Cons like Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds are currently pushing the idea that Giuliani being on top of the polls means that history should be revised and the importance of the religious far right is overstated (one could point to the election and re-election of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan for an easy counterpoint, but I digress). I just think this assertion is worth pointing out, especially if the eventual candidate comes with the blessing of the religious cons.
Rudy is basically only known for his 9/11 leadership to the conservative base.
My prediction is, the rest of the Republican candidate pack is going to eventually team up on Rudy’s pro-choice, pro-gay rights record. And someday, in desperation, one of the candidates will go completely negative on him, a la Gephardt’s attack on Dean in ‘04.
Giuliani is far from a lock, and Glenn Reynolds’ assertion that social conservatism doesn’t matter anymore is, per usual, completely wrong.
MG’s comment is correct.
InstaCracker is merely endorsing a belief he finds convenient. He’s always been uncomfortable defending the Falwells and Robertsons–hence, his “libertarian” shtick
The so-called “religious right” is a potent force in electoral politics. Although they’re relatively small in terms of the entire voting public–they vote rain or shine and they vote en bloc for extreme rightwingers. The GOP loses them and they’re in a world of hurt.
I’ll just give a “megadittos” to MG, and I’m one who has been flogging the idea that Giuliani could well win the nomination.
However, I should note that, should someone like Sam Brownback or (much more likely) Mike Huckabee be the Republican nominee, Instaputz will find a “libertarian” reason to support the guy.
This is like listening to Jaromir Jagr and Brendan Shanahan discuss who should play left field for the Braves.
Republican going back to WWII: Ike – moderate, Nixon liberal (for a Republican), Ford moderate, Reagan conservative, Bush I moderate, Bush II moderate.
The polls this year consistently show the moderates and the liberals ahead.
Bush II “moderate”? If Bill Clinton lied us into a war, without planning for the aftermath, underfunding the troops, supporting torture, breaking constitutional laws, and not listening to the military about troop strength — Dugger, would you consider him “moderate”?
Methinks not.
? for president?
Oh, and MLK was a republican, don’t forget.
Giuliani is going to need some BIG money spent in packaging before he’s viable as a National candidate.
As a Liberal, I would welcome Giuliani as an opponent in 2008. It’s what would be called in ordnance a “target-rich environment”!
I do hope he gets past the primary. I see no one in the GOP field anywhere near him right now, except for Romney, and he is going to need even more packaging than Rudy.
Not too sure where the money stands right now, but I think the days of the GOP overpowering Dems in money raising are over. Without a massive advantage in monies for message delivery and control, GOP policies just do not get elected.
If they have to spend serious money in nation-wide markets with image and packaging to refine the public’s pereception of these candidates, they are not going to have the huge go-negative money that made such a difference in ‘04.
Yessss…
Silly Media Glutton,
Bush has not been proven to ‘lie’ us into war. Not a single lie has been documented re Pres Bush. And most all the Clintonistas are on record as saying Saddam had WMDs or programs and something needed to be done about him – pre Bush and post Bush election.
Bush also does not fund the troops. Congress does. And the progressives in that body are right now working very hard to underfund the troops – consciously.
Bush is a big spender domestically and has had an interventionist neocon foreign policy. the latter is not traditionally conservative. Perhaps you can’t get past his religion to look at what he has done.
Dugger, Bush said, “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.”
At the time, Bush was planning on luring Saddam into war with a fake U.N. plane.
Reconcile those two facts for me, and then tell me Bush didn’t lie us into war, Dugger.
media
What two facts? You gave me what I assume is an out of context Bush quote and then some paranoid BS about a plot involving a fake UN plane. I’ve heard Bush knew ahead about 9/11, Kennedy was set up by the CIA at Chapapquidick and that Republicans sabotaged Wellstone’s plane, but not this one. Source?
A lie requires intent. Therefore you must know (not what you might read in some progressive comic book) Bush’s intent to prove lie.
Oh God, MG, now you’ve gone and done it.
Paranoid BS, “according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.” Yeah okay.
Dugger, You still haven’t explained this nugget.
Source?
He gave you a source. It’s those words with the line under them.
duros
Actually you are wrong. I have explained it. Here. Last year. I challenged everyone her to prove alie. that was one lame attempt. It is till lame. And BTW, if it were a contradiction, it doesn’t prove a lie. Get it? Lie requires intent. Do you read minds? Know Bush’s intent?
You have yet to even come close to proving a lie. No one here has.
Dugger, in summary, you are an ignorant fool who didn’t even bother to read the links I gave you. Since you didn’t bother to read my argument, then it is not possible to rebut my argument.
This will be the last comment I make to you, as you are obviously either a 3-year-old or an older person with the analytical skills of one.
hey media
Indeed, more paranoid garbage. First of all your story is old news and is just now being repackaged in a book by a Limey leftist anti-war type. The article you quote doesn’t actually quote Bush since the speaker, who you would like to think is Bush, talks about the US in the third person. Notice it doesn’t quote the memo. Also exactly how is it we would send up a fake UN plane, get it shot down and make something out of it. Wouldn’t, uhh, the UN say it wasn’t theirs if it was fake??? Did you eveer actaully consider that????
