Will Rudy Giuliani run for President as a Democrat?
(not after building those beautiful bridges)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini sent around this memo from the Giuliani campaign indicating how well he's doing with various GOP factions. They show Rudy well liked and running well. And this:
In sum, while we fully expect these polls to tighten in the months and weeks to come, Republican voters genuinely know and like Rudy Giuliani.
So he's planning a Republican run. It leaves open options if Republican voters come to not like Rudy, but not explicitly.]
Is Rudy Giuliani a Republican? Let us look to Newsday (via TG) for the proper gleanings (a little sarcasm):
The ex-mayor still is holding back from submitting the simple one-page [FEC] form declaring himself a possible candidate, despite raising $1.4 million to run. And asked what party he belongs to on a different form, Giuliani didn't say - he left the answer blank.
Not so for chief rivals John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both have filed the candidacy paperwork, and both gave a straightforward answer when asked their party affiliation: "Rep," or Republican.
Giuliani's campaign insisted he isn't spending enough to file a statement of candidacy - a view one election-law expert disputed last night - and that leaving out his party was a meaningless omission.
Oh, ooops. That's cool.
Rudy's peeps insist that Rudy "continues to be a proud member of the Republican Party" and that he is "extremely encouraged by the response from Republicans across the country to his potential run for president." That was Rudy's spokesperson, Katie Levinson, and it sounds as if they look at Republicans as rodents in a cage to be observed in a laboratory. If these Republicans don't respond properly to the aural stimuli, it will be time for Rudy to try different specimens.
But the lack of a party specification on his forms was not a meaningless omission.
Read More…
Giuliani's campaign confirmed that leaving off the Republican designation wasn't a typo. It was the campaign's "judgment that we didn't have to fill in that box," said a campaign lawyer. The lawyer said an update filed Wednesday lists him as a Republican, though that form couldn't be found on the Federal Election Commission Web site.
Let's examine this from a Rudy-centric perspective. Would as savvy a politician as Rudy, and he has shown much national-caliber skill, consider that he could win as a Democrat, against Hillary-Obama-TrialLawyer-Dennis, etc.? Probably not.
If Rudy wants to run for President, Rudy needs political capital. He has none with the Democratic Party; with the Republicans, he has built and earned mountains. (He is a star on the fundraising circuit, and he's used his stardom to the great benefit of his fellow Republicans.)
Yes, there is this 2001 Speech to NARAL's "Champions of Choice" Lunch, but he has as much right to try to explain that away as Mitt Romney has to attempt to distance himself from his past beliefs and convictions. And if either man pledges to nominate only strict constructionist judges and justices, that is a certain start.
No, Rudy would be insane to burn his bridges. He has to talk loudly like a conservative Republican and go for the Republican nomination. (Yes, I think he try to be center-right, but I'd sooner he didn't. And no, I'm not sure what he is now.)
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Heh. (UPDATED!) — Comments (34) »
Will Rudy Giuliani run for President as a Democrat? 62 Comments (0 topical, 62 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
can Rudy raise the money to make a credible 3rd party run? Giuliani knows that he cannot. It takes a mad billionaire to play in those waters.
Remember, he'll have to replace all the good will he's cultivated in the GOP, which could well, and probably would, be replaced by enmity.
In almost every poll he's at the top of the list. All the Republican big whigs want us to believe he's unelectable because of his liberal stands on social issues, but the reality is the majority of Republicans are willing to overlook them as long as he stands strong on terrorism and taxes. I would be shocked if Clinton and Giuliani don't both win the nomination of their party's.
Can you name some Republican big whigs saying this?
I would be shocked if Clinton and Giuliani don't both win the nomination of their party's.
I'd be shocked if either one won.
you could say they are overdue for a comeback. Or "The Democratic Republicans" has a fusionist ring to it.
"...but the reality is the majority of Republicans are willing to overlook them as long as he stands strong on terrorism and taxes."
Are you kidding. A majority of Republicans? I think not.
