Clinton would cream Giuliani, poll finds

[Janett_Reno]

dude, what i have said is Fred sweeps all the south. Hillary will win some of the southern states, if Rudy is the nominee. All the southern states dude, is like what Cali, NY, Il, is for the Democrats. The Republicans need to win all the south and almost sweep it. Bill Clinton won some of the south when he ran.

Rudy will not sweep the south dude. It is several reasons why he won't. FL is considered a swing state dude and the 3 states important are PA, Oh and Fl. That is if sweeps most of the south and Hillary takes all the blue states she is suppose to. I haven't looked at the polls lately but in Ky, Tn, Ar Hillary has a shot at taking these. I haven't looked at others and as far as OH and FL, we won't know untill the vote is counted on election night.

Rudy will not run as strong in the south as Fred or Huckabee would. Yes he will win the south but these are must red states and the Republicans must do something where Hillary doesn't win to many red staes because then Rudy must go in and win blue states.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

gun control- McCain supports some forms of gun control. He is no favorite of the NRA.

here's his positon summary:

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

mccain addressed the nra convention.

immigration-helped write the failed flop of a bill that was so hated by other "conservatives"

that one issue denies him being a "conservative"?

McCain has always been a moderate. He has co-authored many bills with Dems because he sits in the middle. Lieberman and McCain are not far apart. Both are to the left of Senator Nelson in Nebraska who happens to be a Democrat.

from the list of positions that I've provided, he sure looks a LOT right of lieberman.

co-authoring bipartisan bills doesn;t preclude being a conservative either. depends on what is in the bills.

I don't know the specifics of the other points you labeled above.

I don't like him because he is not a friend of the NRA and his immigration policies are not workable.

If you want another view that agrees that McCain is a moderate (other than military stance), then see this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20...fOcoDFnCPibuRF

the positions are straightforward, and mccain's positions are conservative. if the above positions are NOT conservative in your view, do let us know which ones.

You have to realize that even Giuliani and Clinton have gone out of their way to remake their image to the right of where they naturally sit. Hillary is the most obvious to change her position to the right. If you go back to the days of Bill, then it is clear that Hillary's position at that time was left of where it is now.

All of the candidates on both sides are talking up church and conservative values.

But, if you go back and look at who these people have been for their career, then Giuliani and McCain are definitely moderates. Clinton was quite liberal in the past but has remade herself as a moderate who is hawkish on the military. Clinton is pre-preventing the "liberal" label that killed Gore and Kerry. When was the last time you heard Hillary give a speech that would excite college kids about the environment or the war in Iraq or overhauling healthcare??? Hillary will continue to hide who she really is.

Giuliani and McCain are no different. Note the ridiculous approval of Pat Robertson for Giuliani. Everyone knows that is a joke and a forced marriage of political expendiency and desperation.

If all you know about McCain is what you have seen of McCain in this candidacy for president, then you don't know McCain.

my suggestion is to look at hillary clinton's senate record. you will find her fairly in the middle.
during the nomination process she has moved to the left, not to the right.

if all you know about mccain is you think "he isn't a favorite of the nra", he supported bush's immigration proposal and he "co-authored many bills with dems" hence he "isn't a conservative", then YOU don't know mccain!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

dude, what i have said is Fred sweeps all the south. Hillary will win some of the southern states, if Rudy is the nominee. All the southern states dude, is like what Cali, NY, Il, is for the Democrats. The Republicans need to win all the south and almost sweep it. Bill Clinton won some of the south when he ran.

Rudy will not sweep the south dude. It is several reasons why he won't. FL is considered a swing state dude and the 3 states important are PA, Oh and Fl. That is if sweeps most of the south and Hillary takes all the blue states she is suppose to. I haven't looked at the polls lately but in Ky, Tn, Ar Hillary has a shot at taking these. I haven't looked at others and as far as OH and FL, we won't know untill the vote is counted on election night.

Rudy will not run as strong in the south as Fred or Huckabee would. Yes he will win the south but these are must red states and the Republicans must do something where Hillary doesn't win to many red staes because then Rudy must go in and win blue states.

Rudy may not run as strong in the south as fred or huckabee would, but they aren't going to be the candidate. IMO only Rudy and Romney have the experience to be the nominee. Only one person on the democrat side does (Richardson??).

It appears that he would win Florida (certainly can be competitive in NY) and the numbers in this post for Ohio shows that Ohioans are nearly the radical leftists that the dems are counting on.

Ohio registered voters split, mostly along party lines, over issues surrounding the war in Iraq, according to the latest Ohio Poll.

The poll included phone interviews with Ohio registered voters between Oct. 19 and Oct. 31. Some of the results:

* 46 percent said the war was going "very well" or "fairly well," and 53 percent said it was going "not too well" or "not at all well." Of those, 75 percent of Democrats expressed negative opinions on the war, compared to 30 percent of Republicans.
* 47 percent said the United States made the right decision in invading Iraq, 51 percent said it was the wrong decision and 1 percent had no opinion. Of the total, 77 percent of Republicans thought military action was the right decision, compared to 21 percent of Democrats.
* 50 percent thought troops should be brought home as soon as possible and 48 percent thought troops should stay until the situation is stabilized. Of those, 76 percent of Republicans thought the military should stay until conditions become more stable, versus 22 percent of Democrats.
* In response to a question about what might happen if troops withdraw, 54 percent said a full-scale civil war would be more likely; 54 percent said parts of Iraq would be more likely to become bases for terrorist operations; 54 percent said Iran would be more likely to take control of parts of Iraq; 23 said a withdrawal would likely make the country more stable; and 23 percent said a withdrawal would make stability in the Middle East more likely.

All in all it adds up to lay waste to your claim that "Clinton would cream Giuliani"...Or anyone else for that matter.

[wmbwinn]

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...8/170346.shtml

NRA Blasts John McCain
Wes Vernon
Saturday-Sunday, May 19-20, 2001
Editor's note: NewsMax.com correspondent Wes Vernon is in Kansas City this weekend with CEO and Editor Christopher Ruddy to cover the National Rifle Association's annual convention. This article will be updated throughout the weekend.
Sunday, 11:30 a.m. CDT

Interior Secretary Gale Norton says White House will fight crime with NRA's help - and predicts a second term for President Bush.



Saturday, 6:30 p.m. CDT

Rep. Bob Barr says Congress will defeat anti-gun bills.


Saturday, 6 p.m. CDT

Internationalist private groups funded by billionaires threaten your freedoms.


Saturday, 12:28 CDT

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Speaking to thousands of NRA members who packed the main convention center hall, CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre blasted Sen. John McCain.

The NRA chief harshly criticized McCain's efforts on behalf of the McCain-Feingold bill that would reform campaign financing.

LaPierre asked, "Is it possible that John McCain thinks you have too much freedom?"

LaPierre said McCain's new law would effectively shut the NRA out of the political system by not allowing independent groups from buying TV or radio ads 60 days before a general election.

Had this been true in the last election, LaPierre said, the outcome would have likely been different and Gore would have won.

Praising McCain's war heroism, and the fact for decades he was an ardent supporter of the NRA, LaPierre expressed exasperation. "But I gotta tell you, I don't know what's happening to John McCain."

He took the senator to task for appearing in public service commercials for a radical anti-gun group called Americans for Gun Safety.

McCain aroused even more anger from gun rights supporters earlier this week when he co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Joe Lieberman that would ban private gun sales at gun shows unless a background check was completed.

LaPierre wondered if McCain was becoming a point man for both an anti-First and Second amendment effort.

Clearly the campaign finance proposals have the NRA worried.

