Giuliani's rivals turn on front-runner and each other

While the Repugnant candidates use a debate of ideas to spew their hatred of the Clintons,did any of them critique the last seven years of Bush?

That's right,spew that hatred of Clinton to keep the last 20 % of wing nuts on board.

If they can't win by making everyone fear "the global war on terror" then they will try to win by making everyone fear Clinton.

Either way it is the same tactic... FEAR

"You have got to be kidding," Giuliani replied indignantly,"

So "Dressed to Kill" Rudy is indignant over a gratuitous stupid low blow? Now he knows how it feels to be on the receiving end.

"The second thing: "She made a statement last week... Quote, Hillary Clinton, I have a million ideas; America cannot afford them all... No kidding, Hillary. America can’t afford you.''

Heaven forbid we get anyone with any ideas. No problem there with the Republics.

Nothing seems to change. Politicians taking extreme positions to obtain support for a primary campaign and then realizing, again, that they must moderate their views for the general election voters. It would be great to see someone take a consistent and mainstreaam position from the get go. Getting elected AND governing are two different things. You can't govern from the fringes, either left or right. It is about compromise and an accommodation of ideas for the general good of the populace.

These guys should get togther with Bush and Cheney to raise money and find a cure for "9/11 terrets"

9/11 (twitch), 9/11 (twitch),9/11 (twitch),9/11 (twitch),9/11 (twitch)

"AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD HILLARY" - TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN - LITERALLY OR FIGURATIVELY - c.morris and other "look the other way" clinton supporters would argue that change for the sake of change is always good - I would argue that this is not always true but nevertheless, we WILL have change in 2008 - voting for Hillary IS BY FAR the closest thing to voting for bush - if you want more spending, less american jobs, no progress in Iraq, no progress on illegal immigration and a step backwards in health care, then by all means vote for Hillary - if you like bush trade policies, you'll LOVE Hillary -- I am no fan of bush - however, the american democrats have largely become a party of egotistical elitist who capture the favor of media by pandering to pet issues - some of the old school democrats would be appalled at the policies and tactics of the famous clinton couple who have taken pandering to "where no man (or woman) has gone before" - nevertheless, the democrats allow (and even cheer) such tactics solely because the clintons are successful - bill c. did have a communication style that put him in favor with other world leaders and their foreign press corps and he was very good at pandering to the perceived desires of foreign countries as well - though hillary is every bit the phony that bill is and was (if not more so), she lacks his communication skills - therefore she is the all of the bad that bill was, with none of the good ...... I would say, "let her win" and then let us all see the low places her policies would take us BUT she (they) are so good at covering their mistakes (much better than bush) ---- nevertheless I would prefer OBAMA over HILLARY and 3-4 of the current republicans over Hillary - because - character DOES matter !!!!! apparently many are unaware of the lack of character of the clintons - never has the phrase "power for the sake of power" been more fitting - small wonder (the lack of awareness), however, since there are so many intelligent "liberals" / "left-wingers" (whatever you would label them)in the US who are completely willing to overlook the lack of character of the clintons and bury the bodies for them as they perceive the "ends justifies the means" and, of course, the clintons are really the only "winners" for the democrats in the US in 30 years (on a national level) , so their sins are not only exonerated, they are celebrated - the fact is economically-speaking; bill c. set up the US for catastrophe at home by sending so many of our jobs overseas (in exchange for political favors) and bush has continued the trend (also for political favors) - this is much to the chagrin of many conservatives and liberals, yet it is a KEY issue overlooked as the rich got richer under both presidencies - so if you hate Bush so much but happen to love America, you'll want us to elect "ANYONE but HILLARY"

little t -tom -the independent

Hearing these morons scramble for "Who's more conservative" is like listening to an assembly of Ku Klux Klan members shout about who's more of a racist.

Oh and by the way Rudy.... thank GOD Obama or ANYONE on the Democratic side is No "Reagan" NO Democrat, or SANE human being, would WANT to be.
Though Reagan's follies seem to be largely forgetten by the right these days, MOST American's remember him for the corupt Evil politician he was.
Iran Contra.... Aids Research.... Gas Prices.....
Reagan's failures are third only to Nixon's and W.s.

to frank - just a historical note all politics aside - it was nixon who promoted the mantra - to get the nomination, run to the right, to win the election, run to the center - as an opinion; I think Bill clinton borrowed from that in 1992 - I think Hillary's plan in 08 is to run to the left to get the nomination then to the center to win the election.

Take all of these cronies into an Iowa cornfield(along with a shovel) and be done with it.