I think he's the only one with the guts to wage a war on terror without giving in and watering down every anti terror tactic we have. I don't trust McCain and I have no convidence in guys like Brownback and Romney to take tough stands against the liberals in this country. My first choice would be Newt Gingrich, but he's a longshot. Plus, I think Rudy is the only one capable of beating Hillary. It's a no brainer for me. People complain about his liberal social issues but we can't be picky this election. It's either him or a Democrat. I also like Rudy as a person. I hear so many Republicans these days bitching about Bush "giving in" to the liberals concerning the war on terror. Boy if you think he's bad, just wait and see what happens if Rudy doesn't get elected. Hillary? Obama? Romney? McCain? These people will run the country based on polls and focus groups. You can book it!
I think Rudy is the only one capable of beating Hillary.
If you combined the bad features of several other candidates, you get Rudy.
People say Newt is out because of his personal life, but Rudy's is as bad. And Newt is otherwise excellent.
People are hostile to Romney and McCain on abortion, when Rudy is a flat out abortion supporter. I cannot figure out why people who are so skeptical of other candidates just fall all over themselves to accept Rudy's sudden belief in federalism.
And as for the war, Rudy has said nothing to suggest that he would be great on it, or even good on it. Once again, people seem to be suspending belief and taking it on faith that he would be solid on this issue. His quitting the Iraq Study Group instead of filing his own dissenting report (if he in fact dissented) is a big black mark against him. That was a perfect chance for him to tell the world exactly where he stood on Iraq, Iran, and the war in general. He could have made a difference in the ongoing debate. But he passed on it.
the only explanation is that people don't know his positions, they're just starstruck by America's Mayor.
I don't doubt him on the war, and I'd probbaly vote for him if he was our nominee, but I can't in the primary.
How about because he was a competent and articulate executive and prosecutor whose resume does not include pontificating in the Congress?
Rant Street! www.rant.st
were going to run as a Dem, he'd have entered "Dem."
Sounds like you're trying to scare people off supporting him with a misleading title, Mark...
Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans
Read what I wrote. I saw such speculation from the folks at Newsday and from Teagan Goddard, and I did my best to swat it down as nonsense.
Any opposition I might eventually have to Rudy would be for what he said he believed in that 2001 speech to NARAL, and if you'll note, I indicated that I did not believe that speech to be the final word from Rudy.
The only thing I've said publicly about my own support or opposition to any of these folks is that as of right now, I support Al Haig. That is to be taken for what that indicates.
Again, the title was not misleading. It was a question raised by others.
for quoting Newsday. Next you'll be quoting DKos. Come to think of it, its pretty much one in the same! :-)
I can understand if it was an oversight or something, but why would he consciously choose not to check this box. The statement from his lawyer makes it sound like he is some kind of absolute minimalist when he fills out forms (I will not fill out any box that is not absolute required). However, if I was trying to win the nomination of the Republican party, I would certainly want to check that box, even if it wasn't required, so that I could show that I consider myself one of them. At least I would check the box to prevent all of these questions from arising later.
I’d be satisfied with “I had my lawyer complete the form and s/he decided only to complete the absolutely necessary portions. As odd as it may sound, you don’t need to check a party affiliation to run for President but as soon as I found out about it, we corrected the oversight because obviously if I run for President, it will be as a Republican.”
Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertar
Presumably, if he were going to run as a Dem, he'd have entered "Dem."
So, since he did NOT write "Rep," by this logic we can conclude he's not running as a Republican either?
Run like Reagan!
His stance on the war alone would doom him. Combine that with the "police state" he created in NYC, his dramatic reduction of the welfare roles in NYC, his refusal to work with the likes of Sharpton and other race hustlers when he was mayor...
Running as a Democrat would make the problems he's got with SoCons look like a sunny day in Springtime.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
notice the slant on his 2000 Senate race, which treats his cancer as just some minor contributing factor like a cold.
Second, the Democrats can't stand Rudy as many of his policy positions are a dagger in the heart of their world view.
Third, and I'm guessing here, maybe Rudy wants to keep his options open regarding running on other party lines besides Republican. This is an old tradition in New York with its very influential third parties. And the Libertarians clearly are siphoning off votes that could be decisive in a close election.
On the plus side, he's proven himself to be socially liberal and not too cozy with Dobson, Falwell, Robertson & Co.
On the negative, he's been lax in bashing Bush.
As for his chances as a Republican, it just depends on how essential the support of the more religious side of our party is. I hope Dobson and gang can allow a proven leader to serve without first passing their morality test.
It's been amazing watching your mask slip positions evolve.
