Giuliani for Prez?
 

I sorta expected this. what do you think?
____________________________________________________

VYING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
9/11 hero Giuliani to run for president in 2008
11/14/2006

Giuliani, a Republican, has filed papers to form an exploration committee for a run to succeed President George W. Bush in the White House.

Rudolph GiulianiFormer New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was hailed as a hero for his response to the Sept. 11 attacks, has taken a step toward entering the 2008 presidential race, U.S. media reported on Monday.

Giuliani, a Republican, has filed papers to form an exploration committee for a run to succeed President George W. Bush in the White House, the reports said. Giuliani's spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, had no comment.

The former mayor joins a long list of potential candidates in each party who are expected to begin vying for the White House over the next few months.

Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa became the first Democrat to formally jump into the race on Thursday, while Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, kicked things off for Republicans last month.

There have been no decisions yet from the presumed front-runners, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"I am going to sit down with my family over the holidays and make that decision," McCain, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2000, said on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Another possible 2008 presidential contender, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, said on ABC's "This Week" that he was still planning on running, but was unsure when he would take the next steps.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a potential campaign-trail star, also is pondering a run, as is Mitt Romney, the outgoing Republican governor of Massachusetts.

http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24/...onal&idioma=en

I basically like and respect him. The thought of any Republican being our Prez just MAKES ME SICK....

Many people hate him because of his tough (and I mean tough) stance on crime (essentially, the police get a huge berth) and for his lack of funding for bad art (he opposed funding an exhibit containing a Virgin Mary made out of coutshiitte) -- but and while I may not agree with him there, to me, those are lesser issues than his policy of smart gun control, smart abortions, and his support of the gay community (he lived with a gay couple for years while Mayor of NYC)

Sadly, it is his "liberal" attitude toward the latter what will keep him from being elected as the far right cannot abide any of that.

hmmm..I didn't know that....:thumbsup:

Giuliani is probably one of the most tolerable of Republicans, but we need a Dem in the White House.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Here is some info on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html

http://www.cssny.org/pubs/urbanagenda/1998_12_31.html
__________________________________________________

All in all, I'd likely vote for him over Hillary and certain over McCain in a heart beat. While he is not perfect by any means, my impression is that over those two, when he says something, he means it as opposed to Hillary's apparent say anything to win strategy and McCains current pandering to the far right.

As long...
 

as their last name isnt Clinton.

I agree with that...:nod:

I would support Giuliani over McCain also, but I don't vote in Republican primaries. I'm praying that Hillary changes her mind about running. Giuliani is a decent man, and probably would be a tolerable Republican president, but it would still mean dealing with the Republican agenda.

Not really - or at least not in any significant way to me because there is no way RG would allow the right to choose to be significantly diminished, he would control the sale of guns, and gay people would go from being equated to beastiality to an citizenship way more on par with the hetro crowd. I mean those issues are at the front of the neo con agenda :shrug:

I also think that he would control the R's current out of control spending and he would make headway in Iraq.

One would hope so..BUT...We Gays were USED as a diversion and as scapegoats to draw attention away from Iraq..AND IT WORKED...that is some pathetically SAD ****!!!!:eek:

If he runs, it will be interesting to see if he wins the nomination. On one hand, I can't see the Repubs nominating someone who isn't a social conservative, but then again, he is one of the most recognizable faces in the party and appears to be at least somewhat respected by many.

I'm talking more about things like Medicaid cuts, erosion of social services, etc. This has been the Republican agenda since Bush took over and I am not convinced Guiliani would put a halt to them. I agree with you, though, that on many social issues things would be a lot better under RG (perhaps better than under certain Democrats).

I don't see RG getting through the south.

