Guest posted by David Lightman at 10:37 am CST
WASHINGTON--President Rudy Giuliani?
According to a new nationwide Quinnipiac University survey released this morning, the former New York City Mayor runs very strong as a 2008 presidential candidate--even topping Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton by 5 percentage points.
Not even Arizona Sen. John McCain, who in 2000 showed broad appeal among independents, does better. He would top Clinton by 2 points.
The poll, which surveyed 1,536 people around the country from Feb. 13 to 19, found Giuliani's appeal widespread.
He topped Clinton by 20 percentage points among independents, and in so-called "purple" states, or those where the margin of victory in 2004 was less than 7 percent, he and Clinton were in a virtual tie.
“After 9/11, Rudolph Giuliani earned the title ‘America’s Mayor.’ After the 2008 election, he could be America’s President,” said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “But we vote in November 2008, not February 2007 – and lots of things can happen.
Giuliani did well in so-called red states, or those that voted for President Bush handily in 2004, and tied Clinton in blue states, or those that were Democratic.
His bigger problem could be winning the GOP nomination, since the party tends to favor conservatives, and Giuliani has split with the right on a host of social issues.
Nationwide, he does well among Republicans.
Giuliani wins the backing of 40 percent of Republicans survyed, followed by McCain with 18 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 7 percent.
Among Democrats, Clinton, the New York senator, is the clear leader.
She has the backing of 38 percent of Democratic primary voters, followed by Illionis Sen. Barack Obama at 23 percent, former Vice President Al Gore with 11 percent and 2004 vice presidentian nominee John Edwards with 6 percent.
Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who formally began his presidential bid last month, did not even reach 1 percent.
That's no surprise to the Dodd campaign. He has repeatedly said that he will have to convince voters the old fashioned way, by campainging in their homes and community centers.
"If this becomes a campaign waged at 35,000 feet, with flyovers from city to city," Dodd has said, he probably does not have much of a chance at this stage.
Favorability ratings often help a candidate in these early stages. None was reported for Dodd, but Giuliani did well, with a 57 percent score.
Others included: 46 percent for Clinton, 51 percent for McCain, 44 percent for Obama and 44 percent for Edwards.
The survey also tried to learn whether the American public continued to sour on President Bush.
He continued to get low marks, as roughly two of every three people disapproved of the job he was doing as well as his plan to send an additional 21,500 U.S. troops to Iraq.
Bush will leave office in January 2009, and the scramble to succeed him has clear frontrunners.
Here's the Quinnipiac release:
GIULIANI TOPS CLINTON IN 2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS;
REPUBLICAN RUNS STRONG IN RED, BLUE AND PURPLE STATES
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads Sen. Hillary Clinton 48 – 43 percent among American voters in a 2008 national presidential poll released by Quinnipiac University today. Arizona Sen. John McCain edges Sen. Clinton 46 – 44 percent.
Giuliani tops Clinton 55 – 38 percent in Red states, which voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election, and ties her 46 – 46 percent in Blue states, which went Democratic in 2004. He gets 44 percent to Clinton’s 45 percent in Purple states, where the margin in 2004 was less than 7 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. In other possible presidential matchups:
· Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 49 – 37 percent;
· Giuliani beats Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 47 – 40 percent;
· Giuliani tops 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards 48 – 40 percent;
· McCain ties Obama 43 – 43 percent;
· McCain gets 43 percent to Edward’s 42 percent, a tie;
· Obama tops Romney 49 – 29 percent;
· Edwards beats Romney 48 – 32 percent.
“After 9/11, Rudolph Giuliani earned the title ‘America’s Mayor.’ After the 2008 election, he could be America’s President,” said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “But we vote in November 2008, not February 2007 – and lots of things can happen. Let’s watch the state-by-state breakdown and the Electoral College. Remember 2000?”
“When we look at the Red, Blue and Purple state matchups, we see Giuliani running strong in any color, while Sen. Clinton outpoints Sen. McCain in Blue and Purple states. Sen. Obama and John Edwards are in the middle somewhere and Mitt Romney is nowhere, actually losing to Obama and Edwards in Red states, where voters probably just don’t know the former Massachusetts governor.”
Clinton gets 38 percent of Democratic primary voters, followed by Obama with 23 percent, former Vice President Al Gore with 11 percent and Edwards with 6 percent.
Giuliani gets 40 percent of Republicans, followed by McCain with 18 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10 percent and Romney at 7 percent.
American voters give Giuliani a 57 – 21 percent favorability rating. Favorability ratings for other contenders are:
· 46 – 45 percent for Clinton;
· 51 – 22 percent for McCain;
· 44 – 14 percent for Obama, with 40 percent who haven’t heard enough to form an opinion;
· 44 – 27 percent for Edwards;
· 44 – 47 percent for Gore;
· 22 – 47 percent for Gingrich;
· For Romney, 67 percent haven’t heard enough to form an opinion.