Furthermore,
IRAQI NEWS AGENCY (State-run)
February 19, 2003
The United Nations gave Iraq 48 hours notice before sending an American U-2 spy plane on its first flight over Iraqi territory in support of the UN search for weapons of mass destruction, officials said Tuesday.
Iraq agreed to the over flights last week. The agreement was followed by a decree from Presidential edict banning chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, issued hours before a key report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Hiro Ueki, a spokesman for the inspectors in Baghdad, said the flight happened Monday with the 48-hours notice Iraq demanded.
IRAQI NEWS AGENCY (State-run)
February 19, 2003
The United Nations gave Iraq 48 hours notice before sending an American U-2 spy plane on its first flight over Iraqi territory in support of the UN search for weapons of mass destruction, officials said Tuesday.
Iraq agreed to the over flights last week. The agreement was followed by a decree from Presidential edict banning chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, issued hours before a key report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Hiro Ueki, a spokesman for the inspectors in Baghdad, said the flight happened Monday with the 48-hours notice Iraq demanded.
Furthermore (bozo),
“February 19, 2003
The United Nations gave Iraq 48 hours notice before sending an American U-2 spy plane on its first flight over Iraqi territory in support of the UN search for weapons of mass destruction, officials said Tuesday.
Iraq agreed to the over flights last week. The agreement was followed by a decree from Presidential edict banning chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, issued hours before a key report by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Hiro Ueki, a spokesman for the inspectors in Baghdad, said the flight happened Monday with the 48-hours notice Iraq demanded.
“The Iraqi authorities were asked to ensure the safety of the U-2 flight and they accepted,” Ueki said.”
Thats your secret plan for war. Ohh, that evil Bush. Making a secret plan common knowledge and then coordinating with the UN. How clever!!!
No lies have documented re Pres Bush. That remains.
Well, dugger, no I don’t know Bush’s intent. I could guess, but you’d just put it down to BDS. I do know, however, that his statement was false and misleading and he knew it was false when he said it. Without breaking out your dog-eared Webster’s again, that would satisfy most people’s criteria for a lie.
Except for the 29%-ers like yourself.
When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Sinclair lewis, 1935
“and he knew it was false ”
Proving my point conclusively once again. To prove Bush as Pres has lied, you first have to believe progressives are mind readers.
Duros, amazingly, knows what Bush knew. Not opinion mind you. Duros ‘knows’ the president’s thoughts were. Congratulations on your super power. Please use it for the good of mankind.
hey Media,
how ’bout that secret Bush war plan scheme you discovered, the one coordinated with the UN and announced in the media???
Don’t know why I’m diving into this muck again, but, Dugger, listen closely: Bush knew what he was saying was false.
Bush said, “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.”
At that same time, not only had he made the decision to go to war (as shown in memo after memo), he was trying to provoke Saddam into starting a war.
So he wasn’t AVOIDING war. You don’t have to be a mind-reader to understand that he was lying. He was intentionally deceiving us into believing he was trying to avoid war. This is a lie.
If I say, “I am doing everything I can to avoid running over your cat,” and at the same time there is evidence that I am, indeed, chasing your cat down with my car, I have lied.
Plain and simple, Dugger. Good bye.
Duros, amazingly, knows what Bush knew.
It was in the fucking paper, ya idjit!
This was AFTER the story came out.
So, yes, assuming that he read the paper, or had someone read it to him,
HE KNEW IT WAS A FALSE STATEMENT!
AAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!
By definiton neither of you ‘know’ what Bush knew. Your wording is careless and your biases obvious.
duros
You could make a better case for lie if you showed both sides of the issue, considered context and then rendered a sane judgment.
Did you give the Bush side any cosnsidertion before he magically discovered Bush meant to lie. Did hyou consider when Bush made the remarks and about what issue. Could he have misspoke? And the biggets, did you carefully research the difference between wiretap and eaves dropping? Do you know the diffrence?
Do you ever wonder why this Pres who could ‘trick’ most of the Democratic Congress into supporting a war (this is in your world, not mine) would lie so openly that blog posters all over the world can pick it up easily?
Oh for fuck’s sake. You alway go back to the same defense. “If he’s so stupid, how could he have tricked you guys so easily?”
Whatevrrrrr.
Media Glutton, this is all your fault.
So eavesdropping is ok? Don’t need a warrant for that? How does one eavesdrop on a phone line? Did he misspeak? What is the context of his remarks?
Enlighten me, oh corpulent one.
Yeah, in some contexts eavesdropping is OK. I would be quite happy to have had the government eavesdrop on the foreign converstaions of the 9-11 murderers. Bet you would too.
But just stop a second and think. We have this big, ongoing torture brouhaha here. But its not just torture 9/10s of progressives would stop. They would not even permit any surveillance evidently.
I have nothing against surveillance, Dugger so don’t go there. I have a problem with illegal surveillance. Setting aside the fact that we probably did eavesdrop on foreign conversations of the 9-11 perpetrators, but they didn’t get translated until 9-14 or so.