LaPierre said to cheers that if the law is enacted, the NRA might just put to sail a boat called the "Good Ship NRA" and broadcast its views from international waters.

He said the new law would benefit the politicians and major media conglomerates - and not independent voters or groups like the NRA.

LaPierre said: "Just think - eight weeks before a general election, the 4.3 million members of the NRA must shut up and step aside ... while Rather, and Couric and Gumbel and Rosie and Jennings and Hillary and Schumer hold court and won the airwaves without challenge."

____________________________________________
1)supported the campaign finance reform bill that changed nothing as more money than ever is now going into public campaigns and it has become a disadvantage to use public funds.... the campaign finance reform bill prevents the NRA from advertising ahead of an election but the independent advertisers have found new ways to issue independent advertising. See McCain's statement:

"Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice," McCain said. "I ask all of my donors and supporters, including Mr. Reed, to cease and desist immediately from supporting any independent expenditures that might be construed as benefiting my campaign indirectly. If you respect me or my principles, I urge you to refrain from using my name and image in any ads or other activities."

The group, established under tax laws as a 501(c)4 organization, can raise money in unlimited amounts from donors whose identities do not have to be disclosed. Such non-profits can run political ads as long as they do not expressly advocate the victory or defeat of a political candidate. They also must show that the ad campaign is part of a broader mission related to an issue, not a candidate.

Independent groups cannot coordinate their strategies with a political campaign — a restriction that McCain has said prevents him from asking Reed personally to stop the ads. "I can't do that because that's against the law," he said Sunday on Fox News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/...GYmcINDKLAbuRF

2)he co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Joe Lieberman that would ban private gun sales at gun shows unless a background check was completed.

This point is plain stupid. Anyone in America can pick up a Greensheet ad paper and buy guns from private citizens without a background check. The gun shows are the same basic idea.

[wmbwinn]

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/at-...007-09-21.html

McCain admits that he has been at odds with the NRA.

Now, he wants to be their buddies...

[wmbwinn]

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?id=203

More on the Feinstein-McCain campaign finance reform bill

[wmbwinn]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_448513.html

"In the first two years of George W. Bush's presidency, McCain became, in the words of one prominent Democrat, "the leader of the loyal opposition." McCain voted against both of Bush's major tax cuts."

McCain also co-sponsored with Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a measure to allow the importation of generic prescription drugs; co-sponsored with John Kerry, D-Mass., legislation to raise auto emissions standards; co-sponsored legislation with Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to close the "gun-show loophole" and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with the Kyoto accords.
McCain also showed signs of abandoning his social conservative views. He came out in favor of government-financed stem cell research. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he declared "certainly in the short term or even in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade." He said that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave the decision up to her. (He did retreat from both these comments after conservatives recoiled in horror, but his real thinking on the subject seemed perfectly clear.)

McCain's current efforts to deny that he has repositioned himself are simply comical. He defends his visit to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on the grounds that New York's New School -- where he also spoke -- "is a liberal institution."

McCain also insists he hasn't flip-flopped by voting to extend the 2003 tax cut, which he originally voted against. McCain's rationale is that he's against tax hikes. By his logic, a tax cut he attacked as unfair and unaffordable, once enacted, can never be repealed.

The big change in McCain is less direct flip-flopping than a complete reversal of emphasis. Where once he was discovering new liberal positions almost every week, now he's discovering new conservative ones.

McCain is clearly happy to be denounced by liberals like me. It reassures conservatives, who (correctly) distrust McCain's popularity with the liberal media and whom McCain needs to make him president. Well, I'm not going to give him the pleasure. Go ahead, senator, flip-flop away. I know you're with us at heart.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

[wmbwinn]

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/naked..._and_nra_.html

McCain and NRA endorse Crist
Attorney General Charlie Crist announced two endorsements on Tuesday: U.S. Sen. John McCain, the well-known and outspoken Arizona senator who is expected to be the leading GOP contender for the 2008 presidential race, and the National Rifle Association.

The twin endorsements are notable for two reasons: The McCain endorsement could help Crist win over independent voters after the Sept. 5 primary, while the NRA endorsement helps Crist once again rebuff criticisms that he is not conservative enough for the Republican faithful that will vote in the primary.

"No one has been stronger in support of Second Amendment, self-defense, and anti-crime issues than Charlie Crist and we sincerely appreciate your solid pro-sportsmen, pro-Second Amendment, pro-freedom record," wrote Marion Hammer, NRA past president and Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida in a letter to Crist informing him of the endorsement.

The McCain endorsement stings a bit since some key supporters of Crist rival Tom Gallagher, such as Rep. David Rivera, a Miami Republican, are staunch backers of McCain.

Yet give credit to Rivera for putting his own spin on the endorsement.

"A McCain endorsement will reinforce among conservative Republicans the impression that Charlie Crist is a moderate,'' said Rivera.

McCain was attacked in the bare-knuckles 2000 presidential primary in South Carolina by religious leader James Dobson for having had an adulterous relationship that ruined a previous marriage.

---------------------------------------------
1)McCain is repeatedly labled a moderate.
2)McCain's support is meant to help people view Crist as a moderate
3)McCain is opposed by James Dobson
4)the double endorsement is a way to give Crist the best of both worlds- the support of the NRA and the support of a leading moderate...

[wmbwinn]

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0105/mccain.html

US Senator John McCain could be coming to a movie theater near you this summer. McCain is slated to appear in public service announcements (PSAs) in theaters in 44 states, where he will tout his support for the use of trigger locks on personally-owned guns. NRA supports the voluntary use of locking devices depending on gun owners' personal circumstances.

These PSAs, to air in 210 cities, are being bankrolled to the tune of $250,000 by "Americans for Gun Safety" -- one of the newer groups in the gun control movement -- which, despite its stated support for the rights of gun owners, has cited licensing and registration as its long-term goal.

In an interview with CBS's Bryant Gumbel on May 9, McCain responded to Gumbel's question concerning his current views on registration and waiting periods by noting he does not currently support such schemes, but would be "open to any suggestions or ideas," and that, "It'd have to be proven to me that those are effective."

McCain, you'll recall, recorded TV commercials in support of anti-gun ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon last year, and is a co-sponsor [along with Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)] of a "compromise" gun show bill that we reported on in last week's FAX Alert.

The McCain/Lieberman bill is expected to be introduced soon in the U.S. Senate

[wmbwinn]

An August 17 Los Angeles Times piece highlights some confusing remarks by GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

After a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, McCain told reporters, "Look, my dear friends, don't think that gun control is the answer." So far, so good.

When pressed for whether, as President, he would sign a bill banning "assault weapons," McCain's response was a curt "No." Chalk another one up for the Senator.

Later that day, though, McCain commented that, as a Senator, he would be open to voting for an "assault weapon" ban depending on the specifics. "I will be willing to consider any reasonable proposal."

Of course, the question always is what one considers "reasonable."

=+=+=+=+
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.

This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/mccain1.html

[wmbwinn]

Poor MavDog. You poor deluded listener of soundbites given by a man trying to get elected to the top seat of the nation...

[wmbwinn]

How tough is John McCain?

The GOP contender stands up to Milosevic, but will he defy the NRA?



- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper


May 14, 1999 | WASHINGTON -- First, a confession: Sen. John McCain almost seduced me (professionally). I was thisclose to becoming one of those reporters who swoon whenever the Republican senator from Arizona flashes his winning smile and demonstrates his passion and boyish enthusiasm. Just another journalist infatuated with the prisoner of war turned politician.

And then he showed me that he was a mere mortal.

