btw, please don't point out the fact that i screw up rudy's last name 1/2 the time...i already know that...this is 1st draft stuff...

I agree that he is "popular" in the polls, which don't mean anything regardless, but I don't he is very popular among conservatives.  You can read a variety of conservative sources that have a generally favorable view of him, but his liberal social policies is hurting him among conservatives.


If his wife plans on starting a national health care plan, then I would wage big money that the right will be "outraged".

Incorrect. The plan saw the light of day and was killed by the then democrat controlled congress. The GOP win in 94 (which meant they did not take control until 95) had nothing to do with Hillary care - or its defeat.

As for Rudy, since this is a "what if", why get worked up until it becomes "Here now"? Even the left is not getting worked up over it.

yes he is popular in the polls. which is the only measure we really have. you might not support him, but his support amongst conservatives is clear from what i see. i thought maybe one of the actual conservatives might "cathc fire" by now, like brownback, hunter huckabee or tancredo. but so far no. lots of talk about fred thompson tho. his candidacy could hurt rudy. we'll see...

actually, what happened was in 93, ther e were several competing plans offered besides hillary's after the big media campaign by the right. true, it didn't get passed in 93. but they did plan on bringing it back in 94 when they were shocked by the GOP takeover. in 94, george mitchell announced hillary's plan was dead.

you are right, i should have said "see the light of day again." if i get the time, i'll correct it.

I actually like him just between us. 

However, I will still disagree that he is popular among conservatives.  Most of the mainstream conservative sites I read have a different take on him, and I am doubtful he would get close to the nominatin, but I certainly could be wrong.

If your own party wont buy the snake oil, do you really think the opposition will? (the your/you is the clintons)

again, there were competing plans and the debate was still going on when the 94 shocker happened as i remember it. the 94 gingrich led revolution very much changed the political landscape. and if you remember, the democrats, who had enjoyed a majority for the bulk of the last 50 years in congress, never saw it coming, and probably wouldn't have encoraged the competition had they seen it on the horizon and the way things would go from there.

don't take that as "justifying" their position or plan. but they lost on that due more to bad planning and not recognizing reality in the 94 election and what was to follow. that , and the media campaign waged by the right that was downright vicious, regardless of where ya sit on the political fence. it was a whole new kind of mean that no one was prepared for.



i appreciate the qualifier, but i knew ya weren't tryin to call me a democrat, lol

take care

Well he's not popular with this conservative. I would NOT vote for Rudy for even local dog catcher. I would not vote for Newt for the same reason.

As you pointed out, Rudy has been married three times. So hasn't Newt and his latest confession doesn't really faze me when it comes to political office. While I would forgive Newt's indiscretions since he's asked for forgiveness, I would say, IMO he's disqualified himself as a leader.

If these men cannot even lead their own families and keep it together, how in the world can they lead a nation?

I mean, ok, if they messed up once, maybe I could let it go. But when you start to see a habitual problem it's another matter. What's the saying, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

No, I would not vote for Rudy or for Newt. As far as I'm concerned they lost their chance. I say, "move over and give somebody else a chance."

The article I read quoted him as saying he'd let her sit in on cabinet meeting discussions of topics in which she had an interest (emphasis added). The attempt by the media to make this the equivalent of Bill/Hill is a little overdone, to be kind. The old media just don't like any of the Republican candidates and will only work the negative angles. I do believe Hillary overstepped the bounds of good taste & goodwill when she was First Lady - after all, she wasn't elected. You seem to have a low opinion of any First Lady who isn't a bitch.  

kfc...we don't agree all the time, but that's the kind of steadfast principle i can admire. out of everyone, you were the only one who would identify themselves as conservative or the like that didn't take a gratuitous shot at hillary and looks at the candidates equally.

daiwa, the same reports said this...He also told Walters that he welcomes his wife's involvement in policy decisions during the campaign "to the extent she wants to be…I couldn't have a better adviser." When asked if she will sit in on policy meetings, Judith said: "...(if asked) yes. And certainly in the areas of health care."

i think there is certainly room for comparison, but the question i asked was more about what is fair game, not whether or not she'll be involved. i think it's clear she will be.



i disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion of course.



not at all. i like some who would be considered "bitchy." like elanor roosevelt. but i think jackie o was the picture of grace and charm and i liked her very much too. i also admire what betty ford did, who , next to elanor and hillary, in my mind was the most important 1st lady in our history for what she did during and after her time in the white house. thanks for the input daiwa, but i have to disagree with you. and the right wing battle cry of "the media hates republicans" is a tired old piece of nonsense in my book.

Oh, she's already taken plenty of potshots out on the ol' Hill-Machine, don't you worry Sean, she's been plenty rotten towards her too, right, KFC?


You know I still love ya.

that may be, but here, she stuck to the subject...at least the 1st question i asked.

ironically, the 1st story i have seen concerning my 2nd question, appeared in the new york post. they did a story about a company judi used to work for who killed puppies in medical experiments. i haven't seen the guts of the story (pardon the pun, lol)but it's interesting that the post, who is usually to the right of the NYT, jumping out early and implying she's either a dog murderer or someone who supports it. although i bet that in the meat (again, pardon the pun) of the story, it will turn out that she wasn't exactly puttin on a butcher's apron and slaughtering dogs on a daily basis. she was probably their bookkeeper or something equally as inane.

I wish that were nonsense, Sean, but my eyes & ears tell a different story.


Context is everything. And at least she is a nurse.

Glad to know the non-bitches still have a shot with ya.