2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

I see your point. If Rudy can push a positive and proactive futurist agenda, he might get people to look foward instead of back. Trouble is, his fame is linked to one specific moment in time. To be properly set up for such a futurist run, he wouldhave had to do a lot more things than he's already done.

He'd need a book, and he'd have to start hitting the summits and seminars. I still think he would have to distance himself from the war by admonishing Bush when and where applicable. If possible, a meeting with Gingrich might help point him in the right direction. He'd have to run pretty hard to make such a major course correction work.

Rudy Giuliani did much more than just be brave on 9/11. He really did transform New York City. Before him, people wondered if this city could even last, it was crime ridden and property values were falling, corporations were moving out -- it was a disgrace.

But under Rudy, this city has become great again, it's one of the safest large cities in the world, property values are skyrocketing, and everyone wants to visit or live here.

And of course on 9/11, he showed, if nothing else, that he works well under extreme pressure in an emergency situtation, something definitely desirable in a president.

There's not many politicians who can claim that they made that much impact anywhere. That's why I (and I think a lot of other conservatives) do support him strongly, even if he's more liberal on some social issues than perhaps we'd like.

If Giuliani's mayoral record is that good, he will still need a substantial organization to get that message out there. Based on my research and read oftheman, I just don't see that happening. I think the GOP fund-rasing apparatus is broken just now. The party is too factionalized.

As a political strategist, I know just how possible it is to build from nothing. All it takes is money and the creative force of Darth Vader and Any Warhall. Given that it takes 2-3 months to get contracts lined up, I'm concerned that the people in Rudy's camp may not be giving him the best advise.

I'm not one of his handlers, but even I can see howthe loss of his playbook could be spun in to a good thing. With hte right message, and the right tools, he could go on the offense and take everyone by surprise if he had the right message. Then again, I'm a sucker for an uphill fight.

One interested point, Gulliani can find the strength in the fact that he didn't panic in the face of destruction and that he was able to put the city back together and running again.

I think that is one of his best accomplishments, and can be use as his role as president.

That's a good demonatration of level-headed-ness and it may be proof of good character, but is it enough to seek the Presidency?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
He really did transform New York City.

In the race for the Republican nomination perception will mean everything and what he really did will mean nothing if he can not project his accomplishments to the voters nationally. He seems to have this hard and edgy east coast style that I suspect will not play well in Peoria, to say nothing of the south. I would agree that out of a field of Giuliani, McCain and Romney that Rudy is the pick litter for running against any democratic ticket, however in the end I don't think he can win either.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by df1]

Rudy had his wife served with divorce papers while she was in a hospital bed undergoing cancer treatment; to run off with a younger, prettier woman. To think that this little fact will not be played by his opponents is living in a dream world. Rudy's a callous, unfeeling, selfabsorbed bastard that isn't even worthy of consideration.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
Rudy had his wife served with divorce papers...

Really? I had heard this about Newt, but not Rudy. What are the odds that these two would abort their marriages in the same manner?

Well both of them are real characters anyways.

Your'e right df1, I get my scumbags mixed up.

www.cbsnews.com...
www.cnn.com...

Here's what I was thinking of.^

[edit on 8-2-2007 by whaaa]

[edit on 8-2-2007 by whaaa]

Yes he have his dirty rags but at least they are not in the closet.

I prefer a real image than the one of conservative, loving, family orientate god fearing Christian.

It proves that at least they are make of meat, bones and blood.

Hillary is still strong and Obama is just getting started . . . I like Edwards but he needs to be more the men that just the Charming good looking candidate

Giuliani is very human according to the criterion you've suggested. A survey of the conservative taking head radio shows today tells me that some of them are trying to make their peace with the idea of Rudy, but it's hard. It's too bad there is no one in a third party position who can do more than syphon vites. If one of them to could provoke the GOP in to a little competition, we might see better from the GOP in the future.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham

Giuliani is the least connected person you've mentioned so far in this thread.

Ron Paul, connected to Bush?!

www.lewrockwell.com...

He's probably more anti-bush than all the democrats combined!

The very minute I think Mr. Paul is a contender, I'll say so.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The very minute I think Mr. Paul is a contender, I'll say so.

I thought he did?

www.dfw.com...

Or at least, he's in the steps to completing what's necessary to compete. Either way, I believe he's a 'true' conservative. The whole, small federal government thing sounds great to me. Let the States do what they want. That way, if you don't like it, move to another state. You won't have to move from an entire freakin' country. It's what the Founding Father's wanted.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Or at least, he's in the steps to completing what's necessary to compete. Either way, I believe he's a 'true' conservative.

JO doesn't appear to consider Paul a credible contender for the Republican nomination. It is unfortunate that so many of us allow the media to dictate who is a contender and who is not. But JO is right, things being what they are in the media. If nobody hears Paul's message it is is unlikely they will vote for him.

