This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

By thepostman
#55976
is it me or is this presidential election talk come MUCH, MUCH earlier then normal....I guess when we have so many 24 hour new stations they run out of things to talk about and it happens...but who is to say the people saying they are running are going to even still be around a year from now...
By SuperJon
Registration Days Posts
#55977
Dr. Towns said it in class today:

"Do not judge me for something I did or said when I was 24."

These "personal issues" are a bunch of crap. How many of you can say you didn't do anything stupid when you were younger?
User avatar
By 01LUGrad
Registration Days Posts
#55988
thepostman wrote:is it me or is this presidential election talk come MUCH, MUCH earlier then normal....I guess when we have so many 24 hour new stations they run out of things to talk about and it happens...but who is to say the people saying they are running are going to even still be around a year from now...
Part of the increased intrest is due to the fact that this is the first time in over 50 years that neither the president or vice-president is running. That means that both parties nominations are wide open.
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#55990
adam42381 wrote:
Ed Dantes wrote:If you're talking about personal lives, so what? Barack did coke and Hillary is a walking freak-show.

And I only put McCain as veep because there is absolutely NO ONE in the wings for 2012 or 2016, barring the unlikely resurgence of Rick Santorum or George Allen.
You do realize that Dubya did coke and had a serious drinking problem. That didn't seem to hurt his chances.
Maybe it didn't hurt his chances, but it certainly hurt his Presidency.

What? He's a lousy president! Gotta blame something!
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#55991
LUconn wrote:
Ed Dantes wrote:
And then there was 9-11, which shouldn't be dismissed by saying "so what". To see how great of a leader he was during that period, contrast him with New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin -- who KNEW that a catastrophic storm was coming and still played his fiddle. At a time when we all thought that the world was literally about to end, Rudy couldn't have handled the situation any better.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. He did such a greath job because he didn't Nagin the situation? You probably couldn't have made the situation any worse than our chocolate city friend did. And because Rudy didn't foul it up like that, he did a great job? I'm not talking about the rest of his mayorship really becuase I know he did some good things but I'm not too familiar with the overall body of work. I just don't like to hear that he was so great in the face of crisis because he didn't screw it up.
He instilled a sense of calm during a time that was otherwise chaotic. Guiliani gave not just New York, but America, the "we're down, but we're not out, far from it. And when we get back, we're gonna be better than ever" attitude.

Nagin: “Get off your jerk and get down here to fix the G*d**n biggest disaster in the nation's history.”

Giuliani: "We've been hit. Hit hard. How hard, we don't yet know. The loss of life... is greater than any of us can possibly bear. In 1940, when London was being bombed - every night, night after night - Londoners scrawled a message on the rubble the next morning: 'We can take it,' they wrote. Well, New Yorkers are made of the same tough stuff. So can we! New York, and the United States, are stronger than any group of barbaric terrorists. The city is still here. It will be here tomorrow morning. It's going to be here forever. "
User avatar
By 01LUGrad
Registration Days Posts
#55993
Somehow, this thread turned into a comparison between Rudy G. and Ray Nagin. What the... I don't think there is much of a comparison there. I still wonder how in the world he was re-elected.
By belcherboy
Registration Days Posts
#56026
Ed Dantes wrote: And I only put McCain as veep because there is absolutely NO ONE in the wings for 2012 or 2016, barring the unlikely resurgence of Rick Santorum or George Allen.
If you are talking about McCain running in 2012 or 2016, he will probably have to run from his nursing home. I believe he just turned 70. There is no way he will get elected at the age of 76 or older IMO.

Barak Obama might just get destroyed if he really pursues that Presidency these next 2 years. Hillary will eat him alive. His middle name is Hussein. He has attended several Muslim schools. This guy better have his stuff together once the Clinton campaign war machine begins or they might just permanently scar his political career at a young age. My guess is that he is either VP or the Democrats offer him the world to put off running till 2012 (if they lose in '08 ) or 2016 (if they win in '08 ). Unfortunately for him, those extra years he waits will allow the U.S. to see just how liberal he is. I've heard he is a great "smoke and mirrors" guy when it comes to his degree of liberalism and what he believes.