For example, your first Redstate comment:
Flake on the Right Side by OneWifeForLife
Congressman Flake supports traditional marriage. I value that as much as his other conservative positions.
If we want to reclaim this nation we have to abolish divorce. Strengthening marriage is essential to our strength against the Islamofascist.
And your second Redstate comment:
Don't Sacrifice Christian Principles by OneWifeForLife
WE have been shown the way to victory before. We need to reclaim the path set forth by Tom Delay and Karl Rove. And that will never include turning away from "religious-right republicans".
And your third Redstate comment:
Reverend Dobson Scolds Bush by OneWifeForLife
Our Religious Leaders feel betrayed by Bush and the majority of Republicans. Read today's issue of Christianity Today magazine online.
Bush has done damage to the party's credibility. It will take work to retrieve it.
But now, less than 3 months later, you're regularly railing against the scary "Religious Right" like the I hope Dobson and gang can allow a proven leader to serve without first passing their morality test in your comment above, and this comment from another recent thread:
The radically righteous, who'd like to impose morality, are as frightening to the "normal" American as is the "in-your-face gay activist".
A truly fascinating transformation in your outlook!
A more cynical person than myself might suggest that you're just one of the dishonest frauds who comments at this site only to disrupt conversations, mislead, and cast aspersions under false colors.
I vote Moby. I had noticed several of onewifeforlife's comments didn't fit my expectations. Thanks for shining a little light on the subject.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
1. Careful prodding of the press sparks a furor.
2. "Angry intolerant Republicans, lacking direction since recent legal developments surrounding famed strategist Karl Rove, seek to oust abortion moderate and 9/11 hero Giuliani from the party." -- Associated Press in two weeks?
3. "Rudy Giuliani announces his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for President, citing changes in the Republican party's tolerance for his moderate social views and tolerance for gay rights. Many Democrats are skeptical, but some are already greeting him with open arms. 'Ousting the hero of 9/11 only goes to show how distracted Bush has gotten from the war on terror and bringing Osama to justice.' says one Democratic strategist."
Run like Reagan!
I can't think of a better definition of RINO than this.
Right, being solidly with most Republicans (and against most Democratic politicians) on minor sideshow issues like global war on terror including Iraq and lowering taxes is beside the point. If Giuliani doesn't fill out a bureaucratic form completely, or stays at a gay couple's house while sorting out a divorce, obviously he's a RINO.
I shudder to think of how you view my former boss Ron Paul then, if you think Rudy, a moderately libertarian Republican is a RINO?
Ron Paul, as the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee was in favor of marijuana decriminalization, repealing anti-sexual freedom laws, against gambling restrictions, and in favor of a myriad of other controversial civil liberties issues.
If you think a Moderate Libertarian is a RINO, then what of a hardcore Libertarian like Ron Paul?
And ever hear of the Republican Liberty Caucus? You want to drum the RLC out of the Party too?
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
dislike that RINO tag. I think of Ron as a Libertarian. He runs as a Rep in order to get elected in TX, but he has about as much in common with the rest of the R-Caucus as Joe Lieberman does (with the R's).
And no, I don't want to drum the RLC out.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I am saddened at how small minded our party is.
We all laughed at the poor pathetic dems as they mocked Joe Lieberman last year for not being "democratic" enough.
Now we have "our" side that has achieved naught but stand in a circle and shoot away at each other since November.
Here we have self proclaimed mind readers that can infer intention, who disparage a man that has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt his worth and ability that transcends party affiliation.
I hope Rudy files as Republican, he most certainly is one, perhaps he's not what many consider the "ideal", but I for one learned many years ago that "idealism" is the practice of yearning for perfection and that "realism", is the act of moving forward with your feet on the ground toward those goals.
Idealism vs. Realism, get a grip folks, wa wa we lost an election. I'm nearly fifty years old and from the northeast, my candidate almost always loses but there are always new election cycles to start working on.
While I can empathize with many of the idealistic rants and ravings of those who wish things were different, I sympathize not at all. NOT AT ALL. To be even more clear since empathy is one of those words that gets tossed around so casually, empathy is the "intellectual understanding", it does NOT infer caring.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
So let me get this straight: You're the realists, and we're the idealists. By that parallel you're implying that we who oppose Giuliani as a RiNO are detached from reality.
(Well, at least you didn't call yourself a member of the reality-based community. Anyway...)
