Comments on: I Don’t Believe You – Or You, Either

By: zaphod

zaphod — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:56:09 +0000

Tommy Thompson was the governor of Wisconsin before he became W’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. He left Bush’s cabinet when the first term ended. He was never Energy Secretary. Spencer Abraham was W’s Energy Secretary during the first term. Sam Bodman holds that job now. Mike Leavitt is the current HHS Secretary.

By: Davy

Davy — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:34:41 +0000

If Giuliani thinks he can win in NY, NJ, and CA and forget about the Heartland and the South, I wish him luck. He’ll need it.

And with all due respect to the conservatives who credit themselves for the Republican losses in 2006, I will say that while conservatives do have a great amount of voting power in the primaries, don’t take credit for something you had nothing to do with.

2006 was about the war in Iraq, and if Republicans don’t get how the public feels, they won’t get the White House in 2008. And I wouldn’t put much faith in polls 18 months out.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:19:10 +0000

Regardless of whether a Gingrich or Richardson campaign is worthy on the merits, I think stories like these fall pretty heavily into the category of political columnists having a lot copy to file between now and Iowa. You’ve got to write about something to kill time.

“And so, if the meteor does hit the earth and lead to magical regenerative powers, political analysts say the late President Lincoln’s comeback campaign will be one to watch…”

By: BR

BR — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:08:06 +0000

A lot of people are talking about Guiliani not being a real conservative, but a lot of his views on social issues come from being a mayor, not a member of the Federal Government. I think may surprise a lot of people talking about states’ rights when his campaign really gets going. However, as a national security president, I think he has to be better then the rest of the field. Also if he splits NYC he wins NY State, and when’s the last time a dem won without NY? You’re almost talking about a guaranteed win by someone who can articulate the needs of our foreign policy, and if he does shift his more liberal social views to states’ rights argument, I think he’ll appoint the kind of judges that Bush has already appointed anyway.

By: dick

dick — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:46:26 +0000

I listen to all these conservatives saying if someone who is not a card carrying conservative gets nominated, they will stay home. Take a look at the House of Representatives we have now with San Fran Nan in charge. That is the result of your exercising that policy. Now you are talking about doing the same thing in the presidential election. Do you really want the country to end up with a San Fran Nan or a Harry Reid in the White House? Think about it for a change without all your hurt feelings at being ignored. Which would be better for the country ,Hillary or Rudy.

By: HopefulCynic68

HopefulCynic68 — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:26:41 +0000

The GOP has an excellent chance of knocking off the Dems to retake the White House in ’08…[i]except[/i] that the upper circles of the GOP don’t appear to have a clue why they lost in ’06. The fact that the ‘top tier’ candidates are McCain, Guilliani, or Romney speaks volumes. The GOP seem to be planning a ‘we’re the lesser evil’ approach, and that’s what failed last time. It may very well be true, in fact it [i]is[/i] true that the GOP is the lesser evil…but the GOP voting base is sick of the lesser evil. [i]SURELY[/i] we can do better than this!

IMHO most of Guiliani’s high poll numbers is a mix of personal liking for his guts and effectiveness, and star power, plus a dose of ‘he’s not McCain’. I see trouble ahead, because even Guiliani, given his positions on immigration, social issues, and his connection to people like Bernard Kerik, is going to be in a bind trying to run for President. It’ll come down to “I’m the lesser evil.”

As far as I can see, a best-case scenario of the Big Three would lead to a GOP Presidency that has all of GWB’s bad points, and lacks the good ones. And the best-case scenario isn’t all that likely.

By: Kamatu

Kamatu — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:42:34 +0000

The problem facing the GOP right now is that a growing number of both the base and the close leaners are now looking somewhere else. The current GOP stance/policies are what many who joined the Reagan revolution were voting against. 2004 was the last gasp of “one more for the Gipper” as 2006 showed.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:19:05 +0000

Where he is a candidate or not, having Newt involved in the debate will HELP the Republican party. His articulation of issues, his intellectually frank manner of framing the debate — he will bring interest to the primary race and focus many independents on our side of the contest. Meantime, Hillary and Obama will be engaged in an obfuscation contest and annoying the hell out of everyone who know that they’re hard lefties arguing about their costumes.

By: CJ

CJ — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:24:16 +0000

“These guys always run,” Murphy says. “It’s what they do. It’s like chimps picking up bananas. They can’t help it.”

Thank you for my laugh of the day. As for the substantive issues .. harrrumph .. Newt belongs in the Giuliani Administration’s cabinet. Self-defence rights have advanced greatly over the last 25 years. This has happened from the bottom up, and Rudy isn’t going to mess with it.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:36:55 +0000

Republican voters need a real conservative choice, again like Ron Paul.

This was intended to be sarcastic, right?

I don’t know who you’re calling a socialist, but if it’s Giuliani, you’re quite mistaken. The only area where is not conservative is social issues. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and thus, would also be socially liberal (I don’t know about his views specifically, but if he calls himself a libertarian, I’d assume he’d be a social liberal, with the one exception of being pro-gun). Ron Paul is also a leftist in terms of foreign policy. He may not be quite as bad as Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, but that’s a label that could not at all be applied to Rudy (or any of the other front-runners, for that matter). As a whole, Giuliani is much more in line with mainstream conservative views than Ron Paul could ever be.

And besides, what, practically speaking, do “gunnies” want politicians to do? Not repeal the second amendment, repeal the Brady bill, give a nuclear bomb to every American citizen? I don’t see this segment as being particularly influential as the major news that relates to them occurs once in a blue moon (such as the DC handgun ban being overturned recently).

And, BTW, Duncan Hunter is a member of the House of Representatives from California, not a Senator from North or South Carolina. Tommy Thompson was governor of Wisconsin (I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day) and is a former energy secretary. The current HUD secretary is Alphonso Jackson (who replaced Mel Martinez in 2005). And last, but not least, “Giuliani” only has one “l”.