Hmm... If Matthews said it, I'd take it with a major grain of salt.

I'd take it with a 50 lb bag of salt if Matthew said it.

I'll say it right now, and many of you will disagree, but a pro-abortion candidate will kill us in '08. They might work as a number 2 guy, but as the number 1 it's going to keep people home on election day by the thousands, or even millions.

Guiliani for President? With New York? Come On!

Guiliani = Pro-Abortion

He'll get slaughtered in the Republican Primary. Even worse, if he wins the primary he won't energize the Conservative Base, and then Hillary wins.

Bad Idea.

I am not thrilled with Rudi on abortion or guns, but I'm not sure I really care since WE ARE AT WAR and I think Rudi will do the best job of driving this point home.
I think there was a freightload of anecdotes at Hugh Hewitt's site a while back that the damnedest sort of pro-life, pro A-2 people were OK with Giuliani based on the fact that we stay on track on fighting the war. Don't know how valid this is, but maybe someone should be probing this kind of detail.

Question...most of the people who don't favor a Condi candidacy say that it is b/c her domestic views are unknown...she may be a social liberal. So instead, we should back Giuliani, who clearly is a social liberal instead of backing someone who just might be a social liberal?

If they really want to know how he'd do they should poll people coming out of churches on Sunday. There's millions of them and there's a lot of them that won't vote for a guy that cheats on his wife, supports abortion or wants to grab guns. There's also a lot of them that vote in primaries. My guess is Rudi would get blown out of the water by any candidate willing to play hardball with him.

WE ARE AT WAR is only going to take you so far in politics.

Question...most of the people who don't favor a Condi candidacy say that it is b/c her domestic views are unknown...she may be a social liberal. So instead, we should back Giuliani, who clearly is a social liberal instead of backing someone who just might be a social liberal?

I haven't seen that happen. The same people that are against Condi because of her possible social liberal leanings (like her abortion comments) also don't like Rudi because of his clearly defined social liberal leanings. The thing he does have over Condi is experience in leadership and running a campaign. I'm not sending my money to a guy that's going to get his ass kicked in the primaries though.

If Rudi were to promise status quo on guns and abortion - no new assaultweps ban - no attempt to overturn Roe v Wade etc, I think he could have a shot.

Personally, I'd love to see a Condi presidency, but I think I might have to wait. What I would like to see is someone come from under the radar...a governor preferably...and Condi be chosen as his vice president, and then run for office later. I think that scenario is much more palatable and likely to happen.

The route for Rudi winning involves _Bush_ appointing 3+ Supreme Court Justices.

No one will much care what his stance on abortion if the Court is busy overturning everything since Marbury and Madison.

I don't like Condi because she's never run for anything and has had the opportunity to do so, if she had the fire.

Further, she's never actually been an executive.

A woman can be elected President. But not a woman without any executive experience.

And working in the executive branch in a top national security position is good experience, but it's just not the same as being The Man.

Ace, we're not going to be running against Hillary.

As psephological wunderkind Jay Cost noted, Dems historically nominate no-names while Repubs go with someone they know (and what other virtue did Dole '96 actually have!?).

So Rudy has a good shot, yes -- best of the current batch, IMO, thanks to his countless chits on the ground -- but look for Hillary to be upended by some unknown and/or lunatic.

OTOH if Rudy's candidacy crashes -- due to another marital issue or whatever -- I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Jeb out there. Mind you, Jeb would be a great VP too, esp. for a more moderate frontliner.

I don't like Condi because it's not even clear she's doing a good job at State!

Plus she's shown no sign of being conservative on taxes, racial preferences, judges, and other stuff I care about.

I want to believe, Ace. I want to, really I do.

I also wanted to believe the Hildabeast couldn't win the NY U.S. Senate seat in 2000.

As they say in the Star Wars movies, I've got a bad feeling about this.

I don't think we're going to be running against Hillary. The DUers and Kos Kids have at least two more election cycles left in them, and they are already making anti-Hillary noise.

Plus, the senator has never been tested in the political arena, not really. Lazy-o ran a terrible campaign against her in 2000. Her fellow Dems will not be so nice in 07-08 and the knives are going to come out.

She'll burn out quickly, and probably end up second on the ticket, or talked about as a SecState possibility.

The VirginiaWolf writes: Question...most of the people who don't favor a Condi candidacy say that it is b/c her domestic views are unknown...she may be a social liberal. So instead, we should back Giuliani, who clearly is a social liberal instead of backing someone who just might be a social liberal?

Never in the military. Never held elected office, ever. Unknown on any domestic veiws. Never held an executive post until she got Secretary of State appointed.

I know, I know. The emotional argument of the conservative affirmative action fans who wanted Janice Brown for the Supremes is - Shes intelligent! Shes female! She might be gay! And she's black!!

Big deal. Oprah fits the bill on those 4 criteria too, except she knows domestic issues and has executive experience managing the 1.4 billion dollar empire she created.

I know, I know...Condi fans will say --"But Oprah doesn't have George W. Bush's ear."

