The term neocon has taken on so many shades of slander and used so haphazardly I’m not sure anybody knows what it means anymore. I don't.

(By the way, the term was coined by Michael Harrington, a leftist.)

And what “sociofascist” means, I can't guess.

But if we mean by neoconservatives those who "started" the war in Iraq, Rudy is fine by them. He's a hawk on the war against Jihad.

As for the moral majority Christian conservatives, I don't really know how they will treat Rudy.

But all these calculations and triangulations miss the point. They represent 20th Century Clintonion thinking. By 2008, the country will be in a state of mind and of need incomprehensible to this kind of purely political calculation. In my view, Rudy Giuliani is perfectly constructed and prepared for this moment in time.

He is a leader in a classic sense – he defines a larger, common good, explains it with reason and inspiration, does not flinch from attack in the pursuit of it, and leads people past their selfish concerns to achieve it. This doesn’t mean the results are perfect, or everybody is happy, or some don’t hate him. (I’m sure there are Dinkin liberals in New York who despise him still.) But no one running, except perhaps Romney who was a CEO for awhile and ran the Olympics, has this experience or identity or demonstrated capability.

By 2008, this country will need these qualities like a dehydrated man needs water.

So I agree with Scooter.

Rudy is also a mensch, and that will help too.

No. I don't think he's that attractive of a candidate. I think the left won't take to him because of his law and order background and because he's a Republican. I don't think the right will take to him because of his affair on the government payroll, association with people who have been convicted of corruption, and his stance on social issues. I don't think the middle will go for him because his only experience is as mayor and US Attorney for the District of New York. 9-11 has a bad conotation to everyone now, not that it was all that great to be associated with one of the country's greatest disasters, but I think even his performance after 9-11 isn't going to get him very far.

I think he's much like Wes Clark was like in 2000, the strongest candidate in the field until he announced his candidacy. Polls this far out are usually like that. Liddy Dole was leading the Republicans this far out in 2000, Mario Cuomo was leading in 1992.

Yeah - I think Rudy is a new breed of presidential hopeful that is quite refreshing. Hillary, conversely, is the confrontational, angry style of politician that we've lived through since the Reagan-Carter days. It's getting old.

Maybe the only thing wrong with Rudy as far as what the rest of the country feels, is the fact he's from New York. I meet a lot of Americans who really can't stand New York or New Yorkers.

He's a weak, sleazy, statist criminal looking to remain on the government teat.
http://images14.fotki.com/v370/photo...dropout-vi.gif

Damn, Pat! That's nasty! :D

Say what you want, but I stand by my prediction. I am a conservative, but also a realist. There is no way a true conservative will be elected, so I have to go with the best bet. Back in 2000, Bush was not the best conservative running, but he was the most electable Republican at the time.

Have not read any previous posts.

In the beginning Rudy was the best thing that happened to NYC.

Towards the end he lost sight of his "public service" and started letting his personal views cloud his thinking.

I'm a Dem and would have voted for him but his last years changed my mind.

Now Mike Bloomberg I'd vote for. I think he would have done just as good a job with NYC as Rudy did. But he's not a real republican anyway.

Scott

Bloomberg is being investigated by the feds for obstruction of justice.

What Scooter said is why McCain is going to get the Republican nomination, despite the naysayers. Republicans annoint their nominees; Democracts beat theirs. McCain is the front runner and the Republicans are desperate to get a Republican other than Bush in the White House. They'll fall in line behind McCain soon enough after brief flirtations with the candidate of the month.

BTW, when was the last time a "real" Republican was nominated that got the support of the conservatives? Reagan in 1980. Last time before that? Goldwater, 1964. Reagan's nomination turned out OK. Hope we don't repeat Goldwater's experience this time around. Not sure that being a "real" Republican is a qualifier for getting the nomination. After passing some basic lithmus tests, it's all about electibility, baby.

Hell will be cold?

McCain is as electable as Bob Dole was the day after the election. He's stark, raving insane.

See, this is how our country gets fuched up. We have people more interested in electability than in ability to effective lead our country. We'll be saddled with 8 years of monkey boy the compassionate conservative turned deciderer because of this thinking. At least the goofy Dems make no serious attempt at offering up "electable" candidates.

Investigated does not mean Indicted, Tried and Convicted.

True, but where there is an investigation, there is hope.

When are we going to see a well funded 3rd party or independent candidate emerge. We're always stuck with two crappy choices. Why not make it three? :D

The Libertarian Party furnished first class 3rd party candidates for over 3 decades, but few thought to use them to teach the two largest parties a lesson along the way.

The Libertarian Party was always saddled with one large problem. It offered no one the ability to control the behavior of others; so the Republicans disliked them for opposing corporate welfare and opposing recreational drug prohibition; and the Democrats disliked them for opposing group welfare, government schools, and and government supplied healthcare and other collective programs.

Both of the two largest parties worked together to restrict candidates from the ballot, though the Libertarian presidential candidates were on the ballot most of the time mentioned above. Once the primary system became the only lawful method of choosing candidates from the parties, instead of the party activists doing the choosing as had been done in America since the ratification of the Constitution, the two large parties worked together to attempt to prevent Libertarians and alternative parties from the free TV appearances offered by televised debates.

The courts have agreed with the two largest parties who maintain that having more that two opposing candidates on the debate stage "confuses the electorate" and therefore can be maintained. That is, equal time is only granted the two largest parties.

it's funny...pat can find a fault with anyone...who is gonna be the best bet for president then pat?

I can find fault where there is fault.

The answer to your question is no one unless Ron Paul runs.

wth is Ron Paul? give us the low down.

Information resources on Congressman Ron Paul.

His official web site:
http://www.house.gov/paul/index.shtml

Wiki reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Dr. Paul's presidential campaign exploratory committee:
http://www.ronpaul.org/