Cynical Nation

I would rather have McCain or Gingrich. Don't know about Mitt. I definitely prefer Guilliani over Michael Savage.

"But you ought to at least support Rudy's supporters within the GOP, don't you think?

I have to admit that you have a point. Guiliani is the most rational candidate among republicans today. The rest (including McCain) have degenrated to lunatic-type wingnuts themselves or wingnut worshippers.

I also agree that the religious right needs to be contained and not take completely over the republican party. Having said all that, I think Guiliani is some sort of a joke. He is not qualified to be president, and I as you know, I believe that he is incompetent . I dont think he did a good job in NYC (I know you disagree), but lets assume he did. That is not a qualification to be president. The only reason he is still in politics is because of his "leadership" during 9/11. Well, I am not sure what he really did then, other than giving interviews to the press. One can argue that Guiliani was a 9/11 failure.

I dont think Guiliani will be the candidate of the republicans. His campaign will implode at some point and my guess is that it will be McCain (who will lose easily to any democrat).

I have a simple question for you. Why dont you support a democrat? Your only reasons are obviously taxes and "fiscal responsibility". But for the last 6 years the republicans have proven to be at least as fiscally "irresponsible" as the democrats. Or not?

"But you ought to at least support Rudy's supporters within the GOP, don't you think?

I have to admit that you have a point. Guiliani is the most rational candidate among republicans today. The rest (including McCain) have degenrated to lunatic-type wingnuts themselves or wingnut worshippers.

I also agree that the religious right needs to be contained and not take completely over the republican party. Having said all that, I think Guiliani is some sort of a joke. He is not qualified to be president, and I as you know, I believe that he is incompetent . I dont think he did a good job in NYC (I know you disagree), but lets assume he did. That is not a qualification to be president. The only reason he is still in politics is because of his "leadership" during 9/11. Well, I am not sure what he really did then, other than giving interviews to the press. One can argue that Guiliani was a 9/11 failure.

I dont think Guiliani will be the candidate of the republicans. His campaign will implode at some point and my guess is that it will be McCain (who will lose easily to any democrat).

I have a simple question for you. Why dont you support a democrat? Your only reasons are obviously taxes and "fiscal responsibility". But for the last 6 years the republicans have proven to be at least as fiscally "irresponsible" as the democrats. Or not?

> I have a simple question for you. Why dont you support a democrat?

It's a fair question. In theory, I have no problem doing so. In practice, however, I look at the slate of likely candidates, and all the scenarios in which I'd support the Democrat (e.g., Hillary vs. Brownback) seem rather unlikely.

>I would rather have McCain or Gingrich.

Wow, Gingrich. Really? I'm surprised for some reason.

Anyway, I feel that Newt has about as much chance as I do. I know Dick Morris disagrees, but that just means I'm probably right.

Why should McCain have been the Republican Nominee in 2000? Dubya was in earlier, he worked harder and had an entire platform worked out and published while McCain was still improvising his. I never forgave McCain for the Richard Hand affair in South Carolina, and I think much of the base feels the same.

McCain had a golden opportunity to be a stand-up guy and tell the country that he knew very well the negative campaigning in SC was not coming from Bush, but he chose to exploit the media pile-on that insinuated, but never demonstrated, that Karl Rove was behind it all. And what about McCain-Feingold? That wasn't exactly a shining moment of conservatism.

Rudy is my guy. I voted for Dinkins in '89 and regretted it badly. I voted for, and contributed money to, Rudy in '93 and '97 and I'm ready to do it again. Rudy cleaned up this town with a combination of hard-nosed pragmatism and sheer vision. I think he will bring those same characteristics to the Oval Office.

IMHO, Rudy's positions on gay marriage (which I oppose on broad philosphical grounds) is more libertarian than liberal, and I understand, even though I don't agree with, his stand on gun control. I think he is genuinly looking for solutions to crime rather than trying to maintain a politically correct stance on criminality.

And, hell, how can you dislike a guy who breaks off with his shrew wife, takes up with a girlfriend quite publicly while still in office, and moves out of Gracie Mansion and into the apartment of some gay friends -- and then runs for the Republican nomination like none of that ever happened.

The Dixie Chicks may be brave in France, But Rudy is in your face right here at home.

"how can you dislike a guy who breaks off with his shrew wife, takes up with a girlfriend quite publicly while still in office, and moves out of Gracie Mansion and into the apartment of some gay friends -- and then runs for the Republican nomination like none of that ever happened.