In 2008, I doubt "having George W. Bush's ear" will be an asset.

You forgot to mention the jooos.

Hillary will win in 2008.

If the "base" can't get over abortion (say first trimester) and limited gun control (basically what we have now) then Hillary will clean our clocks.

May I suggest that the cultural warriors allow the fiscal conservatives a turn on the merry-go -round? We've been patient.

There was considerable discussion (both this time, and last time) in the Comments section of Ruffini's Straw Poll on the subject of a Rice candidacy (and presidency) ...skipping through there, you'll find that I'm an unabashed supporter of Condi Rice. No bones.

But I wish I'd written this (with apologies to "rosignol"):

All the various state breakdowns would suggest that a Guiliani/Rice ticket would be very strong. I have problems w/ Rudy, because in his breast beats the heart of a prosecutor who overly loves locking people in prison.

Throwing criminals in prison isn't going to hurt Rudy in the primaries.

Why would I be willing to vote for a new england RINO like Guiliani?

Simple- he's proven himself to be a good man to have at the helm when the $hit hits the fan, and I expect that to happen at some point. Sooner or later, al Qaeda is going to get lucky again, and I don't want Hillary or Jimmy Carter II at the helm when it happens. For me, that trumps Rudy's position on the 2nd A[mendment] (which is one of my big issues), his position on abortion (which is one of my little issues), and his marital issues (which are, to be blunt, kind of slimy), and whatever scuzz comes up related to his time as mayor of NYC (and I have little doubt there is stuff that has yet to come to light).

Why would I rather vote for Rice? That's also pretty simple- as National Security Advisor and now Secretary of State, she is one of the primary contributors in creating Bush's foreign policy, which (IMO) is the most effective the country has had in ages- orders of magnitude better than Clinton's, and that's the pool of talent any Democratic president would be tapping for their administration.

It's pretty obvious that the President has confidence in Rice's abilities and trusts her, and that counts for a lot. Her stated position on the 2nd A doesn't hurt at all, and I think that ethically, she's a lot cleaner than anyone who's been in politics for decades can be.

Simply put, I think the country would be in good hands if the $hit hits the fan on her watch- and that a Rice Administration has a pretty good chance of being able to keep it from hitting the fan in the first place.

Compared to all that, the chance to have the first black president and the first woman president be a Republican is icing.

Do you understand? I couldn't have said it better myself (and didn't btw ...which isn't to say I wasn't my usual lugubrious loquacious pompous snide self). Please note the actual NUMBERS there: Rice wins. Period. She has an absolute majority of votes, a commanding percentage of votes, and pulls votes from Giuliani as if he were hot taffy on a Dallas sidewalk at noon.

What he said.

Sigh. Well, the frickin' preview showd that blockquote correctly formatted ...sure as hell doesn't look that way now. It should END with MY sentence "I couldn't have said it better ...etc.

May I suggest that the cultural warriors allow the fiscal conservatives a turn on the merry-go -round? We've been patient.

If you want to win, you better get someone that'll get out that base you're concerned about. There's a lot of voters that vote their conscience first, not their party. Mine says I won't vote pro-choice. Period. I'm willing to bend on a lot of issues, abortion isn't one of them. I'll have to assume that there's a lot of other voters that will agree.

Don't make us choose between a Democrat and a Democrat Lite.

Any true New Yorker knows that Rudi saved the city.
After David Dinkins disaterous turn as Mayor, Rudy
swooped in and single handidly turned the city of murder into a city that was not only managable but a becon for the world. I don't agreee wit him on a lot of social issues, but there can be no doubt that he is the only candidate that can be trusted with national security. If you have ever seen Rudy in action you would know that nothing can keep him from doing what is the right thing. Just like Bush, Rudy don't do polls.

Electable or not, I have a big crush on Condi for president. Sure, I know it's just a dream. But it's a nice dream.

Rudy might be able to dodge social issues by making federalism and states' rights his mantra. And I for one would be just fine with that.

I just have this weird feeling it's going to be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary in 2008. And Jeb doesn't have a chance. I sure as hell won't vote for him, and there are moderates who won't vote for him simply because he's a Bush, and they don't want some sort of dynasty in the Oval Office. That's probably how Hillary would play it, too. Everyone here should remember all of the screaming about G.W. being President simply because his father had been President.

Digital has a real point about the base. The fact of the matter is that the Republican party consists of a LOT of religious people who will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Like me, for example, except I'm not religious.

However, I would make two exceptions on this issue...

One would be to keep Hillary out of the White House. I'd hold my nose and vote against her even though abortions rights are in direct violation of our guaranteed right to life and any candidate who supports them does not support the Constitution in a fashion I find acceptable. I'd probably place an anti-Kerry or an anti-Gore vote, too, just because it was so delicious to see those spoiled rich kids get deprived of their lifelong goal, but I currently can't think of anyone else I'd vote AGAINST.