President Bush’s Approval
American voters disapprove 60 – 34 percent of the job President George W. Bush is doing. Voters disapprove 64 – 30 percent of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq and oppose 62 – 33 percent the President’s plan to send 22,000 more troops to Iraq.
From February 13 – 19 Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,536 American voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent, including 578 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent, and 684 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 3.8 percent.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and nationwide as a public service and for research.
For more data – www.quinnipiac.edu and click on Institutes and Centers, or call (203) 582-5201.
Comments
More proof that a McCain-Giuliani or Giuliani-McCain ticket would be unstoppable. Be afraid Democrats, be very afraid. Hillary STILL has a double-digit lead over Obama. Big shock that the Tribune reporter buried that.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2007 10:41 AM
Rudy does not have the support of Dobson Fawell and the others without the far right he cannot win
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 21, 2007 10:45 AM
Someone needs to ask President Dean what he thinks of all these early polls.
Posted by: Paul | February 21, 2007 11:02 AM
America's mayor after 9/11????
How about the fact that he did absolutely nothing to improve first reponders communications after the WTC attack in '93. A simple upgrade in technology would have saved hundreds of lives on 9/11.
Or how about the air quality lies post 9/11.
And then there's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
Posted by: Bubba | February 21, 2007 11:05 AM
Rudy's an excellent candidate (wink, wink). No skeletons in that closet (cough, cough).
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | February 21, 2007 11:23 AM
But I thought any candidate WITH the support of the far right couldn't win. Isn't that what the 2006 election told us. But now Rudy can't win because he doesn't have the support of Dobson, Falwell, et. al.? Which is it?
Posted by: JB | February 21, 2007 11:29 AM
Most Americans do not want evangelicals controlling this country. If any republican -- Giuliani perhaps -- can get this monkey off the back of the party, he will probably win. McCain and Romney are courting evangelicals, and they will lose because of it.
Posted by: Tom | February 21, 2007 11:33 AM
What a sad state the GOP is in these days.
Rudy is a Democrat with an (R) in front of his name.
Posted by: John E. | February 21, 2007 11:39 AM
After this poll, will the "Swamp" write as much about Giuliani as they do about Chris (less than 1% in the polls) Dodd, or Barack Obama's pet dog?
Posted by: bruce | February 21, 2007 11:46 AM
9/11
"Can you believe the audacity of that Barack Obama running for president with such little experience?"
9/11
And yet here comes "America's mayor" Rudy G, fresh off the $100,000 speaking tour.
9/11
So how much national experience does the Rudy man have?
9/11
Was he a governer like our current pres?
9/11
State senator and now U.S. Senator?
9/11
Look at that purposeful stride, that gleaming smile, the constant references to his clear leadership on
9/11
Dont any of the righteous Christians realize he is pro-choice, a "cold blooded killer of the innocent?" (or will he flip flop?)
9/11
Doesnt the "sanctity of marriage crowd" (those durn gays!) know he is on marriage #3 including a first marriage to a second cousin?
9/11
Dont the "military experience lovers" (except John Kerrys military service, that was all made up) realize Americas Mayor had 3 deferments from Vietnam and then prosecuted draft dodgers as a US Attorney?
Yep, two terms as mayor of the big apple, now thats the kind of experience we need in the big post, not that senate crap like Obama.
Rudy's claim to fame? A day so many innocents were killed and we saw Rudy striding about town looking to organize and restore calm. Any ideas why he was striding about town with his face mask on?
9/11
Because he had decided, against advice, to place his emergency action headquarters in the World Trade Center. Good choice! Already targeted once, a symbol of American pride and power.
9/11
For all the Obama supporters out there, here is your perfect rebuttal for "Obama? He doesnt have enough experience."
9/11
Posted by: erick | February 21, 2007 11:58 AM
Wrong again Dale Peters!
When the far right has to choose between Rudy and the leftist democrats that are running,they'll go with Rudy without a second thought and so will the country.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | February 21, 2007 12:21 PM
Sorry this is not a run for Congress or the Senate. With out the far right any Republican cannot win. That's just the facts. When you run for President the whole Country votes
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 21, 2007 1:27 PM
I actually agree with some of the lefty posters who say Giuliani doesn't have enough experience. Even a municipality as big as NYC, is still just municipal gov't. However, his ability to turn around that city, which was a cess pool before he got there, and lead his city through the events of 9/11 show unquestionable leadership ability.
With four years as Vice President under McCain he'd be unquestionably ready to take over in 2012. He'd be the "new blood" like Teddy Roosevelt was to the McKinley ticket. That's why it's such an appealling idea for a ticket to so many people.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2007 1:40 PM
Paulo-
Hold your horses, how will AmericasMayor get through the primaries without the support of the bible thumpers? How can they vote for him as a thrice married murderer of the unborn?
