My Hero Is On The Ballot!

I am sure Rudy would be more competent than W. But he does support the troop increase, despite the fact that similar increases haven't worked in the past, it ignores the Iraq survey group, the majority of the military leaders are against it, etc. So I don't have faith in his strategy on Iraq.

I am not trying to say we have to agree on Iraq. I am just saying that Rudy's support for W's policies go into some specific agreement on how it should be run.

 

Perhaps.

I could be wrong, but I believe most of the left is saying that the right will attack the various things about his personal life. I don't think they are saying that those things about his personal life should keep him from running or doing a good job.

 

The Left are the ones raising the issues about his personal life. How they frame it is not really relivant. They're still making sure the dirt is out there.

Although, to be fair, it's the pundits, and not the candidates at this time.

Didn't know you spent so long in NY.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

But I think it is saveable but the cost will be astronomical. We can put 500k troops there. Then disarm every Iraqis. Let the democracy takes its course for 20+ years. Then many trillions dollars and 10k+ lives of American soldiers later and we get the democracy we want.

 

rudy hates black people.

 

so you like his democrat positions




what makes him a republican anyway? tax cuts maybe?

 

Sorry, I don't know what democrat positions are.

But I do know what Democratic positions are.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2847675

Bush Puts 'ic' Back in 'Democrat Party'

President Bush Aims to Mend Fences With Democrats, Poking Fun at Himself in Speech at Resort
By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press
WILLIAMSBURG, Va. - Relying on self-deprecating jokes, unusual candor and outright flattery, President Bush on Saturday wooed lawmakers he not only needs but will have to answer to in the final two years of his presidency.

Bush had not seen fit to attend a Democratic congressional retreat since 2001, his first year in office. But the new political reality that has Democrats in charge of Capitol Hill for the first time in a dozen years changed his mind. When he appeared before House Democrats at a Virginia resort, he seemed to be trying to make up for lost time.


With his first words, he sought to put to rest one bone of contention between the White House and the new congressional majority: The dropped "ic."


Democrats found it demeaning when the president, in his State of the Union address last month, referred to the "Democrat majority," as opposed to the "Democratic majority."


"Now look, my diction isn't all that good," Bush told the 200 lawmakers who wrapped up two days away from Washington with family and aides. "I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party."


He got hearty laughs. And he was careful to keep the "ic" firmly tacked on for the rest of his remarks.


Bush's address was followed by a private session. With the media ushered out of the room, lawmakers were allowed to ask the president a half-dozen questions that covered Iraq, immigration, education and other topics.


Even though this was expected to be the toughest part of Bush's foray onto Democratic turf, both he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California emerged with good things to say.


"We were honored by your presence," Pelosi told Bush. "We're also encouraged by your remarks."


Speaking to reporters after the president had departed for Washington, she added: "Let's make no mistake. The choice is bipartisanship or stalemate. We have to work together."


Still, divisions over Iraq were never far.


One of the primary topics at the retreat was how to legislate opposition to Bush's overhauled Iraq strategy, which involves adding 21,500 troops to the 132,000 already in the country.


Democrats have not settled conclusively on the approach for any anti-war resolution or on what action to take if the buildup fails to halt the violence.


Bush explained how he settled on his proposal.


"I listened to many members here. I listened to members of my own party. I listened to the military and came up with a plan that I genuinely believe has the best of succeeding," he said.


The president earned applause for repeating his insistence that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government in Baghdad must show tangible improvement on the political front. "The Maliki government is going to have to show strong leadership," Bush said.


Seeking to earn his bipartisan stripes, he also said that opposing him on the war as many in the room do does not mean "you don't share the same sense of patriotism I do."


"You know, I welcome debate in a time of war and I hope you know that," the president said. "These are tough times, but there's no doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland as much as I do."


Bush's conciliatory words were similar to statements he has made before. But the applause offered some indication that this audience was pleased to hear them so directly and in person.


In the private session, Bush told the Democrats he empathizes with their anguish, saying the war is "sapping our soul," according to two officials who attended the session. They spoke on condition of anonymity because it was a closed meeting.


Pelosi heard nothing to suggest the president is bending to any criticism.


"The president really stood his ground on Iraq. He explained why additional troops would be needed and why it would work this time," she said, adding parenthetically, "even though it had failed four times before."


No matter the topic, the president stayed on point, saying he wants to work together on "big things" and he respects that Democrats disagree on some issues:


On balancing the budget and the spending blueprint for 2008 that he submits Monday to Congress, he said, "Some of it you'll like, some of it you won't like, but it achieves the goal that we have said, which is to balance the budget."


