Petra-O IX
Active Member
If all else fails, Rudy could sweet talk Hillary into divorcing Bill then they could get hitched then Rudy would have a sure shot at getting into the White House as First Lady.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rudy for President!
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
- Status
Petra, what are the details about that? I notice that comedians like to dress as women but I think that it is heathen.
Here is more of what David Geffen said about Hillary:
"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548043
It looks as if Obama has started slugging with an iron fist. As I keep saying, all of this is because Rudy is leading Hillary in the polls and the Democrats are depressed that they cannot find a winning candidate. Obama is a sure loser, too, in a national race against Rudy because Obama is to the left of almost everyone in the country, not to mention his racist religious doctrine.
Petra, Rudy can win. He has promised to appoint conservative judges. I think that there will be a pro-life plank in the GOP platform and that he will be happy to run on the platform. McCain called Falwell and Robertson in 2000 "agents of intolerance." Now I don't pay much attention to either one of them but I don't call them names either. Nor do I think that either one of them is intolerant. So McCain is out.
As for Romney, I don't know about you, Petra, but I am not going to vote for a member of one of the 19th century cults that says, among other things, that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. The Mormons are polytheistic in theology and totally cultic. They are so rich and powerful that I have considered starting a thread about their political influence but suffice it to say that they have US Senator Hatch on the Republican side of the aisle, Petra, and US Senate Majority Leader Reid on the Democrat side of the aisle, and now Romney, worth $500,000,000 as a candidate for President and I have no idea what other political powers that they hold right now. What scares me, Petra, is that it is all under the thumb of the President of the Mormon Church.
So I stick with Rudy.
www.JoinRudy2008.com
Here is more of what David Geffen said about Hillary:
"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548043
It looks as if Obama has started slugging with an iron fist. As I keep saying, all of this is because Rudy is leading Hillary in the polls and the Democrats are depressed that they cannot find a winning candidate. Obama is a sure loser, too, in a national race against Rudy because Obama is to the left of almost everyone in the country, not to mention his racist religious doctrine.
Petra, Rudy can win. He has promised to appoint conservative judges. I think that there will be a pro-life plank in the GOP platform and that he will be happy to run on the platform. McCain called Falwell and Robertson in 2000 "agents of intolerance." Now I don't pay much attention to either one of them but I don't call them names either. Nor do I think that either one of them is intolerant. So McCain is out.
As for Romney, I don't know about you, Petra, but I am not going to vote for a member of one of the 19th century cults that says, among other things, that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. The Mormons are polytheistic in theology and totally cultic. They are so rich and powerful that I have considered starting a thread about their political influence but suffice it to say that they have US Senator Hatch on the Republican side of the aisle, Petra, and US Senate Majority Leader Reid on the Democrat side of the aisle, and now Romney, worth $500,000,000 as a candidate for President and I have no idea what other political powers that they hold right now. What scares me, Petra, is that it is all under the thumb of the President of the Mormon Church.
So I stick with Rudy.
www.JoinRudy2008.com
Petra-O IX
Active Member
Yeah, I am concerned that the Church of Later Day Saints will grab a hold of some real major influence if Romney were to succeed. I have known one or two upstanding Mormans but for the most part they are mostly about control and a never ending quest for influence and power. Still voting for Gullianni would be too much of a comprimise on Christian principals.church mouse guy said:
Why is it a compromise of Christian principles to vote for Rudy? Obviously, he is going to have to forget his stance as mayor of New York City on cultural issues to run on the GOP platform nationally. The central question is the response to the war in Iraq. The majority of the GOP back the President and Rudy at this time is the heir apparent because he supports the President and sides with the majority of the GOP.
As for the charge by the Obama pal that the Clintons were good liars, who knew?
As for the issue of Mormons in charge of the federal government, I am glad that we agree that it would be a disaster.
This presidential election will be won by the GOP if they have a candidate with a sober view of foreign policy. Those in the GOP who bash Bush cannot outdo the Democrats on that issue and expect to win. If the majority of Republicans nationwide agree with the President, how can those on either the left or the right expect to win Republican votes by rejecting what will be eight years of support for the President's policies against terrorists? That is the $64.00 question, Petra, and I have enjoyed your posts. And I agree with you that Rudy is not easy to accept were it not for the fact that he loves the USA and is a leader and is very popular nationally.