The only chance I see the GOP having in getting power back and maintaining the White House is if Iraq does a big turnaround in the next year. Many have predicted that the new influx of soldiers will pay off by May of this year. This could make the anti-war crowd quite embarrassed. The economy is chugging and everyone is still down. This war has to have a visable turnaround if the GOP doesn't want to go deeper in the hole.
By LUconn
Registration Days Posts
#56032
belcherboy wrote: Hillary will eat him alive.
oh what I wouldn't give for a photoshop of this.
User avatar
By TallyW
Registration Days Posts
#56082
Rudy's problems are far beyond stuff that would get 'out'. It's the how and why of his integrity. Yes he rose to the challenge of 9-11. We're all glad for that but I don't believe we've even ever elected a President who was dating... I think they've all been married. Divorced yes.... dating while married, many times... but single sleeping with a much younger woman? Nope. Especially not under allegations of an Affair and how ugly that split became... It's not about bringing it back... it's about questioning him for the long haul. The presidency has many many more issues than terror and perception is reality. The perception is that he has a lot of dirt. W's problems were all when he was 30 years old or earlier. He had time (and many election cycles) to get rid of that image.

As for Obabma's name... that won't be an issue. That's pretty stupid and frankly people who would care about his name aren't the people who actually get out of bed and take the 5 minutes it takes to vote. Although I am skeptical of the average voter... a name problem won't be enough to turn him off... especially as long as he holds onto this Joel Osteen vibe he's got going.

This is McCain's last go 'round. Frankly this Republican field reminds me a LOT of when Dole ran against Clinton... almost like the Republicans were still shell shocked from '92 and they just threw out someone without forming a solid plan for the country to get behind. This reminds me of that type of field.

ALSO for everyone to keep in mind... Bill Clinton didn't enter the race until SEPTEMBER of 91... in comparison we are talking in January... almost a full 9 months from that same point in this cycle. There is a political eternity for these people to screw something up and for someone relatively silent to jump in and make a splash. Can anyone say Condi?
By SuperJon
Registration Days Posts
#56086
Condi = Bush = no chance of winning this year.
By belcherboy
Registration Days Posts
#56114
TallyW wrote: As for Obabma's name... that won't be an issue. That's pretty stupid and frankly people who would care about his name aren't the people who actually get out of bed and take the 5 minutes it takes to vote. Although I am skeptical of the average voter... a name problem won't be enough to turn him off... especially as long as he holds onto this Joel Osteen vibe he's got going.
I just disagree. If he does go head to head with Hillary, his name and background is going to be shouted. His background is so guarded that people will want to know about it. If he indeed has attended several Muslim schools and does have a traditionally Muslim type name, it will hurt him. At this time in our history, people will vote against someone they feel has a Muslim background IMO. To be honest, I would probably vote against a conservative that has a Muslim background. I think many would agree on both sides of the fence. There is A LOT of fear about Muslims and those who may have Muslim roots.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#56115
TALLY I too disagree. (and I am sure it shocks you :D ) Rudy's family life can be spun as aposititve. He stayed with his wife and slept on the sofa even after her "alternative lifestyle" affair was public to him and others. Sure he is dating a younger woman, but we aren't talking about someone in their teens. People will give him a pass on that simply b/c it is SOOO messed up and doesn't appear to affect his ability to govern. Agian, I dont think you can underestimate his impact on one of the major cities of the world and in history after 9/11. He led, people followed, good things happened. THAT is a powerful image to overcome. This also, is where I think Clinton's "fun" will come in handy for him. People are "used" to this type of thing.
As for Obama, the middle name will be a huge problem. There are those who don't EVER wanna see a black man president. Add to that many more people who WOULD have a problem with electing someone with the name Hussein as president. Also, he is going to have to overcome this perception: We are at war with Radical Islam. Those people are not really often named Bob. They are called Abdullah, Omar, Hussein etc. It will be very difficult for many people to pull a lever for someon who, in their mind, is associated with those we are fighting.
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#56128
belcherboy wrote:
TallyW wrote: As for Obabma's name... that won't be an issue. That's pretty stupid and frankly people who would care about his name aren't the people who actually get out of bed and take the 5 minutes it takes to vote. Although I am skeptical of the average voter... a name problem won't be enough to turn him off... especially as long as he holds onto this Joel Osteen vibe he's got going.
I just disagree. If he does go head to head with Hillary, his name and background is going to be shouted. His background is so guarded that people will want to know about it. If he indeed has attended several Muslim schools and does have a traditionally Muslim type name, it will hurt him. At this time in our history, people will vote against someone they feel has a Muslim background IMO. To be honest, I would probably vote against a conservative that has a Muslim background. I think many would agree on both sides of the fence. There is A LOT of fear about Muslims and those who may have Muslim roots.
Except that Muslim-madrassa story has already been debunked. Pick up a newspaper, buddy.
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#56129
TallyW wrote:I don't believe we've even ever elected a President who was dating... I think they've all been married.
James Buchanan was a bachelor (and some say gay).
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#56130
LUconn wrote:
Ed Dantes wrote:
And then there was 9-11, which shouldn't be dismissed by saying "so what". To see how great of a leader he was during that period, contrast him with New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin -- who KNEW that a catastrophic storm was coming and still played his fiddle. At a time when we all thought that the world was literally about to end, Rudy couldn't have handled the situation any better.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. He did such a greath job because he didn't Nagin the situation? You probably couldn't have made the situation any worse than our chocolate city friend did. And because Rudy didn't foul it up like that, he did a great job? I'm not talking about the rest of his mayorship really becuase I know he did some good things but I'm not too familiar with the overall body of work. I just don't like to hear that he was so great in the face of crisis because he didn't screw it up.
That's like saying "Why was George Washington so great? Because his military acumen helped grant victory over the British? Because he was a strong leader during the trying times of our nation's birth? Just because Ray Nagin is crappy?"
By belcherboy
Registration Days Posts
#56138
Ed Dantes wrote: Except that Muslim-madrassa story has already been debunked. Pick up a newspaper, buddy.
A newspaper? Hold old are you? Who reads a newspaper for news anymore?:D

