If Giuliani is the best the republicans can do for 2008, we will have a democratic president Giuliani is terrible. Most New Yorkers can not stand him.
You must've missed Qinnipiac's latest national poll;
A Quinnipiac Poll released February 21st, 2007 shows that if the 2008 election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head race 48% to 43%. More startling still is that he'd tie her in traditional democratic States, 46% in a dead-heat.
He'd fare even better against John Edwards, beating him 48% to 40% and besting Barack Obama head-to-head 47% to 40%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295....?
ReleaseID=1019
http://workingclassconservative....r-
giuliani.html
I'd like to see a more Conservative candidate, like Newt (his strategy of entering late in the summer, betting on "candidate fatigue" may work), or Duncan Hunter (a real dark horse), but Rudy's OK. At least he's ready for the 100 years war on terror...and I'm stoked.
There's no "negotiating" our way out of this (and I'm glad), to their credit, the radical Islamists won't let us.
Grab a helmet y'all.
Giuliani can not win the republican party nomination. To win that nomination you have to be extreme far right. But if he did, he will lose big time. These polls dont take into account his record. The only reason he scores high is because people were watching him on TV on 9/11 and thought that he was doing something. The reality is that he did nothing other than giving interviews. Guiliani is incompetent and mediocre. He will lose easily to any democratic candidate. And so will any of the republican candidates for 2008.
BW, you are a strange guy and all, but even taking that into account, when you make unsubstantiated statements like that it makes it very hard to take you seriously.
You support the market based economy, which thrives on low tax rates, so it would stand to reason you'd also support a much smaller government, like Barry and I do, but you seem to erroneously think that there are Liberal Democrats who stand for those things too - there are NONE.
While I agree with you and Barry that government has to be smaller and leaner, there remains a very small percentage of Americans (maybe 3%) who think there really is no war between radicalized Sharia-based Islam and the West.
Giuliani certainly understands the current threat and his moderate social views aren't going to hurt him enough to help a more Liberal candidate. In fact, I'm certain that if you're a Liberal, he should be your guy, because Giuliani is about as Liberal a guy as America is willing to elect now.
Giuliani via the GREAT Bill Braton curbed the violent crime that had raged out-of-control during the truly inept David Dinkins era. He also took on the Municipal Unions and even though he saddled the NYPD and FDNY with some front loaded 0% wage packages, having both those agenices lose ground and personnel to other higher paying surrounding Municipalities - he really kept the City (1) SAFE & (2) fiscally sound. If he can run on doing those two things as President, he'll be tough for anyone to beat.
Actually, there's little to argue with his record in NYC.
Those polls show the vote as it would occur today - he'd slay all thre of the potential Democratic nominees.
A lot could happen in two years. My guess is that little, if any of it will help the Democrats, but we'll see.
"In fact, I'm certain that if you're a Liberal, he should be your guy, because Giuliani is about as Liberal a guy as America is willing to elect now. "
LOL. No thanks. JMK, you have completely wrong perceptions of reality. Giuliani is by definition incompetent. Why? Let me give you an obvious example. He admires the presidency of George Bush!!! and he still supports sending more troops to Iraq. The guy is a joke. Despite some liberal-social positions, he is by no means a liberal. No liberal with self respect would ever support the Bush regime and what it represents.
I would point out, for what it's worth, that he did run as the nominee for New York's Liberal Party.
BW, the fact that YOU disagree with Giuliani on Iraq does not imply incomepetence, at least not on HIS part.
YOU still think Iraq was "based on lies," even though the NY Times, no less, has documented that it wasn't.
The fact that YOU don't understand Iraq's position in the WoT isn't a valid place from which to judge a candidate.
Rudy DID a masterful, albeit autocratic job in NYC, which is what that city needed at that time - he kept a lid on the Municipal Labor Unions and went full bore after crime, saving the lives of countless blacks (the murder rate dropped from over 2,000/year under Dinkins to less than 500/year under Rudy, much of that in inner city areas) and countless Liberal white "rubes," who were often targeted by inner city thugs.
If you're ANY kind of Liberal, Rudy should be your guy. He's the ONLY candidate who has even a remote possibility of reaching across to get some kind of Civil Union Bill passed and he is the only one of the big four (Rudy, Hillary, McCain and Obama) who really fully understands the WoT.
Plus, at least according to Quinnipiac, at this point, he'd trounce anyone else on either side of the aisle.
" I would point out, for what it's worth, that he did run as the nominee for New York's Liberal Party.
Well, the bad news is that it is not worth much 
"If you're ANY kind of Liberal, Rudy should be your guy. He's the ONLY candidate who has even a remote possibility of reaching across to get some kind of Civil Union Bill passed and he is the only one of the big four (Rudy, Hillary, McCain and Obama) who really fully understands the WoT."
JMK,
Rudy is not a liberal. He is just reasonable on social issues. Mc Cain is not reasonable. He is anti-choice and worships certified lunatics like Falwell.
What you consider the strength of Giuliani (understanding of the WoT), to me shows bad judgement on his part. The concept of the "WoT" has been proven wrong. The way to defeat terrorism is by intelligence and police work and not by starting random wars. Starting random wars like the Iraq war is exactly what the terrorists want. The Bush administration, like incompetent idiots fell into the trap of the criminal terrorists, and we are now stuck in a disastrous war in Iraq. If all the money and effort that was invested in Iraq was invested in police work and intelligence, Bin Landen would be in jail or dead today. It is that simple.
"The concept of the "WoT" has been proven wrong. The way to defeat terrorism is by intelligence and police work " (BW)
That's patently untrue!
Where did you get that?!
James Fox, then head of the FBI's New York office said, in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that "International terrorism is beyond the scope and purview of the U.S. criminal justice system."
He ought to know...and he did.
Director Fox was 100% right!
We tried a "criminal justice/law enforcement war on terrorism and it FAILED.
Now we've moved to the military war and a sensible domestic security program.
The "war" against Iraq ENDED in less than three weeks, when Saddam's government was toppled. Hussein himself was captured in December of 2003.
The Saddam Hussein regime harbored terrorists (Ansar al Islam), trained terrorists (Salman Pak) and was, along with Syria & Iran the leading rogue state sponsors of international terrorism.
You're not going to live long enough to see the end of our military WoT, unless you're planning on being around for another 100 years.
Commenting by HaloScan
