The Bush-Giuliani Rumor

Maybe Bush isn't really as dumb as people make him out to be. A Bush Guiliani coalition would definitely knock Kerry-Edwards many many steps down the food chain.

"The Bush-Giuliani Rumor

Now that Kerry-Edwards is a "done deal" we keep hearing that George Bush may be trying to round up Rudy Giuliani as his VP running mate. Let me see: Giuliani - Time's man of the year in 2001 would pull the North while Bush would carry a lot of the South. Yup, that would be an interesting - and hot - ticket. Cheney may be shown the door figures the Indy Star article at www.indystar.com... Not to put too fine a point on this, but Rudy is sure sounding like a Bush running mate, in his attack yesterday on Kerry: msnbc.msn.com...

No question in our mind: Bush-Giuliani would be a Kerry buster. We therefore expect an "August Surprise" announcement at the GOP convention. It would shed the Bush administration of its Halliburton connection and Dick Cheney could be kept around as Interior Secretary or maybe ambassador to someplace important. It would show continuity and be a graceful change, done right."

urbansurvival.com...

You are living in a dream world. Giuliani would enrage Bush's conservative base. Giuliani is pro-choice and supports gun control. He is also opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Do you really think a Bush-Giuliani ticket could carry New York or any other northeastern state?

Some recent polls show that the only vice-presidential running mate that would help Bush against a Kerry-Edwards ticket is Colin Powell.

Cheney isn't going anywhere. He is the real President. If anybody gets replaced on the ticket, it will be Bush.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Cheney isn't going anywhere. He is the real President.

I for one would certainly like for you to prove that statement. Please show me some proof where this statement you made is true.

How about a BUsh-Clinton ticket then? She might carry NY.

In reality, I do think it would do more good than harm. I remember NY before Guiliani, and if he can do that to our country, good deal

Would Bush have a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, VP? I don't think so.

Think about it Guiliani starts his serious political career as VP, all he has to do is step down off his soapbox on gay marriages and abortion for 4 years and in 2008 he could be President. WHAT AN OFFER!!! As for whether the people of NY or the north would vote for him - sure thing - think security.

I don't think Bush has a choice, it is decided for him. Maybe that is what Bush needs.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by donguillermo
Cheney isn't going anywhere. He is the real President.

I for one would certainly like for you to prove that statement. Please show me some proof where this statement you made is true.

Oh please. I am obviously making a rhetorical statement of opinion, and you expect me to document it like I am making a statement of objective fact. That is my inference. You can disagree with an inference, but is childish to expect someone to prove an inference. Here are a few things to consider.

In Woodward's book he quotes White House staffers as saying that Bush never makes up his mind until after he is alone with Cheney.

Bush insisted that Cheney appear with him at the 9/11 commission.

I can't remember the specifics offhand, but there have been instances where Cheney has taken positions contrary to current administration policy, and administration policy immediately changed to reflect Cheney's views.

Halliburton has received no-bid contracts which emails have shown were coordinated with the Vice President's office.

I am not privy to the inner workings of the White House, and neither are you. I offered my opinion that Cheney is the real President. Please don't make yourself look silly by challenging me to prove that my opinion is true.

It might as well be Bush-Clinton on the ticket since Bush is one of the most liberal presidents in recent memory.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Do you really think a Bush-Giuliani ticket could carry New York or any other northeastern state?

Absolutely. Giuliani is a 9/11 hero. He is America's Mayor (Oprah said so so it must be true, right?). He is not 'with' G.W. on abortion or gay marriage. BUT he is absolutely with him on national security and telling the Uselss Nations to shove it. Those are bigger than G.W.'s pet - marriage amendment to the constitution. (which is a States Rights issue, not a federal one - G.W. is way off on this one)

Up until these past few days I didn't think Bush would replace Cheney. Now I'm thinking he will, and it will be with Guiliani. Guiliani has come out like a VP candidate this past week. It's been incredible. His phone in on Imus was fabulous. Imus is for Kerry, but even Imus was impressed with Guiliani.