Jeff-
I dont see how AmericasMayor would ever accept the VP slot after seeing these polls and knowing how much love he has for guiding NY from the dark ages?
What I want to look at, and I am not making assumpttions because I honestly dont know yet, is why a lot of people are making noise about AmericasMayor's rule of NY before 9/11. Some seem to love it and some seem to think he was a putz. I would like to see what changes were made after the '93 bombing at the WTC and why the police/fire were not in sync and why you would base your emergency operations in a building that has already been bombed once...
Tom- As someone who is not a Christian and is constantly amazed by how much people want our country run by the good ol bible and its way cool stories of burning bushes and big nasty floods replete with arks and olive branches, I would LOVE to see the influence of the Christian right reduced. (As my wonderful mother, she who is a Christian but is always put off by the zealots, would always say "If god didnt want us to think on our own, why did he give us a brain?") Hooray for all you Christians who are so righteous and quick to judge, in the meantime I'll just try to be a good person/friend/father and hope the seperation of church and state can withstand your holy righteousness and wrath. Oh and sorry muslims, buddhists, aethists etc., yer all going to hell!
Sorry for the anti-Christian rant. Locusts, fire and brimstone, oh my!
Posted by: erick | February 21, 2007 2:01 PM
Paulo:
Have you tried very hard to find substantive differences between RG and any of the Dems? They're all pro-choice, they don't support hateful anti-gay policies, they all talk tough about defense and terrorism, they all support social programs, and they all talk about fiscal responsibility without any serious intention of actually being fiscally responsible. None of them -- not a one -- suggests that we ought to give up private ownership of property, as any Marxist "leftist" would.
I thus question whether your analysis goes beyond the fact that RG calls himself a Republican. That's the kind of "thinking" that got California a Kennedy for Governor. I'm good with it -- are you?
Posted by: a blinkin | February 21, 2007 3:06 PM
Rudy is an idiot.
Is America condemned now to moronic leaders?
Posted by: Roger B. | February 21, 2007 3:11 PM
Erick,
I think the only way America's Mayor WOULD accept the VP job is if it was for McCain. McCain would have to promise him he wouldn't run again in 2012 (a good possibility, considering McCain's age) and Rudy would have to be assured of President McCain's endorsement so an easy ascension would ensue. It would be a win-win. McCain would get his presidency and his well-earned retirement after four years. Giuliani would get a clear path to the White House and experience at the highest level of the executive branch that everyone says he doesn't have. It would pave the way for 8 more years of Republican rule.
I realize that two mammoth egos would have to be placated by circumstance for it to happen, but still the potential for such a ticket is so, so, huge.
Posted by: Jeff | February 21, 2007 3:27 PM
So much wrong with Erick. So much.
First of all, Rudy's 8 years as NY mayor also saw a city revitalized, taxes cut, spending cut, services improved and a city on the up again. Giuliani also served as a DA in New York and within the Justice Department. He is more than experienced to be president, more than do-nothings Barack and Hillary. What exactly are Hillary's qualifications to be president? Has she ever governed? Has she ever lead anything? That's one of many reasons why senators never become president -- no governing experience.
And, the Christian-hating crap is something I've come to expect from the Loony Left and the anti-Christian Chicago Tribune.
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2007 3:41 PM
That should be Christian-hating Chicago Tribune.
Posted by: John D | February 21, 2007 3:42 PM
I said it before and I will say it again. The only Moderate in the 2008 Presidential race in Guliani. Rudy in 2008!!!!
Posted by: Bill | February 21, 2007 4:22 PM
All this hysteria over polling numbers...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 2008 election still a ways down the road in, um, 2008? Could everyone just calm down, take a deep breath and analyze the issues we should be weighing candidates on? I'm tired of the campaign already...I can just imagine what a roller coaster, hellfire 2 years it must be for the candidates
Posted by: DD | February 21, 2007 5:53 PM
The left would SMEAR J.F.K, F.D.R and Truman if they were running for President today.The once great Democrat Party is in shambles and all they can muster up are three socialist radical libs.
One believes in two America's,was an ambulance chaser and didn't even carry his own state in 2004.
One is a woman that doesn't wear a dress or skirt and blames her war vote on being tricked by a sitting President.
And of course B.Hussein Obama...enough said there.
All Rudy has to do is show up and smile and he wins.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | February 21, 2007 6:58 PM
John D I am a Christian but not your type. I do not want someone tell who to worship. Or tell me if I do not believe like them I will burn in the fires of Hell. I believe in God and Country not Fawell or Dobson who will face God.
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 21, 2007 9:18 PM
John D-
Hey I'm just tickled that you responded to my posts, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!
ha
Look, I'm going to use snips from our previous posts and try to explain/question/refute. I welcome the same logical reasoned responses from you.
