37 Comments

1. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Right now, I think Rudy is the only one that can stop Hillary’s growing juggernaut. I hope he’s the nominee and I hope he wins, because I just can’t see her being firm on the Long War being a war, and not just a police matter. Rudy, on the other hand, has convinced me he “gets it.”

Aug 24, 2007 - 12:09 pm 2. markus:

I don’t think that Giuliani is the strongest opponent Clinton would face. As a Democrat who also expects her to be the nominee, I would be most concerned with Romney, who will style himself as a kinder, gentler, more competent and conciliatory Dubya. Against Clinton, I would think he would be able to keep quite a few of the women voters who went with Bush in 2000 and 2004, while at the same time hitting all the right notes about fighting terrorism, not appointing activist judges, opposing “amnesty”, etc.. (I’ll leave Thompson aside cause no one has a clue of what kind of candidate he will be.)

Giuliani’s support comes from people like Krauthammer and Anthony who think America’s number one issue is winning World War IV, who really wish in their hearts that Dick Cheney could be President. And many of these people are social conservatives who have put their former top issues on the back burner in order to take the fight to the barbarians of the Fertile Crescent. But unless Dems nominate someone who is a real foreign policy lightweight (sorry, but THAT’S NOT HILLARY), I just don’t see him getting a lot of votes from independent voters.

Aug 24, 2007 - 1:50 pm 3. jrdroll:

But unless Dems nominate someone who is a real foreign policy lightweight (sorry, but THAT’S NOT HILLARY)

Yea right lmao

Aug 24, 2007 - 1:56 pm 4. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Giuliani’s support comes from people like Krauthammer and Anthony who think America’s number one issue is winning World War IV, who really wish in their hearts that Dick Cheney could be President.

Wow, you apparently know my heart better than I do! Do you charge by the hour psychic readings? Where on Earth did I ever say or imply that I really wanted Cheney for President? Or are you just giving vent to your own biases?

And many of these people are social conservatives who have put their former top issues on the back burner in order to take the fight to the barbarians of the Fertile Crescent.

Well, I’m not a social conservative, but I do think this fight against the new “barbarians” is the most pressing issue of our time.

Aug 24, 2007 - 2:28 pm 5. Ray Zacek:

I support Rudy and have no wish in my heart of hearts that Cheney were President, the thought had not even occurred to me, though I suspect that is a paranoid fantasy indulged in by the left. I’d prefer a President who did not crusade on social issues; these are best left to the states and to the people to decide. If Giuliani as President makes good on his promise to appoint strict constructionists to the court, then these contentious and divisive social issues will be decided, and compromised upon, by the states and the people and not by judicial fiat handed down from upon high in the manner of Roe v. Wade.

Aug 24, 2007 - 2:30 pm 6. David Thomson:

“And what is important is the war on terror. Democrats are not reliable.”

The Democrats are not even slightly reliable. A very high percentage, perhaps most of them, believe the war of terror is merely a con game to empower the Republicans. This is especailly true of those Democrats who attended our “best” schools. America is allegedly guilty of victimizing the Muslims. The “blow-back” of 9/11 was well deserved.

The Democratic Party propagandists are going to deceitfully market Hillary Clinton as another warrior queen. God help us if this con game proves successful.

Aug 24, 2007 - 3:04 pm 7. ricpic:

Yes, let’s all grow up and put aside those childish concerns about leaders complicit in the moral debasement of America.

Aug 24, 2007 - 3:39 pm 8. JK Ribera:

If I had to choose now, I would definitely choose Giuliani. I don’t understand the comments of markus regarding Romney. I find him plastic. On the Rasmussen site, his favorable-unfavorables are not good. Rudy’s are the best of all candidates in both parties. He also leads Hillary head-to-head by five or six points.

Aug 24, 2007 - 3:39 pm 9. markus:

I was just kidding about Cheney being Prez. But seriously, if something happened to President Bush in the next few months, our nation would be in good hands, right?

Anyway, like I said, he’ll get Republican votes, I don’t see him winning over many independents.