In Tuesday, in response to a question about what he would do if he were president in the aftermath of the Columbine High School shootings, McCain told me, "It's obvious that at a gun show people should be subject to background checks. I don't get it why in stores you get a background check, but you go three blocks down, there's no background checks."

There's a loophole in the existing gun control laws, I noted, because the gun lobby argued successfully to exempt gun shows.

"Well, it should be closed," McCain responded.

But a day later, on Wednesday, McCain voted to kill an amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg that would have closed that very loophole. The largely party-line vote was 51-47. Six Republicans voted for the measure. McCain was not among them. This after reports that the four guns used in the Columbine killings had been purchased at gun shows. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., complained, "It's like the NRA lives in here."

And then, a day after that, McCain changed his mind again, and signaled he'd support legislation to close the loophole; in fact, he might even draft it. Stay tuned, because the battle won't be over until the last vote is counted.

McCain's 48-hour flip-flop ain't no big thing for most politicians. But it must be said that McCain is supposed to be more than just a politician. John Sidney McCain III has been wooing congregants into the church of his courage and charisma from the moment he burst onto the American landscape as an unfathomably brave returning POW in 1973.

He first ran for Congress in 1982, and won a Senate seat just four years later, all the while garnering supporters and detractors with outspoken, often counterintuitive views on high-profile subjects. He's gone after government waste, fought to reform campaign finance laws, pursued big tobacco and lately, as his friend, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., says, he's been "the only one who was acting presidential in the middle of Kosovo."

Add it all up, throw in a presidential candidacy and you have grown men falling at his feet as if he were Gwyneth Paltrow in a sundress.

"He wants to clean up campaign financing, and restore honor to the heart of politics," the normally acerbic Michael Lewis gushed for the New York Times Magazine. "A Maverick Takes on the Senate and Looks to 2000," headlined the regularly just-the-facts-ma'am National Journal. "John McCain Walks on Water," intoned Esquire. (Really.) This from the so-called liberal media, despite the fact that, on all but a handful of issues, McCain is politically about as conservative as they come -- pro-life, pro-impeachment, pro-gun, pro-GOP.

It's difficult to write about McCain without dealing with the gushing from the fourth estate. Media is as important to John McCain as is he to us. He loves the limelight, for one, but more importantly, it's an important element of his battle plan as he tries to emerge as a serious contender for the GOP nomination. As he explains it to me, his easy access to media will help him make up for the bigger bankroll of the front-runner, Texas Gov. George W. Bush. And then, once it becomes a two-man race, his credibility, experience and straight talk will do the rest. Especially if Bush stumbles, as many Republicans think he can't help but do.

But beyond his need for media, or journalists' need to see him as a hero -- or, conversely, a sham to demythologize -- McCain is a compelling figure. In the end, he's a flawed, complex man -- as he'll be the first one to tell you -- and that makes him almost irresistible, at least to reporters.

"I'm a very imperfect person," McCain says in an interview with Salon News. "I don't live up to my own expectations in my life in many ways," he adds. "There's an impatience that sometimes is harmful to me in my relationships. Sometimes I move from one issue to another too quickly. Sometimes I'm not as considerate of my staff and my family as I should be. I could catalog many failings that I have as a human being. But I do try to recognize them and I try to improve. But I will not always be as good a person as some of the people I've had the opportunity to have met."

This combination of humility and candor has served him well with a press corps fed on a steady diet of braggadocio and evasion. "There's something about John McCain that comes through that's hard to measure," says one of his campaign co-chairmen, former New Hampshire Sen. Warren Rudman. "There's a quality to him that's interesting. It's an earnestness. A directness. An intensity. I can't really explain what it is, but people like him. And I think that will carry him to victory if nothing else."

But McCain's a Rorshach test; you see in him what you want to see. To his Republican opponents in the House and Senate, he's a hot-headed, grandstanding opportunist, while his Democratic foes see him as an ultra right-wing wolf hiding beneath the pelt of a charismatic sheep. To his first wife, he was a philanderer; to veterans he is the exemplar of the American fighting man.

"The media has had a difficult time conveying the essence of the whole man," says Jeff Barker, Washington correspondent for the Arizona Republic. "The Arizona media focuses on how scrappy he is, and the national media focuses on how he seems to be above the fray. But I think it's a combination of genuine courage and good political instincts -- and it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins."

But it's the members of his staff -- some of whom have worked for him for almost a generation -- who have it about right. They roll their eyes at his quirks, nudging each other knowingly, complaining about him like you might do about a parent. All the while they put in 14-hour days because at the bottom of it all they love not issues or a cause or an image, not any false concept of St. John McCain the Divine, but the man, just the man.

"I don't think he thinks of himself as a saint," says Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., his partner on campaign finance reform. "I don't think he likes that kind of label. He's just out there trying to do the right thing."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/14/mccain/

Got to love it when the Liberals love our man...

[wmbwinn]

So, is there anyone out there who believes Giuliani is strongly in favor of the second amendment???

Do you believe his lying lips like you do McCain's???
____________________________________
Giuliani`s "Federalism"


"Ronald Brownstein says that Giuliani is running as a federalist candidate. I`m not so sure, writes Ramesh Ponnuru. "He used to be for licensure of gun owners, but now says that he favors Judge Silberman`s ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual`s right to own guns. So does he think that states should have to respect that right? If he favors a state-by-state approach, that can reasonably be called federalist--but it would leave him in the odd position, for a Republican, of treating the Second Amendment as the only provision of the Bill of Rights that shouldn`t be enforced against the states."

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9813
____________________________________

Giuliani's "Federalism" [Ramesh Ponnuru]


Ronald Brownstein says that Giuliani is running as a federalist candidate. I'm not so sure.

He's no federalist on abortion. Giuliani eventually came out for a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. He used to be for Roe v. Wade, and now refuses to say if it should remain the law of the land. In neither case, then, is he calling for a state-by-state resolution of the issue.

He used to be for licensure of gun owners, but now says that he favors Judge Silberman's ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. So does he think that states should have to respect that right? If he favors a state-by-state approach, that can reasonably be called federalist—but it would leave him in the odd position, for a Republican, of treating the Second Amendment as the only provision of the Bill of Rights that shouldn't be enforced against the states.

Brownstein suggests that Giuliani is a federalist on health care as well because he would "encourage more state experimentation with expanding coverage." Since a lot of that experimentation would presumably involve federal money—that's the way it has worked up until now—people who care about authentic federalism shouldn't be cheering.


07/25 01:17 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...WIyZjU4YTI5ZmY

[wmbwinn]

Law And Order And Guns


"One person`s "reasonable and sensible" gun laws aren`t always another`s. So when Rudy Giuliani recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms subject to "reasonable and sensible" laws, it really doesn`t tell us much," writes John Lott. "Yet one thing is for sure though: Giuliani is hardly a "strict constructionist" on constitutional matters, at least when it comes to the Second Amendment. It is a long ways from "shall not be infringed" to "shall infringe whenever Congress has a `reasonable and sensible` justification.""

http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9126

------------------------------------------------

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...GZmMjhlYThkMGE

Law and Order and Guns
Rudy has some funny views on guns; he’d better beware if Thompson enters the race.

By John R. Lott Jr.

One person’s “reasonable and sensible” gun laws aren’t always another’s. So when Rudy Giuliani recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms subject to “reasonable and sensible” laws, it really doesn’t tell us much. Yet one thing is for sure though: Giuliani is hardly a “strict constructionist” on constitutional matters, at least when it comes to the Second Amendment. It is a long ways from “shall not be infringed” to “shall infringe whenever Congress has a ‘reasonable and sensible’ justification.”