But this is politics. And our goal is winning elections. And as you ADMIT, you grand 'realistics' are realizing yourself to loss after election loss.
So what exactly are you realistic about?
Run like Reagan!
No clue where all that nastiness came from. Was it the, "self proclaimed mind readers that can infer intention, who disparage a man" part that got you riled?
I find the "reality-based" crap, personally offensive, please spare me the personal attack mentality, I really have no use for it.
When I said that Rudy had proven himself, "beyond any shadow of a doubt his worth and ability that transcends party affiliation", it simply means what it says. I believe he is a good man and that has nothing to do with politics.
I think he's a good man despite my differences with some of his social policies. If you don't like him because he doesn't meet some litmus test, then lay it out instead of making up fictional scenarios out of thin air. Unless of course you have facts to base those comments on, then let's see it so we can all be as enlightened.
So let me get this straight: You're the realists, and we're the idealists. By that parallel you're implying that we who oppose Giuliani as a RiNO are detached from reality.
No, you don't have it straight, in fact you have it wrong since I said none of those things, you made that up, just like the wild scenarios. I'm not into implying things, I like to state things outright so people don't need to try and guess where I'm coming from.
Idealism vs. Realism, once again this is something I've mentioned on several occasions and it is certainly not tied to Rudy. To make it simple to understand, think of it this way. I like my steak, ideally, medium rare. If I happen to overcook it a little on my grill I'm not gonna toss it, I'm going to eat it and try and get it right next time. Simple concept.
So why are so many, like you, tearing apart the good people on OUR side when they have so much to offer. Like I mentioned about the democrat party last year and Joe Lieberman, if you can't see the parallel between your statements and those laughable actions then I'm somewhat at a loss as to where to go with this.
As for this... "So what exactly are you realistic about?
Rasmussen has Rudy beating ALL democrats with a 63% favorable
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Matc...
McCain, 52% favorable, being beaten by Obama and Edwards
Romney, 29% favorable, beaten by everyone so far.
I'm sure this is a misunderstanding but I would appreciate being asked for clarification if I'm not perfectly clear instead of practically being called a troll.
For me personally, I've handled several million pieces of mail for our party in the last few election cycles alone, so I can say emphatically that I take an active role in helping us raise money, get out the message, get out the vote and help get us some wins. So no I don't see how being a practical person that participates actively who's also realistic is a negative and somehow setting myself up for loss after loss.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
You wrote:
Idealism vs. Realism, get a grip folks, wa wa we lost an election. I'm nearly fifty years old and from the northeast, my candidate almost always loses but there are always new election cycles to start working on.
If we all act like you guys, and your candidates always lose, won't that make MORE Republicans lose?
Run like Reagan!
well gee you must have left your point out because you neglected to mention that in your comment
I'm a republican from the northeast!!! hello...
Does this mean...
A- We are and have been the minority party for a long time, outnumbered by a large majority of democrats, making the chances of victory smaller and harder to achieve but we still manage to pull out a fair amount of local elections and do well at the state level on occasion.
or
B- Like so many others we wish everyone thought the way we do and when our candidate gets beaten we sit around and complain that no one is good enough to be our candidate and that's our excuse for being pathetic losers.
If that was your idea of a save, better luck next time!
So far my presidential voting has gone, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush. Bush 1 and Dole, I held my nose as a lessor of two evils votes, but sometimes that's the choice you get. Once Bush 1 and Dole were the candidates I shut up and did my best to help them get elected. You might call me one of the party faithful, one of the people that donates hundreds of hours each cycle to the cause on all levels.
So I tell you again, you have nothing to say to me.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
The party of your region is an electoral loser, and I don't think that kind of Republican, of which Giuliani is a kind, has anything to offer the rest of the country in winning electoral politics.
Run like Reagan!
Rudy is a Republican. He's been a Republican for at least three decades. He's spent countless hours raising money for and campaigning for Republicans. This is a silly non-issue.
I am going to be proud to cast my 2008 primary vote for Rudy Giuliani.
If Giuliani picks a true-blue conservative as his VP, I think the ticket would be unbeatable.
By nominating an Italian-American, it lessens the pressure to put a Hispanic, black, or woman on the ticket.
What happens when anti-abortion activists aren't fooled, and instead put up their own independent anti-abortion candidate?