My point is that he will be labeled with a Muslim background whether he likes it or not. Here is the most extreme excerpt from the many articles I have read. To me he clearly has a Muslim background, if only by his name alone. In this day and age having a Muslim background (or a perceived Muslim background) in politics is like running for political office in the 50's and having a Japanese heritage. This article could could have many untrue things, but do you think that will matter to Hillary and her campaign team?? If he is a threat, she will find enough half truths to knock him down. That is why I don't think he will run very long. This guy better not have any Muslim secrets, or he could be truly embarrassed if he goes all the way.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts
"I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama," says Martin, "but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage.

"Obama's life story is vastly different from the one he portrays. My point: if he will lie about his mother and father, what else is he lying about? Can we expect 'bimbo eruptions?'

"Fiction: Obama stated in his Convention speech: 'My father ... grew up herding goats.' The 'goat herder' claim has been repeated endlessly. It is a lie. Fact: Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama's father, was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman.

"Fiction: Obama was given an 'African' name. Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion. I am a strong supporter of the Muslim community, and I believe Muslims have been scapegoated. Obama has a great opportunity to be forthright. Instead, he has treated his Muslim heritage as a dark secret. His grandfather was named 'Hussein.' That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.

"Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, our own Barack Obama, Junior. Again, his name was an Arabic and Koranic.

Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama's stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions.

"Fiction: Obama Senior was a harmless student 'immigrant' who came to the United States only to study. Fact: Obama was part of one of the most corrupt and violent organizations in Africa: the Kenyatta regime. Obama's father ran back to Kenya soon after the British left. It is likely Obama's father had Mau Mau sympathies or connections, or he would not have been welcomed into the murderous inner circle of rapists, murderers, and arsonists. I believe Obama's secret shame at his family history of rape, murder and arson is what actualizes him. Our research is not yet complete. We are seeking to examine British colonial records. Our investigation to date has drawn on information on three continents.

"And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? More secrecy, more prevarication.

"It is time for Barack Obama to stop presenting a fantasy to the American people. We are forgiving and many would still support him. It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel. His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support," Martin states.

"Our investigation is continuing. In he meantime, Crown Books should stop selling Obama's novelization of his life. We have asked Crown to do that. Obama is living a lie."
By belcherboy
Registration Days Posts
#56139
Here is another article picture that caught my attention about Hillary and Obama. It could very well be untrue, but even if it were, it will never be proven. I got a feeling that Hillary and her gang are looking EVERYWHERE for things on Obama. This could get really ugly if he isn't a Presidential shadow by this time next year.

Image
Last edited by belcherboy on January 26th, 2007, 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
By SuperJon
Registration Days Posts
#56140
Nothing like a political debate at 8 in the morning.
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#56181
belcherboy wrote:Here is another article picture that caught my attention about Hillary and Obama. It could very well be untrue, but even if it were, it will never be proven. I got a feeling that Hillary and her gang are looking EVERYWHERE for things on Obama. This could get really ugly if he isn't a Presidential shadow by this time next year.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2819634&page=1

Note this quote:

"When I was six, I attended an Indonesian public school where a bunch of the kids were Muslim, because the country is 90 percent Muslim," the Democratic presidential hopeful told ABC's Chicago affiliate WLS-TV. "The notion that somehow, at the age of 6 or 7, I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading, is ludicrous."

