[moki]

great speech by Rudy Giuliani

Please read it in full if you're going to comment on it (or have watched him deliver it); excellent speech that did a good job framing the ideology behind the platform. Personally, I hope he runs in 2008.

[MindFad]

Ahh, the comparison to Churchill. That is an absolute hoot.

[Randman]

Originally posted by moki:
great speech by Rudy Giuliani

excellent speech that did a good job framing the ideology behind the platform. Personally, I hope he runs in 2008.

If the 2008 ticket can get Rudy, McCain and/or Powell in some combination, that would be a tough ticket and bring the GOP back from the extreme right to a more centrist position.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Ahh, the comparison to Churchill. That is an absolute hoot.

LOL indeed. Atleast he didn't bring jesus into it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Randman:
If the 2008 ticket can get Rudy, McCain and/or Powell in some combination, that would be a tough ticket and bring the GOP back from the extreme right to a more centrist position.

The problem is, I doubt Powell would run. He was reluctant enough to accept the position of Secretary of State, and rumors are that he might not serve a second term even if Bush is re-elected. It's well-documented that he won't run for President, either. You might be able to get a McCain/Giuliani ticket, though.

My guess, though, is that 2008 will play out roughly as follows. Kerry can't win a second term -the only reason he even has a shot at a first term is because of the Anybody-But-Bush crowd- and everyone knows this, so the Democrats will bring out The Big Guns to replace him: namely, Hillary. She has the chance to win on political correctness alone. The only way the Republicans can counter this is to run someone even more politically-correct than her, and there's only one person they have who can do that: Rice.

Either way, 2008 promises our first female President, and possibly also our first black President. Interesting times, to say the least.

[Randman]

I'm sure that's the first time that politically correct and Hillary were used in the same sentence.

[chris v]

It sounded to me more or less like he was declaring war against 2/3s of the world. Very apocalyptic.

[typoon]

Guiliani's Speech was AWESOME!!! He is a great speaker but this speech in general was just amazing. It was truly right on. It was a bout time we heard 2 great speaches from 2 great people. McCain and Guiliani.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[B]The problem is, I doubt Powell would run. He was reluctant enough to accept the position of Secretary of State, and rumors are that he might not serve a second term even if Bush is re-elected. It's well-documented that he won't run for President, either. You might be able to get a McCain/Giuliani ticket, though.

McCain can't win a primary...what makes you think he has a chance to win in 2008? I can see a Giuliani/ McCain ticket, but not the other way around.

My guess, though, is that 2008 will play out roughly as follows. Kerry can't win a second term -the only reason he even has a shot at a first term is because of the Anybody-But-Bush crowd- and everyone knows this, so the Democrats will bring out The Big Guns to replace him: namely, Hillary. She has the chance to win on political correctness alone. The only way the Republicans can counter this is to run someone even more politically-correct than her, and there's only one person they have who can do that: Rice.

If (BIG if) Kerry wins the election, Hillary won't be around in 2008! The democratic party wouldn't risk destroying their effort by challenging an incumbent President of the same political affiiation. It just wouldn't make any sense. If Hillary were to run anyway, she would essentially destroy her political career.

Either way, 2008 promises our first female President, and possibly also our first black President. Interesting times, to say the least.

It is still way too early to tell. I don't think Hillary can win.

[phoenixboy70]

And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

wtf is that supposed to mean?

[badidea]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
wtf is that supposed to mean?

It means that god is american and had more than one vote in the election!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dcolton:
McCain can't win a primary...what makes you think he has a chance to win in 2008? I can see a Giuliani/ McCain ticket, but not the other way around.

I don't know; there are an awful lot of people who like McCain. He didn't do so well in the primaries in 2000, largely because of the Anybody-But-Gore crowd (which was almost as virulent as the Anybody-But-Bush crowd today) voting for Bush in a fit of ruthless pragmatism. Especially given Bush's performance, I think another run could prove beneficial.

His one real problem is emotional instability. This went a long way towards allowing Bush to get ahead of him before, and it cost Dean the primaries this time. It could prove his downfall yet again.

