TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 http://www.siena.edu/level2col.aspx?menu_id=562&id=6580 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Smells like fear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Smells like fear "Bring it on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Further proof that New York is completely out of touch with reality. Surely you're not surprised that New York is a primarily democratic state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 But he is getting endorsements from dems. Ex-Clinton FBI chief pushing Prez Rudy BY DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT Thursday, May 31st 2007, 8:47 AM Louis Freeh, Democrat Bill Clinton's FBI director, is going over to the other side in a big way today - endorsing Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, the Daily News has learned. The high-profile endorsement is a boon to the former mayor, whose views on security and terrorism can only benefit from having an international lawman like Freeh in his corner, experts said. "Any endorsement that lets Rudy talk about fighting crime and terrorism is good for him," said GOP consultant Dan Schnur. "And if Giuliani and [Hillary] Clinton are the nominees, you can be sure that Louis Freeh ends up in the front row of every debate, just to try and knock her off her game." Freeh's defection to Team Rudy is part of a gradual transformation by the former top G-man from one-time friend of the Clintons to outspoken critic, blaming the former President for raining scandal down upon the White House, and for being soft on terrorism in the years before 9/11. "Until 9/11," Freeh wrote in his 2005 book, "My FBI," about America's counterterrorism efforts, "we lacked the political leadership and more important the political will to do what had to be done." Critics saw such digs as an attempt by Freeh, who was FBI director from 1993 until a few months before 9/11, to avoid responsibility for the World Trade Center attacks. Freeh also was scathing about Bill Clinton's personal failings, particularly his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky - a matter Freeh's FBI had to investigate. "The problem was with Bill Clinton - the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended," he wrote in his book. "Whatever moral compass the President was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction." But it is Freeh's get-tough approach to crime and terrorism - he has long advocated expanding U.S. intelligence gathering around the globe - that will likely take center stage at today's planned endorsement. It's a message that certainly fits with Giuliani's recent rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail, where he often argues that Democrats want to go back to playing "defense" on terrorism, while Republicans understand the importance of playing "offense." There are other similarities between the two men: both were raised in Italian-American households, spent their early careers prosecuting Mafia cases together as federal prosecutors in New York, and Giuliani's term as mayor largely coincided with Freeh's stint as FBI director. Even the setting for today's endorsement - Times Square - is intended to send a message. It is meant to highlight Giuliani's efforts at battling crime and cleaning up a once dangerous and tattered environment, a skill he has suggested could be just as useful in Iraq today as New York of the 1990s. dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 But he is getting endorsements from dems. Ex-Clinton FBI chief pushing Prez Rudy BY DAVID SALTONSTALL DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT Thursday, May 31st 2007, 8:47 AM Louis Freeh, Democrat Bill Clinton's FBI director, is going over to the other side in a big way today - endorsing Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, the Daily News has learned. The high-profile endorsement is a boon to the former mayor, whose views on security and terrorism can only benefit from having an international lawman like Freeh in his corner, experts said. "Any endorsement that lets Rudy talk about fighting crime and terrorism is good for him," said GOP consultant Dan Schnur. "And if Giuliani and [Hillary] Clinton are the nominees, you can be sure that Louis Freeh ends up in the front row of every debate, just to try and knock her off her game." Freeh's defection to Team Rudy is part of a gradual transformation by the former top G-man from one-time friend of the Clintons to outspoken critic, blaming the former President for raining scandal down upon the White House, and for being soft on terrorism in the years before 9/11. "Until 9/11," Freeh wrote in his 2005 book, "My FBI," about America's counterterrorism efforts, "we lacked the political leadership and more important the political will to do what had to be done." Critics saw such digs as an attempt by Freeh, who was FBI director from 1993 until a few months before 9/11, to avoid responsibility for the World Trade Center attacks. Freeh also was scathing about Bill Clinton's personal failings, particularly his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky - a matter Freeh's FBI had to investigate. "The problem was with Bill Clinton - the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended," he wrote in his book. "Whatever moral compass the President was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction." But it is Freeh's get-tough approach to crime and terrorism - he has long advocated expanding U.S. intelligence gathering around the globe - that will likely take center stage at today's planned endorsement. It's a message that certainly fits with Giuliani's recent rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail, where he often argues that Democrats want to go back to playing "defense" on terrorism, while Republicans understand the importance of playing "offense." There are other similarities between the two men: both were raised in Italian-American households, spent their early careers prosecuting Mafia cases together as federal prosecutors in New York, and Giuliani's term as mayor largely coincided with Freeh's stint as FBI director. Even the setting for today's endorsement - Times Square - is intended to send a message. It is meant to highlight Giuliani's efforts at battling crime and cleaning up a once dangerous and tattered environment, a skill he has suggested could be just as useful in Iraq today as New York of the 1990s. dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com link Got any evidence he's a Dem? Further proof that New York is completely out of touch with reality. Surely you're not surprised that New York is a primarily democratic state. I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Got any evidence he's a Dem? Actually he is a Republican. But he did serve in the Clinton administration. Ed Koch is another dem supporting Rudi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. I think you just topped me for worst argument. Congrats!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewau02 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 You can lose your home state and still win the presidency. Regards, Al Gore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Got any evidence he's a Dem? Actually he is a Republican. But he did serve in the Clinton administration. Ed Koch is another dem supporting Rudi. Not that anyone listens to bigmouth Koch, but uh, no... http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132007/news/...ureau_chief.