For those who support the Second Amendment, the main problem is that Giuliani has rarely met a gun regulation he didn’t see as “reasonable and sensible.” In 2000, he pointed out how he was “a very strong supporter of gun-control legislation” and called for everything from federal gun-licensing and registration to banning guns based upon their price.

Only in the last couple of months has he finally gone on the record as opposing a gun law: he came out against re-imposing the assault-weapons ban. Yet he originally supported this law when it was first adopted, and he wanted it renewed as recently as 2004, when it expired.

His support for all these gun laws isn’t too surprising given his belief that “the single biggest connection between violent crime and an increase in violent crime is the presence of guns in your society . . . . the more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less guns you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

Giuliani is justifiably proud of New York City’s dramatic drops in violent crime during the 1990s, but his claim that “the single biggest” factor was taking guns off the street is weak, to say the least. There is no academic research by economists or criminologists that indicates that gun control mattered at all. But there are other more obvious explanations, including the massive increase in the number of full-time sworn police officers, which grew from 26,844 in 1990 to 55,408 by 2000. The growth in the per capita number of officers in New York City was roughly five times the rate in other large cities. The city also greatly improved its hiring standards and increased officer pay.

Giuliani’s rationalizing of New York City’s suit against the gun makers also tells something about his views. In justifying the lawsuit, Giuliani claimed that the gun makers were “deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes of hunting and law enforcement.” He refused to acknowledge any other legitimate uses for guns, including civilians using guns for self-defense. His statements frequently sounds as if they came directly from the Clinton administration during the 1990s.
Without accepting the possibility of self-defense, it is not surprising that he doesn’t see any risks to laws that mandate trigger locks or ban inexpensive guns. Locking up guns defeats their purpose for people using them for defense. A lot of gangs may like inexpensive guns, but so too do poor law-abiding people in high-crime urban neighborhoods.

The one saving grace for many social conservatives is Giuliani’s promise to appoint judges who are strict constructionists. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani noted, “I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor — so it’s something I take very, very seriously — I would appoint judges that interpreted the Constitution rather than invented it, understood the difference between being a judge and being a legislator.” But conservatives counting on this might be more than a little disappointed: At least 89 percent of Giuliani’s nominees were Democrats, with some pretty outlandish decisions that no one would classify as fitting in with “strict constructionism.”

The one thing that Giuliani probably does have going for him is that, on the gun issue, his opponents are either even worse (John McCain) or possibly no better (Mitt Romney, who supports renewing the so-called “assault-weapons ban” and who signed into law draconian gun legislation while governor of Massachusetts). That would all change dramatically if former Senator Fred Thompson were to enter the race. Thompson has been rock solid on people’s right to defend themselves.

Giuliani has many positive traits, but his past positions on guns isn’t one of them.

— John Lott is the Dean’s Visiting Professor at the State University of New York and the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.

[wmbwinn]

Rudy Bumpo


Rudolph Giuliani has a problem with guns. Seems that when he was cleaning up New York, Sheriff Giuliani took a hard line on hoglegs. As part of his campaign to make the streets safe, Giuliani`s administration sued 30 American arms manufacturers, and his police commissioner proposed a nationwide system of registration under which citizens would be required to demonstrate good moral character and a reason for owning a gun.

http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9194

---------------------------------------------------

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...zBkNDg0Y2ZlYTY

Rudy Bumpo
Should Giuliani go hunting? How about asking the hunters?

By Geoffrey Norman

Rudolph Giuliani has a problem with guns. Seems that when he was cleaning up New York, Sheriff Giuliani took a hard line on hoglegs. His constituents didn’t have a problem with this, or just about anything else Giuliani did to fight crime, since New York, in those days, resembled Deadwood on a slow night. As part of his campaign to make the streets safe, Giuliani’s administration sued 30 American arms manufacturers, and his police commissioner proposed a nationwide system of registration under which citizens would be required to demonstrate good moral character and a reason for owning a gun. (Interesting to imagine how the same government that can lose track of 600,000 people under deportation orders would handle that one.) Now that Giuliani is among the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination, the question is: Will his antigun record be a deal-breaker, especially with the kind of people who tend to vote in primaries.

There are, evidently, a lot of otherwise pro-gun people who hope not. They believe Giuliani could win, that he’d make a good president, and that it would be a shame if he were denied the nomination for the sin of coming down on the wrong side of the NRA. One novel idea for how Giuliani might overcome the antigun stigma came from the John Derbyshire, who is pro-gun and pro-Giuliani. Derbyshire, one of the more engaging, idiosyncratic writers around, suggested on “The Corner” that it might be a good idea for Giuliani to go on a hunting trip and come back making the right noises about the experience.

Recent presidents and presidential candidates have allowed themselves to be photographed in hunting garb. Bill Clinton posed in camouflage while holding a dead duck. John Kerry went him one better in a news photo that showed the candidate coming out of a cornfield wearing a camouflage parka and holding a dead goose.

On the Republican side, there was George W. Bush, campaigning to be governor of Texas, allowing himself to be filmed while taking part in a dove shoot. Unfortunately, the camera caught him shooting a killdeer, a protected bird, which he had mistaken for a dove. Bush paid a fine. There was also the quail-hunting episode involving Vice President Dick Cheney. The less said about that, the better.

Still, it must be good politics to be seen as a hunter. Otherwise, politicians wouldn’t do it. They’d keep their gun collections as secret as their mistresses. (Sorry…that may not be the best analogy in the case of Giuliani.) So let’s consider this idea of sending presidential candidates (not just Giuliani) on a hunting trip somewhere to buff up their pro-gun credentials.

For years now, some friends and I have paddled into the Adirondacks in early October to hunt deer during the muzzleloader season. Everyone in our group hunts with flintlocks — no caps — so we are purists. The rifles we use would have been antiques by the time of the American Civil War but they shoot as straight now as they did when Revolutionaries used them to unhorse arrogant, red-coated British officers at places like Saratoga and made America possible. When you are teaching a kid about guns, the place to start is with a BB-gun. With an adult like Giuliani, loading and firing a flintlock is probably the way to be introduced to the mysteries of firearms and to learn why so many people feel what they do for guns.

So let’s run down the list of announced candidates. Would we want any of them, including Giuliani, to come into the woods with us for a week in the hope that they might learn something about guns and people who care about them?

Hillary Clinton? You gotta be kidding. Likewise John Edwards. He may be from a rural state and humble beginnings, but he is a trial lawyer through and through. Obama? Nah. Sensitive city kid. Of the other Democrats, only Bill Richardson is a possible. Seems like he doesn’t take himself too seriously.

Of the Republicans, I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney would be blackballed from our group for the simple reason that he waited until last year to join the NRA and then signed up for a lifetime membership. We might be for sale, but we don’t get bought that cheap.

McCain? By all means. Even if he didn’t like the guns or the hunting, he would make a superb companion, and you know he could tell some stories around the fire. And, then, there is Rudolph Giuliani, who now tells interviewers that he appreciates the hunting tradition, honors the Second Amendment, and appreciates why rural people feel the way they do about guns.

Tough call.

On the one hand, you know that in many ways, even though he is a city boy and will never be Rudy Bumpo, he is “one of us.” That he doesn’t feel the kind of sneering, condescending contempt for us that the people whose city he rescued — and who despised him for it — feel. We are not unworthy, uncivilized primitives in his eyes. And, of course, we admire his toughness and guts and the way he handled himself when he was mayor. Especially in the time after the towers came down.

