<p>Giuliani is too liberal for a Repub nomination. Hey, if he ran as a Democrat, I'd vote for him. let's see if the Dems are reasonable enough to allow him to run for them.</p>
<p>Uh...did you watch him campaign for Bush last year? I doubt that he would cross over to the dems.</p>
<p>Eiffel, I am just continually amazed at you. You are just a stereotypical bush-hating, liberal kid who thinks there is a conspiracy around every corner. Want to talk conspiracy? Lets talk about John Kerry's dealings with the Communist party back in the 70's. Lets talk about Ted Kennedy and his little "accident" at Chappaquiddick. Lets talk about Clinton's midnight pardon of Marc Rich. </p>
<p>Man, you think you're something special? Any obnoxious, self-righteous Dem could spew out the garbage you are. You are just another Michael Moore clone.</p>
<p>Stereotypical Bush-hating liberal kid?</p>
<p>You've mentioned to label and stereotype me. </p>
<p>Firstly, I never suggested that there was a conspiracy about Bush. I never accused Bush of rampantly purging off voters. That's a matter that Flordia's Secretary of State had to deal with; they hired an outside agency to do this and didn't double check. I'm not suggesting "right wing conspiracy" or suggest that there was conspiracy. I thought it was an interesting note.</p>
<p>I despised Clinton's pardonning of Marc Rich and Clinton's half-brother.</p>
<p>Secondly, I'm not a liberal; I do not identify myself as such. I consider myself a fiscal convervative and moderately conservative in social issues. I prefer Senator Frist then Jeb Bush as 2008's Republican Candidate. I'm planning to register as a Republican. I have no idea how you managed to assume that I'm a liberal or a Bush-hater. I don't hate President Bush; I disagree with him on some issues, but not all.</p>
<p>I'm also an admirer of the Barronnes Thatcher, former Prime Minister of UK, Sir Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of the UK, and the late President Ronald Reagan.</p>
<p>You've managed to apply labels haphazardly without once asking my opinion on issues; you've managed to arbritrarily decide and determine for yourself who I am and what I believe; you've managed to slander me in your efforts to disagree with me. You've only managed to attack me with lies instead of attacking the issues at hand; that is despicable.</p>
<p>Well, so much for a scholarly discussion...I thought I had finally found someplace to discuss politics without being flamed by my peers (ie school)</p>
<p>as i recall, eiffel has some pretty conservative views on affirmative action, too. </p>
<p>anyhoo, Giuliani might consider the Dems if he feels slighted enough by the Repubs.</p>
<p>I apologize to the board for breaking with our discussion to correct an attack on my character.</p>
<p>Amdandrew: I hope you will always feel that CC is a place where you will be respected for your opinions, not attacked.</p>
<p>Babybird87: Giuliani won't switch; the Dems wanted McCain too and he stuck by them. McCain surely was slighted by the Repubs.</p>
<p>I think i'll throw in my two cents... i wont play around im a republican, i loved reagan, campaigned for bush 2004 in a state that went against him almost 3 to 1(RI) and frankly i like and identify with him on alot of issues.....</p>
<p>i think that 2008 is going to be a very interesting election because we see both sides with out a clear leader...Bush will be out of the picture, or at least George will....that leaves names like mcCain, rice, guiliani as forerunners....in my oppinion McCain is to left socially for me, Guiliani is also a bit left but i think stands a chance, like McCain if they were to somehow pull through the primaries....Rice, though brilliant has many faults that could be taken advantage of as well....i see no one who has any lead and with others like frist and jeb bush in the mix, it makes for a pretty exciting coming elections.</p>
<p>On the other side, there is equal messiness.....Hilary, despite her late attempts to be "religious" stands little to no chance overall, unless the repubs field a worse canidate....kerry and edwards are both washed out...who else does that leave?</p>
<p>Its gonna be interesting!</p>
<p>eiffel-- mccain didn't switch because he's old and he had no chance, not because he didn't want to. </p>
<p>:p</p>
<p>Eiffel stop kidding yourself, I read your posts, and you are definitely a cookie-cutter bush-hater...</p>
<p>I was just going to say..Giuliani is one republican I'd vote for, Arnold too...because they are both liberals socially.</p>
<p>isn't arnold against gay marriage and stem cell research? how can he be a liberal republican?</p>
<p>Well Arnold didn't come out against gay marriage; he said supported the will of the people in prop 22.</p>
<p>Arnold tends me less conservative (socially) than his Republican parts in such issues as gun control, which he supports (ban on assualt rifles, etc.) </p>
<p>Babybird: Poor McCain. Somebody alluded to Keating Scandal. But switching parties is dangerous politically; look at Jeffords...he's despised by the Republican party.</p>
<p>Why poor McCain? Looks like he's trying to get the best of both parties, appearing on Jon Stewart and bashing who he likes. Nice.</p>
<p>"Poor McCain" referred to his participation in the Keating affair; and also the fact that he had melanoma, can't move one of his arms too freely, and party-hops.</p>
<p>babybird, </p>
<p>Arnold is definitely not against stem cell research. According to California law (passed by Arnold), state funds can be used to fund research.</p>
<p>I believe he is in favor of at least civil unions, but he supported the mayor of SF and stayed out of that whole business.</p>
<p>It was a proposition manderz1, not legislation from the California Legislature or signed by Arnie.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure he ordered the SF mayor to stop it, or the mayor had gone against specific laws and Arnold was annoyed.</p>
<p>i wouldn't consider him too liberal. but it's moot anyway, he can't run and there won't be an amendment.</p>
<p>eiffel, that's true, but Arnold supported it and supports stem cell research. He has come out in favor of it, which definitely goes against what Bush and most of the rest of his party believe.</p>
<p>I would never call a republican a liberal, but he's definitely a centrist.</p>
<p>As for the civil unions, I stand corrected. He is still, much, much, much more palatable to these ultra conservatives, who literally frighten me.</p>
<p>It's funny; while the United States appears to be heading towards a trend of conservatism, California remains quite well grounded in liberalism. As an analyst said, to paraphrase, while the rest of the nation is turning right, California is turning left.</p>