Gun Grabber Giuliani will run for Pres. Rove/Brownback court La Raza

[bg]

Would like to Sen.Tancredo get in, but I believe our best
chance is still Sen. George Allen of VA. I will NEVER vote for the
likes of a Clinton, McCain, or that character from NY.
Never ! Remember folks without gun owners voting
Pres Bush wouldn't be in office. We have power too.

Just ask Kerry or Willy Billy Clinton.

 

[Hockeydude]

I honestly believe McCain is mentally ill.

Are you a medical doctor? Do you also believe that Mcain has illegitimate black children?

Anyway, looking at this from an optimistic point of view, it's a really good chance for a Libertarian candidate to steal the spotlight. I just can't imagine the public being happy with a Gulliani or Hilary choice. I believe that the majority of the public is neither hardcore Republican or Democrat, but are being to complacent in letting partisans run the show.

 

[xd9fan]

I remember back in the day (1994) when the GOP was conservative.

Liberal wackos will always have a Pro-Govt guy to vote for.

But its the conservative that is really up the creek in 2006 and 2008.

Seems like the Democratic party is now the home of the wacko left.
The GOP is the home of the RINO, spineless moderate.
God help conservatives, american socialism is kicking your a$$.
Conservatives can either reward the current rino party with another vote, simply not vote-in protest, or realize that the party has truly left them and find another party (IMHO, I say its time to get back to the basics Libertarian-style). Good luck.

 

[steve635]

Predictions to preclude premature panic

1. Neither McCain or Giuliani will be the GOP Nominee.

2. If Hillary is the nominee, I could be the GOP nominee and win 35 states.
(Has anyone ever looked at her negative numbers? Why do you think so many Dems are turning on her, they know she's another McGovern.)

 

[longeyes]

The country is going through a metamorphosis that will prove soul-wrenching before it's done. Whoever wins in '08 will have to deal with the issue of governability. The days of consensus and compliance are disappearing as the disconnect between government and the will of people increases.

 

[Waitone]

Illegal immigration is the issue that makes the republican nomination a jump ball. The party will be split. . . . with the leadership pulling toward open borders and the voter pulling the other way. You can already make out the lines.

McCain--Guilliani
Dumb--Dumber
Electric chair--gas chamber

There will be no good choices in '08.

 

[longeyes]

It is very possible that the electoral bi-polarity will reach a fever pitch by '08, with NO major candidate or contender opposing illegal immigration even though the majority of the American people do. This seems nuts but this is the way things are going in American politics. Other nations seem to be in denial, why shouldn't we be too?

Will Tancredo surprise everybody by running and winning? Probably not. But his candidacy may be a turning point in the political history of the United States of America, making The Great Disconnect too obvious to ignore.

 

[k_semler]

If it's Rudy v. Hillary, I'll write in myself, or show up just to torch the ballot as a jesture of dissent. (hey, it's better then desecrating the flag, right?)

 

[orangelo]

If it's between those 2 creatures I still stand by Pee Wee. Or maybe I'll write in a vote for Mr. T.

The golden rule is-> The man with the gold rules.
And Mr T wears plenty of it.

 

[GrammatonCleric]

Talking to Ralph on the big white telephone

I'm already planning to write in a long dead president on my ballot. Teddy Roosevelt is getting my vote. A long rotten corpse would be more effective in running this country. I have lost all faith in government and the electoral process.

 

[antsi]

---quote-------------
I will not vote for Giuliani or McCain, and if that means Hillary wins, so be it.
----------------------

I hear this kind of thing a lot. "I will not vote for [moderately anti-gun candidate], and if that means [extremely anti-gun candidate] wins, so be it."

OK, so you are advocating we elect an extremely anti-gun candidate. How exactly is this supposed to help us?

 

[wingman]

I will not vote for Giuliani or McCain, and if that means Hillary wins, so be it.

Same here, I will never again vote for the "lessor of two evils" we just continue to bury ourselves.