Still … the man is a prosecutor. A remorseless prosecutor like the Jack McCoy character on Law and Order who, once he has someone in his sights, will find a law he broke or figure out a way to convince a jury of it, anyway he can. That, or scare him into making a deal. There is something intimidating and chilling to ordinary citizens about this kind of prosecutor. You get Patrick Fitzgeralds throwing journalists in jail and relentlessly pursuing the conviction of someone for lying to investigators about something that was not a crime. Prosecutors like that routinely stretch existing laws about guns into all sorts of grotesque shapes.

These guys play by Kafka’s rules. They aren’t the kind of people you feel comfortable with, standing around a campfire, passing a bottle of bourbon, and telling lies. Giuliani would probably be as relieved to get out of the woods and away from us as we would be to see him go.

Would any of us vote for him?

Hard to say. If he changed his views on gun control once, what is to keep him from changing them again? Either the law is clear or it isn’t. When something is a “right,” it should not be contingent on one man’s shifting political ambitions and jurisdictions. That kind of “right” isn’t much of one at all, and people who believe in the right to bear arms think of it as a whole lot more substantial and fundamental than that.

Rudy Bumpo could kill a buck, eat its liver, and have his face painted with the animal’s blood, and there would probably still be a lot of people who wouldn’t buy it.

[wmbwinn]

What about Romney???

The NRA is sarcastic of his 2006 joining of the NRA as a lifetime member. They jeer at his earlier blunder when he talked about hunting and then later admitted that he had only hunted twice.

But, if you go to the NRA-ILA website and type in Romney into the search window, you only find articles that are generally very supportive of Romney.

Do the same thing with the name McCain or Giuliani and you will find a lot of negative press...

here is the Romney link:

http://www.nraila.org/Search/?keyword=romney

So, like I said, other than his late joining and his limited use of a gun, the NRA seems to mostly like Romney.

Do the same for Fred Thompson, and you will find all love from the NRA. Too bad Thompson is so boring and old and slow and uninspiring and is crashing lower in each poll each week...

http://www.nraila.org/Search/?keyword=Fred%20Thompson

Huckabee gets love from the NRA as well.

http://www.nraila.org/Search/?keyword=Huckabee

[wmbwinn]

"For the seven days ending November 18, 2007 show that Rudy Giuliani earns 27% of the vote while Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney each attract 13%. Mike Huckabee is at 12% and John McCain at 11%. Ron Paul's support for the week is at 5%, Tom Tancredo at 1% and Duncan Hunter at less than 1%. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided (review history of weekly "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20...s2pSmwbibu RF

Now, isn't it interesting that among the conservatives wearing Republican nametags, that Romney and Thompson and Huckabee are surging while McCain is falling? The only reason Giuliani has a chance is because the conservatives are divided between Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee.

Add Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee together and they have 38% of the vote...

Giuliani just has to hope that the conservatives stay divided. McCain has no chance.

[Mavdog]

well, we certainly know who is a mouthpiece for the nra....the very nra that doesn't like mccain not due to his positions on gun control mind you but rather due to the mccain-feingold act, an act that seriously curtails the influence peddling of groups such as the nra.

is opposing the influence of lobbyist and their ability to ply legislators with buckets of cash a conservative or a liberal issue?

I'd say both.

odd, but so far your basis for saying that john mccain isn't a conservative rests with a) support for bush's immigration proposal, b) the fact that he has co-sponsored legislation with dems (gast! how could a true conservative ever be bi-partisan! the horror!) and c) the nra opposes him.

so the positions against abortion rights, for school vouchers, for a balanced budget amendment, for a line item veto, against recognition of same sex marriages, for allowing prayer in schools, for private social security accounts, for tax reform and against legalizing drugs means nothing at all...yeah, that fine logic.

gee, if someone supports 90% of the issues a conservative supports, the label "conservative" fits like a glove.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, by golly it's a duck....

[wmbwinn]

Go back and read post number 47 for a long list of issues about McCain that show his flip flopping flimsy anti-conservative views that have nothing to do with guns.

-McCain voted against both of Bush's major tax cuts
-co-sponsored with Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a measure to allow the importation of generic prescription drugs (popular idea that would cut into the profitability of the pharmacy companies and decrease their liklihood of producing new drugs and doing more research).
-co-sponsored with John Kerry, D-Mass., legislation to raise auto emissions standards (further suffering in Detroit and throughout our economy, the answer lays in fuel alternatives which are being feverishly worked on by Detroit as far as alternative fuel cars; kill Detroit and you hurt the process).
-reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with the Kyoto accords (turn over the power of our legislature to the power of the UN/NATO governing powers; economically punish the groups most able and likely to give the world the changes that are needed to produce, explore, and utilize alternative energy.
-McCain also showed signs of abandoning his social conservative views. He came out in favor of government-financed stem cell research
-During the 2000 presidential campaign, he declared "certainly in the short term or even in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade." He said that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave the decision up to her. (He did retreat from both these comments after conservatives recoiled in horror, but his real thinking on the subject seemed perfectly clear.) McCain's current efforts to deny that he has repositioned himself are simply comical. He defends his visit to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on the grounds that New York's New School -- where he also spoke -- "is a liberal institution."

The concerns of the NRA are just a drop in the ocean...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, we certainly know who is a mouthpiece for the nra....the very nra that doesn't like mccain not due to his positions on gun control mind you but rather due to the mccain-feingold act, an act that seriously curtails the influence peddling of groups such as the nra.

is opposing the influence of lobbyist and their ability to ply legislators with buckets of cash a conservative or a liberal issue?

I'd say both.

odd, but so far your basis for saying that john mccain isn't a conservative rests with a) support for bush's immigration proposal, b) the fact that he has co-sponsored legislation with dems (gast! how could a true conservative ever be bi-partisan! the horror!) and c) the nra opposes him.

so the positions against abortion rights, for school vouchers, for a balanced budget amendment, for a line item veto, against recognition of same sex marriages, for allowing prayer in schools, for private social security accounts, for tax reform and against legalizing drugs means nothing at all...yeah, that fine logic.

gee, if someone supports 90% of the issues a conservative supports, the label "conservative" fits like a glove.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, by golly it's a duck....

Isn't funny how McCain-Feingold didn't change a darn thing about the influence of special interest groups in elections????

The amount of money being raised now makes all previous elections look like an amateur league debate team pursuit.

McCain didn't change anything. It is funny how the over reaching exalted goals of liberals usually just muddies the waters without chaning anything.

[wmbwinn]

McCain's only hope was to run as the anti-Bush. He and Giuliani had a chance as the moderate option. Giuliani won out over McCain. McCain then tried to reinvent himself as a conservative.

[dude1394]

Wonder is clinton will get socked with the AMT backlash after congress twiddles their thumbs on giving their constituents a tax break.

WASHINGTON – Nineteen million middle-class American households will get socked with very costly bills April 15 unless Congress acts soon.

But presidential contenders in both parties would rather not talk about this tax time bomb called the alternative minimum tax – a parallel income tax system meant to ensure that rich people pay at least a little something to Uncle Sam.

The rules never took inflation into account. So although the AMT hit 4 million taxpayers this year, it will hit 23 million next spring, including thousands of Texans, particularly in Collin and Denton counties. Families with kids, six-figure incomes and relatively high property taxes are most at risk, though the formulas are so quirky it's hard to generalize.

That's a lot of potentially angry voters.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Go back and read post number 47 for a long list of issues about McCain that show his flip flopping flimsy anti-conservative views that have nothing to do with guns.