Run like Reagan!
And I wouldn't be surprised to see a nearly veto proof D majority (especially when combined with the likes of the Senators from Maine and Specter).
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Yes, but that doesn't mean we'll still manage to mess up that badly by nominating someone so badly contrary to our party mainstream, I hope.
Run like Reagan!
So we can move beyond this one very divisive
issue as a litmus test for what makes one a
Republican (or not). Let us see how the one
"true" candidate does nationally. If they have
nothing else to bring to the table they will fail
just as miserably as did Nader.
If you truly believe Rudy should be disqualified
from consideration as the Republican nominee then
I have to wonder whether you would have done the
same were Ronald Reagan to be running today. As
President he at best paid lip service to the
'social' agenda and at worst allowed policies
against it as governor prior to winning
the nomination.
The social conservatives of the party continue to
over-estimate the importance of the "life" issue
to the mainstream of the party.
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 28-March 1, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
"Recently the South Dakota legislature passed a law that bans abortion in all cases other than to save the life of the mother. Would you support or oppose this law in the state where you live?"
.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
ALL reg. voters 35 59 6
Democrats 26 70 4
Republicans 49 47 4
Independents 32 58 11
So a FOX news poll can't even get 50% Republican
support for about as strong a law as you will
ever get? And this is what you pound good
candidates like Rudy over the head with? The
stance of a candidate on this one issue counts as
very important to only a handful of voters -
abortion consistently gets less than 10% (if not
5) when voters as asked for 'most important
issues'.
When people in this party rip to shreds other
candidates from the same party because they hold
differing views on the two hot button social
issues you are only making the Democrat party
jump with glee.
Rant Street! www.rant.st
Lips and pens are all Presidents can use. He spoke forcefully against abortion and signed every bill the dems sent him: zero
He tried to get Bork on the court. He did what he could.
Reagan also published Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation late in his first term, which is a pretty strong use of the bully puplit.
Run like Reagan!
reads that and his evil Empire speech cannot contend that he paid only lip service on the issue. He was a pro-lifer after Roe after prayerful thought, and he brought pro-lifers into the party and put life in the platform. Victories followed.
amen.
There's no comparison between Reagan and Giuliani. Anything Reagan did that was pro-abortion came before Roe, when modern abortion on demand was out of the question. Once Roe came, with all its gruesome consequences, Reagan switched sides.
Giuliani though is fully supportive of the modern abortion on demand system.
No comparison at all. I'm willing to bend on abortion, but I really have a hard time supporting anyone supportive of abortion on demand, which is an extreme progressive position to take.
Run like Reagan!
If we can get it back to the states, it takes care of itself. So the question has become what kind of judges will Rudy appoint ? A question that has been addressed.
I don't like to knock our candidates so early in the game but I will say this at least with Rudy you do know where he stands.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Abortion is a Federal issue. The Feds made it one.
If Rudy has had a Road to Damascus conversion to the idea of Federalism then he needs to come out and say so. He needs to run on that idea as a candidate.
at least with Rudy you do know where he stands.
No, we don't know where he stands. So far we are getting the "reverse Coumo" treatment from him. He is personally in favor of gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc, but we are asked to believe that his personal beliefs will have nothing to do with his actions as president.
And the right judges will slowly unmake it one, much to the nations benefit.
As to his stands rather than listen to what people say he says lets look at what he has done.
Taxes
Giuliani curbed or killed 23 taxes totaling $8 billion. He slashed Gotham's top income-tax rate 21 percent and local taxes' share of personal income 15.9 percent. Giuliani called hiking taxes after September 11 "a dumb, stupid, idiotic, and moronic thing to do."
Spending
Budget increases averaged 2.9 percent annually. Budget decreases in 95 and 02.
Welfare Reform
He was ahead of the feds in starting this and cut the city's welfare rolls by half.
Race based mandates.
Giuliani canceled NYC's det asides for minority and female owned contractors.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Part of the Federal government at any rate.
And the right judges will slowly unmake it one, much to the nations benefit.
And the evidence that Giuliani will appoint such judges is non-existent. Politicians routinely say things to get elected and then do the opposite. That is even more of a risk than usual in Rudy's case, since he would have to appoint judges whose views are directly opposite to his own.