These (and his movie with Donald Trump) are probably his only achievements. Everything else sucks. Sorry, but he is a failure.

BW, BW, BW!!!

I gave you a template for putting forth an argument in another thread, but you still seem incapable of making one for yourself.

In this case, at least there's a reason. Since you live in Chicago (is it?), you can't really speak intelligently about Giuliani's "miracle on the Hudson."

John V Lindsay had left his Comptroller (Abe Beam, then Mayor) holding the bag when New York City declared bankruptcy back in 1975.

Ford did exactly the right thing in NOT bailing out the profligate city.

What was set up was "a financial review board," that came to govern ALL of the city's finances, etc.

It was run by the FIRE industries - Finance/banking, Insurance & Real Estate.

It was said, by detractors to be the Rockefeller's final conquest of New York City. All the finacial review board did, however, was to stabilize New York and rein in the exceses of local government spending, admittedly with some pain - masssive welfare and public health cutbacks, layoffs of many Unionized Municipal workers, etc.

Ed Koch was THEIR Mayor for twelve years...and he was very good, especially at the start of his career. His J-51 tax abatements for luxury Hi-Rise building made it possible for Donald Trump to enter the Manhattan real estate market and make a fortune...along with helping to revitlaize the city.

Under Koch "gentrification" came into being and almost overnight many formerly "ghetto" or inner-city areas were transformed into "Yuppie enclaves." That was GREAT for NYC!

In 1989 NYC experienced a real disaster...the kind they say, "can only happen in New York." The city narrowly elected its most Liberal Mayor since John V Lindsay and its first black Mayor - David Dinkins.

It was very clear that Dinkins was in over his head from the start. The financial review board barred him from raising certain taxes and that cut back much of his social agenda. During his watch racial unrest spun out of control - riots occurred in Crown Heights Brooklyn where a black and an Italian (mistaken for a Jew) were both killed by rampaging Canadians...Ooooops! I mean blacks, in Washington Heights and in East New York Brooklyn (over a Korean market boycott).

The Dinkins administration took days to respond to each of these riots.

In one of them (the one in Washington Heights) FDNY Engine Co. 93 was firebombed by a group of skells and three firefighters were very badly burned and nearly killed. They would've been killed had Ladder-45 following a ways behind Engine-93, not seen what then appeared like three small trash fires in the street...until they got close enough to see the reflective stripes on their Bunker Gear.

The murder rate in NYC soared from just over 1000/year to over 2,000 per year under Dinkins!

Mercifully the "Dinkins era" laster all of FOUR years.

Rudy won in 1993 and he immediately began dismantling the Liberal excesses of the Dinkins administration. Rudy cut taxes, swept the XXX shops from Times Square and replaced them with Disney stores and Starbucks via various abatements and zoning changes.

He went hard after NYC's Municipal Labor Unions and negotiated hard-line contracts - two consecutive contracts front-loaded with 0% increases.

Detractors impugned him for raising his own salary and that of Deputy Mayors and Commissioners while scaling back those of cops, teachers, firefighters, etc, but it kept the city solvent in the wake of the Dinkins excesses. Yes, NYC police, firefighters & teachers all lost salary ground to the surrounding communities and some people left the city's workforce to work in Nassau, Suffolk, and NJ for a little more pay, but those jobs were quickly filled.

Rudy's first Police Commissioner (the GREAT Bill Bratton) first went after quality of life crimes - aggressive panhandling, the so-called squeegee men, turnstile jumping, etc.

They rightly targeted inner city areas for anti-street crime initiatives, "stop & frisks," "buy & busts," and went after DUI hard as well.

The result was that NYC 's gentrification increased at a faster pace than under Koch!

ALL crime in the city went down, from burglaries and muggings to rapes and murders.

The murder rate dropped from OVER 2000/year during the Dinkins administrationto under 500/year!

That allowed Giuliani to crow, "I saved more minority lives than any Mayor in NYC's history." That of course was undeniably true, since the majority of the murder victims tended to be minorities."

As a result of his "calm under pressure," he righfully became "America's Mayor," after 9/11/01 and that's why TODAY the Quinnipiac Poll has him beating Hillary 48% - 43%, and Obamma 47% - 40%.

Rudy's on record saying that New York's gun control laws are NOT appropriate for the rest of the country, that he does NOT believe in gay Marriage and that he opposes racial preferences...the issue that he and most Conservatives disagree on is on the borders. He claims he currently supports the Bush ("guest worker/amnesty program"), but he claims he'll look at that again.