-McCain voted against both of Bush's major tax cuts

yes, mccain wanted greater tax REDUCTIONS for the middle income brackets. so, mccain was not against a tax cut, he wanted MORE relief.

pretty darn conservative to me.

-co-sponsored with Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a measure to allow the importation of generic prescription drugs (popular idea that would cut into the profitability of the pharmacy companies and decrease their liklihood of producing new drugs and doing more research).

this is not conservative? he wanted less regulation and a freer marketplace for americans to access their meds.

-co-sponsored with John Kerry, D-Mass., legislation to raise auto emissions standards (further suffering in Detroit and throughout our economy, the answer lays in fuel alternatives which are being feverishly worked on by Detroit as far as alternative fuel cars; kill Detroit and you hurt the process).

not sure if this is a lack of conservative ideals, and here is what mccain said:
McCain acknowledged he didn’t think his proposal would be very popular. “I know, I said it’s a tough issue. CAFE standards have to be improved. There’s too much pollution in the environment, there’s too much dependency on foreign oil and we’re going to have to take a number of steps,” McCain told the [detroit] crowd.

so, is reducing our oil dependancy and the lowering of auto emmissions not a conservative ideal? sure seems like it could be to me.

-reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with the Kyoto accords (turn over the power of our legislature to the power of the UN/NATO governing powers; economically punish the groups most able and likely to give the world the changes that are needed to produce, explore, and utilize alternative energy.

you are wrong. the mccain climate stewardship act did NOT have the same requirements as kyoto, the requirements were less than kyoto. second the act was a domestic bill that has NOTHING to do with "UN/NATO governing powers".

I wasn't aware that being pro-environment was anti-conservative....apparently you believe that being for the environment disqualifies a person from being a true conservative.

-McCain also showed signs of abandoning his social conservative views. He came out in favor of government-financed stem cell research

mccain's position on stem cell research is not different from huckabee. you say that huckabee is a conservative.

-During the 2000 presidential campaign, he declared "certainly in the short term or even in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade." He said that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave the decision up to her. (He did retreat from both these comments after conservatives recoiled in horror, but his real thinking on the subject seemed perfectly clear.) McCain's current efforts to deny that he has repositioned himself are simply comical. He defends his visit to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on the grounds that New York's New School -- where he also spoke -- "is a liberal institution."

hmm, seems to be very similar to what has transpired with romney. both were not vocal in attacking roe/wade in the past, but now have a much more aggressive position. yet you say that romney is a conservative..

The concerns of the NRA are just a drop in the ocean...

yet the you have 14 different posts from the nra on how mccain is not a true conservative....

[dude1394]

My two cents. McCain is definitely a conservative, so is dubya. But they aren't hard-core conservatives imo.

Hard core conservatives are much like hard-core leftists, they are so hardover on everything that it forces black/white debates.

It's okay to vote that way imo, but it's also okay to NOT vote that way. Just because liberals want unlimited abortion rights and conservatives want unlimited gun rights that doesn't define the two ideologys, just their radical sides.

McCain suffers imo from too much senatoritis, same as clinton, edwards, obama, others. Only Rudy/Mitt/Richardson seem to have credentials imo.

Clinton has some because she was in the white house, but she's never done anything to speak of, certainly never ran any organization. She's very limited in experience.

[dude1394]

I don't know Janet...since folks are starting to pay attention I don't quite see the slam dunk for clinton that you do.

Zachary Zhengyi Lim, a freshman at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, is a self-described political moderate. A 17-year-old who will turn 18 in time to vote in the Granite State’s presidential primary, Lim said he registered Republican on a whim.

For now, Lim plans to vote for Rudy Giuliani in the presidential primary, swayed in part by the GOP contender’s record and leadership during his tenure as New York City mayor, and his moderate views on social issues. (Lim supports abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples.)

“I like his pragmatic approach,” said the New Jersey native, who was in middle school when Giuliani led New York City during and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “Looking at what he did for New York, it seems like his economic approach works practically.”

Should Giuliani lose the GOP nomination, however, Lim says it’s unlikely he’ll vote for another Republican.

This perception of Giuliani as both a hard-nosed pragmatist and a social moderate may explain recent polls that show him running ahead of the Republican presidential candidates among young voters such as Lim.

[Janett_Reno]

I do see a slam dunk for Clinton dude. We just have to wait and see and more Republicans i have talked to and even read in several forums are saying wait just a darn minute, Rudy is not the nominee and we feel very strongly Romney will be.

Obama has made some head way against Hillary but i don't feel he will beat her and i do still feel Rudy will win the nominee, Rudy needs to worry about Romney before Hillary. wm is not a minority on questions he has asked about Rudy as i am seeing many Republicans are asking those same questions and are not giving up pushing Romney and Huckabee. Romney is gaining on Rudy as Fred is dropping like a rock.

In the end i am going with Hillary in a slam dunk and i am picking the Mavs in 6 over the Celts also dude.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

I do see a slam dunk for Clinton dude. We just have to wait and see and more Republicans i have talked to and even read in several forums are saying wait just a darn minute, Rudy is not the nominee and we feel very strongly Romney will be.

Obama has made some head way against Hillary but i don't feel he will beat her and i do still feel Rudy will win the nominee, Rudy needs to worry about Romney before Hillary. wm is not a minority on questions he has asked about Rudy as i am seeing many Republicans are asking those same questions and are not giving up pushing Romney and Huckabee. Romney is gaining on Rudy as Fred is dropping like a rock.

In the end i am going with Hillary in a slam dunk and i am picking the Mavs in 6 over the Celts also dude.

Don't start mixing the good guys (mavs) with the bad guys(clinton). it's bad karma to have them in the same paragraph.

[Janett_Reno]

Talking about mixing, let's give some props to the cowboy who is saying nice hings about Hillary.

Bush Says "Clinton Understands Pressure Better Than Any Of The Candidates"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote200...3892297&page=1

President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's experience as first lady has prepared her to handle the "pressure" of a presidential race and the White House, and the president said he believes Clinton will win the Democratic nomination but lose the presidency next year.

"I think she's a very formidable candidate, and one of the interesting things that she brings is that she has been under pressure. She understands the klieg lights," the president said, in a phrase he repeated twice in the interview.

"No question, there is no question that Senator Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first --could see it first-hand," the president told ABC News' Charlie Gibson Tuesday afternoon at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

Numerous Bush associates -- including, most prominently, Karl Rove -- have said they expect Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.

That prospect is greeted with mixed emotions among many Republicans, who relish the opportunity to run against a polarizing figure such as Sen. Clinton but also bear the scars of battles lost against the Clinton machine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Janett_Reno]

Poll: Hillary Could Potentially Win Kentucky — But Obama Not Running Well

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/1...nning_well.php

A new SurveyUSA poll of Kentucky shows Hillary Clinton beating the Republicans in all four match-ups, with two results within the margin of error and two well beyond it. On the other hand, Barack Obama doesn't do nearly as well, losing three matched and holding only a statistically insignificant lead in the other:

Clinton (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Clinton (D) 54%, Romney (R) 39%
Clinton (D) 55%, Huckabee (R) 36%
Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 47%
Giuliani (R) 52%, Obama (D) 38%
Romney (R) 44%, Obama (D) 43%
Obama (D) 44%, Huckabee (R) 42%
McCain (R) 56%, Obama (D) 34%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why i bring up states like Ky is for this reason. Ky, TN, is the south as well as the Carolinas, AR and WV, Va and others. These are states that the gop nominee needs to almost sweep. They should not be close. This is to close dude. I understand Rudy is winning FL now and yes that is very important but for him to win 2 of the 3 big swing states to win, he must run good and almost sweep the south. Those 3 swing states are OH, FL and PA. I feel FL and OH we won't know untill about midnight of the election.