Aug 24, 2007 - 3:41 pm 10. Roger:

“Anyway, like I said, he’ll get Republican votes, I don’t see him winning over many independents.”

markus, I make no claims as a political prognosticator, but what you said above makes zero sense. Rudy Giuliani was mayor of a city where Democratic registrations outnumber Republican by roughly seven-to-one. He didn’t just have to pick up a majority of independents, he had to pick up a lot of Democrats to win. Every Democrat I know fears Giuliani most in the real election almost by default, but, hey, you know they could all be wrong and you’re right. What do I know?

Aug 24, 2007 - 3:56 pm 11. markus:

Roger, he was elected mayor of NYC because people were sick and tired of out-of-control crime and ineffectual bureaucracy. You had absolutely no choice but to vote for him if you cared at all about those issues. And he was reelected because he delivered, for the most part, with the help of the huge financial boom in the city. The upcoming Presidential election is not going to be about those issues.

Aug 24, 2007 - 4:09 pm 12. Stace:

Democrats are not reliable.

This is the guy who I always thought was the most knowledgeable on foreign policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/the-surge-has-failed-no-_b_61726.html

He seems a little behind the curve on this.

Aug 24, 2007 - 5:22 pm 13. Roger:

As I said, markus, you could be right. I’m not a prognosticator. You evidently are.

Aug 24, 2007 - 5:47 pm 14. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, I don’t understand why many Dems would vote for Rudy as a problem-solver then, but would not do so now. What’s the distinction?

Aug 24, 2007 - 6:39 pm 15. markus:

Roger,
a prognosticator you are indeed (see above, and here, there and everywhere)

Buddy,

Briefly, I don’t think a majority of voters are convinced that the “tough-guy” approach to foreign policy is the best way to address the challenges we face. We’ve burned out on this approach with Bush. YOU haven’t, I know. But I’d submit the 2006 Congressional elections, PLUS the extreme anxiety most Congressional Republican incumbants feel right now about the situation in Iraq, indicate that a majority of the country has. And the main thing that I see Giuliani trying to sell is a “more Bush than Bush” foreign policy. I don’t see it working beyond the Republican primaries.

Aug 24, 2007 - 9:05 pm 16. Barry Dauphin:

But I’d submit the 2006 Congressional elections…

The half life of such changes grows ever shorter in our hyperspeed society. Prognostications made on the basis of the 2006 Congressional elections are so yesterday.

Consider this: Congressional approval rating hits all-time low
A new Gallup Poll shows that Congress’ approval rating is just 18 percent, the lowest since Gallup started tracking it in 1974.

Aug 24, 2007 - 9:21 pm 17. markus:

Barry — Yes, everyone hates Congress, but why in spite of this does there remain such pessimism among Republicans in the know (including Krauthammer, above) about their electoral prospects in 2008?

Aug 24, 2007 - 9:33 pm 18. Buddy Larsen:

Righto, markus –the world conflict is the result of Bush’s “tough guy” foreign policy. Yep, we need some more Jimmy-the-Malaise Carter & Beach Party Bubba Clinton, THAT’ll straighten out them jihadis.

Aug 24, 2007 - 10:26 pm 19. jedrury:

Rudi is a favored candidate because of his image from 9/11. Regardless of the expressions of the press (New Yorker) and certain NYC labor unions, that will remain untarnished. His liabilities are wrapped up with his personal life and his stand on gays and abortion. Republicans will overlook these warts in their need for a winner. The press (always followers, never leaders) have been repeating this conventionality for months and Rudi continues to lead. In a Rudi – Hillary contest, the voter will laugh at the choice. Because there is no choice; Rudi hands down and without the Hillary negatives of 49% and that is before the public even starts to concentrate on the candidates.

Aug 25, 2007 - 4:54 am 20. Buddy Larsen:

Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, all fell on national security, right?

Aug 25, 2007 - 6:27 am 21. stu:

I agree with Markus insofar as he intimates the election will not be decided by diehard party members but by the independents. I don’t think their votes will be won so much on policy but on their perception of likability,character and authenticity. Neither of these two is a charmer(Bill Clinton), both arguably have character issues, but clearly Guiliani has the appeal when it comes to authenticity. I believe he actually believes what he says and will be perceived that way. Hillary on the other hand is a conventional politician who will say what’s necessary to get elected.

Aug 25, 2007 - 7:24 am 22. Lem:

Obama sponsors ESPN online scoreboards. He runs good for a rooky.

