I like Hagel but just doubt he will pull any popular support. I quit being a Democrat when they were constantly trying to strick their hands in my pocket but I do like Gore but the "Internet" thing still bothers me. Obama on the other hand makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
Opinion: Rudy Giuliani is is hands down the best choice for 2008
- Thread starter ProfLogic
- Start date
I like Hagel but just doubt he will pull any popular support. I quit being a Democrat when they were constantly trying to strick their hands in my pocket but I do like Gore but the "Internet" thing still bothers me. Obama on the other hand makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
The "sleepy" reference is to your nickname not a snide comment.
Guiliani isn't my "hero", he is someone that, after spending time personally discussing politics and our country with him, impresses me . . . and I am not easily impressed.
A lot of the assumptions you make of him are wrong but I know from reading your posts that going down that path is fruitless.
I've spent a great deal of time researching a lot of the candidates and would like to see a few of them get a chance that will never come because of the media.
I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, as of this moment, but I will eliminate the candidates summarily as they make their intentions public and I can spend the time researching what is known about them. I absolutely know the Hillary is a foregone conclusion. That woman, and I use that term loosely, is a train wreck waiting to happen.
Anybody that knows a little bit about NYC politics knows that Rudy gets way too much credit for cleaning up the city. He played a role by continuing the previous mayor's (Dinkins) plan/policy. Additionally, the city received support from Bill Clinton's 100,000 cops program. All those cops walking the beat throughout the city 24/7 made a difference.
I spoke to police, businessmen, politicians (both parties), firemen, street venders and just average individuals that live in NY and surrounding states and they all have the same story. Dinkins policies were dead and Giuliani was instrumental in resurrecting them. The cops made a huge difference but they had a lot more effect since the vendors and crime areas at the root of the problems were evicted and they were given more authority to clean house. Clinton himself credited Giuliani with being the foundation of the city's cleanup. This from someone (Clinton) that considers Bush something smelly on the bottom of his shoes.
Politics is a dirty business and who else is better at digging out from the filth. Hey, if there is a better candidate I want to know. I mean one that has a realistic chance.
Over 100 ratings/opinions on him here.
Such as:
"A rank opportunist. He was a divisive, fascistic (and, no, I don't mean that as an Italian slur)Mayor who wasn't fit to wipe LaGuardia's boots. And the way he's treated his ex-wife, the mother of his children, has been pretty low-class."
http://www.rateitall.com/i-12240-rudolph-giuliani.aspx
Such as:
"A rank opportunist. He was a divisive, fascistic (and, no, I don't mean that as an Italian slur)Mayor who wasn't fit to wipe LaGuardia's boots. And the way he's treated his ex-wife, the mother of his children, has been pretty low-class."
http://www.rateitall.com/i-12240-rudolph-giuliani.aspx
Whoop dee doo.
So was every presidential hopeful since Nixon. And look how far we've come?
Your romantic delusions of american leadership died a long time ago.
We live in a plutocracy. Rudy is vying to become head puppet. Hoping that somehow this all establishment candidate is going to "turn things around" and usher in a new era of libertarian inspired governance is the fluff kids dreams are made of.
Very naïve.
I'm typing from a blackberry. Does it automatically.
)I take your word for it, and withdraw the "Dopey" comment.
My misinterpretation...
Sorry, not going to take your "word" for it, I will stick with my judgment, the same judgment that said from the beginning (before so many recently got on the bandwagon---finally) that Bush was bad news, very bad news.
I get similar but different impressions of Rudy, and believe that while smarter than Bush, power would go to his head...if not other parts of his anatomy.
I don't want more emperors in the Oval Office, I want public servants, who server the vision of the electorate, not their own personal missions and agendas.
I do believe Hillary would make a good executive, that she would assemble a good crew around her, and being able to talk to a former president intimately (no, not sexually) any time she wished.
Hillary's problem is that she is not genuinely a people person in the manner most politicians are, and she is a trained attorney, which also prevents a lot of people from having much charm.
A good example was the recent clip I saw of a rally in which a voter asked her about her position on Vietnam.
He asked point blank, "Are you going to admit you made a mistake."
She handled it very poorly.
It really is an easy question to answer.
Hillary, and most Americans, if they thought a country was as much of a threat as Iraq was portrayed by would vote the way most senators and Congressmen did.
So, Hillary was given flawed information upon which to make a decision, but if the information had been valid, she would have made a mistake not to vote to give Bush the authority in most people's eyes.
Only a few were are essentially dovish and distrusted Bush deeply, and were willing to take a very unpopular position at the time voted against the resolution.
I even think Obama may have voted for the war at the time, if his state was calling for that. Senators and congressmen/women are supposed to support the will of their constituency, which most did at that time.
I was against the decision to give Bush that much power, not simply because I thought it was a scam and Bush is a boob, but because I am fully against giving one single man as much power as the office of the presidency currently holds. I want balance of power restored, the way the Framers intended it.
Hillary of course came off abrasive and Kerryesque when asked the question, because she fears showing who she really is, a smart strong woman who does know how to think. America is not really in love with thinking women though.
She could have explained the situation, told the voter she would have done the same thing today if the intelligence really said it was necessary to go to war, and if the people believed it, they would want her to. She didn't show strength, she showed weakness trying to straddle the fence, of being right (which I think she thinks she is) yet compromising by saying if she knew the intel was bad, she would not have voted for it. Doh! Only the neocons would have voted for the resolution even if they knew the intel was bad, because they wanted war no matter what.