If (BIG if) Kerry wins the election, Hillary won't be around in 2008!

Are you sure about that?

The democratic party wouldn't risk destroying their effort by challenging an incumbent President of the same political affiiation.

If that President had no chance of winning, you can be sure they'd challenge him. Kerry may be able to win this election, but he won't win a second term unless Bush tries running against him again.

It just wouldn't make any sense. If Hillary were to run anyway, she would essentially destroy her political career.

How? Honest question.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Millennium:

How? Honest question.

When was the last time a Presidential candidate of the same party was nominated over the incumbent? Hell, when was the last time the party in office had a contested primary?

At any rate, IF (BIG IF) Kerry wins, he will undoubtedly enjoy a level of support from dems. Hillary running against him in the primaries does many things.

(gotta go, will expand later)

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by badidea:
It means that god is american and had more than one vote in the election!

achso.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
When was the last time a Presidential candidate of the same party was nominated over the incumbent? Hell, when was the last time the party in office had a contested primary?

At any rate, IF (BIG IF) Kerry wins, he will undoubtedly enjoy a level of support from dems. Hillary running against him in the primaries does many things.

(gotta go, will expand later)

Unpopular presidents often have contested primaries. The last one was in 1992, when Buchanan contested Bush Sr. Bush won the primaries, but lost the general election. Before that, in 1980 when he was running for reelection, Carter won in the primaries against Kennedy, but lost the general election. Before that, Ford in 1976 when he was running for reelection won in the primaries against Reagan, but lost in the general election. Before that, Johnson was so challenged by people in his party (notably RFK) in 1968 that he withdrew from the race.

Contrast this with what has happened when a president running for reelection is not challenged in the primary. Clinton was unopposed, and won in 1996. Reagan was unopposed and won in 1984. Nixon was unopposed, and won in 1972. LBJ was unopposed, and won in 1964. Ike was unopposed and won in 1956.

That's a pretty solid correlation. I won't stick my neck out so far as to say that it predicts any future election because I don't think that history works that way. But in the past the rule seems to be that when a sitting president is challenged by someone in his own party, he still wins the nomination, but loses the election. On the other hand, sitting presidents that go into an election year unopposed within their own parties are reelected.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unpopular presidents often have contested primaries. The last one was in 1992, when Buchanan contested Bush Sr. Bush won the primaries, but lost the general election. Before that, in 1980 when he was running for reelection, Carter won in the primaries against Kennedy, but lost the general election. Before that, Ford in 1976 when he was running for reelection won in the primaries against Reagan, but lost in the general election. Before that, Johnson was so challenged by people in his party (notably RFK) in 1968 that he withdrew from the race.

Contrast this with what has happened when a president running for reelection is not challenged in the primary. Clinton was unopposed, and won in 1996. Reagan was unopposed and won in 1984. Nixon was unopposed, and won in 1972. LBJ was unopposed, and won in 1964. Ike was unopposed and won in 1956.

That's a pretty solid correlation. I won't stick my neck out so far as to say that it predicts any future election because I don't think that history works that way. But in the past the rule seems to be that when a sitting president is challenged by someone in his own party, he still wins the nomination, but loses the election. On the other hand, sitting presidents that go into an election year unopposed within their own parties are reelected.

Buchanan. He never really had a political career, did he?
Ford. Replaced Nixon, wasn't elected as President
Johnson...They wanted him out.
Carter...The only 'exception to the rule' (I don't believe Carter was as horrific a President as everyone makes him out to be.)

Basically my point is that it really is not common if you look at it. Ig Kerry is elected and does a decent job, why would the dems risk Hillary over Kerry? Why would the DNC risk alienating the incumbent President, who could literally split the vote if he decided to run as an independent. Why would Hillary risk losing the primaries to an incumbent? Hillary running against a democrtic president would amount to nothing more than a coup of democratoc leadership.

Of course, Kerry probably would do a horrible job if he is elected, so I see the possibility of a democratic coup in 2008 if he is elected.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Basically my point is that it really is not common if you look at it. Ig Kerry is elected and does a decent job, why would the dems risk Hillary over Kerry?