Aug 25, 2007 - 9:22 am 23. jedrury:

I read somewhere that the key is essential likability.

George or Kerry? We know who won.

Rudi or Hillary? The warmth of a paisano or the frosted chilliness of a man eating barracuda.

This is not even a contest. You decide.

Aug 25, 2007 - 10:36 am 24. Buddy Larsen:

She gets Kerry’s 47%, plus whatever she can add (or subtract). The debates will be key, re that 3 or 4%. She’ll try to sucker Rudy (or whomever) into being ungentlemanly, face-to-face.

Aug 25, 2007 - 11:21 am 25. Ray Zacek:

Senator Clinton has one thing to overcome her persistent negatives with the voters: her husband. People still like Bubba. Bill remains electable. The Clintons will do what is required to be restored to the White House, the 22nd Amendment be damned.

Aug 25, 2007 - 2:17 pm 26. exguru:

Rudy will draw votes from people the GOP does not usually get–people with vowels on the end of their names. He beats the Clinton woman now, and there are 15 months left for people to get even more sick of her. Everybody gives him a strong chance, especially as the war improves and aftermath of cut-and-run looks more dangerous. When you know the others you realize Romney would be the most capable president, but so what. Fred is an empty suit with no there there. Newt is a bit too flighty, though also would probably be more capable than Rudy. Again, so what? Rudy is sound on judges, sound on the border, sound on the war, sound on taxes. Let’s win with him.

Aug 25, 2007 - 3:36 pm 27. jedrury:

Buddy: Will Hillary actually retain Kerry’s 47% ? Doubtful. That figure contains a lot who hated the president and may be positive for Rudi because of his urban roots and his more liberal positions. So classify then as swing votes.

On the issue of debates, Rudi has actually tried cases before juries, can parse and dice a question better than anyone, can laugh at himself, and is the best TV candidate interview in the field [although Mitt is darn good]. On the other hand, the less Hillary speaks the better, she is scripted and wooden and any viewer except a die hard Dem just cringes or upchucks at the sight of her.

Aug 25, 2007 - 5:32 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

Good points. Yes, he can do it, I think. Agree too on Romney –he’s damn good. I’m hoping Clinton I and II can get a proper airing in the general campaign without Mrs. Clinton being able to successfully characterize her own record as being a VRWC attack on poor li’l Hil. The revisionisms will be coming at us like the hordes of Jenjis Khan.

Aug 25, 2007 - 6:03 pm 29. Barry Dauphin:

markus

I think the Republicans are concerned because of the ambiguity inherent in today’s electoral environment. Politicians abhor (and dread) ambiguity. In fact Roger’s post involves that issue. Rudy is basically socially liberal, but he continues to poll well among Republicans. Will this continue? I don’t know, but it really wasn’t expectable a year ago or 4 years ago. But it becomes less surprising day by day. Perhaps in hindsight it will be seen as inevitable. But today, it can still elicit head scratching. But the Republicans (in the know) are afraid they don’t know so much or as much as they used to know.

One metaphor often invoked to describe how Republicans typically select their candidate is that of a Rotary club. Now to be sure the metaphor is as inaccurate as it is accurate, but there’s a little something to it. In 1996, it was Dole’s “turn”. In 2000 Bush obtained some anointment. But who’s turn is it this year? This year that question doesn’t even seem to make sense. Of course Republicans in the know are skittish.

Many voters have war fatigue and don’t see even minimal prospects of the US “winning.” The Republicans are concerned because who can really project the trajectory of things at this point? But the Democrats are not truly brimming with confidence. Any who are will get blindsided by the voters.

Another issue is immigration policy. The thing is that there is a powerful divide in this country about that issue. Solomon has not yet stepped forward. All politicians would do well to not take anything for granted in 2008.

Aug 25, 2007 - 6:21 pm 30. Gary Rosen:

“have no wish in my heart of hearts that Cheney were President, the thought had not even occurred to me”

Don’t worry about it. We were told this by a compulsive liar and slimy antisemitic bigot.