As for the charge by the Obama pal that the Clintons were good liars, who knew?
As for the issue of Mormons in charge of the federal government, I am glad that we agree that it would be a disaster.
This presidential election will be won by the GOP if they have a candidate with a sober view of foreign policy. Those in the GOP who bash Bush cannot outdo the Democrats on that issue and expect to win. If the majority of Republicans nationwide agree with the President, how can those on either the left or the right expect to win Republican votes by rejecting what will be eight years of support for the President's policies against terrorists? That is the $64.00 question, Petra, and I have enjoyed your posts. And I agree with you that Rudy is not easy to accept were it not for the fact that he loves the USA and is a leader and is very popular nationally.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Rudy on the left, Rudy on the right.
Rudy would just continue on where Bush left off, building a police state, centralizing more power to the feds and compromising the constitution. Wait a minute...what constitution? I must have been dreaming about the good ole days when that document and the rule of law it stood for actually meant something.
Hey Mouse, if Rudy does happen to get elected (which I doubt) I don't want to hear any more complaints about Clinton's adulterous lifestyle coming from you or any other neo-republican on this board...ya hear? :smilewinkgrin:
Rudy would just continue on where Bush left off, building a police state, centralizing more power to the feds and compromising the constitution. Wait a minute...what constitution? I must have been dreaming about the good ole days when that document and the rule of law it stood for actually meant something.
Hey Mouse, if Rudy does happen to get elected (which I doubt) I don't want to hear any more complaints about Clinton's adulterous lifestyle coming from you or any other neo-republican on this board...ya hear? :smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, Poncho! Call me cmg. I am as poor as a church mouse.
Rudy is going to be elected because he is one of the few in the field that wants to fight till victory in the war on terror. He is the best of the bunch of the GOP.
Rudy is for limited government. His first major appointment was from Reagan.
As for his personal life and his past stands on cultural issues, Poncho, he has agreed to nominate judges along the lines of Bush's nominations. The national GOP platform is pro-life and has been for many years and I am sure that Rudy will be happy to stand and to run on the platform built by the GOP majority.
As things stand today and with the GOP always going for the front-runner (unlike the Democrats who like expensive primaries and losing general elections), Rudy will be nominated and elected. That's the way that the GOP works.
The anti-war crowd will have their choice among the Democrats, the Libertarians, and the Constitution Party, just like in 2004. The GOP can win without the anti-war crowd.
As for the lack of a Christian conservative leader, that is hardly the fault of the GOP. It is the fault of Christian conservatives who do not present themselves as candidates and who do not work hard enough to get to the top--and there is room at the top. I think that Christian conservatives are in business to make money just like everyone else and they do not want the thankless life of sacrifice that public service demands. The government is in the hands of God and if Christian conservatives want a victory on social and cultural issues, then they are going to have to do some grassroots work other than soapboxing on the Baptist Board. As a senior citizen, I think that survival of the nation in this worldwide war against Islamofascism overrides all other issues.
And as a senior citizen, I think that abortion can be solved by common people and does not need presidential leadership. Afterall, Reagan himself could not budge the issue and he tried very hard. Gay marriage can be stopped by the common people because even the heathen are disgusted by sodomy. As for gun control, again, the common people can stop the loonies here by insisting that guns are for the protection of the individual from takeover of the government by murderous forces such as happened in Germany, where they had gun control, and from violent criminals, and violence fills our land and every man should be armed to protect his family and his property.
Rudy will be okay if Christian Republicans will insist upon their agenda on cultural issues and endorse Rudy's support for President Bush in the war against Islamofascism.
Where do you stand on that, Pancho? My opinion of the far right is that they want someone else other than themselves or their own unqualified leaders to bring about their cultural agenda and they want to abandon the comprehensive GOP foreign policy that dates from the beginning of World War II. The sticking point then is not the cultural agenda, as the far right suggests, but rather the worldwide GOP foreign policy. Am I not correct?