Two would be if the issue was taken out of the political federal arena by the Supreme Court over the next couple of years. If Roe vs Wade were overturned and the issue kicked back to the states, then it wouldn't matter what the President's stance was -- except in cases of overseas funding of abortions and stem cell research, which I still wouldn't approve of but given time those could be abolished, too. Baby steps...

I would still be far more willing to see someone like Pataki run and Guiliani be a cabinet appointee.

Later,
bbeck

The emotional argument of the conservative affirmative action fans who wanted Janice Brown for the Supremes is - Shes intelligent! Shes female! She might be gay! And she's black!!

No, cedarford, unlike you, it's because we have the intelligence and made the effort to read the opinions she has written.

"If Roe vs Wade were overturned and the issue kicked back to the states, then it wouldn't matter what the President's stance was -- except in cases of overseas funding of abortions and stem cell research, which I still wouldn't approve of but given time those could be abolished, too. "

the problem with this thinking is that the minute Roe v. Wade is overturned, the democrats will attempt to federalie abortion - pre-empting the states from acting. So, abortion is always going to be an issue in presidential campaigns as long as there are enough leftists out there who are only concerned with politics as far as keeping abortion-on-demand.

Anyone catch the transcript of the speech Janice Rogers Brown gave to the Federalist Society? She quoted Hayek, Rand and Procol Harum on, like, the first page. It was the most kick ass libertarian thing I've ever read.

After that, I wanted to have that woman's babies.

Guliani is by far the most acceptable candidate to the general public, though I worry about his health. Prostate cancer can very unpredictable so he'd better have a damn good VP (and no one from this administration). The suggestions of Chaney as POTUS are mistaken, he'd be as potent a force as Bob Doles cock.

I would remind people that Reagan signed the most permissive abortion bill at the time while governor of CA. Not that this resolves Rudy of some of his more liberal viewpoints but I look to this as a reason to be open minded at this time.

I don't like Condi because she's never run for anything and has had the opportunity to do so, if she had the fire.

She seems tentative and unsure of what she's doing, traits we don't need. I like Condi but I think she'd be in over her heard as POTUS. Maybe she'll mature, but we don't someone floundering around the way Clinton did before they figure it out, which Clinton never did.

And let's call a spade a spade: she got where she is because she's a black woman, albiet a bright qualified one. And after that foolish walking catastrophe Madaline Albright, she is a breath of competance. But I long for the days when the best person for the job was chosen simply because they were the best person for the job; someone like Jim Baker or Henry Kissinger, who really knew how to play the game. As his Soviet counterpoint as Secretary of State said of Kissinger in his memories: "He was a slippery Jew who could fool the devil himself." That's the guy I want as SOS!

And let's call a spade a spade: she got where she is because she's a black woman, albiet a bright qualified one.

How exactly do you know this?

Defense Guy

Of course I don't have a telepathic hotline into the the decision makers heads when they chose Condi, but neither do you. I simply know that there were lots of other qualified white guys who could've filled the job. And W apparently felt the need to appear Liberal when he appointed Condi and Powell.

Is bringing your mistress into the house where your children and their mom still live an example of Republican "family values?" Just asking.

Bill, don't be a hypocrite.

You have, in the past, mocked Republicans for being obsessed with whether Bill Clinton got a hummer in the Oval Office.

Now you're trying to cast judgment on a Republican for committing adultery?

Bill lost all credibility when he claimed the National Guard memos were real. Give up Bill. Nobody will take you seriously after that.

Slublog, liberals were not the ones who got their panties in a bunch over a sexual affair. I don't care about Rudy's sexual affair. I'm just saying -- Clinton's was a big problem for conservatives, but Rudy's isn't. That's the double-standard I see here. Conservatives seem to be able to overlook things in their own candidates that they will not tolerate in other candidates.

I can't believe it is still years later and morons are still trying to say it was about the sex and not the lies. How can I spell it out? A whiteboard with charts and pictures? It was about the lies you knucklehead.

Don't bother, Silk. Bill's immune system immediately attacks and destroys any facts that enter his system.

The lies in front of a jury made it perjury, which was legally significant. But politically more important, I think, when he shook his finger in my face and said he did not have sex with that woman I believed him. I didn't think anybody was enough of an idiot and a horndog to be diddling the staff during a relatively short stint as the most scrutinized man on the planet. I was annoyed with "my side" for making up such foolishness. When he was exposed as a liar, I took it personally. I wonder how many others felt the same.

Once again, it's not the crime, it's the coverup that does the most damage.

Slublog, liberals were not the ones who got their panties in a bunch over a sexual affair. I don't care about Rudy's sexual affair. I'm just saying -- Clinton's was a big problem for conservatives, but Rudy's isn't. That's the double-standard I see here. Conservatives seem to be able to overlook things in their own candidates that they will not tolerate in other candidates.

Sorry, Bill. I call BS.

If it isn't a big deal, you wouldn't have raised it. You just thought it would make a great talking point and threw it out there because it made Republicans look bad.

And if you haven't yet realized that the impeachment debate wasn't about sex, but about Clinton's abuse of his office, then I don't know what to say.