Rudy Giuliani is nothing but a scumbag puppet who parrots practically anything spewed out by the GOP. He's a shapeshifter who will do/say anything to curry political favor. And for the record, he's against gay marriage, and went further to say that "heterosexual marriage is inviolate." Sure he's for gay civil unions, but that is hardly progressive or moderate in this day and age. It's a GIVEN. And surely enough, civil unions have actually become a means to create a "separate and unequal" ghetto class for gays, which is 100% consistent with the Republican agenda. And don't forget how Giuliani praised Dubya on the war in Iraq at the 2004 GOP convention. :rolleyes:

If this ratbastard does run in 2008, I can guarantee his people are going to trot out that tired and old 9/11 footage that shows how brave he was in the face of adversity, blah, blah, blah. Yes, there was that fleeting period when Giuliani was able to atone for all of the atrocities he had committed during his tenure as Mayor of NYC, but he has managed to pi$$ away all of that goodwill by turning sharply right. The only admirable thing he did was to do away with that heinous combover! :eek:

Indeed, I think Obama is going to be the leading Dem contender in 2008. Not only does he seem to have the right agenda for this country... he's a total PILF! :lol:

^ I like Obama. But I'm worried that he doesn't have enough experience yet, so people won't be confident in voting for him. 2012 perhaps....

And I like Hillary, but I know many do not. I do not have a lot of faith in my country right now. I do not think she would win a race for President. These same people who voted Bush in AGAIN after 4 crappy years are going to turn & vote for a Democrat FEMALE? No way. I'd rather see another Dem who actually has a chance run & win than give the Republicans a win by default. :(

Al Gore anyone?

I don't think he wants it. :shrug: Maybe that's changed. I am debating on going to see him speak at UB in April.

To be fair, the vast majority, if not all, of the D party opposed gay marriage and, some, but not all, opt instead for civil union. RG also is far to the left of the R party on abortion, the right to privacy, and gun control. So, to say he
"parrots practically anything spewed out by the GOP. He's a shapeshifter who will do/say anything to curry political favor" is incorrect :shrug:

Do not get me wrong, I would rather see John Edwards in there, but, if RG runs, he will be hard to beat in a primary, though his perceived far left stance on social issues (which IMO is really moderate) will hurt him in the South.

Interestingly, his stances are not that radically different than Hillary Clinton's - at least as far as those social issues go :shrug:

On edit - I agree with you that RG's stumping for the likes of Santorum, et al, is hard to take. but, I recognize that as politics and in comparison to someone like Santorum running -- RG is a dream come true if the R's must win. So, I am speaking in relative terms here and even though I might vote for him over Hillary, though the thought of Hillary as President is tantilizing.

Take a few Red Bulls with ya if you go :laugh:

Isn't Edwards a Dem? I'm confused. Primaries are the ones between members of the same party to determine who gets the nomination, right? So Edwards & Guliani wouldn't square off in a primary, right? Am I thick or did you just write the wrong thing? Please, help me, I'm about to panic from lack of knowledge. :o

I really hope he does. I want him to be president.

Oops - I meant to say that if RG get the nomination from the R's and runs against Edwards, I likely would vote for Edwards in the main election.

^ Thank God, for a minute there I thought I had it all wrong for the past 20some years. :p

I like Edwards. A lot. Anyone see him on The Daily Show last night? Hilarious. :nod:

I like Edwards too...
 

doesnt hurt that his family owns a residence at Lake Tenkiller, so he is in OK quite a bit (He is so well liked, that during the latest voting bonanza there was a hypothetical TV poll on which candidate could win OK in the next Presidential Election-Edwards was #1 for the Demos and #2 overall behind Sen.McCain)

I like Edwards too.

I think RG's stumping for Santorum was a perfect example of being a typical GOP puppet. On the face of it, RG may be much further left than Santorum on a variety of social issues, but that didn't stop him from vocally supporting him. Just goes to show you that scumbags look out for each other, regardless of where they stand on the issues.

As for the Dems opposing gay marriage, I tend to disagree. I tend to believe that the majority of them do support gay marriage, but refrain from say so due to political pressure. It's kind of like "don't ask, don't tell" in the sense that they will not come right out and push for marriage equality. However, at the same time, they will not oppose measures to legalize marriage equality, and they will actively fight any efforts to amend the Constitution to ban it. Unfortunately civil unions are used by both parties as an escape route away from a political hot potato- pleasing nobody, but offending nobody either. I also believe that regardless of where RG stands on the issue of gay marriage, he will flip-flop until he tells everyone exactly what they want to hear. He can't say that he supports gay rights out of one side of his mouth and then turn around and say that heterosexual marriage is "inviolate" out of the other.

I am into Obama, Gore, and Edwards, but feel strongly that Bill Richardson needs to be on the ticket as VP candidate. The Southwest is the key to Democrats taking back the White House.