Rudy G.--
"Rudy's 8 years as NY mayor also saw a city revitalized, taxes cut, spending cut, services improved and a city on the up again."
What I honestly stated in my post was I don’t know yet how effective he was a mayor during his terms. If you are so sure of this, please point me to the proper sources so I can make an informed decision. I have been looking quite a bit and am getting pretty much a mixed bag. Arrests up! Yea! Lawsuits up! Boo.. So show me or give some numbers to substantiate yer claims!
Senate experience.
First off, not a big Hillary fan. She’s unelectable, simple enough. Theres enough hate out there that Little Johnny from down the street could run as a Repub and win. I like Obama. I think the character of a person and the selection of advisors and a cabinet outweigh the petty 'experience' argument. Obama has been in the Illinois and national senate as long as Rudy G has served in a mayoral position, how bout we call it a draw?
In the meantime, quoted from www.senate.gov (pretty authoritative source!):
"To date, fifteen senators have gone onto serve in the nation's highest elected office, the presidency. Two senators, Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy, moved directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House."
Hmm, Adams, Jackson, Truman, Kennedy, nothing to claim "Mission Accomplished" over, but not too shabby.
Also, only two mayors, Cleveland and Coolidge, have ever been elected. Fine men to be sure, but am I missing the trend here or just the voting record of the united states over the past 200 years?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/us/politics/16mayors.html?ref=nyregion
Obama --
"than do-nothings Barack and Hillary" (your quote)
So I don’t get it. Rudy G has done nothing on the national stage but cut taxes and spending in NY (which you say is good) and watched his emergency command center disappear in rubble on 9/11 and then basically hit the speech circuit for $100 and a gulfstream IV (Pelosi is jealous!)at a pop!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0216071giuliani1.html
So his national experience is zero. International experience? Any? (This is where of course I expect your well documented rebuttal regarding his international experience.)
Now Obama nay not have grey temples from his 24 years of US senate work (Remember, Ted Ken. has been in there a long time and what has that got us?) but read this and call him a "do-nothing". If this isn’t drive and the potential that this man knows how to work his magna cum laude butt off for this country, then I don’t know what to say.
Even the inexperienced of the world can let their previous actions speak for themselves:
"Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, the New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history."[20] He obtained his J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991.[19] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive, then worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
Taught Constitutional Law for 11 years and he is experienced or more importantly a "do-nothing"
Some come on JohnD, I've egged you on for months now for a real civil debate of the facts, supported whenever possible, and without the loony lefty label. Do you really think my posts sound "Loony" or is it just your personal stereotype of choice?
Response?
Posted by: erick | February 21, 2007 9:39 PM
I'm sorry, Erick, but working for a Civil Rights law firm, teaching constitutional law, and winning an uncontested Senate campaign (and then essentially campaigning for higher office since his election) is absolutely zero experience compared to being the highest elected executive of a city of 8 million. It's the equivalent of navel-gazing because none of those positions have any executive authority. New York City Mayor does.
Like I said before, I do think there are many more qualified candidates than Rudy, but Obama simply is not one of them. I'm not trying to be controversial, but I'd be shocked if every candidate hasn't at one time or another run a voter registration drive.
p.s. Giuliani was required by term limits to "hit the speech circuit" after 9/11. He would've easily beaten Bloomberg had he been allowed to run again and he did have to battle cancer around the same time so I really wouldn't hold that against him. Rudy may be a prima donna but there's little doubt that New York city was a better place after he left office than during its "Taxi Driver" days.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2007 7:42 AM
Response?
Posted by: erick | Feb 21, 2007 9:39:57 PM
When it finally sinks into Americans that Mr. Obamas' half brother Roy is now, and always has been a practicing Muslim, I'm sure they will flock to vote for Mr. Obama. Enjoy the kool-aid folks.
Posted by: Don B | February 22, 2007 7:53 AM
Rudy believes he should be our next President because he was mayor of NYC on Sept. 11th, 2001 and Time magazine named him person of the year. Why he was ever named as person of the year is beyond me. Then he ventured down to ground zero for his photo op. What mayor wouldn't go to ground zero??
Of all candidates running for President in 08, Giuliani would be the very last person I would vote for. He's the least qualified. He has zero foreign policy experience for starters. And for the moral and virtuous family values crowd, let's not forget about his adultery and 3 marriages. That's an issue. Let's also not forget he did absolutely nothing to protect NYC from when the WTC was first atacked in 1993 until 9/11. Quacks like this John D. will blame Bill Clinton for that. Rudy G. will be cut to pieces once things get in to high gear. Wait and see.
Posted by: Doug R. | February 22, 2007 8:02 AM
"Wrong again Dale Peters!
When the far right has to choose between Rudy and the leftist democrats that are running,they'll go with Rudy without a second thought and so will the country."