Though Reagan's follies seem to be largely forgetten by the right these days, MOST American's remember him for the corupt Evil politician he was.
Posted by: FV | October 22, 2007 12:59 PM

Um, no, FV, you are wrong. You might choose to remember Reagan as corrupt and evil, but most Americans do not agree with you.
Want proof? Thought you would:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/post_war_presidents_jfk_ike_reagan_most_popular

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/19/politics/main273106.shtml

Oh, and Gas Prices? What are you talking about? After spiking in 1981, the cost of gasoline roughly fell throughout Reagan's presidency, settling at around $1 per gallon when Reagan left office. Talk about Iran-Contra and AIDS research if you want to, those are valid points. But gas prices? Try again.

"I think Hillary's plan in 08 is to run to the left to get the nomination then to the center to win the election."

This statement is simply laughable. Clinton has refused to repudiate her vote for authorizing the war/occupation and this is a 'run to the left'?!?! I could go on, but anyone who professes to support 3-4 of the current crop of wingnut Repubs is NOT an independent. Enough concern trolling please.

I love FV's rewriting of history. FV, by all accounts and by most historians Reagan is considered one of this country's best presidents. Some historians put him in the Top 5 others in the Top 10.
And, please explain to me Reagan's scandal of high gas prices??

to the resident weenie -- your lack of context is quite funny and entertaining -- but just for the record; for one to say he/she would vote for obama OR 3-4 of current republican candidates OVER HILLARY is VERY much an independent statement (for that matter I would also take dodd or edwards over hillary) - the fact of the matter is ANY VOTE CAST FOR HILLARY IS A VOTE CAST FOR MORE BUSH/CLINTON ECONOMIC POLICIES (WHICH WILL BE RENAMED OF COURSE BUT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME OR WORSE) - HILLARY IS BY FAR THE CLOSEST THING TO GEORGE W. BUSH STILL IN THE RACE. THEREFORE, VOTING FOR HILLARY IS, IN FACT, VOTING FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CHANGE, AN EQUAL OR GREATER AMOUNT OF PHONINESS, AND AN EQUAL OR LESS AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE AND COMPETENCE - you do however, bring up a great point about her IRAQ vote - her failure to express ANY true regret over her IRAQ vote while simultaneously bashing Bush's Iraq policy at every opportunity speaks loudly to her lack of character and integrity on many issues - However, in terms of the social spending comments she has made of late, she has very much been running to the left - typical in her pandering style

some of you just can't handle a true independent who cannot stand Hillary -- there are many of us, however. And if my some of my crazy right wing buddies are correct, you will see that in NOV 08 --just how many ? who knows for sure - time will tell - - but, if in fact the democrats are "dumb enough" to nominate her; among hard my more core conservative friends; there are two schools of thought - school one - please, please give her the nomination, so we will not only win but regain the house - school two - we are very willing to nominate a moderate to run against Hillary, because you can NEVER count a clinton out ---- while,among my hard-core liberal friends, there are two schools of thought - one - please run AL GORE because Hillary is not electable and two - Hillary is a lesser of evils and comes from a team that knows how to win better than most democrats ever could - so pinch your nose and vote for Hillary

the only people who really believe any of Hillary's BS are overzealous feminist who would vote gladly for any female at the top of the ticket - especially one who has pandered to feminists for so long as Hillary (i.e. not even Bill believes in her BS - he just tells her to say it, because a lot of uninformed people will want to believe it)

from the true independent - little t - tom

"among hard my more core"

A LESDYXIA MOMENT FROM little t -tom the independent -

(better to have dyslexia than lessdyxia)

i menat, of cousre;

among my more hardcore "conservative" friends; there are two schools of thought - school one - "please, please, please give hillary the nomination, so we will not only win but regain the house" -- school two - "we are very willing to nominate a moderate to run against Hillary, because you can NEVER count a clinton out" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While, among my more hard-core "liberal" friends, there are two schools of thought - school one - "please run AL GORE because Hillary is not electable and never will be and there's no way obama going to catch her" and school two - "Hillary is clearly a lesser of evils compared to republicans and since she comes from a team that knows how to win better than most democrats ever could, just pinch your nose and vote for Hillary"

independent little t - tom the ANTIDOTE for HILLARINEVITABILITY

tom, you are a twit.

Hillary Clinton may not be my favorite Dem, but liberal, she ain't. Regardless of my personal distaste for some of her policies, your diatribe appears to based on the fact she's inconsistent and a feminist. Uh, so what? There's nothing wrong with being a woman. Most voters AND Americans are women. Also, show me a politician who has not changed their mind about something, and I'll show you G.W. Bush.