I'm thinking Bush/Guiliani. And as much as Bush doesn't want it, I think the powers that really run things in D.C. in the Republican party will tell him that is the way it has to be.

donguillermo, the moderator has good reasno to ask you for proof, afterall in your first post you didn't put your statement off as if it was an inference, you put it off like it was undeniable fact. there's also the problem that this kind of crap is all you really ever say. and Indy, just what are you talking about? bush being one of the most liberal presidents in recent memory? bush is quite obvious to the right of the center. not saying that's bad or good, just trying to get you to see what's really there. if you want a liberal person, then look at kerry. he's undeniably the #1 most liberal senator in senatorial history. and that, is not an inference, it's a fact, try a google search for something like "senatorial records +liberal".

Originally posted by astroblade
donguillermo, the moderator has good reasno to ask you for proof, afterall in your first post you didn't put your statement off as if it was an inference, you put it off like it was undeniable fact. there's also the problem that this kind of crap is all you really ever say.

What am I supposed to do? Start every sentence with "This is an opinion" or "This is a fact"? Intelligent readers can tell whether they are reading opinion or fact. Apparently you and the moderator have difficulty in making that distinction.

Since your posts are filled with opinions, and very little fact, it is pretty silly of you to accuse me of posting all opinions and no facts. Actually my posts contain lots of facts. I either document these facts, or provide links when challenged.

"the moderator has good reason to ask you for proof". That is opinion, not fact.

"you put it off like it was undeniable fact". That is opinion, not fact.

"there's also the problem that this kind of crap is all you really ever say". That is opinion, not fact.

"if you want a liberal person, then look at kerry. he's undeniably the #1 most liberal senator in senatorial history". That is opinion, not fact.

Originally posted by donguillermo
What am I supposed to do? Start every sentence with "This is an opinion" or "This is a fact"? Intelligent readers can tell whether they are reading opinion or fact. Apparently you and the moderator have difficulty in making that distinction.

Excuse me? I have noticed that you ask for facts on every single little detail regarding any opposite opinion that someone should post. I felt that fair should be fair.

But apparently, as par for the course...you point the finger the other way.


ps) Also par for the course is your backhand "intellegent readers" insult.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by donguillermo
What am I supposed to do? Start every sentence with "This is an opinion" or "This is a fact"? Intelligent readers can tell whether they are reading opinion or fact. Apparently you and the moderator have difficulty in making that distinction.

Excuse me? I have noticed that you ask for facts on every single little detail regarding any opposite opinion that someone should post. I felt that fair should be fair.

Are you referring to the discussion about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? That discussion started from a question by me as to how many members of the group actually served with Kerry. I wasn't asking for facts regarding an opposite opinion. I merely asked for verification that the gentleman you provided as an example actually belonged to the group.

But apparently, as par for the course...you point the finger the other way.

How am I pointing the finger the other way? You asked me to prove a statement. I told you it was a statement of opinion, not fact.

ps) Also par for the course is your backhand "intellegent readers" insult.

I thought that was rather clever myself.

donguillermo, actually the whole deal of kerry being the most liberal IS a fact. i'm sorry i can't recall the name of the organization the declared the result. but i do know that based on the senators voting records, he turned out to have the most liberal track record in senatorial history. and lets not forget he has said "i'm a liberal, and proud of it".

Originally posted by astroblade
donguillermo, actually the whole deal of kerry being the most liberal IS a fact. i'm sorry i can't recall the name of the organization the declared the result. but i do know that based on the senators voting records, he turned out to have the most liberal track record in senatorial history. and lets not forget he has said "i'm a liberal, and proud of it".

www.digitalronin.f2s.com...

Originally posted by astroblade
donguillermo, actually the whole deal of kerry being the most liberal IS a fact. i'm sorry i can't recall the name of the organization the declared the result. but i do know that based on the senators voting records, he turned out to have the most liberal track record in senatorial history. and lets not forget he has said "i'm a liberal, and proud of it".