Does anyone here seriously think that a President Guiliani would appoint an Edith Jones to the Supreme Court? The idea is absurd. We'll get COC approved judges who will not even consider repudiating prior court rulings. Which is to say, we'll get SC ordered gay marriage as well as Roe being protected.
Taxes, spending, etc. Not really the issue here. But Guiliani looks very much like a Chamber of Commerce Republican, and they are not strictly opposed to tax and spending increases provided it helps their own bottom line.
Of course, I don't have any evidence that Obama would not appoint solid conservative justices either. It's an inference based on his known stances on assorted issues.
Maybe some paper will come to light that Guiliani wrote back in the 1980's expressing his strong belief in federalism. Absent that, he's making it up now.
He is not a charter member of the federalist society. But his actions in new york have been very much of a decentralize government sort. Witness the schools issue.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
OK, let's say Giuliani wins the Presidency, replaces Stevens and Ginsburg with justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and the court reverses itself on abortion.
What then? We'll have some states with much stricter restrictions on abortion than others, and there will be an even greater incentive to smuggle minors across state lines to perform abortions. Would President Giuliani act on that?
We'll also have an opportunity to restrict the use of federal resources (cash and faclities) in the performance of optional abortions. Would President Giuliani act on that?
How about the promotion of abortion by the UN and other NGOs? Would President Giuliani maintain a 'gag rule?'
Run like Reagan!
I merely support his candidacy and thats a question I would like answered at some point.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Why worry about abortion ? Hell if we lose the war on terror abortion will be the least of our worries because we won't be living anymore. I'm backing Guiliani because he can win and he's a leader.
Thank you for recognizing this. As a fellow Italian-American, I'm shocked at how others haven't seen this, as a huge positive for him.
Being Italian-American is Ethnic and quasi-Minority. It would help enormously in States like Mass, CT, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan.
Although, I'd still like to see Rudy tap Condy as VP, you're exactly right, he's the only one in the current field who could conceivably get away with running with another white guy, like a southern conservative, say SC's Mark Sanford, or even KS's Sam Browback.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Italian Americans are a very huge voting bloc only the German Americans , Irish Americans , and the Mexican Americans outnumber them. In the northeast Italian Americans are around 25% of the overall population. Furthermore states like Florida ,California, Michigan, Illinois , Ohio, Nevada , Arizona and Louisiana also have very large numbers of Italian Americans. Full blooded Italian Americans statistically are around 8% of the overall population with millions of others like myself having at least partial Italian ancestory. This is a big plus for Rudy.
I don't really get it. You say it's not a meaningless omission but then conclude it is and he would only run as a Republican?
Look, whatever else is true about Rudy (and I'm one of those people who is a huge Rudy-fan but knows there is no shot he gets out of the Republican primary), he has been a loyal Republican for a long, long time. Attack him on his leftist beliefs, his personal drama, but there's no way an attack on his party loyalty is warranted.
"Democrat Republican" Fusionist is absurd. But Rudy running on both the Libertarian Party and Republican Party lines makes all the sense in the world. The Libertarian Party has ballot status in 47 to 48 states. They could conceivably nominate Rudy to run on their ticket, as well.
There's precedence. Do you all remember back in June of last year, all the flurry of news stories coming out of New York, how the Libertarian Party there, gave William Weld their nomination for Governor, pending his nomination on the Republican line?
No doubt Rudy read about all that in the NY papers.
Of course, winning over the Libertarians would be a job and a half. They've already got some good candidates in the field like Las Vegas Sports Oddsmaker Wayne Root, and Comedian Doug Stanhope.
But, stranger things have happened in politics. Who would have ever guessed about the Weld candidacy?
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
He has been a republican for decades. Surely this was an oversight.
There has been a noticeable increase in Rudy-related news over the past 24-48 hours, likely in anticipation of Hizzoner’s rumored announcement on Saturday.
Let’s start off with an interview with Hizzoner given in conjunction with his SC appearance (interview courtesy of SC Hotline). In the interview, Rudy addresses the ludicrous notion of an independent candidacy, his opposition to Gay Marriage, as well as the tendency for others to exaggerate the difference between himself and other candidates on social issues:
go to link for video and much more Rudy on the issues
Given where he stands on several core GOP issues, he is the one candidate for whom an independent run might make the most sense. Just skip the whole GOP primary process.