Anyway, do you care to announce which 3-4 Repug candidates are more qualified than her to be Preznit?

Johnny:

Which historians are those? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly?

Please led us know who these people are that would rank him in the top 5 over Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams, FDR, etc.

Bobin:

You're right. Historians do not, on the whole, rank Reagan in the Top 5. In 2005, they did, however, put him No. 6, well above Adams, but below the other four you mentioned.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243

Take all of these cronies into an Iowa cornfield(along with a shovel) and be done with it.

Posted by: The Decider | October 22, 2007 1:25 PM

I resent that. What do you have against farm owners in Iowa?

Learn the difference between fertilizer and pollution.

JB,

Interesting poll. Wilson at #11 is a big surprise to me (definitely need more information on how these polls were tabulated), as he could be arguably the single worst president of all time in some regards. Dithered on WWI, then upon achieving victory directly sewed the seeds of WWII with the excessive punishment of Germany, handed over national sovereignty to the Federal Reserve, etc.

Any poll that puts Bush II ahead of Clinton must be automatically suspect.

Let's compare two records:

One saw a 315% increase in the Dow across his term, and a lowering of unemployment from 7.3% to 4%. He handed his predecessor the first federal budget surplus since the 1960's.

The other has seen a 27% increase to date in the Dow, and a modest rise in unemployment from 4.2% to 4.7%. Record budget deficits have reigned since his first year in office.

Neither party captured Public Enemy #1, though one president had the benefit of a friendly Congress, basing rights in critical nations, a near-declaration of war, and world public on his side, factors that hindered the other's ability to track the terrorist leader.

One won two large-scale interventions, keeping the Balkans from becoming a failed state and Al Qaeda safe haven.

The other invaded two countries, securing the peace in neither, and allowing Public Enemy #1 to remain at large. Oh, and Public Enemy #1 effectively endorsed him in the days before his re-election balloting.

Anyway, I'm also highly suspect of Calvin Coolidge belonging in the top 25. He's the original supply-sider, and the much maligned Hoover was largely continuing his policies, you know, the ones that led to the Great Depression.

And why would McKinley and Kennedy belong in the belong in the top 15? Because history took them out before they could screw up?

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoy this type of debate, but considering the comparative record of Bush with his predecessor and choosing Bush as the superior president when his economic numbers aren't even the same ballpark and with inflation starting to run rampant, the dollar falling to all-time lows against all major currencies, wages stagnant, poverty increasing, national debt rising exponentially, budget deficits as far as the eye can see a failed war in Iraq and perhaps one on the way in Iran, etc. it is pretty incredible that George Walker Bush would even slightly outpace his father or Mr. Clinton.

But its the Wall Street Journal, so I'm not surprised that Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and Calvin Coolidge would be given unexpectedly high marks.

from twit to weenie - you make my point for me about hillary being a phony - I never said she was a liberal or moderate (can you tell ?? -- can she ??) - I only spoke of what she was trying to portray herself as -- - but you pull something odd when you equate all feminists with all women and vice versa -- big logic and semantic jump there - but, here you go; here are six current candidates I would definitely vote for vs. hillary "let me take a poll to see where i stand - as long as I don't have to admit a mistake cause I am an unholy power monger from hell" clinton - just as you requested

they are mccain/guliani/romney/obama/dodd/edwards

in NO particular order -- main reasons - character/character/character/the economy/character/immigration/character/character

is that independent enough for ya ?????

luv, little t

They eat they're own!!!

Little tom.....ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN!

to D&V ,

interesting posting - one of the more intelligent I have seen in some time - as you said - any poll showing bush2 above clinton is invalid (not to mention very premature), I would say such an invalidity is all the more true of any poll showing clinton above reagan (and I am unaware of any historical polls that do so) - I appreciate your accuracy regarding foreign policy///domestic economic indicators in terms of bush2 vs. clinton - as you can see, they BOTH happened to do a poor job catching bin laden and a good job GROWING the economy (BUT AT WHAT COSTS ?) - the numbers are particularly neck and neck if you take into account the large jumps in stock market that occurred both when hillarycare was defeated and again when republicans took control of congress for first time in 30 years (and you left out the fact that this republican victory more than ANY other single factor played a major role in helping clinton achieve budget surplus for first time in 30 years) clearly, one should also take into account the hyperinflation of the stock market due to enron/worldcom/dotcom debacles of the clinton era and the initial effect of 9-11-2001 on the market - as far as your comments about the balkan war, some of your comments are fair, others are either revisionistic or strange -- but I will willingly concede clinton was blessed with a better pre-war coalition of allies and should therefore be credited for not going to war without that - clinton should also be credited with not over-spending nearly as much as bush2 fighting a foreign war - I do not think these items encompass all of the serious pros/cons to either presidency

but - nevertheless - I stand STRONGLY by my choice of AT LEAST 6 other current candidates over hillary

little t - tom the independent MD

Little tommy, I'm not going to argue w/your 'logic', but attributing character to McCain, Guiliani and Romney?!?! Ooookkkaaayy.