Actually, the National Journal studies you refer to show Kerry to be the most liberal senator in the current senate, not in senate history. There is a difference.

In my opinion, the National Journal studies were specifically designed to show Kerry as the most liberal senator. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), whose political ratings of politicians are considered authoritative, rank quite a few senators as more liberal than Kerry. From the most recent available ratings, for the year 2002.

Durbin, Illinois -- 95%
Mikulski, Maryland -- 100%
Sarbanes, Maryland -- 100%
Kennedy, Massachusetts -- 100%
Kerry, Massachusetts -- 85%
Levin, Michigan -- 95%
Stabenow, Michigan -- 95%
Wellstone, Minnesota -- 100%
Corzine, New Jersey -- 100%
Bingaman, New Mexico -- 90%
Clinton, New York -- 95% (OMG! It's Hillary!)
Conrad, North Dakota -- 95%
Dorgan, North Dakota -- 90%
Reed, Rhode Island -- 100%
Johnson, South Dakota -- 90%

ADA Congressional Voting Record 2002 United States Senate

Do you have a source for the quote "I am a liberal, and proud of it"?

EDIT: After reviewing the National Journal study, I no longer think it was specifically designed to show Kerry as the most liberal senator.


[edit on 7/30/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/30/2004 by donguillermo]

koji, i'm sorry but the graph is insane. if i'm reading it correctly then it asserts that john kerry is in fact to the right in the political system, that he in fact is a conservative, and that is absurd. we know he's for 100% abortion opportunity, including partial-birth abortion, that he's for affirmative action, he's for expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation, and those are only a few indicators. i was also able to find the voting record i was speaking about earlier. it was put out by the National Journal, which is a very established politics/government magazine, and doesn't appear to have much of a bias. here are 4 links to about the report, i offer them as evidence of what i said concerning kerry and his voting record.

www.govexec.com...
washingtontimes.com...
www.freerepublic.com...
www.drudgereport.com...

this next link is to a seperate judging of kerry and who he is in reference to liberal or conservative. it also appears to have little bias one way or the other.

www.issues2000.org...
scroll to the way bottom for a chart.


ahh don you're right, sorry about that, it's not concerning senatorial history, rather just as of late. and no i couldn't find a source for kerry's quote, ignore it then if you wish.


[edit on 30-7-2004 by astroblade]

It's about time someone said this. I have been watching the specualtion for the last few weeks about Bush changing his running mate and haven't seen anyone mention Rudy before now (sorry if I missed it previously).

It was mentioned to me about 6 weeks ago and I was dumbfounded that I hadn't even considered it myself till it was said. Then my reaction was - wow, this would make a huge difference in the strength of the ticket, and it's a shame, but - I don't believe it will actually happen. (Isn't this whole speculation about dropping your running mate rather unprecedented?)

Anyway, my opinion is that everyone afraid of another 4 years of Bush should be shaking in their shoes if this happens, because it would definately turn the tables.

National Journal's annual analysis of legislators' votes found in 2003 that Kerry and Edwards, respectively, had the first- and fourth-most-liberal voting records in the Senate. In assigning the rankings, editors identified 63 important votes in the Senate last year and applied a complex statistical formula designed to illuminate how a legislator's record followed an ideological pattern.

Despite the aura of scientific precision, in individual years the results can sometimes be thrown off kilter in ways that leave a distorted impression.

In a recent issue, the magazine noted that Kerry and Edwards, busy campaigning, were absent from the Senate for many of the votes that went into the latest index, so only certain votes entered the formula. Although Kerry has scored consistently on the liberal end of the journal's index since coming to the Senate in 1985, 10 current senators have a higher lifetime average, the magazine said. Edwards, just finishing his first term, has a lifetime score that "puts him in the moderate wing of his party."

Truth, Consequences of Kerry's 'Liberal' Label

You need to register with the Washington Post to read the article.

Get that? According to the National Journal, 10 current senators have a higher lifetime average. That pretty much shoots down your claim that Kerry is the most liberal senator in senate history.