And it was the Fox News crowd, not Hillary, who brought the revelation to light.

And while his father may have been Muslim, he divorced Obama's mama (couldn't resist the pun) and moved to Kenya. Barack and his mama (a white woman, by the way) moved to Indonesia.
By belcherboy
Registration Days Posts
#56223
Ed Dantes wrote:
belcherboy wrote:Here is another article picture that caught my attention about Hillary and Obama. It could very well be untrue, but even if it were, it will never be proven. I got a feeling that Hillary and her gang are looking EVERYWHERE for things on Obama. This could get really ugly if he isn't a Presidential shadow by this time next year.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2819634&page=1

Note this quote:

"When I was six, I attended an Indonesian public school where a bunch of the kids were Muslim, because the country is 90 percent Muslim," the Democratic presidential hopeful told ABC's Chicago affiliate WLS-TV. "The notion that somehow, at the age of 6 or 7, I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading, is ludicrous."

And it was the Fox News crowd, not Hillary, who brought the revelation to light.

And while his father may have been Muslim, he divorced Obama's mama (couldn't resist the pun) and moved to Kenya. Barack and his mama (a white woman, by the way) moved to Indonesia.
I think you are missing my point. Do you honestly believe that Hillary would not use his name and Muslim heritage (whether deep rooted or not) against him if it could move her closer to the Democratic nomination? Do you think that a Muslim heritage (whether perceived or real) would do anything to help a candidate? That is my point. If you think that Hillary did not already have plans to use this against him, than I think you are giving Hillary too much integrity.

Personally, Obama has nothing politically to give him credibility or to discredit him as a good Presidential candidate. His heritage will be the one thing they can try and discredit him on and I believe it would work. If just 2% of those that are likely to vote for him are scared of the Muslim rumors enough to vote against him or not at all, it would probably change the entire election (I'm talking about Presidency, not nomination). The Democrats would not want to risk that IMO, and may throw him under the bus if he were not to gracefully walk away.
User avatar
By Fumblerooskies
Registration Days Posts
#56227
Personally...
...I think the Clintonites would use any dirty trick short of getting caught wiretapping the RNC HQ to get Hillary elected.
By belcherboy
Registration Days Posts
#56228
I must add though I didn't think Clinton would win when I was in high school (I only followed the election in '92 because of my Civics class). Articles like this make me think he could sneak in here and snag this thing. Of course I don't put too much credit into Hollywood's influence on politics anymore.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070126/D8MSPAFO0.html
Obama Excites Entertainment Community

By JOCELYN NOVECK

Star quality: It's what Hollywood was built on. And there's no question that to the many powerful Democrats in the entertainment community, Sen. Barack Obama has loads of it.

George Clooney calls him a friend. Halle Berry has said she'd "collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear." Oprah Winfrey says he's her man.

And three of the most powerful men in Hollywood - Steven Spielberg, Jefrey Katzenberg and David Geffen - have just invited Democrats to a truly high-profile fundraiser: a Feb. 20 reception for Obama at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, with a dinner later at Geffen's home for top donors.

But despite all that, political analysts note that being the "next big thing" can be fleeting. And a number of traditional donors and activists in Hollywood and the music industry are a long way from choosing, at this early stage, whom to endorse among the three seen as top-tier Democratic candidates: Obama, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

"People are very excited that this is a fine Democratic field," says Marge Tabankin, a longtime political activist in Hollywood. "Many people will support several candidates, to keep a healthy debate going. The top candidates are all coming out in the next month, and people will be carefully checking them out, listening to what they have to say."

She and other analysts point out that it's Clinton who's the clear front-runner at this point, with the long-term relationships, the financing, the network of support dating to the early '90s, when her husband began his first term as president.

Others note the admiration for Edwards, and the sense that the former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee has a strong and clear message this time around.

"People feel he's very well-positioned," Tabankin says. "He's got support for his commitment to fighting poverty, for his energy and his intelligence." And in liberal Hollywood, many like his position on Iraq - he's recanted his 2002 vote authorizing force there and demanded that Senate rivals block funds for President Bush's troop increase.

Even the Obama fundraiser hosted by the three founders of the DreamWorks movie studio doesn't mean all three have decided to endorse Obama. Only Katzenberg is backing the Illinois senator, says Katzenberg's political adviser, Andy Spahn.

