Just what we need, another RINO. The Establishment desperately wants an Establishment candidate other than Romney, but the names who are popping up (Giuliani, Perry) all seem flawed. The Establishment must be thinking to themselves “What’s a fellow got to do to get a vanilla, mainstream, non-threatening, status quo candidate? How is Bob Dole’s health?”
Archive for the 'Rudy Giuliani' Category
Recently I have been reading rumors that Giuliani is considering another run for the White House. The Establishment is desperate for a relatively centrist Establishment candidate other than Romney whom they view as flawed. Some people are obviously whispering into the ears of some potential candidates. Christie, despite repeated denials, name keeps getting mentioned. Rick Perry has been mentioned. And now Giuliani is even being dragged back up.
But Giuliani’s campaign was a disaster last time. Despite high name recognition and a substantial lead in the early polls, he was a disaster on the ground in early states due to his liberal stand on social issues and his failure to campaign. He thought he could bypass the early states and just waltz through the multistate primaries, but he was an afterthought before it got around to the multistate primaries. (Whoever gave him that campaign advice was a freakin’ idiot. I’m no expert, and I could have told him that wasn’t going to work.)
That said, I can’t overlook the irony that the Professor dismissing Giuliani’s chances in 2012 is from the Regent University’s Robertson School of Government. Umm … er … Professor … your boss ENDORSED Rudy in the last election despite Rudy’s pro-choice politics because he was allegedly good on the “war on terror” and Israel. The shame of that endorsement should forever stain Robertson’s legacy.
Here is James Ostrowski’s take from Lew Rockwell. He has been pretty good with his prognosticating.
Huckabee–But where does he go from here? The Improv?
Thompson–still alive but at 2% in New Hampshire
Paul–double figures after every single press report stated he couldn’t win–exceed his poll average by 40% in a hostile environment
Romney–bet the ranch on winning there
McCain–badly wanted third place
Giuliani–a humiliating 4% …
…Big picture: none of the candidates up against Ron Paul is looking good nationally. This will be a war of attrition down to the convention.
Alan Keyes was on Hannity and Colmes last night. He was his normal Straussian, “Declarationist” babling self, but he did manage to get one thing right. He said he would never support Rudy if Rudy is the GOP nominee. Hannity, always the GOP shill, tried to argue him out of that position but Keyes would not budge. Hannity did the same thing with Dobson.
Posted under Rudy Giuliani
This article suggests it did.
The backlash against Robertson started even as the first reports surfaced that he was backing a candidate at odds with core evangelical beliefs.
The blogs lit up.
â€œPat Robertson has sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver,â€ said one blogger. â€œShame on Pat Robertson,â€ wrote another.
The Web site RFFM.org blasted Robertson for sacrificing â€œmany of the issues he claimed to fight for in his attempt to, once again, bask in the public limelight. Robertson seems willing to overlook all of these â€˜flawsâ€™ within the former New York Mayorâ€™s political character, in order to do what?â€
Robertson insisted his endorsement was aimed at a movement among some evangelicals to support a third-party candidate if Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. But that rationale only deepened the ire of many.
Did Robertson insist his endorsement was aimed at evangelicals threatening a third party or is that just the author’s interpretation? I haven’t read that he said that in so many words. It seemed to me a straight forward endorsement of Giuliani as someone who will vigorously prosecute “the war on terror,” and be able to beat Hillary.
I am not sure which is worse, a straight forward endorsement of Rudy or an attempt to subvert fellow Christians.
“Rudy Giuliani can play a little rough at times, but there are some moments when an inner light turns on and he turns downright idealistic. One of those moments came on Oct. 10, 1996, as he stepped on the podium at the Kennedy School of Government to deliver a speech on immigration. â€œIâ€™m pleased to be with you this evening to talk about the anti-immigrant movement in America,â€ he said, â€œand why I believe this movement endangers the single most important reason for American greatness, namely, the renewal, reformation and reawakening thatâ€™s provided by the continuous flow of immigrants.â€ …Giuliani continued: â€œI believe the anti-immigrant movement in America is one of our most serious public problems.â€” ~ David Brooks
I generally cannot stomach to read David Brooks, the man who has claimed that “real conservatism” concerns universal human rights and other such Jacobin cliches. Brooks is a Trotskyite in sheep’s clothing. And this op-ed, which ends on the note of condemning real patriots, is despicable, but at least, I suppose, it does let discriminating readers know the truth about Giuliani (i.e. the politically correct, globalist fraud that he truly is — like David Brooks himself).
Rudy Giuliani continues to associate with a priest, credibly accused not only of molesting young boys, but of being involved in covering up not only his own crimes but those of other priests that have molested young boys.
Read more about it at Lone Star Times.
I can’t say I’m surprised considering the type who support Giuliani in my state of South Carolina.
If someone is unhappy with the Bush policy, they would find Giuliani’s
would be even more extreme. But since Giuliani is so anxious to go to
war, somebody ought to ask him why he didn’t go when he was called up
instead of ducking it like some of those other chicken hawks – he took,
what, four deferrals?
The kids today are expected to go because Giuliani likes this stuff.
But whether it’s Cheney or Giuliani, these guys think it’s quite proper to
go to war when they feel like it. But they never had to expose