Rudy Giuliani, 2008?

[preemptingyou03]

Does anybody see a Giuliani/Woolsey ticket in 2008?

 

[Reilly]

One can only dream...

 

[5stringJeff]

Not familiar with Woolsey. I'd take Condi, Giulani, Gov. Bill Owens of CO, Newt Gingrich, and/or Don Rumsfield, in any combination.

 

[preemptingyou03]

I'd take Rumsfeld but he's getting old. Plus, he'd never get in. Too many people hate the guy. (That's why I love him). Rumsfeld would have nuked the f*ckin' planet if he were president after 9/11, lol.

Seriously though, I think a Giuliani/Woolsey ticket could beat a Clinton/Edwards ticket.

 

[Avatar4321]

Edwards isnt going to to be a factor in 08. He couldnt even beat Kerry in the South and couldnt get reelected in his own state. He is a political hack.

 

[OCA]

Who is Woolsley?

I swear upon my grandfather's grave that if in '08 this country shits the bed again and elects Clinton i'm gone, i'm moving back to Greece. I don't have another 4 years of extreme socialism in me, my pocketbook can't take the taxes and my heart can't handle the anguish.

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by OCA
Who is Woolsley?

I swear upon my grandfather's grave that if in '08 this country shits the bed again and elects Clinton i'm gone, i'm moving back to Greece. I don't have another 4 years of extreme socialism in me, my pocketbook can't take the taxes and my heart can't handle the anguish.

Hilary really doesn't want to loose you - she will reconsider the whole president thing.

Meanwhile - Guliani would have the vote without spending one dollar in advertising....he would wipe his competition clear off the slate and into the world of 'whatever happened to?' - in this case I would hope it would be the Clintons...

 

[preemptingyou03]

I think Edwards has a bright political future, ebcause he's young. Even though I disagree with him, you must admit, he's not a radical lefty like Dean.

Woolsey was the former director of the CIA.

 

[acludem]

I hope you don't want Gingrich. He can't possibly appeal to conservatives after trading in two wives for younger models. He lied to a committee of Congress while Speaker of the House. You really want him on your ticket?

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
I hope you don't want Gingrich. He can't possibly appeal to conservatives after trading in two wives for younger models. He lied to a committee of Congress while Speaker of the House. You really want him on your ticket?

acludem

I don't see how Democrats, after electing and defending Clinton, could see lying under oath and sexual deviancy as detrimental traits.

 

[acludem]

You were the ones who threw a fit about it, not us! Now you are willing to put someone who has dumped two wives (at least Clinton has stayed with his) and lied to a committee of Congress while Speaker of the House on your ticket? Then again, Rudy has no problem with trading in wives for younger models either.

Guiliani/Gingrich in 2008 - For the sanctity of marriage!

acludem

 

[Merlin1047]

You were the ones who threw a fit about it, not us!

You know, my memory is not as good as it used to be, but I seem to recall that Clinton got in trouble for perjury.

I don't remember any formal charges for playing hide-the-weenie.

And as to the comment that Clinton stayed with his wife
Seems to me that marriage is not based on love, it's based on lust - for power. Ms. C knows that she can't be the next Prez if she divorces Slick Willie - unless, of course, she decides to come out as a lesbian.

Here, have a cigar.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
You were the ones who threw a fit about it, not us! Now you are willing to put someone who has dumped two wives (at least Clinton has stayed with his) and lied to a committee of Congress while Speaker of the House on your ticket? Then again, Rudy has no problem with trading in wives for younger models either.

Guiliani/Gingrich in 2008 - For the sanctity of marriage!

acludem

All I'm saying is that it's hypocritical for the Democrats to attack anyone based on a) lying under oath, or b) sexual misbehavior. I am not saying that I would support Newt Gingrich because of those actions.

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by acludem
You were the ones who threw a fit about it, not us! Now you are willing to put someone who has dumped two wives (at least Clinton has stayed with his) and lied to a committee of Congress while Speaker of the House on your ticket? Then again, Rudy has no problem with trading in wives for younger models either.

acludem

Who cares about divorcing wives for younger models. What has that got to do with anything?
I didn't care that former President Clinton cheated on Hilary or stays with her - I could care a less.
I could care a less if Guilaini wants to dump his wife for someone else.
As for Gingrich, I was never a fan of the man.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
You were the ones who threw a fit about it, not us! Now you are willing to put someone who has dumped two wives (at least Clinton has stayed with his) and lied to a committee of Congress while Speaker of the House on your ticket? Then again, Rudy has no problem with trading in wives for younger models either.

