Giuliani Takes Step Toward '08 Bid

[MagicRose99]

*gives you a break*

Why isn't he to be forgiven? It's really none of your business what he did in his private life, opinion or not.

I want a good liar in office. The better the liar, the better the politician. It's the ones who aren't as good or who slip up and get caught that we chastize in public. It's obvious there are more jerks around like the ones who do get caught, but until they do they look like saints in the public eye, and I'm fine with that. Also consider there are things as a people we shouldn't hear or know about for our own good, and also when dealing with foreign relations it's an asset to be a good liar for our national interests and security.

And in case you're wondering, I'm dead serious about this. There is no sarcasm intended in this post. Lie on!

If you're referencing Clinton, I never said that he wasn't to be forgiven; I said others are implying that Clinton can't be forgivin, yet Guiliani should be...

I personally thought Clinton was a good President, his personal life aside. But, Clinton was also a Governor before he became President. He had more experience with politics in his career up to and including that Governorship than Guiliani ever has.

 

[MagicRose99]

I guess no one is going to be running the country if you expect them to have been perfect. I am not condoning Clinton or Guliani for their past sins, but we have all done things wrong, including anyone who has ever led this country. The point is to learn from our mistakes and improve ourselves. With our past leaders (Kennedy, etc) the media didn't report on things like affairs and personal indiscretions, but now everything is fair game.

Also, I don't think Guliani is exploiting 9/11 at all. How is he, exactly? That's not his political platform, for goodness sake. He was a rock to a lot of people during that time, and people like to feel that they can count on their leaders to be calm and strong during times of crisis. I think that's what people are responding to as far as he is concerned.

Oh, come on! I NEVER said they had to be perfect. I am talking about the DOUBLE STANDARDS that people are displaying in this thread. It's NOT ok for Clinton, but It IS ok for Guiliani to have affairs? *SNORT* Right...

I do not like, nor would I ever support Guiliani because he is not EXPERIENCED enough to run our country. Running a city, even a city as large as NY, does NOT make him qualified to run our country.

Nor does it impress me that he would use a National tragedy to further his career.

This is MY opinion, you don't like it, that's your perogative. But trying to twist my words into an argument... :waitasec:

 

[ljwf22]

His claim to fame was taking down Mob Bosses and he did it well.

Thanks. I had thought he was tough on criminals no matter which office he was in. I like that.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Guliani's affair,I think is rather minor,especially when you compare it to what Ted Kennedy did in 1969,leaving that poor girl to die underwater for 8 hours while he decided to take a nap--that's the mother of all scandals,Watergate notwithstanding---I like both Bill Clinton and Guliani--Guliani did a great job against the mob,and was a good mayor,especially post 911--but I'm not sure if that would qualify him for President,since most presidents were either governors or senators before they were elected--Perhaps he would make a better VP candidate---One poster mentioned Barick Obama as a VP for the democats--I'd say there's less than zero chance of that happening in 2008,because most people have never heard of him--He's also black and with a strange name; perhaps in 2012 or 2016 he may make it as a VP candidate,but he needs to show himself more as a leader

 

[Boyz_Mum]

We would have very few Presidents if we voted for them based on if they had affairs. I don't condone any of it,but some of our greatest leaders were not true blue to their wives,FDR being one of them. How about JFK,Eisenhower,LBJ. Those are just in modern times,who knows what went on in the past.
I love Guilliani. He cleaned up NY and on 9/11,he took control.I think being in charge of NYC is like being in charge of a mini USA. I think he could do it. If not the President,maybe VP with McCain.
Hows this for a race in 2008,Clinton/Obama vs McCain and Guilianni. That would be very interesting.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing along the lines of President's who may have or have not had affairs. I also don't condone it- but when someone is willing to "own" their skeletons, it sheds a different light on them in my eyes.

I like Guilliani, I think even before 9/11 he did well by NYC. I don't know that firsthand but by things I read.

Your proposed "ticket" doesn't look too bad... I don't know enough about McCain or Obama at this point. It may be a very interesting race. I am wondering if Guilliani and his reported "pro-choice" stance will effect him as per running on a republican platform?

 

[robinparten]

Oh, come on! I NEVER said they had to be perfect. I am talking about the DOUBLE STANDARDS that people are displaying in this thread. It's NOT ok for Clinton, but It IS ok for Guiliani to have affairs? *SNORT* Right...

I do not like, nor would I ever support Guiliani because he is not EXPERIENCED enough to run our country. Running a city, even a city as large as NY, does NOT make him qualified to run our country.

Nor does it impress me that he would use a National tragedy to further his career.