Well, they're characters all right.

Be wary - Guiliana's campaign team is made up of die-hard neocons and zionist expansionists who are working for Israel, first and foremost of among them, Norman Podhertz. These men will have Giuliani doing the bidding of a foreign power, which at this point in time wants to eliminate Iran, and is trying to get Bush to do it now. Israel is no friend of the U.S.; Israel is a racist, self-centered fascist regime that believes only it has the right to survive at the cost of American lives. As Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Hebrew University, Israel Shahak said, "Jews used to believe, and say it three times a day, that a Jew should be devoted to God, and God alone. A small minority still believe it. But it seems to me that the majority of my people has left God and substituted an idol in its place, exactly as happened when they were devoted to the golden calf in the desert and gave away their gold to make it. The name of this modern idol is the State of Israel." Podhertz is worshipping the idol of Israel and he and his neocons have Giuliani in their pockets.

TO BILL R, ONE QUICK HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION; LET US SAY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT TOMORROW SOME TERRIBLE SCANDAL WERE TO HAPPEN TO MAKE ALL REPUBLICANS AND ALL DEMOCRATS DECIDE TO INSTANTLY REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM ALL PARTY AFFILIATIONS AND JOIN EITHER THE PURPLE OR THE CHARTRUESE PARTIES - NEITHER WITH ANY PLATFORM AT ALL OTHER THAN "SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FROM ALL ENEMIES - FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC" ---- COULD YOU HONESTLY SAY THEN THAT HILLARY WOULD MAKE A BETTER C. IN C. THAN GULIANI OR MCCAIN ???? just asking

little t - tom the independent

p.s. I've said it before but will repeat - I would gladly vote for and/or serve under the right female C in C but that is NOT Hillary

p.p.s. I will always try to keep an open mind but I assure you I will not be swayed by the 100's of millions Hillary will spend after her nomination - which will at least double the previous record and pretty much simultaneously prove how dangerous and power hungry she is

p.s. I've said it before but will repeat - I would gladly vote for and/or serve under the right female C in C but that is NOT Hillary
Posted by: tom | October 22, 2007 7:24 PM

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I don't really believe you would gladly serve or want a c in c who would be a women. Is it that you think Hillary isn't tough enough? I don't think thats it. I haven't decided who I want yet, but can tell you I don't want four more years of Bush, and McCain or Guiliani is exactly that. This war in Iraq has done absolutly nothing for us. Quite the opposite, and yet these 2 can't see that. I suspect you don't approve of what has happened with this war and that is why you claim independence, otherwise I believe you may be a staunch republican. Just a guess. Afghanastan was a just war yet we never finished it and now it drags on forever. That to you seems like a wise c in c? If you have approved of the way things have gone in the war, then I guess these 2 are your guy. If not, I can't see how in the world you can choose either.

I gave a bit more thought to Ronald Reagan as the 6th greatest president in American history, and Part of me wants to laugh and part wants to cry. Have our leaders really been SO bad that he is one of the best? Seriously.

Help me out here, Repubs. Seems to me that Reagan's legacy boils down to 2 things: Sunny disposition, and tearing down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands (or so the story goes).

But the negatives against Reagan are as material and profound as any president in history.

Exhibit A: Arming our enemies. The man made a deal with the Iranians to sell them, our declared enemies, weapons in exchange for hostage release. (Probably did so by negotiating behind President Carter's back, something if a Democrat had done would likely be called "treason.") Armed Saddam Hussein with the WMD's he used against the Kurds. Ironically, the US sentenced Saddam to death for this very infraction, aided and abetted by ours truly. And finally (though there are certainly other prominent dictators that he coddled) armed Osama Bin Laden to do our bidding.

Let me repeat that: Ronald Reagan supplied weapons directly to our three biggest enemies. Hmmmm. Cut and ran from Beirut. Lost more Americans in terrorist attacks than any president besides George W Bush.

Economically, nearly caused a depression with the early 80's Social Security reform. That policy did extend the system's solvency, almost exclusively on the backs of the working class because of FICA, and that surplus was then distributed by George W Bush almost exclusively to the Top 20%, NOT the people who actually paid into it. As a direct result of supply-side policies, the word "homelessness" entered the lexicon and became an epidemic. AIDS swept the nation and the Feds tried to sweep it under the rug. Crack cocaine turned the nation's cities into war zones. Debt exploded.