Again, he could be considered "incompetent," if by incompetent you mean one of the most effective political leaders of the past twenty-five years.

He's done things that no other Mayor in NYC history had been able to do and won election and re-election in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans something like 14 to 1 and where "minorities" comprise over 60% of the population!

EDIT:

"...riots occurred in Crown Heights Brooklyn where a (black) and an Italian (mistaken for a Jew) were both killed..."

SHOULD READ:

"riots occurred in Crown Heights Brooklyn where an orthodox Jew and an Italian (mistaken for a Jew) were both killed..."

" Since you live in Chicago (is it?), you can't really speak intelligently about Giuliani's "miracle on the Hudson."

Well, I lived in NYC under Koch and Dinkins and I left before Rudy. I have a lot of friends still in NYC and as an ex-New Yorker I think I am more familiar with Rudy's failures than most Americans outside New York.

P.S. I agree with you though that Dinkins was a complete failure. Rudy was certainly better than him.

I gotta agree with JMK, Blue. My wife and I both lived in the city during the Dinkins and Giuliani years and the transformation was nothing short of astonishing. Less obvious, but equally important, was the parallel fiscal "miracle" that Rudy managed to pull off at the same time, and did so *without* resorting to the Lindsay template of overtaxing an already sclerotic economy. If you want to make the case that Rudy is a "failure," you'll have to work a hell of a lot harder than that.

Barry,
Ok, I will admit that Giuliani made New York safer and a better city, and I am probably too harsh on him because he is a republican and a Bush supporter. However, he has had an autocratic style that was not liked by many New Yorkers. Or not?

WF, I'm with you on Rudy all the way. I'm also with you on McCain-Feingold. And also, to your point, I don't pretend to know exactly who was behind the worst of the anti-McCain smears in SC (certainly the left had a vested interest in stopping him as well) but I do know that the GOP made a concerted effort to derail McCain in the Palmetto State, and actively worked to undermine his campaign there. I thought that was not only unfair, but stupid. I believe that McCain would've romped in the 2000 election against Al Gore. We had a surefire winner who really would have been swept into office with a genuine mandate. I can't prove any of this, of course, but that's my $0.02.

> However, he has had an autocratic style that was not liked by many New Yorkers. Or not?

Oh yes, I think that's absolutely true. That's completely different from being a "failure," however. New York City is its own ballgame, and I think it's impossible to lead it effectively without being an asshole. Otherwise you will get eaten alive by the sharkpool of entrenched and competing special interests.

Steven Malanga has a great and far more in depth piece on Giuliani at http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009721

Barry, I WORKED for the city at that time and a lot of cops and firefighters (and I'm sure teachers and other city workers) were unhappy with those contracts front-loaded with 0% increases, but they did keep the city solvent.

The funniest sign I saw was at an NYPD labor protest down near city hall that read, "I work for the NYPD and I cut a Suffolk County cop's grass."

Yes, Nassau and Suffolk have long paid their police well over $100K/year (thus their super-high property taxes) compared to about the $80K to $86K per year (depending on overtime) that NYPD cops get.

Same with the FDNY - Yonkers, Newark and some other nearby paid Departments all pay more right now, but the NYPD does not respond in single-man patrol cars and the FDNY has far greater manpower than the surrounding Departments.

He also embraced welfare reform and NYC's welfare rolls dropped by a third virtually overnight and by almost half before Giuliani was done.

BW, Dinkins was a lifelong Democratic politician, who intimately knew the ins and outs of NYC government. His "incompetence" has a name, it's called "Liberalism."

His failure to deal with the riots was a prime example. His worldview was mired in the politics of "victimology," that sees the world in terms of "disadvantaged groups" and their "oppressors."

In all those riots - the real victims of those riotous attacks, the Koreans in East New York, Brooklyn and the Orthodox Jews of Crown Heights, Brooklyn were seen as "the oppressors," getting their come-uppance at the hands of disadvantaged/protected minorities.

That wasn't only David Dinkins outlook, it was and IS contemporary Liberal orthodoxy...and reason #67 as to "Why I despise Liberalism and Liberals."

I would certainly be interested in your littany of Rudy Giuliani's "failures" as NYC Mayor.

Guilliani had a lot of successes as mayor. I remember that under Dinkins, the first thing that would happen to a tourist coming in to Grand Central or Penn Station, is that some guy would grab their bags and collect the fee for the taxi. Then they would get in and the cabdriver would tell them that they just gave $20 away. This scam was so open that the cabbies were afraid to get out because the bums would rob any cabbie who tried to warn the customers.