These states i am going to mention is going to be close and they shouldn't be with the gop needing to win. TN, KY, WV, VA, NC, SC, MS, AR and even MO is important. Hillary is going to make a race of those states and what if she wins a few? It is along ways off and anything can happen but like you asked me, is Hillary the best the Democrats have? So the way you put it, even Hillary winning some of the red Rupublican states would be very bad for the gop. This is where Huckabee Romney and Fred does better in the south. Why the Republicans do not want a Republican nominee, is i will tell you why.

In polls, it shows Hillary beats anyone conservative, that means REPUBLICAN. The polls show, against a Democrat or whatever Rudy want's to call himself weekly, he has a chance at her. This is why Pat Robertson sold out but many like Ron Paul won't sell out. If Libberman could beat Hillary, the gop would run Libberman. They do not care for values, morals. Who can keep, what we want going is what the gop wants? This is what they stand for. You can sure see they do not care about faith. Pat Robertson supporting Rudy, haha.

This is why they want Rudy, not his beliefs and they don't care what he believes in, doesn't matter. They see the polls and say Rudy runs better against Hillary. In the end dude, watch the southern states and if Rudy would have won most all of them he could have been elected. This is where he will meet his downfall. This would be a bitter pill to swallow, to say a Democrat won because she won our southern red states, or some and then to add to this, a woman and her last name Clinton. On the flip side dude, Democrats had a bitter pill to swallow also with Al Gore getting beat in his own state of TN. Those things happen and yes TN is Republican and NY is Democrat and Rudy will get beat bad in NY but that is no big deal.

Hillary is comming and i am counting down the days and hours and i'll be very proud. Keep on keeping on Hillary. You have a vote here.

[dude1394]

Clinton (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 44%

wow...what a landslide.

[Janett_Reno]

If Hillary wins states by 1 point dude like Tx, TN, KY, MS, and southern states, yes it is a landslise. Those states, Hillary "is suppose" to have zero chance. None. Those are big time Republican red states. If Rudy can't win big time red Republican states and all of them, then he has problems. One other person came down south and won some red states and his name was Bill Clinton. He won both times he ran also.

[Janett_Reno]

Some new CNN polling shows that while Mike Huckabee is surging around the country with Republican voters, he still lags far behind the top three Democrats in national polling, more so than the other Republicans. The numbers also show that John McCain is the most electable Republican, and that John Edwards is the strongest Democrat:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/

Clinton (D) 51%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Clinton (D) 54%, Romney (R) 43%
McCain (R) 50%, Clinton (D) 48%
Clinton (D) 54%, Huckabee (R) 44%
Obama (D) 52%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Obama (D) 54%, Romney (R) 41%
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 48%
Obama (D) 55%, Huckabee (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 53%, Giuliani (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 59%, Romney (R) 37%
Edwards (D) 52%, McCain (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 60%, Huckabee (R) 35%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing i want to comment on is to compliment alot of Republicans who are not listening to people like dude, where he preaches what Fox News preaches. Rudy is the only one that has a chance to beat Hillary, so overlook what a Republican is and vote for Rudy. What they don't tell you, is McCain possibly beats any Democrat but they don't like him and again they do not want a conservative Republican that stands more on faith and values and morals in a guy like Huckabee because they are poll watchers and are afraid he can't beat Hillary. You never know, look what Huckabee has done so far. When i say they, i am speaking of a neocon like dude or radicals like Fox News that are sent out to ram one thing down your throat and preach it over and over again and it is no way but there way, the bully way.

This is why i am proud of the American public listening to all the Democrats and Republicans and not just listening to Rove, Oil billionaires, Fox News or others but making there own mind up. Remember also Paul and Huckabee was pretty much nobody's and not much money or not many knew them, so it says alot how far they have come and how far they could move up.

------------------------------------------------------
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/1...can_troops.php

This also caught my eye because McConnell seems to go out and use the one liners like dude and it must be a website for these one liners to be used each day of the month and then some of the neocons go around preaching them. What has happened, during the one liners they stick there foot in there mouth sometimes and hurts the one liners as much as it helps them...

Mitch......

“Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers."

Now this is ms Janett again, guess who this sounds like? Did Mitch get this one liner from dude, or where is the multiple choice test they study daily to go out and spill these one liners?

But bascially what he said is what dude preaches, and trying to make a Democrat look like he or she wants to lose at all they do, they are homo's, not christians, doesn't like to fish or hunt, live off welfare, want to raise your taxes, loves illegal imigrants, and only the chosen ones and the gate keepers knows what is best and picks who goes to the pearly gates but again it is all a bunch of nonsense in which the American people see who has morals, values, faith and who hides in the closet or bathroom stalls on their sexual fetishes and likings. I am surprised they do not come out with one liners saying the Democrats are raising gas and oil prices and your home heating bills.

But Mitch is catching some headaches over his one liner as the comment seemed to suggest that the deaths of professional soldiers isn't a huge deal because, well, they signed up for this.

Mitch was never suppose to be challenged again in his politcal life and was an icon in Ky. Not long ago, the people in Ky are starting to really speak up and not afraid to speak and i am talking about Republicans also. Each month Mitch uses a one liner, the polls go a little worse on him. He is another that takes orders from Ramsfield, Rove and Cheney and is told what to say. It will be hard for a Democrat to jump in this late and beat him but he is now just under 50% and everyday he pops off like this, he comes down more, so who knows if the icon could be challenged or even possibly get beat.

Many have been upset in Ky about the war and have asked him quesions and he runs off and won't answer. Then he goes and preaches the one liners for Fletcher and Fletcher gets beat bad in Ky. If Rove and Cheney are smart, they would give him one liners to say about farming, our borders, taxes, the evils of smoking or drinking or practice safe sex but stay away from talking about the war because this is what so much of the public is upset with him about in the first place. Rove use to be smarter than this and this sounds more like Fox News, Ramsfield, Cheney or the same website dude uses but not Rove. See what Romney, Huckabee, Paul and even Rudy and Fred have to deal with weekly. Not just this election but trying to defend these one liners from the neocons.

[Underdog]

Clinton would cream on Giuliani?

Eww...

[Janett_Reno]

More polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

cnn

Hillary 51 Rudy 45
Hillary 54 Mitt 43
McCain 50 Hillary 48
Hillary 54 Huckabee 44

Now a breakdown of the cnn poll, Hillary beats all except a man named John McCain and remember dude does not like McCain, but he switch hit's like Chipper Jones, so next week he might be on the McCain bandwagon. Huckabee is gaining strength weekly as Rudy is starting to fade a little. Obama beats everyone except he ties McCain and John Edwards beats all Republicans. Obama and Edwards are doing good in Iowa and NH and maybe even ahead of Hillary but nation wide, she holds a good lead. Huckabee is really doing good in Iowa.

cbs poll

Democrat 48 Republican 31


Here is more

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo.../national.html

[Janett_Reno]

I had someone to bring something to my attention explaining Pat Robertson and maybe we can understand dude better and maybe i can with Pat's thinking and maybe it is also dudes thnking.

He feels the world is comming to an end and before the end of his lifetime. So the way he feels, maybe not many years left on earth, so why worry about clean air, global warming, taxes, a job, roads, hospitals, the sick and poor, so maybe why not vote for the one you feel will keep the wars burning and going but keep them all going somewhere else and not in the usa. Plus the one that can handle war best and make war decisions best. I honestly feel Rudy isn't the best war president but maybe McCain. I feel Hillary won't rush and will listen and Wesley Clark is a good man also to listen to but again i do not base all my votting power on war.