Aug 25, 2007 - 11:18 pm 31. markus:

The big Giuliani story in Time is this week is very interesting. His supporters won’t like it, but the criticisms of him in the article are the same ones that people are going to be bringing up if he wins the nomination. If he does, it will be like the Ali vs. Foreman Fight of the Century showdown. Two polarizing figures going at it like pit bulls at Mickael Vick’s farm. Just what our country needs!

Barry, I can’t disagree with anything you say. I just don’t see what is so interesting or meaningful about the fact that Republican primary voters are willing to consider an alleged social liberal. Because they are pragmatic enough to know John Paul Stevens is 88, and President Giuliani will likely nominate right-wing judges? Because they know he is not a moderate at all when it comes to miliary and foreign policy affairs?

I’m also not sure how the immigration politics are going to play out. It definately does seem like a hottest issue out there. Will Republican primary voters stay enthused for Rudy when opponents start running ads quoting his earlier statements in support of illegal immigrants? You could answer all of this stuff better than me.

Gary, I wonder why no one else seems to care? Maybe cause you can’t back up your case.

Aug 26, 2007 - 4:03 pm 32. Gary Rosen:

“Gary, I wonder why no one else seems to care? Maybe cause you can’t back up your case.”

The other posters here are merely more polite than I am. As for “backing up”, there is plenty of evidence in Roger’s comments sections of both your dishonesty and your antisemitism. One piece is right here in this thread, the way you tried to weasel out of the Cheney comment with the tired old “just kidding” dodge.

Aug 26, 2007 - 9:51 pm 33. markus:

You can’t come up with anything better than accusing me of really believing that lots of people want Cheney to run for President? That’s weak, Gary.

Given that there has been NO talk whatsoever about Cheney running for President, I think my explanation is credible, I was making a facetious comment, a joke about the fact that Giuliani’s greatest appeal lies with the same diehard group of voters who happen to think that Dick Cheney is an unjustly maligned leader, someone who “gets it” when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Aug 27, 2007 - 12:37 am 34. Buddy Larsen:

So, you’re the guy who knows whether someone “gets it” or not, markus? Mercy sakes, I’ve been underestimating you.

Aug 27, 2007 - 6:35 am 35. dclydew:

I think that we are all far too presumptuous as to what will decide the ‘08 elections.

The honest truth is that we don’t and won’t for some time KNOW if the Surge worked… we probably won’t even be able to define “worked” until sometime next year. That’s really the problem in dealing with insurgencies… no one can honestly tell when they’re being beaten and when they’re hiding out. This has been a common tactic since Mao.

So maybe things will become very peaceful and happy in Iraq, and we’ll see no more terror attacks for then next 12 months. In which case the “War on Terrorism” will quickly vanish in the American Short Attention Span and the reds will be screaming about abortion while the blues scream about global warming. Or, maybe the surge will fail, maybe there will be another horrific attack like what happened in Lebanon. If that happens, it seems likely that Americans will turn screaming into the arms of the Dems. It seems to me that the best bet for any Republican candidate to actually get elected will involve a successful Iraq but a resurgent Al Quaeda, complete with attacks either here or abroad.

I would prefer Rudy over Hillary. However, I’m still not really happy with those options.

Aug 27, 2007 - 11:11 am 36. jedrury:

Geez, Louise.

One would think that this site can stay aloof from the ad hominem attacks which completely mar other sites.

Aug 27, 2007 - 11:53 am 37. Stephen_Forsythe:

“She gets Kerry’s 47%, plus whatever she can add (or subtract). The debates will be key, re that 3 or 4%.” — Buddy Larsen

First of all, more than a few of my Democrat friends realize that Hillary will have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME carrying the same states that Jon Kerry did. Rudy could easily and will likely take both Pennsylvania and New Jersey — and thus election 2008 is over before it ever began.

“I don’t think that Giuliani is the strongest opponent Clinton would face. As a Democrat who also expects her to be the nominee, I would be most concerned with Romney, who will style himself as a kinder, gentler, more competent and conciliatory Dubya.” — Markus

This one was so far out in left field that my head spun around twice! Romney fashioning himself as a Dubya might explain why he is the hopeless trailing in the polls. In contrast to Bush, Rudy Giuliani is liberal on social issues such as abortion and gay rights but is still strong on national security, which is definitely what the country is looking for right now.

Aug 30, 2007 - 8:18 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: