Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Republican presidential candidate, former NYC mayor could face backlash
NEW YORK - It is difficult to shock New Yorkers, yet Rudy Giuliani teetered close to the line when he sauntered onto a stage wearing a platinum-blond wig, a face full of makeup, dainty white gloves and a frilly pink gown filled out in all the right places.
His appearance at an annual political roast was exactly 10 years ago, and at the time, the idea of the tough-talking mayor in a busty ball gown raised eyebrows but was mostly accepted as a good joke — adhering to an unwritten rule for the shenanigans that take place at the roast, known as the Inner Circle dinner.
I don't care but Rudy is NOT the guy I would vote for in 2008 anyway.
He is a liberal in disguise.
Down with Rudy!!
Well, if this is the attitude of socially conservative Republicans, Hillary or Obama are guaranteed to win the White House in 2008. There's absolutely no way that a social conservative is going to win this next election - look at what happened in the 2006 Congressional elections. Electability should be the #1 concern for any Republican today, not ideological purity.
Who cares, it was a party, it was a joke...now if he went to the mayors office in a dress it may get some attention.
I guess he may win a few votes from the all important cross-dresser consitituency.
Well, if this is the attitude of socially conservative Republicans, Hillary or Obama are guaranteed to win the White House in 2008. There's absolutely no way that a social conservative is going to win this next election - look at what happened in the 2006 Congressional elections. Electability should be the #1 concern for any Republican today, not ideological purity.
No. What should be the #1 concern is to have a candidate who won't run this country into the ground. Party is meaningless. They're all sellouts. People who cling to party lines are willfully blind.
Well, if this is the attitude of socially conservative Republicans, Hillary or Obama are guaranteed to win the White House in 2008. There's absolutely no way that a social conservative is going to win this next election - look at what happened in the 2006 Congressional elections. Electability should be the #1 concern for any Republican today, not ideological purity.
If winning is the only important thing and you think Hillary can win -- then just go with Hillary.
Besides -- Rudy isn't too far from Hillary or Obama on the issues only looks better in a dress.
No. What should be the #1 concern is to have a candidate who won't run this country into the ground. Party is meaningless. They're all sellouts. People who cling to party lines are willfully blind.
Yes, you say that, but the vast majority of Americans vote along party lines. I think it's stupid, too - but then again, I think most Americans are just stupid in general.
No. What should be the #1 concern is to have a candidate who won't run this country into the ground. Party is meaningless. They're all sellouts. People who cling to party lines are willfully blind.
Yes, you say that, but the vast majority of Americans vote along party lines. I think it's stupid, too - but then again, I think most Americans are just stupid in general.
To respond to the first post, no I don't think the voters will care. Most red-state social conservatives aren't going to vote for Guiliani in the primaries anyway - come on, he's from New York. But, if he somehow wins the primaries, they sure as hell won't pick a Democrat over him in the presidential elections. Just my opinion.
If winning is the only important thing and you think Hillary can win -- then just go with Hillary.
Besides -- Rudy isn't too far from Hillary or Obama on the issues only looks better in a dress.
No, I'm petrified at the thought of Hillary in the White House, which is why electability on the Republican side is a huge factor for me. I've posted on this subject before - I consider myself a libertarian Republican that is a hard-core conservative on fiscal and economic issues and toward the left on social issues. As we learned in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, it's all about the electoral vote - here's what I've posted before on this subject:
"I'm a libertarian Republican so someone like Rudy Giuliani is right up my alley (even though my vote in Illinois will mean nothing in a rock solid blue state). For all of those people that say that Southerners won't vote for Rudy, that might be somewhat true in the primary. However, in the general election, what are the chances that Rudy would lose Southern electoral votes to Hillary or Obama? Absolutely zero. If Republicans want to win the general election, which obviously should be the ultimate goal, they need to concentrate on the interior Western states since those are the ones much more on the fence politically (not big fans of social conservatives, but don't want the government taxing them or taking away their guns). With how the 2006 midterm elections turned out, it's pretty clear that if the Republicans hitch their star to the socially conservative wedge politics again, they will lose every one of those Western states that they won in 2004.
Plus, there's very little chance that the Republicans are going to win Ohio again - it has been trending Democratic for awhile and I'm 90% sure that it's going to end up like its mirror neighbors in Michigan and Pennsylvania (perceived as battleground states, but really solidly in the Democratic column due to the strength of the labor unions). To me, the fact that social conservatives aren't greats fans of Rudy or John McCain is a good thing - the parts of the country that are going to determine who goes to the White House don't want any part of that agenda.
There's one unbelievably important thing Rudy has that the other potential nominees don't have from a purely electoral politics standpoint (and I rarely hear mentioned) - he is probably the only Republican alive that could possibly win New York's electoral votes, even against Hillary. Rudy won landslides in New York City, the most liberal part of that state, which shows that he at least has the proven ability to win those votes since the rest of the state is much more mixed politically. There is no possible scenario where the Democrats can win if they lose New York. (Is it a coincidence that the New York Times and Washington Post keep pushing stories about how Rudy can't win in the South as opposed to noting this seemingly obvious electoral scenario?) Rudy's also very popular in New Jersey and Connecticut. Even if he can't win the tri-state area, he would force Democrats to spend a lot of money in states that they previously thought were complete locks. Therefore, while the Republicans certainly shouldn't take the South for granted, they need to realize that the days of using the Southern Strategy are over."
As for whether it's stupid to vote along party lines, I will say that I'm extremely frustrated in that I'm 110% for the Republicans in terms of economic policy but about 90% against them in terms of social policy. I'll admit that on a purely personal level, my pocketbook ends up carrying a lot more weight than the more amorphous hot-button social issues that might spur passionate debates but have almost no bearing in my own life, hence my tilt toward the Republicans.
That being said, most people that claim to be "independent" aren't really independent at all. A true independent in my book is someone that would vote for Republicans 50% of the time and Democrats the other 50% of the time (or at a ratio very close to that) - someone that really occupies the middle ground. As a result, someone that votes for Ralph Nader, who is way to the left of the Democrats, isn't a really an independent since they obviously would never vote for a Republican or someone to the right (those people on both the left and right should be called "unaffiliated ideologues" or something of that nature instead of muddying the definition of "independent").
People like saying that they're independent because it fashionably gives off the impression that they're free thinkers but, in reality, I believe that the majority of people vote for one of the major parties over the other major party more than 2/3rds of the time. If you fall into that 2/3rds or more category, you're not really an independent even if you say you are since your actions speak otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Down with Rudy!!