Paulo"
Paulo, you don't understand the Christian right. They won't vote for anybody if they support abortion or gay rights. To them, it's not picking the lesser of two evils.
"That's one of many reasons why senators never become president -- no governing experience."
John D.
So John, know of any former presidents whose biggest government role was being a mayor? Just so you know, there were a few senators who became presidents.
Speaking of Christians, the ones I'm familiar with help the poor & less fortunate. They don't condem homosexuality. They don't support the Iraq war. They don't support guns for everyone.
They don't believe big corporations & the rich should be given the privilage to do what they want at the expense of everyone else. And terrorists, as difficult as it is, need to be forgiven. This is what Pope John Paul II taught & set as an example. Sounds liberal, doesn't it?
The minority, bible-thumping, radical, Christian right have learned they will not get who they want in public office in numbers that will do them any good to push their scary agenda.
Think I don't know what I'm talking about?
Remember Alan Keyes?
Posted by: RomanB | February 22, 2007 8:54 AM
Erick,
Rather than someone's opinion, I will just use facts and figures about the accomplishments under Mayor Giuliani in NY:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/chart_murdock02-13-07.html
I will add that the convention business in NYC crashed because of high hotel taxes and ridiculous costs to exhibit there. Giuliani changed all that and the city has rebounded. The city was in great debt and city services stunk. Giuliani changed all of that. Giuliani lead on 9/11 and following 9/11.
There is a difference between governing and being a senator (whether a U.S. senator or a state senator). Senators do not govern. Governors govern. Mayors govern. Presidents govern.
As far as international experience, well the only democrat who has any international experience is Bill Richardson. Joe Biden has some.
Before becoming presidents, George W. Bush had no international experience, Clinton had no international experience. Bush the father did have international experience as being CIA director and VP for 8 years.Reagan had no international experience. Carter had no international experience. Ford had no international experience. Nixon did. LBJ did not. Kennedy did not. Eisenhower did. Truman had little as VP and before becoming president.
Obama may be a top lawyer and law student, but lawyers and law students do not make presidents. Obama has no governing experience and very little political experience. He has little or no managing experience.
Giuliani, McCain, Romney do have the necessary experience. And, as stated, Richardson does on the Dem side.
Posted by: John D | February 22, 2007 9:00 AM
Erick - In regards to "do nothing" Obama
Do you honestly believe that attending and teaching in an academic institution has any bearing on what is executed in the real world? That is why most professors at major universities never enter the private sector. They know that theories are theories and tenure is tenure, none of which amounts to real world production. Would you rather have a director of information management or college drop out William Gates?
As for Obama working at a civil rights law firm, can anyone provide actual casework? Trial experience? Anything? This is the problem with Washington, too many paper tigers, no one with integrity, common sense, is anti-lobbyist, and pro campaign reform.
When you disagree with me, remember that big money and PACT money will always control the District of Columbia.
Posted by: JasonP | February 22, 2007 9:44 AM
Good for you Dale
I was raised a Christian and have had some doubts since then, but what I stand by is every person has the right to believe, or not believe, whatever they see fit.
What I cant stand is when the religious Christian right starts beating their righteous drum. You can believe what you want, but when YOUR beliefs start to affect laws that also govern ME, thats when I get a bit peturbed. I dont have Christian 'hate' as JohnD likes to think, I HATE when people try to push their beliefs on me, they're right, Im wrong. They're going to heaven, I'm going to hell.
America is supposedly a country where freedom of religion is the norm. I realize Christians are the majority, but there are those of us who are not Cristian but are proud Americans, proud fathers.
I dont need a book of ancient texts to tell me whats morally right, I dont need a Sunday service to love my children and my neighbors.
Just my thoughts. I am a proud American. We have a nice example of what happens when religion dominates the leaders of a country: Iran. How bout we agree to leave seperation of church and state right where it is and just agree to do whats best for the country, and leave our personal religious beliefs at home and in the church?
Flame away angry Christians, I am expecting it and used to it.
Posted by: erick | February 22, 2007 10:01 AM
Erick, I could care less whether you are Christian or not. As you say, it is your right to choose your religious beliefs. But it is quite old to constantly see the lies that Christians are intolerant (the most intolerant are the Loony Left: Chief Illiniwek, Christians, anything to the right of left wing and on and on are all targets of the Left). or those who say Christians have no right to practice their beliefs, or that religious people in general, but Christians in particular, have to hide their religion. That infringes upon my Constitutional right to practice my religion. You don't want to practive Christianity or anything, go right ahead. Just don't tell me I cannot.
Posted by: John D | February 22, 2007 11:35 AM
Roman, I am a practicing Christian who give thousands to charities, for people and animals. But I am for the Iraq War (funny, though the Left wing is FOR invasion of Darfur, but not Iraq -- why?). I also am for guns, course gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. I don't believe in forgiveness for terrorists. Sorry, cannot forgive someone who kills 3,000 innocents, or some child predator who repeatedly rapes a boy or girl. I will forgive much about a person, but not those. If God so chooses to forgive them, that is His call, not mine.