 

[Yeager]

We just can't win can we?

 

[Retro]

I will vote for whoever that runs against Hillary Clinton, and definitely the lesser evil will be better.

Curious... Can the ban on full-auto rifles be ever lifted, like the ban on high-cap magazines that was lifted recently?

 

[Rembrandt]

I have to agree with steve635, neither McCain or Giuliani will be the GOP Nominee. Both will get an education when it comes to the Iowa caucuses....if you fail here it's a tough uphill battle. Rudy's east coast record will be his undoing, McCain has little support. The gun owners we are hearing from like Allen, Nute, and Romney.

 

[joab]

I believe that the majority of the public is neither hardcore Republican or Democrat

Do you have a PHD in sociology? Do you believe that the majority of politician's illegitimate children are black?

McCain's well known inability to control his temper is a sign of mental deficiency.
Do we really want someone with an uncontrollable temper in the White House?

It seems to me that both the Republicans and Democrats have been campaigning for the third party candidate for many years

Would Lieberman be so bad?

As far as Rudy changing his campaign stance on guns, anybody remember what stance Gore took when he was campaigning for senate in Tennessee

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I hear this kind of thing a lot. "I will not vote for [moderately anti-gun candidate], and if that means [extremely anti-gun candidate] wins, so be it."

OK, so you are advocating we elect an extremely anti-gun candidate. How exactly is this supposed to help us?

In two ways.

First, I've noticed during the Bush administration that Congressional Republicans will give a Republican President things which, if proposed by a Democrat, they'd fight tooth and nail. You have to factor that in: It's a choice between a bad anti-gunner Republican Congressmen will be inclined to support, and a slightly worse anti-gunner they'll reflexively oppose for partisan reasons. That means, all things being equal, a Republican anti-gun President is actually worse for us.

Second, the only way we get pro-gun candidates out of the GOP in the future, is to prove to them that if they run anti-gun candidates, they lose. The people running the GOP behind the scenes don't give a bucket of warm spit about the 2nd amendment. In fact, they tend to be anti-gun. The only thing they really care about is winning, so they can have access to power. If, and ONLY if, that takes running pro-gun candidates, will we have pro-gun candidates to vote for.

And if we don't have pro-gun candidates to vote for, our votes don't do us any good.

*********

Now, IMO, what we *really* need to do is get together, pick a pro-gun prosepect for President, BEFORE they stick us with a choice of anti-gunners, and support that candidate to the hilt in the primaries. That's where we can really exercise leverage, because so few people vote in them.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Who would be a better alternative? Tancredo?

Yes, Tancredo would be an excellent choice, and one which would actually motivate me to vote Republican again for President. Given half a chance to get his message out, Tancredo would probably win a national election in a landslide. History has demonstrated that when the American voter actually has an opportunity to vote for an authentic and outspoken liberty-minded conservative, they vote for him in droves. The only reason Reagan won in two landslides was that he represented outspoken conservatism. Same goes for George H.W. Bush in his first run (Most people just assumed that because he was "partners" with Reagan that he was actually a Reagan conservative. Only when he departed from Reagan's conservative approach did he lose his reelection bid.). The only reason George W. won both times was that he convinced enough people that he actually was what the media described him as, i.e., a conservative. Before his reputation was trashed by a cooperative effort of Decomcrats/Republicans/MSM, conservative Pat Buchanan was winning major primaries against establishment Republicans. Had his momentum not been stopped by this cooperative effort to lie about him, and associate him with Nazis, he would have likely won the primaries and been elected president. Conservatism wins national elections when the voter is actually given a choice. History has been constant in its proof of this principle.

 

[longeyes]

I also like Tancredo.

A Tancredo campaign would certainly rock the Republic, no doubt about that.

I think he does represent the most voters, truth be told. Problem is, truth ain't gonna be told if the Powers That Be can help it. "They," including the media, would pull no punches to stop Tancredo, and that, of course, includes the Republican "mainstream."