You are making a presumption that people within a party think tacticaly and recognize that challenging the incumbent will weaken the uncumbent and lead to the election of someone they like less than the incumbent. I just demonstrated that historically, whatever the tactical logic, those challenges happen, and they happen quite often. Roughly 50 percent of the presidents running for reelection since World War II have been challenged for reelection by their own party.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are making a presumption that people within a party think tacticaly and recognize that challenging the incumbent will weaken the uncumbent and lead to the election of someone they like less than the incumbent. I just demonstrated that historically, whatever the tactical logic, those challenges happen, and they happen quite often. Roughly 50 percent of the presidents running for reelection since World War II have been challenged for reelection by their own party.

Now, see, a challenged incumbent is not necessarily weaker because of it. Look at Arlen Specter in PA - he had a bitter challenge in PA, and is in the lead now that it's over. Don't confuse correlation with causation. I would say that weak candidates get challenged because they're weak, not that challenging a candidate makes him weaker.

Just my $0.02.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I just demonstrated that historically, whatever the tactical logic, those challenges happen.

I was pointing out that those 'challenges' are suspect. There were extenuating circumstances in each of those elections. You can plaster it as fact, but when it comes down to it...the 'challengers' didn't pose a threat to the leadership. The truth is, the RNC and the DNC aren't stupid and put enourmous pressure on would be 'challengers' not to run against an incumbent leader. Doing so represents a rift in the party and effects not only the Presidential election but elections throughout the nation.

Unless Kerry's Presidency (BIG IF) is run into shambles...there will not be a democratic challenger in 2008.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I was pointing out that those 'challenges' are suspect. There were extenuating circumstances in each of those elections. You can plaster it as fact, but when it comes down to it...the 'challengers' didn't pose a threat to the leadership.

This is getting frustrating. I don't care how you spin each of the challenges, the are historical facts. Sitting presidents have faced primary challenges in roughly 50% of reelection campaigns since the Second World War.

I am also showing factually that in each of those challenges, the sitting president did eventually win renomination, with the exception of Johnson in 68. After each of those challenges, the outcome of the general election was that the sitting president went on to lose the general election.

Now, if you believe a causal relationship exists, you could conclude that each challenge had the effect of weakening the president leading to his defeat. If so, those challenges were threats to their leadership.

It is equally possible that the weakness of the presidents who have been challenged is the reason why they weren't able to keep their base together, and that weakness and inability to keep the base together is both why they were challenged and why they were defeated in the general election.

I don't know there is any way to determine what the cause and effect relationship actually was. Election psychology is too complex. But whether or not you like admitting that your assertion was wrong, it remains that it was wrong. Sitting presidents facing reelection have faced primary challenges. Party discipline alone has not proved sufficient to eliminate them.

[Atomic Rooster]

Rudy Giuliani?

Isn't he the guy they had to drag out of the mayor's office. Hehe...the guy had his 15 minutes of fame and didn't wanna give it up. He thought he was THEE hero and New York couldn't survive without him, that he was irreplaceable. They had to get a tow truck to tow out his limo from his parking spot at city hall.

[Sven G]

Wasn't Giuliani also the "zero tolerance" dude?

What an abominable concept: zero tolerance!

Its like saying: we created the problems, and now we are solving them by negating them...

P.S.: Of course, they don't really say that: more subtly - or coarsely - rather: they created the problems, and now we are going to remove them by force. Total hypocrisy...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Wasn't Giuliani also the "zero tolerance" dude?

What an abominable concept: zero tolerance!

That's OK, if you prefer the alternative concept -- letting crime spin out of control -- you could embrace Giuliani's predecessor as New York mayor, Ed Koch. He's supporting Bush too.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's OK, if you prefer the alternative concept -- letting crime spin out of control -- you could embrace Giuliani's predecessor as New York mayor, Ed Koch. He's supporting Bush too.

Ehm... what about preventing crime?