Spielberg isn't picking favorites yet. He and other major Los Angeles donors, including producer Steve Bing, media mogul Haim Saban, supermarket magnate Ron Burkle and investment banker Sim Farar, will be co-hosting a fundraiser for Clinton in the spring, said her spokesman, Phil Singer.

Clooney, one of the world's hottest movie stars, has made no secret of his enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy, even if he's made no public endorsement.

"George is a huge supporter and fan of Barack, as well as a friend," said Clooney's publicist, Stan Rosenfield. He stressed that Clooney is unlikely to campaign for Obama, though, because the actor feels support from liberal Hollywood can be a detriment to the candidate. "You lose the heartland."

Barbra Streisand and Norman Lear, major Democratic players in Hollywood, have not taken a position, and they traditionally give to multiple candidates "in order to keep debate alive," says Tabankin, who is affiliated with the Barbra Streisand Foundation.

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons says he has yet to make a choice. But he has an idea for the perfect Democratic candidate.

"If you could take Barack Obama's image, add Hillary Clinton's money and John Edwards' voice, that would be my candidate," says Simmons, an independent who has supported both Democrats and Republicans.

Simmons says Obama has yet to present a clear picture of where he stands.

"He's a rock star," Simmons said in a telephone interview. But he added, "I don't know what his opinions are." Simmons says that so far, the message he prefers is Edwards' - but he's also fond of Dennis Kucinich, the liberal Ohio congressman launching his second long-shot candidacy.

Others, Tabankin says, have similar reservations. "Obama has tremendous potential - he cuts across race and class lines. But people don't know him yet," she says.

There's also a current of nervousness: Is the country ready to elect a black president? The same current of nervousness exists about Clinton, of course: Is the country ready to elect a female?

A key mistake, says analyst Todd Boyd, would be to reduce everything to the gender and race factor.

"We're simplifying things if we do that," says Boyd, a professor at the University of Southern California's School of Cinematic Arts. "What I'm finding interesting is that Obama is not the immediate favorite of a lot of African-Americans - he came up through the system, not the grass roots like Jesse Jackson. At the end of the day, race and gender are a major factor but not the only factor. Hollywood will line up and see how these things play out."

Yet Boyd and others cannot deny that Obama has one thing the others don't.

"Obama has the potential to be a star like nobody else does," he said. "He has that 'It' factor, that star appeal. And it's Hollywood that created that system."
By Ed Dantes
Registration Days Posts
#59819
New York Conservative
Looking at Rudy Giuliani.

By Mona Charen

Last week C-SPAN featured a discussion about Rudolph Giuliani that left me shaking my head. The gist of the guest’s message was that Giuliani was a “Rockefeller Republican” who was suddenly transformed into a darling of conservatives after 9/11. Today, Fox News echoed the same theme.






New York Conservative 02/09

A Farce and an Outrage 02/02

Demoralized 01/26

Welcome Back to Democrat Land 01/19

Are We Doing Everything to Win? 01/12

Campus Is a Killer 01/05




McCarthy: Intelligence Games

Krauthammer: Words and War

Editors: Rudy's Run

Nordlinger: Growing up, &c.

McCarthy: In the Border Patrol Case, the Best Defense Is a Good Offense

Derbyshire: Fly Me to the Moon

Goldberg: Global Cooling Costs Too Much

Wittig: Back in the Old GDR

Harris: Free Up Your Sunday Night

Pakaluk: Unbearable “Tolerance”

Kudlow: When You Tax Profits, You Tax People

Blyth: There’s a Crazy Astronaut in All of Us

Lowry: The Church of Climate Panic

Charen: New York Conservative


That’s quite wrong. Social conservatives have trouble with Giuliani, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a Rockefeller (i.e., liberal) Republican. In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top-three candidates for the Republican nomination. He came by that conservatism in the toughest crucible.

City Journal’s Steven Malanga reminds us of the details. When Giuliani was elected mayor, New York City was Exhibit A in failed liberal governance. Crime was out of control. Public spaces were marred by a combination of omnipresent graffiti; so-called “squeegee men” who preyed on motorists; and raving homeless people who took up residence on sidewalks and in building entrances. Public employee unions had shaken down the city government for years. The tax base was eroding. The city government was deeply in debt, and fully one in eight New Yorkers was on welfare.