This stopped when Guilliani took over and there were many similar stories. The Lords of the Streets under Dinkins were the crack dealers and the hookers walked freely on Park Avenue. That all ended under Guilliani. Still could buy drugs and sex, but neighborhoods became neighborhoods again.

So I give him credit for many things. That said, I still think he is nuts and that his paranoia won't play as well on Pennsylvania Avenue as it did in City Hall.

I do think that he is running smart so far. By saying what judges he will support, he speaks to the base while not opening himself up to charges of flip flopping like Romney has with his conversions. I think Guilliani also is running smarter than McCain on Iraq, because he is being far more vague in his statements about Iraq. He is supportive but not being specific and also is not antagonizing anyone by criticizing Rumsfeld, for example.

Hey, I could be wrong and maybe the Rudy I knew was Donna's Rudy and now it's Judy's Rudy. Now that he's getting laid every night, maybe he's a different man.

We shall see.

Giuliani's "paranoia" PE came from dealing with a smarmy, self-indulgent, naive and idealistic NYC media that quickly learned not to challenge Giuliani.

I was both surprised and delighted in the way that he was able to just bully the media at press conferences.

When some wayward reporter asked about the propriety of his parading around with Judith Nathan, while still Married to donna Hanover, he snapped at the guy and that line of questioning just stopped.

I LOVED THAT!

Sure it was a harbinger of bad things...for the Press, of course. It showed how easily the American Press can be bullied.

Then the Arabs made the Weatern media collectively and alternately bend over, then blow kisses in true dhimmi fashion, in response to the Daanish cartoon debacle.

Makes you wonder, right? I mean if only the Christian Right had broken out the brass knuckles, they may have made the American media their "best friends' too.

BNJ: "And also, to your point, I don't pretend to know exactly who was behind the worst of the anti-McCain smears in SC (certainly the left had a vested interest in stopping him as well) but I do know that the GOP made a concerted effort to derail McCain in the Palmetto State, and actively worked to undermine his campaign there."

Here's the best explanation of events that I've seen: The democratic myth machine: about John McCain and Max Cleland, those (alleged) political martyrs.(Politics). Regrettably, it seems that it was not the left with mud on their hands, but it also wasn't Bush, and it wasn't the GOP. The GOP wanted McCain to go away -- polling did not show a McCain "romp" in the cards for the general election -- but they were pretty conventional in their efforts to discourage him.

GWB was comfortably ahead of Gore in the final weeks of the campaign, but lost literally millions of independent voters when he failed to forthrightly address the 25 year old DUI charge that the Gore campaign revealed in the final days of the campaign.

I wasn't as plugged into the Bush campaign in 2000 as I was in 2004, so I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of this, but I'm pretty confident it is authentic.

Whatever the polls showed, I cannot help but believe that McCain would have had a comfortable victory in 2000. Hell, at the time I could not find a single *Democrat* who didn't like John McCain. That's changed since then, of course, but at the time he seemed a much stronger candidate than Gore.

I remember the DUI October Surprise, and it probably did have some impact, but there was no excuse for the race to have been as close as it was by that time. In the debates, McCain would have come across as poised, ready and confident, exhibiting none of Bush's discomfort in such settings, and would have made the freakish, orange-faced Gore look absolutely horrifying by contrast.

I know you think McCain wasn't fully trusted by the right at the time, but neither was Bush. And McCain wasn't the one with all this "compassionate conservatism" horse shit. When you compared their actual records at the time, GWB was probably more likely to come across as the squishy moderate than McCain.

Again, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, of course.

"Hell, at the time I could not find a single *Democrat* who didn't like John McCain.".

That is absolutely true. In 2000 I liked McCain a lot. In fact, if he were the republican nominee in the general elections, I might had voted for him over Gore then. There is no question that in the general election he would have won by a landslide. The Rove-destructive smear machine destroyed him politically then. The whole world knows that, but WF is imagining democratic conspiracies.

Of course, my feelings for McCain have dramatically changed since then, and I now consider him one of the worst politicians in the country. To be electable in the republican primaries, he lied and capitulated to right-wing extremists and lunatics like Falwell and others. Not to mention of course his complete lack of judgement as it relates to Iraq.

I agree Barry that both Bill Bradley abd John McCain were the mavericks of the 2000 Primary season and you may have been right about McCain, just as Bradley probably would've made a more dynamic candidate for the Democrats that year.

