i can only hope this is indicative...

[caspian_x]

Dear Hillary and Barack,

Please keep up the bickering.

Gratefully yours,
Republicans everywhere

The Gallup Poll: Giuliani Has Uniquely Broad Based Political Appeal

Net Favorable Ratings for Potential 2008 Candidates
(percentage favorable minus percentage unfavorable)
Feb. 9-11, 2007

Net
Favorable
Among
Own Party

Net
Favorable
Among
Independents

Net

Comments

[ubersaurus]

After 8 years of Bush, I question how much chance ANY republican has of winning in 2008. He's really set that party back.

[caspian_x]

I totally agree, which is why I can support a candidate that I disagree with on so many social issues. I think a moderate is the only R with any chance. As much as I'd like McCain (on most things) or possibly Romney (don't know enough about him yet), I think Rudy's got the best shot. I mean, he was elected in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 1. He's obviously got some cross-party pull, and the Gallup Poll above confirms that.

[ubersaurus]

I could accept him as president, but I wouldn't vote for him :P that said if he wants to come be mayor of Detroit for a while that would be sweet; they could really use some sort of growth at this point.

I have a preference for Obama, myself.

[caspian_x]

I think a lot of Democrats could accept him as a president and may choose to do if their party's choice is one of the current front runners.

Even if I were a Democrat (*shudder*), Obama's got no experience. Giuliani has a proven track record and can deliver results Republicans want while protecting social issues many Democrats care deeply about.

[ubersaurus]

Arguably none of them have experience in presidential affairs except Gore, who's probably not going to end up running.

I care more about environmental issues, and if 8 years of Bush have given me anything to take away, it's that Republicans really can't be trusted to deal with it.

[caspian_x]

True, but I'd rather have a guy who was the executive of one of the toughest cities in America and produced incredible results than a guy who's spent 2 years in the Senate.

In typical conservative fashion, I think many if not most environmental issues are the result of extremely well-intentioned people who have been duped into believing over-hyped alarmists that selectively choose which parts science to which they want to give attention and credence. So I'm still for Rudy. :o)

[ubersaurus]

Some of it is just common sense though. If you dump toxic gunk in the water, or in the ground, it's going to make it unsafe for humans and other life to live on, or to drink from, or to eat food from. If you pollute the air, you're going to have a lot more health problems related to breathing crap, to say nothing of the impact of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere en masse. Tear up the earth for mining or drilling, and you fuck up the area animals live or mate in. Yet these are all things that had protections rolled back under Bush's run. I'm DEFINITELY not happy about that.

I applaud California taking a stance on the whole affair, but I'd prefer it if the rest of the states would follow suit.

[caspian_x]

Some of it only seems like common sense. Yes, dumping crap in drinking water is bad. You'd be surprised at some others. Drilling in Alaska, for one. Caribou are actually thriving in the areas where there have been drilling, not to mention that something like 0.5% of Alaska has seen human civilization. But mention oil drilling in Alaska near an environmentalist and you'd better be wearing a Kevlar vest. Good intentions, but often taken way too far.

[ubersaurus]

But here's the thing...there isn't any economic reason to drill in alaska, either. I actually asked my congressmen about it, and as it was explained to me, the extra oil we'd get from drilling there would not even put a dent in the prices we'd pay. All it would really do is muck up the land and line the coffers of whoever is doing the drilling.

The area hotly contested about said drilling is a major breeding ground for numerous species, ones that would in all likelihood be much more sensitive to the work being done. Two reasons that, in my mind, are good ones to not bother.

[ariock]

I am a registered Republican, and it is attitudes like THIS:
"Even if I were a Democrat (*shudder*)"
That has turned me off of BOTH parties.

Puh-lease. An effing commie would be better than W.

[caspian_x]

Oh come now, we can have a little tongue in cheeck fun with out getting too offended, can't we?

(Side note: I can't agree a commie would be better than W, which is why the New York Senator won't be getting my vote.)

[avatrix]

As a Massachusetts resident most of my life, I can't stand Romney. He's pissed off so many people here. His political stances have changed dramatically in the last 6-12 months in preparation for a presidential attempt.

I'm curious though, what are Giuliani's positions? I have no idea, really.

[caspian_x]

From what little I know of Romney, I have heard he's flip-flopped on a abortion I think. Not really sure. I know he's the favorite of some of my favorite pundits, but I just think Giuliani has a better rep with both sides of the aisle.

As far as Rudy's positions, take a look at this interview. Whatever your opinions about Sean Hannity, Rudy makes his positions pretty clear.

(GAH! Third time at the link is the charm. I REALLY wish comments were editable...)

[avatrix]

Haha, yeah. I went to the first two as bad links, and ended up finding a summary of his views on Wikipedia. Thanks for the effort though!