To me, this is very radical and a closed one track mind. Maybe the way a neocon thinks. Remember the more gas and oil you have, the more and easier you can fuel the war machine. So maybe they value war and things that pertain to war and keeping all wars and fueling them in the middle east or other places most important and the only importance.

I can't put my mind in a small box and never think out of the box. I feel social security is important, healthcare, the usa infrastructure, our people, i am talking about Americans, clean air, help curb global warming, and i do think defending our great country is very important but not going around the world and bullying people by saying if you don't do it our way, we will attack or overthrow you, unless it is a threat to our country.

Maybe this is why the neocons love to spend money because if the world is comming to an end, who cares, spend it like never before. Sink the dollar because who want's any dollars anyway. I have more faith in my country and the American people and even our newly elected officials than all the neocons. So i am not going to think like a Pat Robertson, if this is how he thinks. No one knows the end of time and neither does Pat Robertson. Everyone in here can go read the bible and make a prediction when it will be but i doubt any of you would predict the same day or time.

Maybe that is why the old saying, don't mix religion with politics has been a saying from way back and holds some truth.

[purplefrog]

I have a difficult time believing that John Edwards can beat anybody.... with the possible exception of that Gravel guy from Alaska.

[Janett_Reno]

Maybe Edwards appeals to Republicans like McCain does to Democrats but i am not sure.

[dude1394]

Janet you know what's funny. What I believe in is freedom, freedom for people to do good as well as learn their own bad lessons. I'd like for the guvment to try and stay out of my life as well as have people prosper in our country. I'd like to see our citizens take as much responsibility for their lives and prosperity in the hope that it will create a stronger, more self-reliant society, not a weaker, more grasping, dependent one.

Unlike you who want to see the guvment control so many things. You would like for the guvment to reduce our standard of living and make poor people poorer so that you can feel good about global warming, regardless whether it is occurring for the reasons you think or not. Some who even believe that global warming is happening, believe in a forward looking possibility where we can find ways to avert it without harming millions in the world by lessening their economic growth. You don't believe in letting facts about global warming deter you because in the end you want more guvment control anyway, this is just another way to promote that agenda.

You still believe that socialism is the way to get prosperity no matter that it's failed almost everywhere it has been tried. You are more willing to have mediocrity and have everyone be poorer than allow some to be richer and have everyone prosper more.

Somehow you think that business just runs itself, that you can just tax it as much as you want and that business will just continue to provide jobs for folks. You don't understand that someone must make a profit and the more profit that the guvment takes, the less business and jobs they will do.

In so many,many ways, your philosophy is to turn over your freedoms to the guvment in the hopes that they will take care of you and your family, instead of you taking responsibility for taking care of the same.

You are actually placing yourself in a prison of guvment dependency.

Who is John Galt?

[Janett_Reno]

I believe in freedom also and this adm has took many peoples freedom away. They are taking freedoms away but also letting illegals in. This doesn't add up to me. Maybe our freedoms wouldn't be taken away as much, if they would stop letting illegals pour across. We say one thing and do another. We say watch out for the boogiemen but keep our borders open. I find this odd.

Again i feel you are putting one party in a box and saying Democrats keep the people poor. I do not believe in a one party system and i think all parties can do some good. As far as global warming, it is not just power plants, oil and gas but it is a combination of many things and yes the above is a big part of it but cutting all the trees down in the Amazon is not good or stripping all forrest in Africa isn't good. The whole world must try to do better.

I believe in everyone pay their fair share of taxes and not loopholes for some, while big oil tycoons and oil companies haven't made this much money in decades as they now make in one month. I feel it is good to help the weak, sick and poor but also i do not believe in anyone taking advantage of the help. I do not feel it is right for big business like an Enron or it has been many companies in the last several years, to work you 20 or 30 years of your life and tell you, well we are moving to China and you are out of luck. That person 50 and 60 years old, now has no future. I do not believe in companies stripping the share holders, cashing out and then going belly up letting the employees go down, while they cash out and go up. It is many companies hanging on by a thread now and telling employees, no more pay raises and stripping most of your health insurance.

I believe in our country and our people and keeping jobs in the USA and not shipping them to Mexico, China, and who knows where. What do we have when China buys out or Ford and maybe GM move to China. Let's invest in the USA and in our people not in Saudi oil.

I am not for for turning our freedoms over to this adm and this guv as look what they have done. Stripped it. Make up new laws, strip old ones or do away with them and do as they want. Hire or put people in politcal places, where they can get the job done on what they are trying to achieve. This has happened all thru the last 7 years, scratch my back and i'll scratch yours. Alan Greenspan has told us this while trying to hide behind, faith, morals and values. Pat Robertson needs to speak up and want some faith, morals and values back in our politcal parties, instead of scratching some on the back to get his scratched back.

I believe all of us should try to do good and take care of ourself but we all need to play and have the chance to do good. I have faith in our people that elect officials and i feel soon we will be back on the right track.

Guess what Hillary was when she started out in life? A Republican. Guess what Rudy was? A Democrat. Not one party is perfect and we need them all to try to keep balance. When things get out of balance, you get what we have had the last 7 years.

I do not believe we as a people should take advantage of the system or guv but also i don't think the guv needs to take advantage of the guv or the people either. We all need to try to do right.

[dude1394]

What freedoms are being taken away Janett? If you would honestly, honestly think about that for a while you would come to a deeper understanding of your politics. Its' based on paranoia that is spouted by many in the left. IF by chance there is a freedom that has been "taken" away, that "freedom" has been taken away by a legal vote in congress, not this "regime".

This admin isn't letting illegals in any more than others. So what's your point? There is little distinction except that one party has a perceived benefit from illegals (guess which one) while the other does not. That party is willing to allow those illegals in to get their votes all the while allowing the folks they supposedly represent (little man, poor, unions) to suffer. Who is the hypocrite here?

Yes oil companies are making a lot of money. SO WHAT!! Why shouldn't they?? They don't set the price, the market does. In the end, this too will be good for us. This increase dollar amount will spur a boom in technological experimentation and invention that the guvment couldn't begin to dream of. No one is cheating anyone here janet, exon is just selling their oil to willing buyers, you, me all. If you don't want to buy gas, ride a bike, take the bus, crap, since when are you entitled to have something. It's YOUR CHOICE.

Jobs that are going to mexico are going there because it is cheaper there, what IS the problem? Do you really think that you should pay more for a good, why would you want to do that? Our productivity continues to go up as we move up to more and more sophisticated goods and services. That is just scare-mongering of the worst kind, and not backed up by facts, just politicians getting you worked up. Sure there is displacement, there was displacement when the horse-and-buggy world came to an end. There will be displacement when you or I are replaced by something else. Deal with it. You should be much,much more concerned about the technological jobs that are moving offshore, those represent some real expertise, not stuff in mexico.

You really should think a little deeper about what you spout, because in all honesty it's quite naive in many cases.

"Invest in the USA and not in Saudi Oil". What in the world does that even mean? We get most of our oil from canada and venzuela I believe. Or are you saying we should drill in Anwar (you know invest in the USA not Saudi Oil). It makes a good bumper sticker, but it's pretty useless as a policy.

There are a couple of books by Thomas Sowell on economics. One is called Basic Economics, the other is called Applied Economics, Thinking Beyond Stage One.

Some of the best advice I could give you is to pick up these guys and read 'em. Trust me they are not Wealth of Nations or anything. They are economics described in easily understood ways. You'll be glad you did. They will serve you well for the rest of your life.