Rudi Giuliani?

[RSVX]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/...ent/index.html

So, I pose this question to you DEMOCRATS out there... Based on what you have seen of him, would you vote for him if he ran, or would you hold the party line?

I know there are a lot of variables, but look at it as a general question.

Would you, as a Democrat, vote for Rudi?

[sicksubie]

He has a few things working against him. One he left his wife for a mistress, two he is catholic, and three he is too rough New Yorker for most of America.
Another funny thing. If Gingrich, Guliani, and Mitt Romney all ran for the nomination, the Mormon would be the only one who has had one wife.

[Manarius]

No, I wouldn't. He's too focused in my mind. Being mayor of the city is good, but I think further background is required. At least some Senate or House experience would help him get my vote (if he decided to run).

That and I'd have to be absolutely sure he's not a Neo-Conservative. If I see any inklings of that, I'll be forced to vote for the Democratic candidate....even if it is Hillary (my God I hope not).

[Electrophil]

This is an extremely good question.

He seems moderate enough. That would be my personal concern is extremism. I just can't stomach anymore of this far right and far left battle of the last 5 or 6 years, because it forced the moderates either left or right.

If, after investigation, he turns out to be moderate, I might just vote for him. It would maintain an excellent check and balance in our system. I'm not real crazy about a full democrat House and Executive no more than I liked the full republican way. This will weigh very heavily in my decision regardless of who is running. Depends on who it looks like will be controlling the house.

Personally, between senate/congress/executive, I'd like 2 demo's and 1 rebut.

And all 3 to be moderates. But I don't want them to get along, for debate is what makes this country strong. We lost that for a few years.

[Electrophil]

Democrats will argue over a warning on a dental floss label. That's why 2 should be controlled by them. The rebuticans have turned too much into yes men for my taste, but power corrupts. So.... 1 needs to be controlled by them.

[RSVX]

In the article I linked, it describes him as a Moderate. Not that I beleive the media or anything. I just think that if he ran, he would have a legitimate shot. Based on how he handled 9/11 if nothing else.

[sicksubie]

Originally Posted by Manarius

No, I wouldn't. He's too focused in my mind. Being mayor of the city is good, but I think further background is required. At least some Senate or House experience would help him get my vote (if he decided to run).

That and I'd have to be absolutely sure he's not a Neo-Conservative. If I see any inklings of that, I'll be forced to vote for the Democratic candidate....even if it is Hillary (my God I hope not).

define neo-conservative

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by sicksubie

define neo-conservative

http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/member.php?u=1397

Snort!

Couldn't help myself.

[Duckie]

I would vote for him in a second. All the likely canadits for demo horrify me.

[sicksubie]

agreed... especially Barak Obama. There really is no true in the dems "farm system" other than him though. Hillary is too polarizing a individual to win IMHO.

[sicksubie]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

http://www.subaru-svx.net/forum/member.php?u=1397

Snort!

Couldn't help myself.

I don't think that Ihopp is a communist turned conservative. That is what a neo-conservative is. The term is also very commonly mistaken as meaning a radical right winger, but unfortunately that is incorrect. People like Dave Horowitz, Whitaker Chambers, Norman Podhoretz, and James Burnham are all neo-conservatives. I believe Burnham grew up in a communist family and then became a conservative (of sorts). I may be incorrect, but I think that "neo-conservative" actually to true conservatives implies a more moderate position on hard core issues. I think that Manarius was trying to say "radical conservative". Again Ihopp definitely does not qualify as a neo-conservative. Sorry to disappoint.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by sicksubie

I don't think that Ihopp is a communist turned conservative. That is what a neo-conservative is. The term is also very commonly mistaken as meaning a radical right winger, but unfortunately that is incorrect. People like Dave Horowitz, Whitaker Chambers, Norman Podhoretz, and James Burnham are all neo-conservatives. I believe Burnham grew up in a communist family and then became a conservative (of sorts). I may be incorrect, but I think that "neo-conservative" actually to true conservatives implies a more moderate position on hard core issues. I think that Manarius was trying to say "radical conservative". Again Ihopp definitely does not qualify as a neo-conservative. Sorry to disappoint.