Of course, while "curing" pre-existing crime in non-authoritarian ways, whenever possible - which has nothing to do with "zero tolerance" or "total tolerance", or whatever...

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's OK, if you prefer the alternative concept -- letting crime spin out of control -- you could embrace Giuliani's predecessor as New York mayor, Ed Koch. He's supporting Bush too.

I don't know what Koch is thinking. I think he's letting his concern for Israel trump common sense.

As far as 'zero tolerance' goes -- it has nice results on paper of course. But it's essentially the same logic as 'out of sight, out of mind.' Anyway, I disagree with Giuliani on some issues but I'd more readily vote for a ticket that included him than one that included Cheney.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Wasn't Giuliani also the "zero tolerance" dude?

What an abominable concept: zero tolerance!

Its like saying: we created the problems, and now we are solving them by negating them...

P.S.: Of course, they don't really say that: more subtly - or coarsely - rather: they created the problems, and now we are going to remove them by force. Total hypocrisy...

Giuliani cleaned up NYC with his "Zero Tolerance" policies. It's the safest big city of it's size anywhere. Before Giuliani Crime was pretty rampant.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend... Unfortunately they were/are still our enemy so now we need to remove them by force. Not really hypocrisy.

[typoon]

I was waiting for the Chants of Rudy, Rudy When he was done.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Ehm... what about preventing crime?

you can't do that. the devil makes them commit crimes...

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by typoon:
Giuliani cleaned up NYC with his "Zero Tolerance" policies. It's the safest big city of it's size anywhere. Before Giuliani Crime was pretty rampant.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend... Unfortunately they were/are still our enemy so now we need to remove them by force. Not really hypocrisy.

Part of the reason why NY was safer under Giuliani was because the economy was booming. Crime was down everywhere.

But he DID solve the homeless problem there. He deserves credit for that. I wish he'd come to SF and consult or the politicians here would follow his lead. We have a horrendous problem here.

He gave a good speech. I didn't think anybody would be criticizing Kerry but he did it (although I don't agree with his conclusions) without sounding too mean-spirited.

I was disappointed with McCain's speech. He's kind of dry. He's much better in one-on-one interviews.

[PacHead]

Guilliani gave a great speech. Dems just do not understand the scope of the war.

[typoon]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Part of the reason why NY was safer under Giuliani was because the economy was booming. Crime was down everywhere.

But he DID solve the homeless problem there. He deserves credit for that. I wish he'd come to SF and consult or the politicians here would follow his lead. We have a horrendous problem here.

He gave a good speech. I didn't think anybody would be criticizing Kerry but he did it (although I don't agree with his conclusions) without sounding too mean-spirited.

I was disappointed with McCain's speech. He's kind of dry. He's much better in one-on-one interviews.

Like you said the economy was part and only part of why NYC was safer under Giuliani. It was mainly Giuliani's policies on Crime that really reduced the crime rate in the city. Also his "quality of life" policies not only made NYC a safe place but a cleaner one as well.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Guilliani gave a great speech. Dems just do not understand the scope of the war.

errr, i believe that the "dems" aren't the only ones that don't understand "the scope" of the war...

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by typoon:
Like you said the economy was part and only part of why NYC was safer under Giuliani. It was mainly Giuliani's policies on Crime that really reduced the crime rate in the city. Also his "quality of life" policies not only made NYC a safe place but a cleaner one as well.

It's definitely cleaner than SF, I'll give him that.

I like Rudy. Too bad he's probably too moderate to win that party's nomination. It's controlled by extremists now. Just look at the Platform. Maybe it'll be different in 4 years.

I'm sticking by my prediction of long ago (check the archives) of a Giuliani vs Hillary race in 2008.

[deedar]

Originally posted by badidea:
It means that god is american and had more than one vote in the election!

No, it means that god is on the supreme court!

[typoon]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It's definitely cleaner than SF, I'll give him that.

I like Rudy. Too bad he's probably too moderate to win that party's nomination. It's controlled by extremists now. Just look at the Platform. Maybe it'll be different in 4 years.

I'm sticking by my prediction of long ago (check the archives) of a Giuliani vs Hillary race in 2008.

