Giuliani to GOP on gay marriage: 'Stay out of it'

Even though it's clearly him trying to get on the good side of people...he may also screw himself out of the nomination. Because after all, all the republican party seems to care about these days is insulting Obama, and going after same-sex marriage. *cough* Minnesota *cough*

And if RedState reads my post, please don't get into a heated argument or some silly thing like this. I am just saying it seems they often do this, I'm not saying it is what they do, it's more just my own personal opinion.

 

asking a politiction to stay out of other peoples lives if like asking paris hilton not to be a incompitant whore.

 

And on that note

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYy9LysXANI&feature=related[/youtube]

 

I'd rather he said that he supports equality, like conservative Prop 8 lawyer Ted Olson has so eloquently stated. It's good that some of the gop are starting to vote in our favor, however, I hope they pick the most far-right, anti-gay Presidential candidate possible with the hope that it will be easy for Obama to win a second term. I also hope there is a large backlash to the gop wins in 2010, especially in MN. The gop liars said they wouldn't take up the marriage ban issue this year, but they did. Nothing but liars as usual, yet people fell for their "jobs jobs jobs" line. I hope Minnesotans learned their lesson and put Democrats back in office.

 

^

I wouldn't count on it. In America, the presidential race is decided almost exclusively by the employment rate. If Obama doesn't get jobs under control (and given that the GOP's goal is to prevent him winning no matter what cost to the nation, he won't), he could even lose to Bachmann.

 

he still has higher approval ratings on the job market and the econamy than the republican party does. all he has to do is be more aggressive about the fact that we wouldnt be in this econamy if it was not for the 8 years of republican policies that preceded him, which is documentable, seeing as republican policies appeared before each dip in the econamy, and republican refusal to allow new policies since obama took office has done nothing to help us fix their mess.

obama has not done enough, but he has still achieved more good for this nation in his first three years than the whole 8 of bush. he just needs to get more aggressive, which he is.

none of the republicans can outspeak him, and all he has to do is use his direct language skills to point out the alternative. right now, it is looking like the republicans wont be keeping the house if recent elections are any indication.

 

Plus let's not forget the fact that it was Republicans who caused the unemployment rate to be so bad....I mean Obama can only do so much with what he's given. People complain about him having caused a higher deficit, but in truth, the higher deficit is only because there was so much already from Bush. If that was taken away from what Obama's spent, the deficit wouldn't actually be as high as it is. But you know people, they like to look for anything to blame.

---------- Post added 17th Jul 2011 at 05:37 PM ----------

In the first term of a President one can only do so much without ruffling feathers. If he gets the second term, I truly believe Obama is going to finally do what needs to be done. Because after winning a second term, there's only two possible things that can happen if he becomes more aggressive: 1. impeachment (doubtful), or 2. The end of his term in 2016 because he can only serve two terms. After that, all we can hope is the USA is in a good enough stance that if a Republican moves in, and it winds up a not so good one like Bush, the USA can hold itself...though if you look at the past, Bush took the good that Clinton did and basically took the surplus the USA had and turned it into a deficit.

I'm just saying.

 

I'd prefer that he risk being aggressive in this term. I hate the excuse that he's not doing the best job he can because he wants to get re-elected. He could build a legacy in one term if he dared. Or at least try to (since the GOP seems determined to do whatever it can to stop him).

That said, I'm surprised he has better ratings on jobs than the GOP. Not because he isn't better on jobs (he is), but because the president tends to bear more than his share of the blame for any problem the US faces. Could you link me to the study?

 

I think the ratings were on gallup polls and pew polls.

democrats are already learning that if they are aggressive on pointing out the policies of republicans, they can beat them for congressional seats... which isnt a vice versa, since republicans tend not to directly talk about democratic policies, because those overwhelmingly still get support (such as social security, higher taxes for the upper 2-3%, medicare, union rights, and DADT), so they use blanket statements that include words like "policy" and "socialisem" since they cant survive on facts.

it is now up to the democrats to pump up the assertiveness. Republicans circle the wagon and tow the party line, which is not a democratic tradition, as democrats are more likely to break with the suposed democratic party line because they can exist on facts.