But the far right will not answer that question because they have an ideology that does not address reality. I think that it suggests a failed theology of some sort because the result will be a destroyed and defeated nation and the enactment of the leftist cultural agenda. Ideology is what has defeated liberalism and put us in this suicidal position in the West. The rightist ideology actually will enact liberalism in the name of purity and hasten the suicide of the West.
Rudy is going to be elected because he is one of the few in the field that wants to fight till victory in the war on terror. He is the best of the bunch of the GOP.
Rudy is for limited government. His first major appointment was from Reagan.
As for his personal life and his past stands on cultural issues, Poncho, he has agreed to nominate judges along the lines of Bush's nominations. The national GOP platform is pro-life and has been for many years and I am sure that Rudy will be happy to stand and to run on the platform built by the GOP majority.
As things stand today and with the GOP always going for the front-runner (unlike the Democrats who like expensive primaries and losing general elections), Rudy will be nominated and elected. That's the way that the GOP works.
The anti-war crowd will have their choice among the Democrats, the Libertarians, and the Constitution Party, just like in 2004. The GOP can win without the anti-war crowd.
As for the lack of a Christian conservative leader, that is hardly the fault of the GOP. It is the fault of Christian conservatives who do not present themselves as candidates and who do not work hard enough to get to the top--and there is room at the top. I think that Christian conservatives are in business to make money just like everyone else and they do not want the thankless life of sacrifice that public service demands. The government is in the hands of God and if Christian conservatives want a victory on social and cultural issues, then they are going to have to do some grassroots work other than soapboxing on the Baptist Board. As a senior citizen, I think that survival of the nation in this worldwide war against Islamofascism overrides all other issues.
And as a senior citizen, I think that abortion can be solved by common people and does not need presidential leadership. Afterall, Reagan himself could not budge the issue and he tried very hard. Gay marriage can be stopped by the common people because even the heathen are disgusted by sodomy. As for gun control, again, the common people can stop the loonies here by insisting that guns are for the protection of the individual from takeover of the government by murderous forces such as happened in Germany, where they had gun control, and from violent criminals, and violence fills our land and every man should be armed to protect his family and his property.
Rudy will be okay if Christian Republicans will insist upon their agenda on cultural issues and endorse Rudy's support for President Bush in the war against Islamofascism.
Where do you stand on that, Pancho? My opinion of the far right is that they want someone else other than themselves or their own unqualified leaders to bring about their cultural agenda and they want to abandon the comprehensive GOP foreign policy that dates from the beginning of World War II. The sticking point then is not the cultural agenda, as the far right suggests, but rather the worldwide GOP foreign policy. Am I not correct?
But the far right will not answer that question because they have an ideology that does not address reality. I think that it suggests a failed theology of some sort because the result will be a destroyed and defeated nation and the enactment of the leftist cultural agenda. Ideology is what has defeated liberalism and put us in this suicidal position in the West. The rightist ideology actually will enact liberalism in the name of purity and hasten the suicide of the West.
church mouse guy said:
Or he can just do like George W. Bush did and re-write the GOP platform to match his liberal views. I think it is a sad day in America when we will see the conservative Chrisitans in this country rally behind a pro-aboriton, pro-homosexual, anti-Constitution candidate like Giuliani.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
church mouse guy said:
I'm surprised at how quickly you are willing to compromise your Christian convictions for political gain. If I remember correctly, you complained loudly about Bill Clinton's immorality, yet now you are willing to accept Giuliani's immorality with open arms. The only word that comes to mind is hypocrisy.
I wonder how many other republicans here will do the same.
Well, Grubbs, you always present your party's view, which I covered in the post before yours but you neglected to answer, as I predicted that the far right would neglect to answer. But the main point is that what you really object to is the GOP foreign policy, not the cultural issues. Rudy will run on the GOP platform, which is pro-life, pro-gun ownership, and against same-sex marriage. Rudy is sincere and the GOP can win without you, Grubbs, just as we did in 2004 when you worked and voted for Peroutka. Your party is unable to even elect anyone anywhere so why should we listen to you anymore?
Aren't you a Democrat?
Terry, I cannot take you seriously because you are a liberal Democrat to the best of my knowledge and you voted for Clinton and I did not. Rudy's personal issues are in the past; Bill carried his from the past into the White House. However, Terry, you are willing to vote for a party that has a pro-choice platform for many years so whom are you lecturing on morality?