So come on, Reagan-worshippers, help me out. Why is Ronald Reagan one of our 6 greatest presidents? I'm sure Trickle Down Terry could provide the voodoo economist's perspective that I have failed to account for.

D & V - you are either very young OR very much a revisionist - details later and to Bill R - yes I would vote for the right woman (and NO Hillary isn't her) - I may be very disenchanted with the two party system but I am not a liar

He armed our three biggest enemies, the ones that the Bush Administration is choosing to engage in "World War III" against. Revisionist? I'm sure he had his reasons, but clearly those interventions backfired.

Please do regale me with his successes.

Do you think Reagan is a Top 6 president?

sorry to d and v - it has been a very busy day and I wanted to respond sooner - part of my answer is that you define the 3 biggest enemies by today's standards and not the three biggest enemies of 1980 standards - in doing so, you are being a bit revisionistic - there are other things that I wanted to respond to but in the interest of time, I will comment for now on two issues only - YES , we did do things in the 80's that ended up helping bin laden - like ...... help his people (among others) fight a freaking war with Russia -this was for two reasons - one - the enemy of my enemy is my friend and two - - back then, we thought of radical and fundamental islam as being anything but a monolith and that by incurring favor with one side or sect, we could "constructively engage" them and later become buddies - clinton also tried this in large degree in the balkans so we could fight their war for them, stabilize their region for them, and in doing so incur their favor and the muslims and europeans would always be our friends (we were on the muslim side in that war also) -- but look at what happened - it turned out that islamic jihad is rather monolithic at least in it's long-term hatred of america to include carter/reagan/clinton and bush - it is a very tricky issue helping someone else fight their war -- afterwards, at best, it is a "yes, but - what have you done for me lately" attitude on the part of those we help and at worst, it is a "I'll take your help, for now, pretend to be your buddy and when you lower your guard, I'm going to blow you to hell" attitude (one which even sometimes invokes interpretations from the Koran saying that agreements with "infidels" must be broken every decade or so) - anyway my second main issue over this "who was the best president stuff?" is that you have to remove the partisan context or it is a useless debate - US presidents for better or worse represent the country more than their party and they have to make tough decisions that are lose/lose and very difficult to make - true enough I do not cut clinton much slack but I can at least see his logic on most things even if I disagree with him - but I also hate the fact that many democrats act like EVERY FREAKING THING CLINTON DID WAS GREAT (EXCEPT IN THE ONE ISOLATED CASE OF PLAYING SEX GAMES WITH AN INTERN IN THE WORKPLACE AND LYING ABOUT IT UNDER OATH -- WHICH WAS A NEUTRAL MEANINGLESS ACT) AND EVERY FREAKING THING THAT BUSH HAS DONE IS A TERRIBLE THING -- AND THAT ALSO DURING THE CLINTON YEARS, HE WOULD HAVE DONE MORE GOOD BUT FOR THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WHILE DURING THE BUSH YEARS, THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE MADE NO MISTAKES IF HE HAD SIMPLY DONE WHAT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WANTED HIM TO DO AT ALL TIMES - THAT KIND OF PARTISANSHIP IS VERY PALPABLE THESE DAYS AND DESTROYS ANY HOPE OF HAVING A REALISTIC HISTORICAL DEBATE CONCERNING WHICH PRESIDENTS HELPED THEIR COUNTRY THE MOST - I THINK THAT GOING BACK TO THE FIRST NIXON TERM, PEOPLE WERE LESS PARTISAN IN THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF EVERYTHING - I THINK KENNEDY MADE SOME VERY GOOD CALLS AND VERY BAD CALLS - HE WAS HUMAN - NOT PERFECT - PLEASE STOP ACTING LIKE CLINTON WAS SO PERFECT - I KNOW THE MAIN REASON IS TO HELP HILLARY BUT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

more specifically D and V, - in direct answer to your direct questions, reagan's single biggest success was winning the cold war when much of the rest of the world and the ranking democrats of the day clearly pressured him (and his predecessor) to fold the winning hand for the sake of a chamberlainesque (false) peace and in so doing forfeit a churchillian (undeniable) victory - thank Heaven he did not cave in OR we would still be fighting the cold war along with our other current enemies - and lastly, I do not know if I would rank reagan top 6 - certainly top 12 and certainly above clinton

sorry - now I am completely out of time --- good debate , though

God Bless ya, little t - tom the independent