 

I think the poll that Emberstone might be referring to is one comparing whether Obama or Bush is more to blame for the bad economy. Maybe not, but I read an article about that. I can say that Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus and Bush screwed that up BIG TIME. That's what the Dems. need to advertise and make dire warnings of allowing us to return to that again. They need to take full adavantage of the gop governors who were elected in 2010 and who have done everything as quickly as possible to push down us working class Americans. Make no mistake, they are starting with public employee unions, but they'll move to neuter the private sector unions as well.

I cannot agree more that Obama AND the other Democrats need to be more aggressive advertising the good things they have done and want to do if re-elected. The vast majority of Americans are of the middle and lower incomes and that is exactly who the Democratic party is supposed to be passing laws and reducing taxes to help us make a better life. Yes, some will say that Democrats want to give money to those who won't work (welfare), and I think we need some reform on that program. We should expect some effort by those who are getting assistance and that would help most all of our communities.

Reagan and Bush talked about "trickle down economics" That means let the rich get richer and then us non-rich should get some of their crumbs and we should be happy about that. It DIDN'T work when Reagan reduced the top federal income bracket from 70% to 40% (roughly) and it didn't work when Bush kept taxes low for the top bracket either. Think of our interstate highways, infrastructure, space program, and social programs that helped most all Americans after WWII. They were paid in large part by the higher tax rate for the top bracket. Maybe those Americans of 60 years ago had more patriotism and were ok with paying a higher percentage of their income and still lived very comfortably, whereas some of the weathly today just want more for themselves and say fuck the rest of the country because we just need to work harder so we're not so poor. :eusa_doh:

That is who I think the gop works for, the wealthy and making sure they can amass as much money as possible so they will fund their next re-election

 

oh hell- just reading these threads makes me upset. as the song goes: oh we've come so far, but we've got so far to go... i guess i'm just immature; but still...

 

I love how republicans constantly say "kicking the can down the road", or variation thereof, yet thats all they do. We didnt have a deficit under clinton, and bush Sr. left a deficit for him... bush jr. turned it into a far worse deficit, and left it to obama.

republicans have a moral task that they refuse to take up; trim the policies of theirs that destory surpluses.

If raising the debt ceiling is such a bad thing, why did they do it 7 times (two years they did it twice each), but now that a democrat is in the whitehouse, they dont want to do it?

republicans dont create jobs... they dont have a history to back it up... but democrats do.

it is a shame the democrats are not reminding people of that quantifiable fact.

Republicans are for the top... democrats are for the citizen. ironicly, jesus was for the citizen too, yet republicans dont listen to him, but claim they do.

 

Republicans follow Supply Side Jesus.

 

that would be less sad if it wasnt 100% accurate. Thanks for posting.

 

(bolding mine)

Yes, exactly!

The Dems. seem too polite to push these important points. I hope they are saving up this great material for the the 2012 election.

 

CBS was saying today that 71% of americans disapproved of the republicans, i think around 51-58% (sorry, i dont remeber exactly which) disapprove of democrats handling, and only 48% disaprove of obama's handling.

it seems the majority disapprove of both parties handling, which means we need new ideas from both... but dont expect the status quo *poor people can go to hell* republican party to even be willing to come close to that.

Giuliani is a joke. him telling republicans to stay out of the gay marriage issue seems more like a attempt to try to convince them to not anger the moderates and independents, who are moving away from the republican party on social issues... but the reality, they are also running away from them on all the other issues these days. this also coming from a man who said there were no terrorists attacks against americans under bush's watch...

 

(Btw, Giuliani is not a joke.)

 

in your opinion meybe, but to the rest of america (including most republicans), they regard giuliani as a joke. He has a habit of saying the stupidest things, getting his facts wrong, and doing it in such a way that is beyond typical demigogery.

 

You're too hilarious, Emberstone. Really.