Since then, there's one image I can't get out of my mind about John McCain and that's his comments on illegal immigration, when he said, "Americans wouldn't do these jobs for $20/hour, $25/hour, hell they wouldn't do them for $50/hour. The fact is they COULDN'T do those jobs."

I saw the press conference where he made those remarks.

He defended the need for "illegal aliens," via a guest workers program.

The only Americans who NEED illegal immigrant labor are argi-businesses and slaughter houses that don't want to pay even the minimum wage for labor.

A couple months ago, a Swift meat procesing plant was raided and they lost their illegal labor force.

They promptly raised the pay for those jobs and added performance bonuses and the lines of Americans looking for those jobs stretched around the block.

Illegal alien labor does the greatest harm to American wage rates - it puts a peristant downward pressure on the lowest wage rates, those for low-skilled and unskilled labor and when that floor is lowered it puts a downward pressure on the wage rates above that floor.

Now, I don't know that Rudy is much better on that issue and sadly and to their shame, the Dems are all a LOT worse, but this is a very vital issue, right here and right now.

Border enforcement works, combine that with steep fines for every individual case where a business hires an "undocumented worker" and another fine for hiring workers "off the books," and these jobs will dry up.

Once the jobs dry up, many of the illegals will self-deport.

Barry -- I don't disagree with your logic, but political outcomes are not always subject to logic.

Democrats "loved" McCain largely because they saw him as the road-block to another Bush presidency, not because they agreed with his agenda or wanted to vote for him in the general election. Polling consistently showed that McCain was very strong with independants, unexpectedly strong with Democrats, and very weak with Republicans. It is very unlikely that he would have taken enough Democrat votes away from Al Gore to offset his deficit with Republicans.

Dubya may not have been loved by the religious right (who, as you pointed out, saw him as soft on social issues) but he pushed every one of their buttons exactly right and they saw him as their guy -- that was born out by their unusually high turnout and overwhelming preference in the general election.

Blows Wind -- I specifically said that the South Carolina mess was not initiated by the left (i.e. Democrats). The smear campaign against McCain came from the right, specifically Professor Richard Hand and a bunch of other fundamentalist loons associated with Bob Jones University. No one has ever produced one shred of credible evidence that Bush or Rove were involved.

Again, I wasn't an insider in 2000, so my information is strictly second hand.

"It is very unlikely that he would have taken enough Democrat votes away from Al Gore to offset his deficit with Republicans

I disagree completely. In 2000, if it was McCain versus Gore, McCain would have won by a landlside. In that election, Gore barely won over Bush who could not attract democrats or independents. He would have lost easily to McCain then.

Of course, McCain has now degenerated to Bush-lite, and he has zero chance to win the presidency.

Hell, I could live with a Giuliani win better than a McCain win. He doesn't make me upset like some of the GOP candidates. If he rode in on his socially liberal roots, I wouldn't cry about him winning.

BW -- I found some of McCain's positions during and shortly before the 2000 campaign. I wonder if you could point which of these positions most appealed to Democrats.

Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
“Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Opposes partial-birth abortions & public financing. (Aug 1999)
Restrict abortions; no partial-birth; no public funding. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Ten Commandments would bring virtue to our schools. (Jan 2000)
Confederate flag is a “symbol of heritage”. (Jan 2000)
Flying Confederate flag should be left to states. (Sep 1999)
Hollywood should voluntarily self-censor sex and violence. (Jul 1999)
Supports Amendment against flag-burning. (Apr 1999)
More death penalty; stricter sentencing. (Jan 2000)
More community policing; enough hate crime laws. (Jan 2000)
Prosecute youths as adults, but separately; explore sources. (Jan 2000)
Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
Decisions on teaching evolution should be made locally. (Aug 1999)
Vouchers & charters will improve our school system. (Oct 1999)
Nationwide test of school vouchers. (Sep 1999)
$5B program for 3-year test of school vouchers. (Jul 1999)
Tax-funded vouchers for private schools or charter schools. (Jun 1999)
Strength Clean Air & Water Acts; but not Kyoto. (Jan 2000)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Overthrow “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe. (Feb 2000)
Africa: Money for AIDS would be lost to corruption. (Jan 2000)
Substitute trade treaties for protectionism. (Jan 2000)
Free trade with any country except security risks. (May 1999)
Retaliatory protectionism is a “murder-suicide pact”. (May 1999)
Chile in NAFTA is good, but Fast Track isn’t. (May 1999)
NAFTA has had unambiguously positive impact on US. (Mar 1999)
Pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-MFN, pro-Fast Track. (Jul 1998)
Keep “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy - it works. (Jan 2000)
Discard ABM Treaty and develop a missile defense. (Apr 1999)
Family farms: Crop insurance; reduce inheritance tax. (Jan 2000)
Ethanol is not worth it, even in Iowa. (Dec 1999)
Ethanol bad for environment & bad for consumers. (Nov 1999)
Option to invest 20% of payroll taxes in private accounts. (Jan 2000)
Supports flat tax; stop complexity by special interests. (Oct 1999)
Taxes should be flatter, lower, and simpler. (Apr 1999)
Kosovo an example of feckless photo-op foreign policy. (Dec 1999)