The whole, small federal government thing sounds great to me. Let the States do what they want. That way, if you don't like it, move to another state. You won't have to move from an entire freakin' country. It's what the Founding Father's wanted.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted a small federal government with states doing their own thing they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation. The fact that the states adopted the US Constitution which combined them as a federation indicates that they anticipated a greater role for the federal government than what you represent. However I will agree that they in no way ever envisioned anything like our present government.

Okay, then. Here's a litlem ore something for the soup. As you may know, Barack Obama made his formal declaration of candidacy today. He also stated that he would bring he troops home from Iraq. Like it or not, this means that the two most potent Democrats in the race have all but made that "out of Iraq" pledge the official position of their party.

If you put on your Machievelli hat, you'll see that this was pretty smart politics. If you're a Republican, you can't do much more than support the party line...unless you want to gamble like Lieberman did and go indy. I've said that this was coming in other posts, and now it's here.

If you're an advisor to the Republicans, what do you suggest? McCain has chained himself to this war, and Rudy is the only one who could maybe [maybe] make a course correction. With all your wisdom, what would you suggest?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
If you're an advisor to the Republicans, what do you suggest? McCain has chained himself to this war, and Rudy is the only one who could maybe [maybe] make a course correction. With all your wisdom, what would you suggest?

Well no matter what happens to Iraq and on the political home front your dam if you dam if you don't this really applies to the whole Iraq issue. Rudy should distance himself from the war and look to the future rather then the past. As for a course change that would be a wise idea I have dealt with what should happen elsewhere on AP.

I would agree that for any Republican to have any chance of winning, they'd have to adopt a critical stance on the war. Trouble is, any Republican who does that will lose 40% of their support. The MSM claims the number of hard-coded conservatives who will not bend on this issue is 33%, but my unscientific findings put that number closer to 40% so that's what I'll say.

The wrost of it is that the party angle will be the most crippling for any Republican. by degault, the GOP is responsible for a bad war. In the eyes of the voters, electing another GOP President is tantatmount to asking for more of the same. It's worth noting that there are a lot of conservatives will vote for anyone else...including ron Paul...in 2008 to "send a message."

The unflinching fact of the matter is that this political season is poison for Republcians. As the news cycle starts for this week, you'll see a lot of hay made from the Lewis Libby indictment. that's only going to add fuel to the many investigations due to be launched in the House starting in late March. the political machine being what it is, you're going to see a lot of Representatives and Senators being called to account for the actions of 'their President.'

The Democrat line is already known. "We were lied to." The Republcians need mroe than just, "yes but..." That's one reason why they cling so stuffornly to their suport of the war. When it comes times to defend the action of the many contractors who have bilked the American taxpayers for so much..."yes but..." won't be enough. Even if Patraeus is as successful as they hope in the passification of Baghdad, that one single victory won't be enough to change the fate of the Repubilcan party.

As you know, the particular conspracy theory I suggest in the CM forum states that what we think of as the Anti-Federalism has been defeated by a direct and deliberate effort. Partisan warfare at its most extreme. It's not wild enough to land me on the cover of a magazine, but there it is. Whatever the Republcian party is now, it will never again be the champion of small-er government. All future candidates who seek high ofice under this banner are going to have to make some pretty dark deals if they want to have any hope of furthering their careers.

Justin Oldham you have raised some good points. The Republican party supporters could cost there party the election because they have painted themselves into a corner. After all these are the people that labelled people like me Anti American and a traitor. Now these clowns have to support the war in Iraq at all costs.

Since the Republican party no longer stands for small government there dosnt seem to be any reason for Liberal Republicans to vote for the party. In part I have dealt with the issue here .
Sadly if the Republican party loses in 2008 they will blame Iraq rather then deal with the fact that they have deserted there core values.

The Republican party could still win in 2008 for three reasons.

1) Hillary lacks support from her core voters.
2) Since Gore lost to Bush the Dems have yet to define what they stand for in terms of policy's and values.
3) Repeat the mistake of 2004. That is have a Candidate who runs on one issue alone. When the attacks related to that single issue come make sure that a poor and delayed response is made. Also make make sure there is no plan B.

Originally posted by df1

If the Founding Fathers had wanted a small federal government with states doing their own thing they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation. The fact that the states adopted the US Constitution which combined them as a federation indicates that they anticipated a greater role for the federal government than what you represent.

Yeah, see your point there. Although, perhaps what they were going for, was a collective body that encompassed the states (each with their respective governments), such as the EU does now. Or maybe not. I'll never be able to read through all the historical documents to find out what they intended (nor do I have the time )

However I will agree that they in no way ever envisioned anything like our present government.

I think they would be horrified.