And the Bible-thumping, radical Christian is such a wrong-headed stereotype it's ridiculously funny and sad.
In the last 100 years, it has become difficult for senators to win elections. The last senator to win the presidency was JFK. Since then, Kerry lost, Dole lost, and countless others lost in the primary stage to governors, vice presidents, sitting presidents. Two mayors have won the presidency, but yes, it is a rarity. So what? If that Giuliani was a mayor is all you hateful Loony leftists have to offer, you're in big trouble.
Just keep watching Hillary and Barack destruct each other, OK??
Posted by: John D | February 22, 2007 11:43 AM
"When it finally sinks into Americans that Mr. Obamas' half brother Roy is now, and always has been a practicing Muslim, I'm sure they will flock to vote for Mr. Obama. "
I have no problem with that. In fact I wouldn't have a problem if Senator Obama himself was a practicing Muslim.
I have a problem with bigots like you Don B.
Posted by: Tony | February 22, 2007 11:49 AM
John D., just a point of information, Reagan actually did have international negotiating experience when he was elected. As Governor of California he was sent several times by Nixon's State Department to negotiate with foreign countries, including England, Japan, and France.
He campaigned on the idea of having face-to-face negotiations with the Soviet Union, negotiations he knew he could win because of his days as head negotiator and president of SAG.
Here's Ed Meese on Reagan's personal diplomacy: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed061404c.cfm
The Big RR's pre-election accomplishments in diplomacy are even more amazing today, considering that not only were Reagan and Nixon political rivals, but not particularly close friends either.
Nixon must have valued Reagan's expertise so much that he trusted him to represent the administration even though he'd every political reason to use the opportunity to embarass Nixon. Reagan, instead, was loyal to President and country and eventually become President himself. I think relationships like this could never happen in today's political World. Could you imagine George W. sending, say, George Pataki to negotiate on his behalf? No way.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2007 12:07 PM
JohnD-
Thank you, now that wasnt so hard was it?
Those numbers do in fact look impressive. What I would ask now is for any of the Giuliani detractors to provide any opposing numbers? If there arent any numbers that can take away from these provided by JohnD then I would have to assume that Rudy did a fine job turning around NYC. Hey credit has to go where credit is deserved.
See how easy this civil debate thing is when labels are not thrown around and facts and numbers are provided?
As far as the senators experience, you did not refute the fact that 15 senators have become pres and only 2 mayors. I understand your argument that mayors "govern" but if that was so important then why only 2 mayors making the presidency? If I am the mayor of my small town of 1,000 does that make me more experienced to be pres than Obama?
You state "Obama has no governing experience and very little political experience." but again I say he has as much "political" experience in the senate as Rudy had as mayor, I personally think thats a draw.
And I am intrigued by Richardson, though I havent started a full look into him yet, he is next on my list of "trying to do my homework" as more Americans should do than just listening to CNN or Rush Limbaugh...
International experience is tough to quantify and justify, what really defines international experience? What I didnt like about Bush was he flat out said he didnt know much about other countries and did not like to read, he had to learn (so to speak) on the fly. I would prefer someone who at minimum is well educated, not an Ivy League C student.
Jason P - What I am suggesting by showing Obamas school and early career work is that he is smart. You dont get summa cum laude without being smart. You dont teach constitutional law for 11 years at a prestigious school without being smart. You may consider it a paper tiger, but would you dare compare Obamas school and work track record against President Bushs? Anyone can be a Boy Scout, but only the hard workers become Eagle Scout. Anyone can go to college, but only the smart hard workers graduate summa cum laude.
And let me tell you, if you are anti-lobbyist and pro campaign reform then you and I have a lot in common, those two things are some of the most pressing needs in our current system. Its one of the reasons I always thought highly of McCain, until he started the Christian vote suck up procedures...
RomanB - Your posts are great. Thanks for the Christian backup. Christians arent bad, arent hated by me, just the loudmouth zealots who think they have it all figured out and now we should too.
Posted by: erick | February 22, 2007 12:11 PM
Remember when Bush spoke at Bob Jones University while he was campaigning in 2000? A college that's not accredited, doesn't admit anyone whose not white, believes that Catholics are going to hell & the pope is an agent of the devil.
Bush later claimed he didn't know the school was about that (just another lie), & doesn't really believe in everything they stand for.
This type of Christianity can go to hell. They are the ones who want to dictate to me what to do, how to live my life, & what to believe.
This country has a basis rooted in religious freedom. No one is to tell you who or what or how to believe.
There are "Christians" who believe otherwise. When Republicans start catering to them for votes, it will only perpetuate the Republican's downfall.
