You come onto this website and tell us that we are deceived in Rudy Giuliani and yet you attempt to prove your point using .com websites? Who are you kidding? If you want to do some REAL research, then try reading some unbiased, truthful, scholarly works. Any fool can create a .com website and pretend to know all about the universe. The fact that you actually tried to dissuade us from voting for Giuliani using a .com source is rediculous and absurd. That alone gives me reason to completely refute your argument. I am not even going to waste my time visiting those sites.

Personally, I have done recent SCHOLARLY research on Giuliani and have found nothing too absurd. Sure, he was involved in some scandals–who isn’t? Sure, he has personal problems–who doesn’t? Sure, there are some issues where I may not provide my entire support–but who can you ever fully agree with? But honestly, none of these petty criticisms matter when it comes to the big picture. The fact is that he did a remarkable job as mayor of New York. He has the strength and intelligence to do what needs to be done. And unlike Hilary Clinton, he is realistic and firm in his beliefs. The only REAL problem with him as president (unless I am mistaken) is that he has no prior experience with foreign affairs–which is a really big problem considering the War on Terror business and the inevitable war with Iran.

Until you can PROVE to me, with DIRECT and SCHOLARLY proof, that he should not be president, I support him fully.

Listening to the media tout what a great OR bad person somebody is should motivate you to find out for yourself as you all obviously have internet access…I list only two sources yet there are MANY more from the people who were there well before and during 9/11/.

Be an INFORMED citizenry;

1) Guiliani’s Legacy: Taking Credit For Things He Didn’t Do
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776099/posts

2) Rudy’s Grand Illusion

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0635,barrett,74322,6.html

One thing occurred to me that had not really sunk in until just now–reading Roger’s post, vis-a-vis the ability for Guiliani to win the Republican primaries: (I touched on it once mentioning the crossover vote in many primaries.) There are a lot of “Truman Democrats” still out there. Many of them are already in the habit of voting split tickets. More relevant, many of them are still DINO. They can’t help but be, giving the disconnect between their own views and the Democrats leadership. Then there are all the former Truman Democrats driven into the ranks of the Independents or even GOP. Collectively, there are not enough of the Truman Democrats to retake control of the Democrat party. There might be enough of them to put a guy like Guiliani over the top for the GOP nomination.

There is a thing about candidates that people forget, even though we have a recent example with Reagan. The right candidate moves a significant slice of the voters into his party. (FDR is, of course, the poster president for this move.) Carter being inept helped Reagan get elected in 1980. Reagan being Reagan turned some of those voters into more or less permanent Republicans.

If the Democrat leadership continues to act like idiots on foreign policy, eventually everyone serious about foreign policy will vote in the Republican primary (whether trying to pull the eventually nominee somewhat left or for other reasons). So the big questions are: 1. How does the group of “serious about foreign policy” voter break down on other issues? 2. Does this gradual shift (that predates Reagan’s 1980 win) move far enough in 2008 to give Guiliani the GOP nod?

I don’t know the answer to those questions. I do know (as any traditional conservative does), that this country needs two serious parties. If the only way to get that is to bring all the serious people in the GOP–and thus eventually split it into the two parties–then that is what needs to happen–however painful.

That’s the funniest thing i’ve read all week. Ask Jim Jeffords how good Bush is at “uniting”.