This is MY opinion, you don't like it, that's your perogative. But trying to twist my words into an argument... :waitasec:

Why are you making such a big deal out of comparing Clinton to Guliani? It is not a party issue to admit to making mistakes - people on both sides do wrong things all the time. For every person out there who criticized Clinton, there was also a person loudly proclaiming the opposite. Same thing with Guliani. I hope that Guliani differs from Clinton in that he just owns up to the things he has done wrong - it gives your opposers no where to go when you admit you are human and you make mistakes. Clinton simply would not admit anything. This was a guy who said he didn't inhale. That has to rate up there as one of the most ridiculous statements of all time.

 

[Marthatex]

Why are you making such a big deal out of comparing Clinton to Guliani? It is not a party issue to admit to making mistakes - people on both sides do wrong things all the time. For every person out there who criticized Clinton, there was also a person loudly proclaiming the opposite. Same thing with Guliani. I hope that Guliani differs from Clinton in that he just owns up to the things he has done wrong - it gives your opposers no where to go when you admit you are human and you make mistakes. Clinton simply would not admit anything. This was a guy who said he didn't inhale. That has to rate up there as one of the most ridiculous statements of all time.

Clinton did admit he had done wrong once it was obvious to all and Hillary found out. Typical hand in the cookie jar, like MARK FOLEY, who suddenly went to to rehab once he was "caught".

Of course Clinton wouldn't admit it; he had a sex problem; and he was compulsive about it, just like other sex addicts. It's a disease, just like alcoholism. Rudy may have it too, for all we know - 3 marriages; affairs. He didn't just have ONE affair, folks.

It's a psychological problem when it keeps repeating itself. He evidently went to counseling, he meets with Billy Graham, and he volunteers for aids.

His wife did NOT divorce him, like Hanover, the actress, Hillary must love him in some way. How do we know he and Hillary were'nt having "problems" when he had this particular affair; and MONICA THROUGH HERSELF AT HIM. How many men could turn that flirting and conniving down. I've never seen much like it.

Clinton has gone years now, and CAN"T WE FORGIVE HIM? THE Lord says to forgive when people repent. Then we can forgive Juliani too if he stays faithful to Judith.

I'll never understand the "sexual hangups" we have in this country. Alot of times sex is just "sex". what's important is the marriage relationship and what's going on. At least half of all men have affairs. Yes, the goal is to be committed and faithful, but as we all know from looking at the rich, movie stars, that just doesn't always happen.

If Andy Garcia came up to me right now, I'd probably have an affair. Temptation is hard. Jerry Seinfeld's wife immediately divorced her new husband when Jerry showed an interest. BOOM - I'm divorced now.

Alot of the blame has to do with women who flirt IMO.

 

[Beyond Belief]

When the American people hire a person for the position of president, I don't believe they expect to have to listen to him/her lie about an affair they are having. You can not make a comparison between someone who made a mockery out of the trust given them by the American people and someone who is simply throwing their hat in the ring.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

When the American people hire a person for the position of president, I don't believe they expect to have to listen to him/her lie about an affair they are having. You can not make a comparison between someone who made a mockery out of the trust given them by the American people and someone who is simply throwing their hat in the ring.

I agree. That Clinton had an affair during his marriage with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and then Monica...I'd really rather not know the sordid details. That is his issue with his wife, IMO.

My greatest problem with the whole Monica deal was him making it a longer drawn out ordeal than it had to be, by lying. And...he was an licensed atorney, correct? or had been? To lie UNDER OATH? He just mocked the judicial system, IMO. What the heck happened to the fear of perjury and just having the internal moral compass to tell the truth under oath? And he gets on TV in that indignant tone and looks the American people "in the eye" (camera) and says he never had sex with "that woman." The whole excuse about "well, every man will lie about affairs, etc" doesn't go far with me. He was the President of the United States. He knew he was guilty and it was just a matter of time before more of the sordid details would come out.

Now...I think I like ol' Bill more now, after he's been out of office and I've seen his relationship with daddy Bush. I think their relationship is special. Bill is a charmer and I think he did some good things in office. But lying UNDER OATH to the American Public about something that he could have admitted to much earlier and more privately, was very harmful, IMO.

What Rudy has done before, as well as other potential Pres. candidates - bet they ALL have skeletons in the closets. How bad, how many, how they handled it, etc. - I take all that into consideration when trying to determine a person's character.

 

[Beyond Belief]

Nice D.D.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[jilly]

When the American people hire a person for the position of president, I don't believe they expect to have to listen to him/her lie about an affair they are having. You can not make a comparison between someone who made a mockery out of the trust given them by the American people and someone who is simply throwing their hat in the ring.

:clap: Excellent post BB. I don't see the comparison at all. Just another deflection. Clinton was President, having sex in the Oval office and then he looked right at the camera and denied it.