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 You can lose your home state and still win the presidency. Regards, Al Gore Great example! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 You can lose your home state and still win the presidency. Regards, Al Gore Great example! I know you liked that example, but for some reason I don't think that is what Drew had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewau02 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 All joking aside, two of the top three GOP candidates will not win their home state if they are the Republican nominee. Rudy won't win New York. That state hasn't gone red since 1984 when Reagan slammed Mondale. Romney has about as much of a chance of winning Massachussetts as I have of dating Keira Knightley. McCain will win Arizona if he is the nominee, but his money fund raising problems and his stagnant poll numbers suggest that he won't even come close to being the nominee. Fred Thompson's presidential campaign will last about as long as an ephemeral commet that shoots through the sky, here one minute and gone the next. The man isn't healthy enough to make a serious challenge for the nomination. A lot of conservatives, including myself, have stated in the past that Al Gore had no cause for complaint in 2000 because he failed to win his home state, Tennessee. Many conservatives also claimed that a candidate who fails to win his home state should not be president. At least Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have said as much. Now, with a Rudy or Romney nomination, conservatives will be forced to campaign and support a guy who won't even win his home state. They will be forced to admit that their past theory of no home state, no presidency was wrong. This should get quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. No, Tex, the contention that a Republican not winning New York -- no matter who that Republican is -- somehow devalues his candidacy will probably stand the test of time and remain the worst attempt at making a point in the history of messageboarddom, at least as it applies to the political arena. 10-2, #8 reigns as the worst argument ever I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. No, Tex, the contention that a Republican not winning New York -- no matter who that Republican is -- somehow devalues his candidacy will probably stand the test of time and remain the worst attempt at making a point in the history of messageboarddom, at least as it applies to the political arena. 10-2, #8 reigns as the worst argument ever I think. Hey, quit treating me like an MPR reporter and read Drew's post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. No, Tex, the contention that a Republican not winning New York -- no matter who that Republican is -- somehow devalues his candidacy will probably stand the test of time and remain the worst attempt at making a point in the history of messageboarddom, at least as it applies to the political arena. 10-2, #8 reigns as the worst argument ever I think. Hey, quit treating me like an MPR reporter and read Drew's post above. Since I don't recall making the "no home state no win" statement myself, I don't see the application here. Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,345 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Fred will win his home state...and many others too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,706 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 It won't matter much anyway! In about 5-10 years there will be another 20-40 million more democrats than republicans in this nation. That will swing the balance of power over to the Donkeys....and the conservative side of the isle will be as small as the tick on the "asses" back. Give it time! The GOP will fall, and the South will rise again....and this time it will be blacks and whites fighting side by side v/s the "Mexican Invasion"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewau02 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. No, Tex, the contention that a Republican not winning New York -- no matter who that Republican is -- somehow devalues his candidacy will probably stand the test of time and remain the worst attempt at making a point in the history of messageboarddom, at least as it applies to the political arena. 10-2, #8 reigns as the worst argument ever I think. Hey, quit treating me like an MPR reporter and read Drew's post above. Since I don't recall making the "no home state no win" statement myself, I don't see the application here. Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for me. Galen, I never suggested that you made the "no home state no win" comment. I'm just speaking for myself and several other conservatives who have made similar comments. I remember the 2000 election vividly and its aftermath. One of the negative factors in the debate that many conservatives used against Al Gore was that he didn't even win his home state. Of course, had the roles been reversed, these same conservatives would have argued the exact opposite. Conservatives will be forced to foresake the "no home state no win" argument we used back in 2000 because it's very likely that Guliani or Romney will win the nomination. Face it, the GOP field this time around is not that strong and all of us conservatives will cast our ballots for a guy who won't even carry his home state. That's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I know they have a much better picture of Rudy than most Americans. I nominate this for Worst.Argument.Ever. New York would vote for Pol Pot if he was a democrat and Jesus Christ was the republican nominee. They're not real bright up there. No, Tex, the contention that a Republican not winning New York -- no matter who that Republican is -- somehow devalues his candidacy will probably stand the test of time and remain the worst attempt at making a point in the history of messageboarddom, at least as it applies to the political arena. 10-2, #8 reigns as the worst argument ever I think. Hey, quit treating me like an MPR reporter and read Drew's post above. Since I don't recall making the "no home state no win" statement myself, I don't see the application here. Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for me. Galen, I never suggested that you made the "no home state no win" comment. I'm just speaking for myself and several other conservatives who have made similar comments. I remember the 2000 election vividly and its aftermath. One of the negative factors in the debate that many conservatives used against Al Gore was that he didn't even win his home state. Of course, had the roles been reversed, these same conservatives would have argued the exact opposite. Conservatives will be forced to foresake the "no home state no win" argument we used back in 2000 because it's very likely that Guliani or Romney will win the nomination. Face it, the GOP field this time around is not that strong and all of us conservatives will cast our ballots for a guy who won't even carry his home state. That's just the way it is. If Rudy was from South Carolina and wasn't going to carry his state, I'd have a different reaction. New York is just an odd place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinCrimson 61 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 39%, eh? That's generous. Rasmussen shows him getting only 29% if/when NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg enters as an Independent. By the way, who's cruel idea was it to include the letter "S" in "lisp?" Rudy's future opponent? Thought for the day... Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.