 

[Selfdfenz]

+ 1 steve635 on both posts
+ 1 also longeyes

Not really too interested in what the Democrats do. Whoever they run will be off the political Rector scale of issues that matter to me and if their candidate is to be elected I can't stop it and I'll not try if all I can get is the lesser of 2 evils.

Rudy cannot carry the South and that has to be evident in the dim electrical circuitry that passes for thinking at the king-making/fund-raising/big check signing level of the GOP. McCain's worst enemy is McCain and his history of being all over the ideological map. Guess what? He cannot carry the South either. That same group of GOP "thought leaders" will never let that man get the nom.

The $64,000-questions are simple. Is the GOP listing to their core of voters or are they lead be a cabal that is deaf or don’t care? Lack of action on illegal immigration provides the answer to both questions IMO and it's bad news.

If the answers are No and Yes, then the party will have to follow the path of an addict who has to hit rock bottom before he or she can begin the process of healing. If that can still happen over then next 2-3 elections we get a GOP that survives only by moving back to a more conservative path. The country will be in a mell of hess by then but those are the facts. Just how bad that the hess will be is the interesting part and I'm not optimistic it will be tea and biscuits.

It’s a pivotal time for the future of the party. The GOP has a limited period of time to get well or, like an addict who never finds a path to self-correction, it will perish and be replaced.

Let us pray.

S-

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The idea that Giuliani and McCain can't carry the south might not be accurate. It depends on who the Democrats run.

If the Democrats run Hillary, then Giuliani or McCain would win the south, I believe. If they run someone more moderate, like say Richardson of NM, then there is a chance some southern states might go for him instead.

 

[Deanimator]

Giuliani can no more win the Republican nomination than Zell Miller could win the Democratic nomination.

I don't know a SINGLE gun owner who would vote for Giuliani.

I'm not a Republican, and won't be voting in the Republican primary, but I've got three reasons why I'll NEVER vote for Giuliani under ANY circumstances, EVER: Louima, Diallo and Dorismond. Under Giuliani, the NYPD ran amok. Can you imagine the BATFE with Giuliani in the White House? Two weeks after the inauguration, they'd be wearing twin lightning bolts on their collars.

The fastest way to get a Democrat into the White House would be for the Republicans to nominate Giuliani. I wouldn't vote for him if he ran against Ayman al Zawahiri. I certainly won't vote for Hillary. I certainly WOULD stay home if that were the choice. I'm betting enough voting gunowners would do the same to tip the election. If the people running the Republican party can't see that, they don't have any business running a Bob's Big Boy.

 

[bg]

George Allen has a better chance of carrying the south.
So how about a Tancredo/Allen or visa versa platform ?

 

[Limeyfellow]

Giuliani is perhaps the most antigun mayor in the US. He is even a little bit worse than say Reagon, Nixon and Bush sr. He regularly claims that his antigun laws are the cause behind New York's massive drop in crime levels. It became even worse when Pataki took over from him.

These include such things as sueing weapon manufacturers. Limiting handguns to 1 per month buying limit, licensing of firearms, the banning of weapons with "assault like features", ban on magazines sizes, the wait for months to get a license to buy a handgun and a whole host of other laws that gave NYC the strongest gun control laws in the country.

At times I think most of these bans are rich people who want to stay in power more than anything else, and afraid the way they screw people over they get shot.

 

[Deanimator]

OK, so you are advocating we elect an extremely anti-gun candidate. How exactly is this supposed to help us?

Giuliani IS an "extremely anti-gun candidate".

Not only that, he believes in uncontrolled police power. Do you want the BATFE to be backed to the hilt, no matter what it does, the way Giuliani did with the NYPD? Undercover NYPD detectives shot a guy for NOT selling them drugs. Do you want the BATFE to shoot you for NOT selling them an unregistered machinegun?