Posted by
Chris Schlomann
on
February 15, 2007 9:37 AM
Nope, not for me. Lest we forget, Rudy Giuliani had a high-handed dictatorial style and refused to admit he was wrong about anything. Sounds eerily familiar...
dambriano
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 15, 2007 2:27 PM
I would have to agree in part, "high-handed dictatorial style and refused to admit he was wrong about anything. Sounds eerily familiar..." But, that would be true of most any politician, yes?
Posted by
Chris Schlomann
on
February 15, 2007 2:55 PM
I would like to think that at least some of our elected officials have learned from their own (and others') mistakes. Being the optimist I am, I'm hoping to have a choice that doesn't involve exactly the same style of politics that we've endured for the past 8 years.
dambriano
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 15, 2007 3:00 PM
It is good to see more and more people putting in their names for this run for President!
Just hope that the voters look each and everyone over completely and without prejudice to choose the one best suited for the job.
Can't wait to see in 2008!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 15, 2007 4:06 PM
I applied for my passport, just incase Hillary gets in.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 15, 2007 6:40 PM
What is so "scary" about Hillary?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 16, 2007 11:05 AM
Beside's her infidel husband, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc....nothing!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 16, 2007 7:16 PM
What does Rudy Giuliani have to do directly with Montville?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 17, 2007 5:13 PM
Giuliani never did anything about the hundreds of thousand of illegal immigrants who suck billions out of New York City's economy. He refused to allow police to check the immigration status of those who get arrested.
Giuliani is a Republican In Name Only (RINO). Might as well elect Hillary.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 18, 2007 11:03 AM
You can see from this blog that it may not be such easy sailing for Rudy and that is a shame. We tend to measure politicians on the most mundane things and his party once you get passed the North east and moderate states like NJ are going to present a problem for him on a host of issues that are way down the list of importance. Issues like how many times he has been married, civil marriages, and other really stupid things, like is he a RINO, will carry the day instead of the far more important issues of leadership and honesty in public policy.
I would love to see a campaign between someone like Bill Richardson and Rudy but that is not very likely so we will remain a Country talking to each base and remain divided.
"The House of Representatives today plans to pass a nonbinding resolution supporting U.S. soldiers in Iraq but opposing the president's plan to send more combat troops to the war zone," the Los Angeles Times reports:
On Larry King the other night, Rudy Giuliani offered some trenchant comments on all this nonsense:
Giuliani: We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect people to make decisions. Here's what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what's my view on that. The non-binding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds--they have every right to that--that it's wrong. You should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don't like is the idea of a non-binding resolution.
King: Because?
Giuliani: Because there's no decision.
King: But it's a--making a--it's a statement.
Giuliani: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert does. That's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide. . . . And maybe it's because I, you know, I ran a government and I tend to be a decisive person. I like decisions. And I think one of the things wrong with Washington is they don't want to make tough decisions anymore.
In fairness to our friends in Congress, what Giuliani is describing here is partly just the nature of the institution. A body made up of 535 people can't possibly be "decisive" in the way that one man can. Even if every member of Congress were as decisive as Giuliani, they would still have to compromise in order to get anything done.
But the character of the institution does reflect itself in the character of the individuals in it, either because they learn to adjust or because the most successful lawmakers are those who master the art of compromise.
Being president calls for a different set of skills and strengths than being in Congress, and this may be why America has elected only three sitting congressmen as president (Rep. James Garfield and Sens. Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy).
It's also why we're skeptical of all the senators seeking the White House this time around, and why in our estimation Giuliani has the best shot at being the next president.
Just keep in mind - it is too early to make a good decision. Once time passes, many will be weeded out and a few wil remain - Then we can "study" them and decide.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 21, 2007 3:55 PM
You might not like Rudy's style but you have to agree he is very effective.
New York City was a disaster when he took office.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 21, 2007 4:18 PM
I sure hope that this start of "mud-slinging" isn't going to carry on through the next many months! What a turn-off! A good way to judge someone's character though. If any of the candidates "mud-slings" regularly - they are OFF my list as a potential President!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
February 22, 2007 4:01 PM
Dan, you're right that the primaries play to the most extreme in the party and that Rudy may have a difficult time getting the nomination.
But if he does become the Republican candidate his socially liberal leanings will make him a very appealing candidate to "Reagan Democrats".
Rudy Giuliani represents the one thing that I have always looked for in a canidate fore any office. He has a track record of handling goverment issues under times of stress. We can look at what he did in NYC before 9/11, but, that discussion will be filled with subjective opinions. This man has been tested under fire...who else running has those credentials. He made a great Mayor and would make a great Leader for our Country. Ray Mulligan
Can Rudy Giuliani possibly win the Republican presidential nomination? A popular argument holds that he cannot, because he is too liberal on social issues like abortion and gay rights to make it through the primaries, in which the religious right rules. Here's a bit of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, though. Maggie Gallagher, a Catholic who is very conservative on those social issues, is seriously considering Giuliani:
I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. I don't look for purity in politicians, just for some small pro-life reason to vote for a guy: Medicaid funding, parental notification, partial birth abortion. Throw me the slightest lifeline, otherwise I assume he just doesn't want the vote of people like me. Rudy never did. So I never gave him my vote. . . .
So why would I even think of changing my mind? Two things: national security, and Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments.
When I ask myself, who of all the candidates in both parties do I most trust to keep me and my children safe? The answer is instantaneous, deeper than the level any particular policy debate can go: Rudy Giuliani. And when I look ahead on social issues like gay marriage, the greatest threat I see is that the Supreme Court with two or more appointments from Hillary Clinton, will decide that our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created a national constitutional right to whatever social liberals have decided is the latest civil rights battle.
The concern over national security--and Gallagher's instinct to trust Giuliani over all other available candidates--points to one seldom-remarked aspect of the coming presidential race. It has often been said (though less often now than a few years ago) that 9/11 "changed everything." But how did it change Republican presidential politics? We don't know, because there hasn't been a contest for the GOP nomination since 2000.
But does anyone want to argue that 9/11 will turn out to have changed GOP politics in a way that isn't to Giuliani's advantage?
Yes, I agree it would be exciting! I think the next serveral months will prove to be very interesting. I haven't experienced an exciting Presidential Election in many, many years!
Hope EVERYONE who is an adult comes out and places their vote!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 20, 2007 3:55 PM
Decision time is actually closer than we may think. This was written elsewhere:
"This year the California primary, along with other vote-heavy primaries, will be held on February 5, 2008 -- which makes that date, in effect, the first national primary day.
In other words, there won't be any marathon run to nominate the Presidential candidates this year. This time around, the early bird will most likely get the worm."
Will NJ jump onboard? Like I said, it is very exciting (can honestly say for the first time as most past elections were lacking) and will prove to be interesting!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
March 20, 2007 4:13 PM
YES! Now that we are moved up in the primaries I am hoping it will help generate more interest in VOTING and get everyone's valid decisions.
People have been entirely too uninterested when it comes to voting of any type.
America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance throughout the world. Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations. It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors. History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. U.S. assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting progress.
The election of Hamas in the Palestinian-controlled territories is a case in point. The problem there is not the lack of statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance. The Palestinian people need decent governance first, as a prerequisite for statehood. Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians — negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America’s commitment to Israel’s security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy.