Terry_Herrington said:
Terry, I cannot take you seriously because you are a liberal Democrat to the best of my knowledge and you voted for Clinton and I did not. Rudy's personal issues are in the past; Bill carried his from the past into the White House. However, Terry, you are willing to vote for a party that has a pro-choice platform for many years so whom are you lecturing on morality?
Last edited by a moderator:
Terry_Herrington
New Member
church mouse guy said:
I wasn't lecturing you on morality. I was lecturing you on hypocrisy.
Aren't you a Democrat?
OK, Terry, I have quoted you again. You say that I am compromising Christian convictions for political gain. OK, Rudy is going to win so I do gain. However, I do not have to compromise because Rudy is America's Mayor and an American hero. His personal hero is Ronald Reagan. He has already promised to nominate judges along the lines of Bush's nominees. He cannot change the pro-life plank of the party. Nor can he get the GOP to endorse same-sex marriage. Nor will the GOP accept gun control, a Democrat goal. So Rudy will run on a conservative platform and the historic GOP foreign policy and Rudy will be his natural self in favoring tax cuts and limited government. So it is no compromise but a candidate who wants victory against Islamofascism (unlike all the Democrats who want cut and run in Iraq).
But as I told you before, Rudy's marriage problems are behind him. He is a senior citizen like me. Chances are he is not going to want sex with young girls in the oval office whenever the wife is not looking. He is too old already. I know that I myself am too old.
So it is not a compromise of my principles. It is a correction on the party of Rudy's political thinking.
But, Terry, how do you reconcile your Christian principles with a political party like the Democrats who advocate year in and year out in their platform the murder of unborn children by the tens of millions?
Terry_Herrington said:
OK, Terry, I have quoted you again. You say that I am compromising Christian convictions for political gain. OK, Rudy is going to win so I do gain. However, I do not have to compromise because Rudy is America's Mayor and an American hero. His personal hero is Ronald Reagan. He has already promised to nominate judges along the lines of Bush's nominees. He cannot change the pro-life plank of the party. Nor can he get the GOP to endorse same-sex marriage. Nor will the GOP accept gun control, a Democrat goal. So Rudy will run on a conservative platform and the historic GOP foreign policy and Rudy will be his natural self in favoring tax cuts and limited government. So it is no compromise but a candidate who wants victory against Islamofascism (unlike all the Democrats who want cut and run in Iraq).
But as I told you before, Rudy's marriage problems are behind him. He is a senior citizen like me. Chances are he is not going to want sex with young girls in the oval office whenever the wife is not looking. He is too old already. I know that I myself am too old.
So it is not a compromise of my principles. It is a correction on the party of Rudy's political thinking.
But, Terry, how do you reconcile your Christian principles with a political party like the Democrats who advocate year in and year out in their platform the murder of unborn children by the tens of millions?
Petra-O IX
Active Member
Do you have numbers on how many in the GOP support Bush and Gullianni.church mouse guy said:
As far as Bush goes , I believe the trend is for the GOP to distance themselves from the President.
I won't trust a guy who hasn't been consistant from the start. Rudy has no Military experience, so I wouldn't go so far as to trust him in his desicion makings on the war in Iraq. Gullianni has been very critical of the President on his handling of the war in Iraq(That may be a plus for Rudy).
I'd say so. I'd also say he has more principles than certain other people in the WH, not to mention names. Like for instance, he refused to take the shiek's money after 09/11. Other people, again, not mentioning any names, have been business partners for decades with people who are not our friends, i.e., the House of Saud.
poncho
Well-Known Member
There is no war on Islamofascism CMG you've been taking the neoliberal's propaganda to seriously. What you are refering to is actually a war on any sovereign nation that doesn't surrender and bow down to lick the boots of the New World Order (global corporatism) or as the current crop of internationalists currently occupying our government call it the international community. The people you are backing have no qualms about fascism as it serves them very well. Who ever is selected to be POTUS must first pass muster with AIPAC and the global business interests, neither of which give a hoot nor holler about the American people or our republican form of government.