Guiliani/Gingrich in 2008 - For the sanctity of marriage!

acludem

First of all, conservatives of all stripes had a problem with Clinton for lying to the public, not the act itself. He was impeached for lying under oath...a criminal offense...not for fornicating in the white house.

Secondly, I'd have more respect for a man with the balls just to admit he f'd up and wanted to get a divorce than one who belittles his wife and female offspring by having clandestine sex with a subordinate and then said those immortal words "I did not...with that woman". He could have easily said, "None of your damn business!" and gotten off scott free.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves about why Clinton A and Clinton B are still married. It's because they both seek power and money. She cannot be elected if divorced and he promised her if she stuck by him he'd help her get elected. That's got nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with hubris.

People do make mistakes in marriage and without. No one has the right to take one mistake and write off the rest of the person's life. However, Clinton is not just a product of one mistake. His behavior belies a careful and concerted degredation of women- there is no way around that. As for Ms. Clinton, she can hyphenate herself, bake cookies or get a job all she wants...she's no better than a wife abuser. She's willing to subjegate the entire female population in exchange for her stupid need for power. Really pathetic if you ask me.

 

[winston churchi]

Originally posted by Moi
First of all, conservatives of all stripes had a problem with Clinton for lying to the public, not the act itself. He was impeached for lying under oath...a criminal offense...not for fornicating in the white house.

Secondly, I'd have more respect for a man with the balls just to admit he f'd up and wanted to get a divorce than one who belittles his wife and female offspring by having clandestine sex with a subordinate and then said those immortal words "I did not...with that woman". He could have easily said, "None of your damn business!" and gotten off scott free.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves about why Clinton A and Clinton B are still married. It's because they both seek power and money. She cannot be elected if divorced and he promised her if she stuck by him he'd help her get elected. That's got nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with hubris.

People do make mistakes in marriage and without. No one has the right to take one mistake and write off the rest of the person's life. However, Clinton is not just a product of one mistake. His behavior belies a careful and concerted degredation of women- there is no way around that. As for Ms. Clinton, she can hyphenate herself, bake cookies or get a job all she wants...she's no better than a wife abuser. She's willing to subjegate the entire female population in exchange for her stupid need for power. Really pathetic if you ask me.

Yes he did lie under oath - I did not have a problem with the cheating itself - and really what person would not lie under those conditions?
But in the end he did lie under oath.
His wife has demostrated she is not as strong as she would like you to think and yes she does have this pathetic need for power.

One thing I have realized, people who force their strength in your face are actually quite weak - it those quiet ones you have to watch out for!

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by winston churchi
One thing I have realized, people who force their strength in your face are actually quite weak - it those quiet ones you have to watch out for!

Yes! Fear me Bwahahahaha

 

[acludem]

I would point out that it was never actually proven that Clinton lied under oath, but what a can of worms that would open. If he did, why was he never charged with perjury? That's right, they would have had to actually prove their allegations, something they obviously couldn't do any better than the house impeachment handlers.

If you want to talk about treatment of women, how about asking your wife for divorce while she's being treated for cancer, then marrying the woman you left her for, then cheating on wife #2 with an intern (while criticizing the President for having an affair with an intern), then leaving wife #2 for the intern you cheated on her with. That my friends is Newt Gingrich. As for Giuliani, yes he at least had some class, but he was cheating on his wife the same way Clinton and Gingrich were.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
I would point out that it was never actually proven that Clinton lied under oath, but what a can of worms that would open. If he did, why was he never charged with perjury? That's right, they would have had to actually prove their allegations, something they obviously couldn't do any better than the house impeachment handlers.


acludem

Somehow i dont think a liberal should be lecturing anyone on proving allegations.

 

[insein]

BTW, getting back on the original Topic, I feel Condy Rice would be an excellent candidate for President in 2008. The way she handled herself in that "Congressional Commission" (aka media showtrial) showed me that she is a person of principles and facts. She knows what she is talkign about and can stand up to fierce opposition. She can be president for all the right reasons.

Imagine the irony of a "Black, Woman" President being elected as a Republican instead of a Democrat. The so-called party for the people (Dems) hasnt allowed a major Black Leader to take a shot at President ever.