Actually I hope it is a Giuliani vs Hillary in 2008. I think Giuliani would win hands down.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
errr, i believe that the "dems" aren't the only ones that don't understand "the scope" of the war...

Yes, you are correct. Certain European countries also don't get it.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yes, you are correct. Certain European countries also don't get it.

which ones?

so far the only one's that really seem to "not get it" are american conservatives (and the bush regime).

the "scope of the war" now involves about couple of million more terrorists than before sept 11th.

anybody who thinks he can win the war against "islamic fundamentalists" by using brute force is in for a nasty surprise. just ask the soviet army.

no, no. the "scope of the war" is that they have all the time, we whish we could buy. this war can only be won in the hearts and the minds of the people who believe they have a "cause" in their "fundamentalism".

war only fuels that "cause".

[PacHead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:

no, no. the "scope of the war" is that they have all the time, we whish we could buy. this war can only be won in the hearts and the minds of the people who believe they have a "cause" in their "fundamentalism".

war only fuels that "cause".

Sorry, I disagree. We'll bomb 'em dead, and they won't have any hearts or minds that we need worry about.

One does not appease barbaric terrorists, nor does one show weakness. They should be dealt with in the most brutal way. They only understand force.

We don't care how many of them there are. They are all dead wrong, and if they choose to fight us, they will die.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by typoon:
Actually I hope it is a Giuliani vs Hillary in 2008. I think Giuliani would win hands down.

We'll see. It'd be a fun campaign. I'd remind you that Hillary is 1-0 against him now.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
We'll see. It'd be a fun campaign. I'd remind you that Hillary is 1-0 against him now.

2008

2004 aint even done with yet. A lot is going to happen in 4 years.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
But he DID solve the homeless problem there. He deserves credit for that. I wish he'd come to SF and consult or the politicians here would follow his lead. We have a horrendous problem here.

OT, but I think everyone in SF seems to acknowledge that it's an issue. They just can't agree on how to solve it. I don't know why SF's homeless folks don't relocate to Berkeley, a city that seems to actually want them.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's OK, if you prefer the alternative concept -- letting crime spin out of control -- you could embrace Giuliani's predecessor as New York mayor, Ed Koch. He's supporting Bush too.

You forgot David Dinkins. (Not that it's exactly a major oversight, though.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
You forgot David Dinkins. (Not that it's exactly a major oversight, though.)

I didn't forget him. I ignored him.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I didn't forget him. I ignored him.

Well, maybe he'd prefer that to being forgotten, although either will work in his case. You have to admit, having Ed Koch on your side is a little disturbing, like waking up one morning and finding out that you've gotten Grampa Munster's endorsement.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Guilliani gave a great speech. Dems just do not understand the scope of the war.

You must be the only one on the planet who does use scope...er...ah, I mean understand the scope of the war. Shrubmeister hizzelf has said it is unwinnable and that the war in Iraq was a 'catastrophic victory'. Whatever the hell that is?

[itai195]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Guilliani gave a great speech. Dems just do not understand the scope of the war.

No, we understand that the 'scope of the war' is to keep Republicans in power indefinitely

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
One does not appease barbaric terrorists, nor does one show weakness. They should be dealt with in the most brutal way. They only understand force.

then you've already lost, and proven once more, that you, and people like you, don't understand the "scope" of this war.

again, they have all the time we can't buy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
No, we understand that the 'scope of the war' is to keep Republicans in power indefinitely

Constantly forever 24/7 infinity.

ALL THE TIME!

And other extreme words.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by itai195:
No, we understand that the 'scope of the war' is to keep Republicans in power indefinitely

That may or may not be its purpose, but either way that's not its scope. "Scope" defines the area over which something takes place. In the case of the WoT, the whole problem is that the scope is possible to define. Theoretically, it could be worldwide, or it might be localized to a specific region. It would take a psychic to know for sure.

[aberdeenwriter]

To answer your question, check out my Poli/war Topic, today.

Topic: "Any resemblance to the President is questionable!"

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
wtf is that supposed to mean?