Then, that makes him no different than the vast majority of the D's - at least on paper and nothwithstanding your theory, which was disproven when Clinton, and the majority of the D's, enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 :shrug: So, both the R's and the D's in no uncertain numbers hold marriage inviolate :shrug:

Here is an interesting article on RG's pandering to the far right (which he needs some of to win) --

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/favorban.../giuliani.html

Reaching Right

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. He supports gay rights. He is in favor of gun control and liberal immigration laws. These are not popular views among Republicans.

But Giuliani has been giving money to Republican candidates whose views on these issues he has long opposed.

Why?

Giuliani knows he needs the support of the far right to have a shot at winning the presidential nomination in 2008. By contributing to socially conservative candidates, he hopes the favor will be returned in the form of support in two years.

“He is trying to smooth the corners that some conservatives might see in his candidacy,” said Jim Barnes, presidential elections reporter for The National Journal. “Giuliani has incredible name identification and is a very popular figure in the Republican party, but he runs counter to Republicans on a number of important issues.”

Since his mayoral term ended, Giuliani has remained quiet when it comes to his views on these issues. But, the opinions he espoused as mayor will not likely be forgotten over the next two years.

So even though the former mayor of New York is strongly pro-choice, he has been contributing to candidates who are long-time pro-lifers. For example, Ohio Senate candidate Mike DeWine has regularly voted along pro-life lines in years past. NARAL, a pro-choice advocacy group that tracks Congressional votes on abortion-related legislation, gave DeWine a zero percent rating indicating a staunch pro-life stance.

Nevertheless, Giuliani’s political action committee, Solutions America, contributed $5,000 to DeWine’s campaign this year. Giuliani also spent two days in October campaigning for DeWine in Ohio. A swing state in 2004, Ohio will be crucial to the Republicans in 2008.

Other pro-lifers who have received contributions from Solutions America include Arizona senator Jon Kyl ($10,000), Minnesota senate candidate Mark Kennedy ($10,000) and Missouri senator Jim Talent ($5,000).

Then there’s Michigan where a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was key in turning out Republican voters in the 2004 election. Senate candidate Michael Bouchard is an opponent of gay marriage in this swing state.

Giuliani, on the other hand, signed landmark legislation while mayor that made all registered domestic partners equal to married spouses. In addition, The New York Daily News reported that he moved in with a gay couple after the end of his second marriage in 2000. Still, Solutions America contributed $10,000 to Bouchard’s campaign during 2006. The PAC also gave $5,000 each to South Carolina congressmen Joe Wilson, Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. All three voted in 2004 to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.
________________________________________________________

Anyway - food for thought :cool:

Also - here is Kerry on what appears to be the official D platform on gay marriage - which is hardly a resounding pro gay position :shrug:

Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 6, 2005

BATON ROUGE, La. -- US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.

Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.

''I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children's healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. ''I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Some analysts believe that the same-sex marriage issue contributed to Kerry's loss to President Bush in last year's presidential campaign. Kerry's position puts him at odds with the state Democratic Party chairman and his fellow Bay State senator, Edward M. Kennedy, who is scheduled to address the party convention next weekend.

Kerry said he does not plan to attend this year's state Democratic convention or to lobby against the same-sex marriage plank. He said he has not been closely monitoring debate over the state party platform.

The state party chairman, Philip W. Johnston, said Kerry's opposition will not affect the party's decision to support of same-sex marriage. When the party meets next Saturday in Lowell, he said, the platform is on track to be approved as it stands.

''I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree on this issue," Johnston said. ''It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

Kennedy said through a spokeswoman that he backs inclusion of a statement in support of same-sex marriage in the platform. Kennedy is up for reelection next year and has strongly supported same-sex marriage, which has been legal in Massachusetts since May 2004, after a Supreme Judicial Court ruling.

Kerry's US Senate seat is up in 2008, and he has also left the door open to a second run for the White House. He wrestled with the same-sex marriage issue through much of his presidential campaign last year, with Republicans making much of the fact that his home state is the only one in the country where same-sex couples can wed.

Kerry came out against the Bush-supported federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, saying that individual states should be allowed to settle the issue on their own. But Kerry has also said that he personally opposes it.

