Guiliani has a huge advantage over all the other prominently mentioned candidates except Allen, in that he has the requisite qualifications having been Mayor of NYC - an economy larger than that of most of the world's nations.

Most of the others suffer from the Senatorial Syndrome: Senators all think they are qualified to be President, but rarely have they actually managed anything larger than their Senate staffs, hardly a qualifying experience to run an operation with an annual budget approaching $3 TRILLION.

I don't agree with Guiliani on every issue, but I don't agree with Bush on every issue, either. I even disagreed with Reagan on some important issues.

Of those mentioned who haven't expressly declined to run, there is no one more qualified than Guiliani.

õ¿õ

Rudy will never be Pres. His credentials are: Mayor of NYC, and a reputation as a pretty good cleaner-up of NYC, and a stellar perfomance on 9/11. I think he would be a good Pres. But he could never get the nomination. Pro-choice and Pro-queer will kill him. Oh, it wouldn't necessarily kill him, under any and all circumstances, but everything is relative (tip-of-the-hat to Albert E.) And the relative is that there are at least 3 GOP candidates who will, one or the other, defeat Rudy in the relevant primaries that matter: McCain, Allen, Romney. Others might appear. Others would certainly appear if Rudy ever emerged as putative front-runner. All of which says nothing at all about the qualities/characteristics of Rudy per se, or about the kind of Pres he might make. They might be quite outstanding -- and I would bet that they would be. But, bottom-line, the GOP ain't gonna ever -- in the foreseeable future (times will surely change, but not foreseeably) -- nominate for Pres someone whose highest public office has been mayor of NYC. It ain't gonna happen. Nor should it. Anyone who would ever even deign to live in that decadentswap is immediately so suspect that no amount of good works could deliver unto him the GOP nomination. Have you not noticed that all recent Presidents -- since JFK -- have been some variety of Southern/Western Governor, or just Southern/Western? There is no exception. Well, Ford is technically an exception, but he became Pres somewhat by fluke, and was never elected. BushI was only an adopted Southern/Westerner (though BushII is the real thing), but rode on the coat-tails of a real Westerner (Reagan).

Bottom-Line: a strong probability that a Southern/Westerner will get the GOP nomination. Either McCain or Allen. Romney is a dark-horse, and stands some chance (and might be very good), but only because he is a Mormon (despite the conventional wisdom that will be an asset, not a liability), and Mormons are Western. Though still a long-shot. Whereas Rudy is not even a long-shot. Dommage -- 'cause he might be a very good Pres. But he's had the bad luck of being, well, an unadulterated "Yankee". Of which none will be get the GOP nomination, for some yrs to come.

Rudy...Allen...Romney...McCain, hell, ANYBODY but Hillary!! Anybody!! (ok, maybe not Kimmy)

I am vastly more concerned with foreign policy than social policy. Whereas the President can INFLUENCE social policy, the President is RESPONSIBLE for foreign policy!

Rudy saw first hand the result of letting foreign terrorists plot against us in safe-havens abroad, and he knows how effective Bush's efforts have been in breaking them up here at home. Nothing teaches you to respect fire like getting burned!

I'm surprised that some of you say that you might support Rudy if you're social conservatives.

Surely, of the 10+ gop candidates, there must be 1 who you think can match Rudy on foreign policy who is much more socially conservative. I really respect those of you who would support him, because you actually mean it when you say that the War on Terror is your #1 priority.

Personally, I could NEVER support a Democratic candidate who is not pro-choice and pro-equal-civil-rights.

hey Jeremy, long time no "talk" to. "pro-equal-civil-rights"??

Hey...WE AGREE! Of course, some things are not RIGHTS. Things like:
- driving a car (that's why ya need a license)
- flying an airplane (that's why ya need a license)
- performing surgery (that's why ya need a license)
- getting married (that's why ya need a license)

and so on

Jeremy:

I hate to tell you man, but most Republicans are pro-choice. We however don't mock those who are pro-life because their moral outlook is an anchor for the party.

A party with no anchor is adrift.

However, being pro-choice does not in any way make us beleive that the Roe v Wade decision is in any way justified.

Why are the lefties afriad to allow the people to decide? I for one believe the right abortion will survive the test in the majority of states.

Rudy is not different from the Republican majority.

HB--I agree with you about what would happen. Realistically, a few states would outlaw abortion entirely, some would uphold all abortion rights, and most would be in between (likely something like abortion legal in the first trimester but not beyond except in cases where the mother's health is at risk).

An overturning of Roe would be great for the Democratic Party, because most people are at least somewhat pro-choice and do not want to see abortion illegal in all cases. Therefore, republicans who have run on this emotional issue would have to actually vote on it, and I believe Dems would pick up dozens of US House seats and hundreds of state legislature seats throughout the country.

However, it is unfair to the 16-year old in Utah or the 17-year old in Ohio who would see their rights taken away by such a ruling.

