Kerry said of the Swift Boat Veterans: “I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other.” But the senator from Massachusetts later dropped out of the race.
Kerry spokeswoman Amy Brundage said this week that “2008 should be a choice between candidates’ visions on ending the war in Iraq.” She added: “That conversation must not be stolen by partisan front groups [that use] lying, despicable attack ads to smear the records of those who have served in uniform.”
During the Vietnam War, Romney divided his time between college and overseas work for the Mormon church.
“A younger Mitt Romney became eligible for the draft in 1970, but his number was not called in the military draft,” Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said. “During that time, he did spend several years as a missionary for his church in France.”
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was only 14 when the Vietnam War ended. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a woman, was not subject to the draft that would complicate her future husband’s White House bid.
John Edwards, who is also running for president, didn’t get many questions about his military record when he was Kerry’s running mate in 2004, thanks to all the focus being on Kerry and Bush.
“I did not serve in the military,” Edwards said in an April 2004 interview with Katie Couric, who then asked if he had a high lottery number.
“I did, and I came after the time that they were actually drafting from the lottery,” he said. “And because [of] the time I came along and graduated from high school and then went to college, I was not drafted.”
bsammon@dcexaminer.com
Roguish Lawyer
03-01-2007, 15:05
But also the following:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1594847,00.html
TIME Poll: Giuliani's Lead Widens
Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007 By HOWARD CHUA-EOAN/NEW YORK
If Presidential campaigning were about something other than politics, how would the current crop of candidates fare? Take speed dating. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is on wife no. 3, was judged most likely to be best at the new matchmaking technique — outdistancing Barack Obama by 3 points and New York Senator Hillary Clinton by 4, in a new TIME poll. Giuliani came in second when voters were asked to name which Presidential candidate they'd most like as a teammate on The Apprentice (5 points behind Hillary Clinton). But asked which candidate would be the best boss, they picked Giuliani again — at 18%, just ahead of both Obama and Clinton.
Of such little things, perhaps, are Presidential nominees made. According to the new TIME poll, Giuliani now leads his closest rival for the Republican nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona, by 14 points (38% to 24%) among registered Republicans and those who are leaning toward the G.O.P. In January, a TIME poll showed McCain ahead by 4 points — a startling swing of 18 points. (For the entire results of the poll, go to www.srbi.com/time.poll/html.)
The core of Giuliani's strength is in the Northeast, where he has a 50% to 23% advantage over McCain. But even in the West, he leads McCain by 5 points. The poll, conducted for TIME by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas Public Affairs (SRBI), surveyed 1,144 registered voters by phone from Feb. 23 to 26. It has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.
Third among the Republicans in TIME's poll, with 12%, was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was at 7%. The rest of the Republican field polled in the very low single digits. If the G.O.P. field were limited to Giuliani, McCain and Romney, the former mayor would have a slightly more commanding lead, 49% to McCain?s 30%, with Romney at 12%.
As for the Democrats, Clinton's lead has eroded since the last TIME poll. Obama has closed to within 12 points (36% to 24%), gaining seven points since January, a reflection perhaps of the dust-up over anti-Clinton comments by Hollywood mogul David Geffen, who is now supporting Obama. The African-American component of the Democrats polled appears to be evenly split between the two senators. Former Vice President Al Gore, who has not declared his candidacy, was in third place, at 13%, while former North Carolina Senator John Edwards kept a firm hold of fourth place with 11%.
Clinton's strongest regions were the Northeast, where she holds a 42%-20% advantage over Obama; and the South, where she has a 42-19 lead. They are head-to-head in the West; and Obama leads Clinton in the Midwest, 31-28. In a three-way run-off among Clinton, Obama and Edwards, the former First Lady leads with 42% to Obama's 30% and Edwards' 22%.
In a general election, the poll showed that a Clinton versus McCain contest would be a virtual dead heat, while she would lose to Giuliani by 3%. Obama, according to the poll, would beat McCain by 4 points; but would trail Giuliani by 5.
Raise $$$ to support item #1.
There's more then one reason for these folks to raise money. I'm not sure if the rule is still in effect, but they use to be able to pocket their excess campaign funds when they left office.
jasonglh
03-02-2007, 15:42
Just another yankee gun grabber I don't care whose side he runs on.
I have seen no one worthy of my vote as yet. Why should I support a mediocre candidate from the right just because they are the anti left candidate?
We need a Reagan.
How about Fred Thompson?
Hope you will consider Congressman Ron Paul, here's some links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPlPT4bncq8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
Goggles Pizano
03-05-2007, 07:24
Just another yankee gun grabber I don't care whose side he runs on.
I have seen no one worthy of my vote as yet. Why should I support a mediocre candidate from the right just because they are the anti left candidate?
We need a Reagan.
How about Fred Thompson?
Jason I suggest you read this before slinging mud in a candidate's direction. http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html
I don't agree with it but it is a law that Rudy was charged with enforcing. Whether or not he agrees with it is the matter for debate here.
I have gone on record as not supporting anyone in this cast of characters yet , and I agree none is worthy of my vote either. I will however listen to what each has to say before I make a decision toward whom I choose to cast my vote.
Oh and Ronal Reagan was an original and a hero of mine. I served while he was CinC and hold him in the highest regard. He is sorely missed.
Not sure about Thompson. I don't believe he has declared as yet.
The Reaper
03-05-2007, 08:25
Jason I suggest you read this before slinging mud in a candidate's direction. http://www.gunlawnews.org/sullivan.html
I don't agree with it but it is a law that Rudy was charged with enforcing. Whether or not he agrees with it is the matter for debate here.
I have gone on record as not supporting anyone in this cast of characters yet , and I agree none is worthy of my vote either. I will however listen to what each has to say before I make a decision toward whom I choose to cast my vote.
Oh and Ronal Reagan was an original and a hero of mine. I served while he was CinC and hold him in the highest regard. He is sorely missed.
Not sure about Thompson. I don't believe he has declared as yet.
GP:
Rudy has already spoken up in support of both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban (as did McCain).
I don't think that there is too much doubt about where he stands on the Second Amendment.
His only justification was that the laws in NYC worked in that city and that he would not necessarily impose them nationwide. [Yet] :rolleyes:
Not going to support a candidate with the opinion that it is okay to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights without due process as a convenient means to an end.
TR
jasonglh
03-05-2007, 09:34
Thanks for the link but it doesn't change my opinion of Rudy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5DxwzEXHQ
Listen to that especially around the 2:20 mark. If he believes those statements he is naive at best.
As I despise HRC, I would have to vote for RG, despite my many differences with him on issues........this is based on the "lesser of 2 evils" policy. As I voted for Perot and we got stuck with Bill for 8 years.
I'm leading very strongly toward Rep. Duncan Hunter. Yes he is a longshot, but OTOH there have been many longshots that became POTUS. He is conservative and I like his voting record.
Plus he was not a F%^&*g, dirty, nasty, leg when he was in the Army. :D
Goggles Pizano
03-05-2007, 10:19
GP:
His only justification was that the laws in NYC worked in that city and that he would not necessarily impose them nationwide. [Yet] :rolleyes:
Not going to support a candidate with the opinion that it is okay to deprive Americans of their Constitutional rights without due process as a convenient means to an end.
TR
Agreed TR. Jason just so you know I am not trying to alter your opinion just offering info so you have more to work with decision wise. It's what we yankees do. :p