Posted by: RomanB | February 22, 2007 12:31 PM
What's Jack Kemp up to? Can we get him to run?
Posted by: Eric | February 22, 2007 12:48 PM
If Guiliani becomes Prez., they will have to put an addition on the Lincoln bedroom........
Posted by: Joan | February 22, 2007 1:40 PM
The far right will never vote for Rudy. They'll stay home, which is what they did for decades until recently. As far as Rudy in NYC-- recent news reports seem to indicate that he lied to the workers about it being safe at the WTC site when he was warned by his environmental people that the air was dangerous after the buildings came down. He was apparently bullied into those lies by business interests which wanted to reopen in the area ASAP. As a result, thousands of workers at the site are getting sick and will die. This will probably be the issue that ends Rudy's political career forever-- maybe even before the primaries.
Posted by: Not- So Rich | February 22, 2007 1:42 PM
If Guiliani becomes Prez., they will have to put an addition on the Lincoln bedroom........
Posted by: Joan | February 22, 2007 1:43 PM
It's too early for any of these numbers to really matter. As soon as there's more money offered and more skeletons uncovered, we'll see who's left standing.
Posted by: Miss V | February 22, 2007 1:55 PM
Erick, you're leaving out Giuliani's 8 years as a prosecutor. He was an Assistant United States Attorney for 6 years and a U.S. Attorney for another 6 years. USAs and AUSAs are an important part of the executive branch, prosecuting cases for the federal gov't and working with FBI agents on those cases.
Plus, Giuliani's record fighting organized crime and institutionalized corruption as a U.S. Attorney is nothing short of stellar. He hung so many pelts that it paved the way for his eventual Mayoral run. Unlike Obama's years as a lawyer, there's a wealth of cases available to peruse showing Giuliani's abilities as both a prosecutor and a negotiator.
If you still don't think a USA is an important, powerful position, please google the name "Patrick Fitzgerald," the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (who I hope will run for Senate against Turbin). Fitzgerald secured the convictions of Robert Sorich (Daley's patronage chief) and former Governor George Ryan. Impressive work, indeed. The thing is, he's only a fraction as successful today at rooting out crime as Giuliani was in the same position in New York.
Like I said earlier, I still think his record ranks below McCain in experience (only candidate who fought on the battlefied, also served in an executive capacity as U.S. Navy liaison to the Dept. of Defense), but I digress.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2007 2:29 PM
JohnD-
I have decided you cant read. You twist my words on Christianity into such a pretzel it makes me want to get the brown mustard out!
Your posts are just not worth my time to respond to anymore, I post with sincere hopes for civilized debate and it ends with you telling me I am telling you to hide your religion. Your one post at 9am today gave me such hope, but I've had enough. Back to your charity work. (Good for you by the way, charity is a noble cause)Any of you swampers that want to follow this thread and see my earnest attempts to finally get JohnD into a civil debate will see you just falling back on your usual Loony monikers and twisting of words.
Now look at what someone like Jeff posts. What his posts have done IN A CIVIL WAY is to present facts about Rudy G that are logical and worthy of consideration. I did overlook his work as a USA and I myself hold Fitzgerald in very high esteem, he seems a man of integrity, not political fluff. So I will consider this info on "AmericasMayor" and give it some serious thought.
Jeffs posts make me think.
Yours drive me to gin.
Shoo fly!
Posted by: erick | February 22, 2007 3:54 PM
Giuliani supports gun control, supports gay rights, supports abortion, had an open affair while in office, had two divorces & was not doing well with citizens of New York before 9/11. If there was nothing different about him but being a Democrat, what would Republicans have to say about him? Don't conservatives have an acronym for Republicans like this; RINO?
Have Repblicans flip-floped on their principles when Giuliani leads in the poles among current Republican presidential nominees?
Another thing; It's interesting how no real mention of this goes on when looking at Rush Limbaugh's website. Anyone care to wager when Rush will call Giuliani a RINO (Republican in Name Only)?
By the way John D. As a Christian, you most likely understand forgiveness isn't easy & killing Muslims indiscriminatly (collateral damage anyone?) won't help win the war on terror.
Posted by: RomanB | February 22, 2007 3:55 PM
John D,
What about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government w/o a warrant? Are you cherry picking which part of the Constitution is worth protecting?
Posted by: Janet | February 22, 2007 4:18 PM
Rudy is going to have to start acting like Pander Bear if he wants to stand a chance.
Check out the intelligent design quacks Sleepy McSurge is speaking to tomorrow:
http://www.discovery.org/
Posted by: Bubba | February 22, 2007 5:41 PM
So, come to think about it,so why all this talk
about the 2008 Presidential Election,since
President and King and Emporer of the Univers
and Commander in Chief George W Bush will simply
sign one of his signing statements outlawing it
and declare Martial Law so Bush can be Dictator
Of The United States of the North Amercan Union
of Canada,The United States and Mexico for life!