Hugh...I think most Republicans do NOT want abortion completely outlawed. But most DO want it more strictly controlled.

The complete and utter nonsense that a "woman's right to choose" extends right up until the baby's first breath is taken is, well, COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE!

Yet that is what the Dimocrat Party embraces!

The notion that a MOTHER'S heatlh could EVER depend upon partially deliverin a baby...and then sicking it brains out is ALSO nonsense! Yet the Dimocrat Party blocks ALL attempts to outlaw that practice.

and so on

ANY and ALL abortions of ANY kind beyond the first 8 weeks should be strictly controlled...and ONLY when the baby can be shown to totally unviable or the the mother's PHYSICAL health is actually at risk. PERIOD.

The Dims also like to tie the Mother's FINANCIAL health into this. Geez!!

Justrand-

I assume in my comments that most rational people can agree on a time period after which a child should not be aborted.

Outside of the most radical feminists, most Dems I know agree that late term abortions are essentially murder.

Of course I make that assumption based upon my own small frame of reference.....so I will stand corrected if needs be.

Justrand--When you talk about D&X, you need to actually look at facts (i.e. that more than half of the Senate Democratic caucus voted FOR THE BAN) when you say that the Dems "block ALL attempts to outlaw that practice."

sorry Jeremy...you're right. Once Bill Clinton could no longer VETO the Partial Birth Abortion bill it DID pass.

Of course moonbat DEMOCRAT Federal Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton promptly singlehandedly ruled the bill unconstitutional!!

I think I could support Rudy for president. I'd first like to see a little more of the man, the kind of exposure a grueling election season will provide.

As for his social policy, I would say it really comes down to the kind of Supreme Court justice he'd nominate. I'm not sure I'd trust him with that. However, if GWB gets one or two more chances to nominate before '08, then the point is moot (to me).

Justrand--My point was not about Bill Clinton but rather that some Dems support it and some don't, factually speaking.

By the way, whether or not you agree, Roe/Casey is on the books, so the law IS unconstitutional. If you disagree with those SCOTUS rulings, that's a different issue, but based on SCOTUS precedent, it's unconstitutional.

It's just like DOMA--DOMA, by definition, is unconstitutional. Regardless of your view on gay rights, DOMA essentially says that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY with regards to the area of marriage. Congress does not have the authority to say that certain parts of the Constitution do or do not apply in certain areas.

Again, it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, civil unions, or whatever else, but if you're truly a "strict constitutionalist," you would think that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Jeremy...exactly why Roe must GO! (hey...good protest sign!)

Anytime a SCOTUS ruling can be the JUSTIFICATION for murder..it is bad!

Well Justrand--that's exactly my point--that the SCOTUS ruling is justification for the lower court ruling. The lower court ruling is correct under our Constitution.

If you think the SCOTUS ruling needs to get overturned, keep electing nutjobs like dubya.

On the other hand, not everyone considers abortion to be murder.

Jeremy, Jeremy...I was refering to her using Roe to say that ALL PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS must be allowed without restroction.

If you don't think PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS are murder then I don't know how you DO define murder!!

algore,

My point was that it doesn't matter what I think, and no offense, it doesn't matter what you think.

Under Roe/Casey, restrictions on abortion that cause an undue burden on the mother, are unconstitutional. This is our system of government.

Those of you who disagree with it have two options: move away, or vote in people who will change it.

I'm not talking about you VIEWS ON ISSUE here--rather just amused at the hypocrisy that allows "conservatives" to bitch and moan 24/7 about "strict constitutionalists" and then fully support DOMA which says that XYZ part of the Constitution (the full faith and credit clause) DOES NOT HOLD HERE!! Yeah--STRICT CONSTITUTIONALISTS!! HAHA. Good one.

Jeremy...Roe is NOT in the Constitution...therefore not CONSTRUCTED.

It is just bad law, that is used to justify horrible actions, but dim-witted Clinton appointed justices!!

Ben Crain is right in his post, but the big issue is not Rudy's desire to fight terrorism, it's really his moral character. Specifically, the scandal around his affairs and divorce while in office will turn off thousands of church-going volunteers and millions of voters. The DNC will spare no expense at making sure every battleground state voter sees Rudy's sordid personal affairs. If Rudy gets the GOP nomination (and I agree with Ben that he probably won't) there WILL be a socially conservative candidate to eat up millions of votes that previously got GWB elected.

Of course, Giuliani could win lots of former Kerry-voters and perhaps still get elected over a uber-liberal like Feingold. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would take a much bigger slice of the Kerry/Gore/Bubba vote than Giuliani could hope for.

The problem with Giuliani is that most of the country likes what they have heard about him. A bit like Kerry.... BEFORE Swiftboat and Flipper ads. I personally would hope that the GOP would have several (8-12) primaries before a candidate prevails, instead of repeating the Kerry mistake of Iowa-New Hampshire-done.