As Malanga reports, Giuliani transformed a city whose budget and workforce were larger than all but five or six states. He and police chief William Bratton famously cracked down first on quality-of-life crimes like panhandling and public urination. Teenagers who leaped over the turnstiles at subway entrances were arrested — a departure from the practice under Mayor David Dinkins. Giuliani later quipped that the police under his predecessor had become “highly skilled observers of crime.” Those turnstile jumpers turned out to possess a huge number of illegal guns, which were confiscated, and criminals throughout the city discovered that the New York police were breathing down their necks. The number of murders dropped from 1,960 in Dinkins’s final year in office to 640 in Giuliani’s last year. The overall crime rate dropped 64 percent, to levels not seen since the 1960s.

Giuliani accomplished this in the teeth of a genuinely ferocious assault from liberals, so-called “civil rights” figures like Al Sharpton (with whom Giuliani declined to meet), the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Times. Actors and artists protested in the streets, and leading chin pullers in national magazines pronounced themselves troubled by Giuliani’s “tactics.” He was steadfast — and the greatest beneficiaries were poor New Yorkers who lived in formerly dangerous neighborhoods.

Though he inherited a budget deficit, Giuliani declined to raise taxes on New Yorkers nearly bled white. He closed the budget gap with a combination of spending reductions (what a concept!) and modest tax cuts. Business boomed.

Giuliani attacked another sacred cow when he ended “open admissions” and remedial courses at the City University of New York. He was called lots of names by the usual suspects for this principled move. The result was to revive the university — SAT scores of incoming students rose 168 points.

New York’s welfare system was among the most bloated in the nation. Giuliani first culled the ranks for cheats and frauds — eliminating 20 percent of the caseload. The mayor then introduced a workfare requirement — able-bodied adults would be expected to do 20 hours of work in municipal offices in exchange for a welfare check. There were howls from the New York Times. The mayor was undeterred. Giuliani transformed welfare offices from check distribution centers into employment offices, where welfare workers coached clients on how to read the classifieds, how to dress for interviews, and how to prepare a resume.

His approach toward the homeless was similar. Those who were able to work were encouraged to do so. Those who rejected an offer of shelter and insisted upon blocking public spaces and harassing passersby were issued summonses. For this Hillary Clinton lectured the mayor that Jesus was a homeless person.

There is no question that Giuliani’s position on abortion and gun control will offend many Republicans. But let’s be clear, he is no liberal. His conservatism has been tempered in New York City — so it is steely indeed.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#59919
The Rudy spin team has gotten out in front of the social conservative issues and that is a GREAT sign. Finally someone PROactive!! It may be spin but it does make sense. Here is a summary:
Can a President overturn Roe V Wade (Only Boheim in 87 but I digress). NO they can not. They may have the authority to veto a bill, but RvW will go through the courts. So you have to ask yourself "What types of judges would he chose to be on the courts?" His answer = Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (or Alieoto if you are Ted K) How can social conservatives NOT love that answer?
Gun Control - He inforced the laws that were in place in NYC when he got there. He has also said that it would not be a good idea/practical to have the same type of law across America.
Gay Marriage - See abortion.
Personal Life - So social conservatives are going to discount a QUALIFIED presidential contender because they have been divorced? If Jerry tries to hang his hat on THAT one, it would be the height of hypocracy. Plus, who among us does not know a divorced person? Does that make you disqualified for anything? Was he cheating on her? Probably, but who cares. Was she cheating on him? Probably but who cares. How does this affect their ability to govern? At least he isn't lying about it like a former Arkansas favorite sun.

Needless to say, he is getting my vote. If he can turn a crap whole like NYC back into one of the worlds greatest cities (Whose population is greater than a majority of states and small countries) than that bodes well for the mess in Iraq, on the environement, etc. He gets things done. Can any other candidate from EITHER side say that?

(I will hedge my bets and say if Newt runs, I will have to think long and hard about that)
User avatar
By dwhite
Registration Days Posts
#59982
Two words: Mitt Romney

-----

Go to mittromney.com, watch the introduction under Mitt TV. This guy is dead-on, what we need in a President. Maybe Newt Gingrich as Veep, and America is back on track folks. Can you imagine the Conservative Renassance that would take place. Romney's fiscal conservatism and bold approach to economics coupled with his strong support for Judeo-Christian values. Then add Newt's brilliant mind and national experience....wow.
Bowling Green

This should be a "get right" game. Shou[…]

Defensive Woes

Do we really have co-defensive coordinators? […]

2026 Recruiting Discussion

Verbacommits.com shows us with 3 remaining open of[…]

Fall Schedule

Link for '27 top recruits, so far. https://www[…]