Actually, the original neo-conservatives were anti-communist democrats. Their belief system was liberal, but they wanted communism destroyed. Hence "neo" conservative.

Ronald Reagan was the very definition of a neo-conservative. A staunchly anti-communist moderate liberal turned republican. The republican party won over Reagan due to the democrats wanting to have a more conciliatory relationship with the Soviets. Reagan hated the Soviets and would much rather have attacked them, than try to be friends with them. The republican party convinced Reagan they better suited his belief system, Reagan changed parties, and voila! There started the slow migration of the neo-cons to "the dark side". By the end of his 8 years as President, the neo-conservatives were firmly republicans, and no longer a part of the democratic party.

As it should have been. The democratic party did not have their backs. They were soft on communism during the 70's, and 80's. I give Reagan boatloads of credit for the fall of the communist party. I commend him.

As the cold war lingered on, things stayed calm within the belief system. But once the cold war ended, the group lost its identity. They were no longer liberal, and there wasn't much communism left to deal with. So the belief system migrated toward a military doctrine that we must maintain a military strong enough to control the entire world.... Which we did, and we still do.

The group stayed small until Bush Sr decided against going into Iraq after Kuwait was liberated. This really ticked them off and remotivated them. Their membership grew rapidly, and they re-found a purpose. That purpose being to spread democracy via any means..to include military might. The group grew rapidly during the Clinton years, and brought Bush into power. And the rest can be logically filled in to bring it all up to date.

The irony of it all.... Today, a neo-conservative is automatically thought of as true ultra hard core conservatives with a religious base. We all think that when someone says neo-con.

But look up the word neo. Things have changed since the cold war, huh?

[Electrophil]

Oh... and Clinton was a neo-liberal. And what's funny about that, if you look up the definition of neo-liberalism, you'll find it basically means the same thing that a neo-conservative meant back in the late 70's, early 80's without the anti-communist part.

Crazy democrats. I think they are trying to start over again.

[sicksubie]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Actually, the original neo-conservatives were anti-communist democrats. Their belief system was liberal, but they wanted communism destroyed. Hence "neo" conservative.

Ronald Reagan was the very definition of a neo-conservative. A staunchly anti-communist moderate liberal turned republican. The republican party won over Reagan due to the democrats wanting to have a more conciliatory relationship with the Soviets. Reagan hated the Soviets and would much rather have attacked them, than try to be friends with them. The republican party convinced Reagan they better suited his belief system, Reagan changed parties, and voila! There started the slow migration of the neo-cons to "the dark side". By the end of his 8 years as President, the neo-conservatives were firmly republicans, and no longer a part of the democratic party.

As it should have been. The democratic party did not have their backs. They were soft on communism during the 70's, and 80's. I give Reagan boatloads of credit for the fall of the communist party. I commend him.

As the cold war lingered on, things stayed calm within the belief system. But once the cold war ended, the group lost its identity. They were no longer liberal, and there wasn't much communism left to deal with. So the belief system migrated toward a military doctrine that we must maintain a military strong enough to control the entire world.... Which we did, and we still do.

The group stayed small until Bush Sr decided against going into Iraq after Kuwait was liberated. This really ticked them off and remotivated them. Their membership grew rapidly, and they re-found a purpose. That purpose being to spread democracy via any means..to include military might. The group grew rapidly during the Clinton years, and brought Bush into power. And the rest can be logically filled in to bring it all up to date.

The irony of it all.... Today, a neo-conservative is automatically thought of as true ultra hard core conservatives with a religious base. We all think that when someone says neo-con.

But look up the word neo. Things have changed since the cold war, huh?

Thanks. You put it clearer than I did. I did not mean to say communist turned conservative.

[sicksubie]

And electrophil, we agree!!!!!!!! Wow what a day this is. Reagan was awesome. Unfortunately I was too young to really remember him as President and I can only read other people's writings on him.