I got these from On the Issues

"McCain has now degenerated to Bush-lite, and he has zero chance to win the presidency." (BW)


Well, now that he's down over 20 pts to Giuliani in the polls, it doesn't look like he has all that much chance of winning the Republican nomination.

On the other hand, Giuliani now leads Ms Clinton 50% to 41%...in, of all places, NEW JERSEY!!!

In reliably Democratic NJ, Giuliani has topped the 50% mark.

March 1, 2007 - Giuliani Widens Lead Over Clinton In New Jersey, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Front-Runners Widen Lead In Dem, GOP Primaries.

Widening his lead in the 2008 presidential race in New Jersey, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tops New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 50 - 41 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Arizona Sen. John McCain ties Sen. Clinton 45 - 45 percent.

This compares to a 48 - 41 percent Giuliani lead over Clinton in a January 25 New Jersey poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In that survey, McCain had 44 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.

In this latest survey, independent voters back Giuliani 55 - 34 percent over Clinton; Giuliani also gets 91 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats. In a McCain- Clinton matchup, independents back the Republican 50 - 37 percent; McCain also gets 83 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of Democrats.

In other possible 2008 matchups:

* Giuliani tops Obama 50 - 39 percent;

* Obama edges McCain 45 - 41 percent.

"It's still early in the 2008 presidential race, but Rudy Giuliani, the mayor next door and hero of 9/11, has hit the 50 percent mark in New Jersey, widening his lead over Sen. Clinton and leaving Sen. McCain in the dust in a Republican primary matchup," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1024

You know what I think the problem is BW?

I think your Kos & HufPo friends haven't really gotten angry enough. I think more talk like "A Cheney assassination would be good for America," is just the ticket.

I know, I know, some folks will say that sounds too much like "rooting for al Qaeda."

You know what you can say then?

Tell them something like, "Al Qaeda's not the enemy, the enemy is in the WH."

How's that for some free advice?

"Hell, I could live with a Giuliani win better than a McCain win. He doesn't make me upset like some of the GOP candidates. If he rode in on his socially liberal roots, I wouldn't cry about him winning." (DBK)


Giuliani's a great politician.

I know that's often a euphemism for "liar," but here I mean that he was able to diffuse the gay Marriage issue in NYC, by opposing gay Marriage, while supporting "Civil Unions."

He's already backed away from his NYC position on gun control (a smart move) and on partial birth abortion (an even smarter one) and I'll bet he's ultimately hoping the gay Marriage issue will just go away...or be put away with talk like, "We've got much bigger issues to deal with right now."

He supports first trimester abortion 100% (me too), and now claims to oppose late term or partial birth abortion as do about 65% of the American public.

I AM most troubled by his sloppy position on immigration (very close to Bush's & McCain's, which are very close to the Democratic "open border" position)...but all-in-all, he's still better than the alternatives, at this point and on the WoT probably even better than Bush Jr. & McCain who at least acknowleddge there is a war being waged against the U.S.

Guilliani I like. McCain is a flip-flopping, confused, nitwit. McCain is like a Perot/Kerry combo. He allowed Chimp/Rove to steamroll him, to the great detriment of this country.

I would have voted for McCain in 2000, but now that I know him much better, I hate him.

"I would have voted for McCain in 2000, but now that I know him much better, I hate him." (BH)


I think a lot of people feel that way, of course, the closer we look at anyone, the more warts we tend to see.

I can't accept McCain after his saying that illegal aliens "do jobs that Americans wouldn't do, not for $10/hour, not for $25/hour! They do jobs Americans couldn't do."

Not only is that utter nonsense, it endorses a policy that does great harm to American workers.

The problem is I don't know if Giuliani would be much better on that issue, and I know none of the Dems are on board with the only sensible immigration policy - the Tancredo agenda.