On addressing the looming insolvency of entitlement programs such as Social Security, he said, "I'm under no illusions of how hard it's going to be. The only thing I want to share with you is, is my desire to see if we can't work together to get it done."


On his proposal to make health insurance more available through changes in tax laws, he said, "I've already heard from some members who thought it was a lousy idea, I understand that. But please look at it in depth."


Bush brushed past the veto threats his aides have issued for one-third of the agenda that Pelosi's caucus approved in the House's first 100 hours of the year.


Instead, he focused on compliments, on the Democrats' choice of Pelosi "this fine woman" as the first female speaker ever and for their approval this past week of billions for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis overseas.


"I look forward to working with you," he said. "I know you've probably heard that and you doubt whether it's true. It's true."




Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this story.



Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

 

That couldn't have been said any better...........just wish more people had that mentality.........

 

If this is what is really desired and if you think this would help, you should be working for every voter registration drive possible. As long as as only a percentage of people vote, politicians can play to the margins with wedge issues thus giving us a choice of only set or the other. If more people voted, politicians would have to moderate their stances, special interest groups wouldn't be as important in squeezing out victories, and more people would get a better chance at representation.

If 100% of eligible voters voted, we'd have representatives that are vastly different from the ones elected now with 1/2+1 of the 50% or so voters who actually vote.

I've always said we need two strong parties, because I think the antagonism is healthy and I'm all for checks and balances. What we have now is a runaway administration clearly outside the mainstream of American Political Parties. In my view it is absolutely foolish to vote Republican for just about any reason now. Look at how once proud members of the Republican Party who exhibited some true conservative philosophies got carried away or forced to support policies and actions that were detrimental not only to thier country, but also to their party as they themselves once defined it. We can't pretend this just didn't happen. (Similar issues need to be addressed in the Dem Party, but it is not quite as entrenched as in the GOP nor is the strain as virulent.)

I want to see a strong Republican Party, but as long as the current philosophy holds, any vote for any Republican is an enabling vote, allowing the Party to forestall the day when they must come to grips with what has happened or to bring us closer to the day when the Bush/Cheney way becomes the American way without question. Either option is bad.

Democrats had the courage to blow their ruling coalition up over Civil Rights. Bad for Dem power, good for the country in the long run. Republicans face a similar choice, even if it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum... do they have the courage to blow themselves up and purge their party of this crap with the goal of rebuilding as an effective party in the American tradition?

If everyone votes, this will help Republicans, Dems, and the country get back on track. If people don't vote and the same groups of activists keep control and keep deciding elections, we continue to be polarized and it will make the issue much more difficult to resolve.

I do hope we can get back to the idea you and Almu espouse, but I don't think I can approach things that way anytime soon. And this is one of the further tragedies of the last 15 years... I know many of you think I'm some raving lunatic leftist, but even if I am, I'm still an American and I resent the polarization that has taken place during my lifetime. You can quote histories and articles and point to sources that say the political language was just as bad a century ago, but I see more and more families, friends, and the like affected by the political rhetoric than I saw as a child or as a young man... even during Vietnam. I once had an academic appreciation of the causes of the Civil War, but now I see how ideas and rhetoric can become hardened, how tolerance can flee... and much more clearly do I see how people could literally fight over what they think. This scares the hell out of me.

The short-term solution for me is to vote Dem in the hopes of weakening what I perceive to be the greatest threat... the autocratic ideas this administration runs on. The long term solution for everyone is to vote.

 

Very well stated.

 

I am against Rudy and every other NY politician.

In fact I don't want to vote for any current politician in the running.

They are ruining the country with their high spending/debt, federalization and
central banking cartel.

 

ok, so you like his democratic positions



what are his republican positions?

 

I thought missionary was the only Republican position.

 

could this have been one of his positions while with his mistress?

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_position

 

You don't know Rudy very well.

 

Personal foibles aside, (which will derail him)...

What is his position on abortion this week?

What was it when he first ran for mayor?

What was it the second time he ran for mayor?

What was it last week?

Not that I would be a one issue voter, but many are...

 

Giuliani-Appointed Judges Tend to Lean to the Left

By: Ben Smith
February 28, 2007 06:30 PM EST


When Rudy Giuliani faces Republicans concerned about his support of gay rights and legal abortion, he reassures them that he is a conservative on the decisions that matter most.

"I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am," he told South Carolina Republicans last month. "Those are the kinds of justices I would appoint -- Scalia, Alito and Roberts."

But most of Giuliani's judicial appointments during his eight years as mayor of New York were hardly in the model of Chief Justice John Roberts or Samuel Alito -- much less aggressive conservatives in the mold of Antonin Scalia.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group. "They were decent, moderate people," she said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2957.html