And os, ya'll can forget this election nonsense
as King George 43 has abolished elections by one
of his signing statements!
Posted by: Sandy | February 22, 2007 6:12 PM
have a problem with bigots like you Don B.
Posted by: Tony | Feb 22, 2007 11:49:00 AM
Tony: Not a bigot, just being pragmatic. But of course you left wingers think everybody is a bigot that doesn't agree with your thoughtless responses. Never any substance, or facts, always name calling. You really ought to stop , regain your composure, and try and make an intelligent posting Tony. Come on Tony join the human race, show the rest of us out here that you have a thought somewhere in your brain. If your unable to, have some more kool-aid comrade
Posted by: Don B | February 22, 2007 7:45 PM
JohnD, it wouldn't matter if you gave every dime you had to charity. Your words are definitely un-Christ-like.
Posted by: Catherine | February 22, 2007 8:02 PM
Don B-
Gibve me a break. You attack Obama because his half brother is a Muslim, and I'm the one name calling?
Tell me, what exactly is wrong with having a muslim half brother, or being a muslim at all?Come on, show me some intelligence Don. Where are your "facts" that somehow show that Obama is unworthy to be president because he is related to a muslim.
Posted by: Tony | February 22, 2007 8:35 PM
Erick,
I, too, get sick of the name calling and the rancor. I think that unfortunately a lot of people lose all semblance of manners and civility whenever they don't have to look the people that they're writing about in the face.
A shame.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2007 10:08 PM
I always thought Richie Daley was America's Mayor.
Posted by: T | February 23, 2007 4:30 AM
Whew, well it's a good thing Christ has Catherine here to speak for him.
Posted by: Jeff | February 23, 2007 7:41 AM
Gibve me a break. You attack Obama because his half brother is a Muslim, and I'm the one name calling?
Tony: Once again real slow so even perhaps you can even under-stand. Wasn't attaching Mr. Obama, just stating a fact. Most people in the U.S. are not enlightened like you Tony. Whether you want to believe it or not we are in wa,r where most of the enemies are Muslims. Hence Tony, most Americans will not vote from a man if they are aware his half brother is a Muslim, ( i think it's called human nature Tony). I never said there was anything wrong with being a Muslim, you did Tony. Enjoy the kool-aid Tony.
Posted by: Don B | February 23, 2007 8:05 AM
You support the bigiotry Don B. You repeat the charges without comment against. You are willing to use the bigotry of others to support your political position.
And I don't agree that the american people are so narrow minded that they will reject a candidate based on the religion of his half-brother. I have more respect for the american people than that. Apparently you do not.
Posted by: Tony | February 23, 2007 10:30 AM
Erick, I am trying with you. I'm glad you enjoyed the information I provided about Giuliani. But then you ask why a mayor of 1,000 is more qualified than Obama.
There are few "national" mayors. It is largely a local version without much national coverage. Mayors of big cities, and in particular New York, Chicago and LA do get some national coverage, and in specific NY, because it is by far the largest city and because the nation's media is based there. So, name recognition is a factor. Giuliani is one of those rare mayors with significant name recognition, perhaps more than any other mayor in this country's history.
NY has more than 7 MILLION people. Probably being mayor of NY city is more challenging than being governor of Arkansas, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, and more. The budgets are higher, there are more government employees and more issues than need addressing.
With his vast experience as a crime fighter, mayor, manager, Giuliani is probably one of the most qualified candidates running for president for either party.
A mayor of 1,000 people, no. A mayor of 7 million, yes.
Posted by: John D | February 23, 2007 10:50 AM
Yeah, name calling is the last refuge of a spineless hypocrite.
Posted by: Half-brained Loser | February 23, 2007 11:11 AM
I can't speak for Christ but I don't think many of the alleged Christians do either.
Posted by: Catherine | February 23, 2007 11:17 AM
Oh catherine/Janet/John E., I never claim to speak for Christ. He is far more capable of doing it Himself. I just listen. Perhaps you should too!
Posted by: John D | February 23, 2007 2:43 PM
John D,
What about the CONSTITUTIONAL right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government w/o a warrant?
Dale: It doesn't pertain to terrosits trying to harm our country...
much to your disdain i'm sure. Oh i'm sorry it's Janet ...right ?
Posted by: Don B | February 24, 2007 12:41 PM
and I myself hold Fitzgerald in very high esteem, he seems a man of integrity, not political fluff.
Erick; If you think Mr. Fitzgerald was so full of integrity, perhaps you can explain to me why he didn't indict Mr. Armitidge on outing Ms. Plame. He knew from Mr. Novak early on. I'm curoius Erick, how about you?
Posted by: Don B | February 24, 2007 12:49 PM