By comprehensive GOP foreign policy do you mean the bloody terroristic interventions that both parties have perpetrated on hundreds of countries and accounts for approx 10,000,000 deaths since the end of WW2? That isn't a comprehensive policy that's murder and destruction strictly for power and mamon my very good friend.
Last edited by a moderator:
church mouse guy said:
I didn't see any questions that you asked me in that post that I neglected to answer. As I stated in my previous post, I am more concerned with the destruction of our nation that is taking place far more than the experiment in democracy taking place in Iraq. Bush was able to re-write the GOP platform in 2000 and I wouldn't be shocked if Rudy is able to re-write it again in 2008. The fact that you are willing to not only vote for, but rally behind and campaign for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Constitution candidate says allot about where your principles are during an election!
"Duty is ours, results are God's."
--John Quincy Adams
Rudy is very popular, Petra and anyone else reading this thread. According to the draft Rudy website, Rudy has about 40 percent of the GOP:
The Republican faithful, who put a premium on personal and party loyalty, are not amused. McCain was tied with Giuliani as recently as December, but now, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, McCain is down to 18 percent of primary voters, while Giuliani has surged to 40 percent.
http://www.draftrudygiuliani.com/read_article.php?id=674
Some of the non-Republicans have suggested that Rudy will dump the pro-life platform of the GOP. They have not told us how that will be done because the GOP has had a pro-life platform for decades. Rudy is not running on a New York City agenda but a national agenda. He will have to run on the national platform and as a loyal Republican Rudy will support the national platform. The GOP is not going to pick up Democrat ideas such as same-sex marriage and gun control in spite of the charges of the non-Republicans such as the Libertarian and the Constitution Parties and the advocates of GOP candidates who have less than 1 percent of the GOP such as Ron Paul.
The real issue is foreign policy not domestic policy. Rudy's enemies could care less about domestic policy no matter how much they mention it because they know what the GOP platform will be on those issues. And Rudy's foreign policy is more or less the same as the Bush foreign policy. Even Powell said recently that the President was correct to fight in Iraq.
Those of you who want the GOP foreign policy overthrown in favor of the Democrat foreign policy will either have to vote Democrat or vote third party once again. World War II put the American people in world leadership and there is no going back now because our foreign enemies are now high tech just like us. We could not allow Japan, Germany, and Italy to control Europe, Africa, and Asia, and we cannot allow Islam to attack all non-muslims in another effort to pick up where the nazis left off. And I have left out the threat of China, which can now shoot down our satellites in space.
The Republican faithful, who put a premium on personal and party loyalty, are not amused. McCain was tied with Giuliani as recently as December, but now, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, McCain is down to 18 percent of primary voters, while Giuliani has surged to 40 percent.
http://www.draftrudygiuliani.com/read_article.php?id=674
Some of the non-Republicans have suggested that Rudy will dump the pro-life platform of the GOP. They have not told us how that will be done because the GOP has had a pro-life platform for decades. Rudy is not running on a New York City agenda but a national agenda. He will have to run on the national platform and as a loyal Republican Rudy will support the national platform. The GOP is not going to pick up Democrat ideas such as same-sex marriage and gun control in spite of the charges of the non-Republicans such as the Libertarian and the Constitution Parties and the advocates of GOP candidates who have less than 1 percent of the GOP such as Ron Paul.
The real issue is foreign policy not domestic policy. Rudy's enemies could care less about domestic policy no matter how much they mention it because they know what the GOP platform will be on those issues. And Rudy's foreign policy is more or less the same as the Bush foreign policy. Even Powell said recently that the President was correct to fight in Iraq.
Those of you who want the GOP foreign policy overthrown in favor of the Democrat foreign policy will either have to vote Democrat or vote third party once again. World War II put the American people in world leadership and there is no going back now because our foreign enemies are now high tech just like us. We could not allow Japan, Germany, and Italy to control Europe, Africa, and Asia, and we cannot allow Islam to attack all non-muslims in another effort to pick up where the nazis left off. And I have left out the threat of China, which can now shoot down our satellites in space.