''I'm opposed to gay marriage," Kerry said yesterday, reiterating past statements. ''I support [domestic] partnerships and civil unions."

Party platforms do not bind any candidates to particular policy positions, but they are often cited as guideposts intended to reflect the consensus of party members. The state Democratic Party's platform tends to tilt to the left, a result of the liberal leanings of party activists and convention attendees.

After holding more than two-dozen meetings across the state, the state Democratic Party's platform committee recommended having the Massachusetts party endorse same-sex marriage.

''We affirm our commitment to the Massachusetts constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage and all of its rights, privileges, and obligations and reject any attempt to weaken or revoke those rights," the plank reads.

The language can be amended by a majority vote of the approximately 3,000 delegates who are slated to convene next weekend at the Paul E. Tsongas Arena in Lowell. Johnston said he does not expect an effort to strip the platform of the same-sex marriage statement.

Johnston said he disagrees with Kerry's assessment of the extent of support same-sex marriage enjoys among Massachusetts Democrats. He cited a March Globe poll that found that 71 percent of Democrats believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed.

The same poll found 35 percent support for same-sex marriage among Republicans, 53 percent support among independents, and a 56 percent approval rating overall. Johnston said that while he realizes the national view of same-sex marriage is substantially different, Massachusetts Democrats can do well at the polls by contrasting their support for gay marriage with Governor Mitt Romney's opposition.

''Most residents of the state view this as a fundamental civil right for gay and lesbian citizens," Johnston said.

Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, which supports same-sex marriage, expressed disappointment in Kerry's position and said the senator is out of step with the majority in his own state.

''We wish his views better reflected the values of fairness and equality that the people of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Democratic Party stand for," Rouse said. ''Both in our personal experience and in our recent polling, we know that Massachusetts voters are very comfortable with marriage equality."

Under a deal brokered in part by Democratic leadership in the Senate, the Legislature voted last year to replace same-sex marriage with civil unions. That measure, however, must be approved again by the Legislature and then in a statewide vote next year before it can take effect.

Rick Klein can be reached at [email protected].

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...ge_kerry_says/
____________________________________________________________

In any event and again, I am not a comparative and relative cheerleader for RG and find him interesting to discuss because he is venerated in the R party when he holds few of their actual views.

I'll be voting for a Democrat, hopefully one named Al Gore.

I'm honestly not sure exactly how I feel about gay marriage vs. civil unions. I don't think marriage is "inviolate," or a divine institution, or anything of the kind. I think it's a sacred cow. On one hand, it seems like we're aping the straights in wanting this, and it's not something I personally would have any part of. But on the other hand, it's apparently meaningful to a lot of gay people, even if I personally don't get it. I mean...sexual orientation isn't even part of federal anti-discrimination law, nobody seems to even give a sh!t. I, for one, care a hell of a lot more about not being fired or being able to find a place to live before I care about getting married, which is basically the rite of a religion I do not subscribe to.

Anyway, I seriously don't think Guiliani would get the nomination, unless the GOP pulls out of its current Christo-fascism in a very big way.

RG gives me the creeps. I like Hillary in some ways, but I don't trust her. Edwards seems too wimpy. McCain is somewhat likable to me, though I have issues with him. Gore is a loser. Obama is simply unelectable. I don't care how on target he seems. He's black and he has a fuct up name. This country is not sophisticated enough to ever see past that.

What a lame bunch!

I tend to agree in that the word marriage (of any kind) should appear in no law whatsoever. There should be no Federal or other benefit of any kind attached to the religious institution of marriage. That way, you could marry, cohabitate, etc. with whomever you choose. Regarding the transfer of property, heritable rights, etc., that should all be done with a will or by bloodline, just as it is now for those excluded from legal marriage. I mean if you think about it, legalizing gay marriage is just another comingling of church and state :shrug:

Bloodline?? Geez, the thought of my family getting anything that belonged to me, or really having any say-so whatsoever over what happens to me should I die or become incapacitated scares the crap out of me. I think there should be civil unions for everyone. Wills and medical powers of attorney and all that crap can be contested. I don't trust them.

Hmm, Rudy feels marriage is inviolate. So, why then, is he on this third? It's so sacred, he first married his cousin and divorced her, and in the second marriage cheated on his wife and children.