She could have said her job is to serve the will of the people, and polls showed that most people believed the intelligence was good, to a great extent because Colin Powell blew out his career by being pushed into it by Cheney and Bush. Colin blew his chance at a presidency by bending over and saluting this scummy administration, then going in and making a fool of himself at the U.N.
Hillary simply is not a good public speaker, not a natural speaker in a group of people and many men in this country (and women) are still intimidated by a strong woman.
Heck, look what happened to Carly Fiorina, who got canned and people thought was a bitch...but she was actually right about her push to merge with Compaq, and it was her plan that was put into effect that resulted in the stock price and business doing so well in the past couple of years.
Strong powerful women who are not great looking women, who dress in pant suits are viewed as bitches, not babes, and not as not leaders by the majority of this country. Many men in America fear this type of woman.
Great Britain had strong women in their past, so Thatcher didn't pose an ego problem for the Brits, and many Jewish men/women are familiar with a strong female in the family so Israel was willing to take a chance (Golda Meir) and Indira Gandhi had the last name for the job.
But, this is America, and American men and women like the fantasies of a strong man supported by a woman of little personality and little ambition, just like that dimwit Laura Bush.
Sadly, it will likely not be the men who will prevent America from having a strong capable female in the White House...it is the women.
My misinterpretation...
Sorry, not going to take your "word" for it, I will stick with my judgment, the same judgment that said from the beginning (before so many recently got on the bandwagon---finally) that Bush was bad news, very bad news.
I get similar but different impressions of Rudy, and believe that while smarter than Bush, power would go to his head...if not other parts of his anatomy.
I don't want more emperors in the Oval Office, I want public servants, who server the vision of the electorate, not their own personal missions and agendas.
I do believe Hillary would make a good executive, that she would assemble a good crew around her, and being able to talk to a former president intimately (no, not sexually) any time she wished.
Hillary's problem is that she is not genuinely a people person in the manner most politicians are, and she is a trained attorney, which also prevents a lot of people from having much charm.
A good example was the recent clip I saw of a rally in which a voter asked her about her position on Vietnam.
He asked point blank, "Are you going to admit you made a mistake."
She handled it very poorly.
It really is an easy question to answer.
Hillary, and most Americans, if they thought a country was as much of a threat as Iraq was portrayed by would vote the way most senators and Congressmen did.
So, Hillary was given flawed information upon which to make a decision, but if the information had been valid, she would have made a mistake not to vote to give Bush the authority in most people's eyes.
Only a few were are essentially dovish and distrusted Bush deeply, and were willing to take a very unpopular position at the time voted against the resolution.
I even think Obama may have voted for the war at the time, if his state was calling for that. Senators and congressmen/women are supposed to support the will of their constituency, which most did at that time.
I was against the decision to give Bush that much power, not simply because I thought it was a scam and Bush is a boob, but because I am fully against giving one single man as much power as the office of the presidency currently holds. I want balance of power restored, the way the Framers intended it.
Hillary of course came off abrasive and Kerryesque when asked the question, because she fears showing who she really is, a smart strong woman who does know how to think. America is not really in love with thinking women though.
She could have explained the situation, told the voter she would have done the same thing today if the intelligence really said it was necessary to go to war, and if the people believed it, they would want her to. She didn't show strength, she showed weakness trying to straddle the fence, of being right (which I think she thinks she is) yet compromising by saying if she knew the intel was bad, she would not have voted for it. Doh! Only the neocons would have voted for the resolution even if they knew the intel was bad, because they wanted war no matter what.
She could have said her job is to serve the will of the people, and polls showed that most people believed the intelligence was good, to a great extent because Colin Powell blew out his career by being pushed into it by Cheney and Bush. Colin blew his chance at a presidency by bending over and saluting this scummy administration, then going in and making a fool of himself at the U.N.
Hillary simply is not a good public speaker, not a natural speaker in a group of people and many men in this country (and women) are still intimidated by a strong woman.
Heck, look what happened to Carly Fiorina, who got canned and people thought was a bitch...but she was actually right about her push to merge with Compaq, and it was her plan that was put into effect that resulted in the stock price and business doing so well in the past couple of years.
Strong powerful women who are not great looking women, who dress in pant suits are viewed as bitches, not babes, and not as not leaders by the majority of this country. Many men in America fear this type of woman.
Great Britain had strong women in their past, so Thatcher didn't pose an ego problem for the Brits, and many Jewish men/women are familiar with a strong female in the family so Israel was willing to take a chance (Golda Meir) and Indira Gandhi had the last name for the job.
But, this is America, and American men and women like the fantasies of a strong man supported by a woman of little personality and little ambition, just like that dimwit Laura Bush.
Sadly, it will likely not be the men who will prevent America from having a strong capable female in the White House...it is the women.
....and as we all know now, if we didn't know it before, the popular vote does not win the presidency.
All Hillary would have to do to gain the presidency is win all the states that Kerry won, and add Ohio, and if she lost the popular vote, she would be president.
All Hillary would have to do to gain the presidency is win all the states that Kerry won, and add Ohio, and if she lost the popular vote, she would be president.