Googling Rudy Giuliani, I came back wih this bio site, is this actually factual information?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giuliani's first marriage was to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi. They were married for 14 years, before Giuliani had their marriage annulled by the Catholic church. His second marriage was to Donna Hanover, a reporter and sometimes soap-opera actress. Havover was the city's First Lady while Giuliani was mayor, but she stayed farther and farther out of the public spotlight as Giuliani was widely whispered to be swiving his press secretary, Cristyne Lategano. After Lategano left City Hall, Giuliani took up with a divorced nurse, Judith Nathan. Never one for subtlety, Giuliani and Nathan marched side-by-side in the St. Patrick's Day parade, where the city's mayor traditionally walks with his wife.
Term limits prevented Giuliani from seeking a third term as mayor in 2001. He was expected to run for the Senate against Hillary Clinton, but he backed out of the race to undergo prostate surgery. And also, perhaps not coincidentally, because his marital infidelities were all over the newspapers around that time. Shortly after Giuliani left office, he filed for divorce, accusing Hanover of "cruel and inhuman treatment." In her response, Hanover blamed the ex-mayor's "open and notorious adultery." When their divorce was finalized, she got a million dollars a year in alimony. In May of 2003, Giuliani returned to Gracie Mansion, the official residence of New York's mayor, for a lavish ceremony to marry his former paramour, Judith Nathan. The city's new mayor, Michael Bloomberg, officiated.
http://www.nndb.com/people/587/000024515/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giuliani's first marriage was to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi. They were married for 14 years, before Giuliani had their marriage annulled by the Catholic church. His second marriage was to Donna Hanover, a reporter and sometimes soap-opera actress. Havover was the city's First Lady while Giuliani was mayor, but she stayed farther and farther out of the public spotlight as Giuliani was widely whispered to be swiving his press secretary, Cristyne Lategano. After Lategano left City Hall, Giuliani took up with a divorced nurse, Judith Nathan. Never one for subtlety, Giuliani and Nathan marched side-by-side in the St. Patrick's Day parade, where the city's mayor traditionally walks with his wife.
Term limits prevented Giuliani from seeking a third term as mayor in 2001. He was expected to run for the Senate against Hillary Clinton, but he backed out of the race to undergo prostate surgery. And also, perhaps not coincidentally, because his marital infidelities were all over the newspapers around that time. Shortly after Giuliani left office, he filed for divorce, accusing Hanover of "cruel and inhuman treatment." In her response, Hanover blamed the ex-mayor's "open and notorious adultery." When their divorce was finalized, she got a million dollars a year in alimony. In May of 2003, Giuliani returned to Gracie Mansion, the official residence of New York's mayor, for a lavish ceremony to marry his former paramour, Judith Nathan. The city's new mayor, Michael Bloomberg, officiated.
http://www.nndb.com/people/587/000024515/
Jack Matthews
New Member
The ABC-Washington Post and CNN-USA Today polls show Rudy with about 40% of Republican support as well.
It's still very, very early. We're still three or four months away from the time (May-June of the year before an election) that candidates have traditionally started thinking about running. The early start to this one has a lot to do with the amount of money candidates will need to raise for the primaries. Remember back in 2000, McCain had Bush on the ropes and won a string of primaries until he ran out of money. Bush had already accumulated a sizeable warchest. Now the tables have turned. McCain is the money man, and if Rudy wants to beat him to the nomination, he'll have to raise enough so that he won't be restricted by the limits required if he accepts the federal election fund money.
There is apparently some speculation that there might not be an absolutely clear frontrunner on the Republican side by the time the nominating convention rolls around, and that could make for a very interesting turn of events.
It's still very, very early. We're still three or four months away from the time (May-June of the year before an election) that candidates have traditionally started thinking about running. The early start to this one has a lot to do with the amount of money candidates will need to raise for the primaries. Remember back in 2000, McCain had Bush on the ropes and won a string of primaries until he ran out of money. Bush had already accumulated a sizeable warchest. Now the tables have turned. McCain is the money man, and if Rudy wants to beat him to the nomination, he'll have to raise enough so that he won't be restricted by the limits required if he accepts the federal election fund money.
There is apparently some speculation that there might not be an absolutely clear frontrunner on the Republican side by the time the nominating convention rolls around, and that could make for a very interesting turn of events.
- Status