I think Rudy has a very good chance of becoming President if the Republicans will let him. Because of 911, Rudy became a national/international hero. The argument that it was only NY and not a country is weak imo. He grabbed a spot in everyone's heart. People saw him lead and he gained world-wide respect.

We'll have to see how this exploration goes. Hopefully he'll do better than Donald Trump!

 

[OneLostGrl]

This really confuses me, you guys, because everybody knew "stuff" about Clinton too. :waitasec:

Oh Juliani is wonderful, he got his dometic affair and violence right out in the open; so that's OK.

Clinton was right out in the open in the Oval OFfice, but oh that horrible man.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I see a double standard. Republican/Democrat

Republicans say Barack Obama is "not experienced enought". 7 years in the legislature and 4 in the federal Senate?

As Scarborough said on the air tonight, running New York City is not quite the same as runnning a whole country, understanding legislative process, and understanding foreign affairs.

We DESPERATELY need an expert on foreign affairs for our next President IMO.

I'm sure he's intelligent, but he's got too much baggage, and I'd much rather see an experienced Senator like Warner or even John McCain or Olympia Snowe run. (republican)

Ok... wait wait wait! Before you quote my post, re-read it, please!

I said NOTHING about Bill Clinton, I didn't even say that I think Rudy would make a good president, Marthtex. I don't understand why you are directing this post at me. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat! I can't even vote!

I'm sorry if this is a hot topic for you and you felt I was disagreeing with you politicly but that is not the case.

 

[Marthatex]

I find it hilarious to watch this support play out for him by people who castigated Clinton for his schennaigans. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Agreed. There are definitely 2 trains of thought on this, and people will simply not agree or compromise, I guess.

I personally see double standard/hypocrisy. It doesn't matter WHEN they lied. IMO It doesn't matter WHERE they lied. If they cheated on their wife, I think it's bad. People simply want to continue to hate Clinton, year after year, regardless of the Gospel.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

Once again, y'all are forgetting something: Foreign policy, foreign policy

Experience with legislation, legislative process. Rudy would make a great CEO, mayor or perhaps governor. The name of his book, which he signed for me, is indeed "Leadership". I have read it.

Speaking skills, charisma, squeaky-cleanness, we need that this time IMO.

I could even change my mind later; I just doubt it at this point.

One Lost Girl - I did not name you in my post - even though I quoted you, I was addressing all above in general terms.

You said "he got everything out in the open before hand", and that makes it OK. I simply disagree. He was still representing the people of New York City wasn't he? That's the "American People".

I will not post anymore on this thread; I am used to posting on the PP, and I speak very directly. I did not mean to direct my post towards anyone; I come from a political family. That's why I have such strong, but I believe fair, opinions. I'm a good reader and I understand what people are saying. I keep up on political issues, and am well read. (books magazines, blogs)

Gonzo on PP agrees, "too much baggage". Actually I should be very happy for the Republicans to nominate Rudy; I think the Dem candidate then would probably win. No one wants another George Bush type I fear.

 

[cheko1]

I agree with you Marthatex.......

I feel he can't even take care of his own personal life being married 3 times. I sure don't want him taking care of the USA! At that I also am bowing out of this discussion!

 

[MagicRose99]

Agreed. There are definitely 2 trains of thought on this, and people will simply not agree or compromise, I guess.

I personally see double standard/hypocrisy. It doesn't matter WHEN they lied. IMO It doesn't matter WHERE they lied. If they cheated on their wife, I think it's bad. People simply want to continue to hate Clinton, year after year, regardless of the Gospel.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

Once again, y'all are forgetting something: Foreign policy, foreign policy

Experience with legislation, legislative process. Rudy would make a great CEO, mayor or perhaps governor. The name of his book, which he signed for me, is indeed "Leadership". I have read it.

Speaking skills, charisma, squeaky-cleanness, we need that this time IMO.

I could even change my mind later; I just doubt it at this point.

One Lost Girl - I did not name you in my post - even though I quoted you, I was addressing all above in general terms.

You said "he got everything out in the open before hand", and that makes it OK. I simply disagree. He was still representing the people of New York City wasn't he? That's the "American People".

I will not post anymore on this thread; I am used to posting on the PP, and I speak very directly. I did not mean to direct my post towards anyone; I come from a political family. That's why I have such strong, but I believe fair, opinions. I'm a good reader and I understand what people are saying. I keep up on political issues, and am well read. (books magazines, blogs)

Gonzo on PP agrees, "too much baggage". Actually I should be very happy for the Republicans to nominate Rudy; I think the Dem candidate then would probably win. No one wants another George Bush type I fear.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:​

 

[Paladin]

I like both Rudy and Clinton. I can easily separate their adultery and their leadership skills as I think they are mutually exclusive.