Actually, option B looks a lot more viable this morning than it did last night.

To pre-empt the negative response, let me see if I can hit all the themes:

- he's "too New York"

- serial marriage (Germnany's Schroeder has been married four times! though, so at least he wouldn't have the world record or anything)

- his lisp (come on now, that's just mean - and I'm sure he's taking speech therapy)

- he's too moderate (whatever that means)
Sub-response: people will indignantly write "Whatever that means??!! That means" and then go on to list one or more of the following:

abortion
gun control (he's better on this than some think, but it's still going to be an issue)
gay marriage

- Which makes a nice segue into: those pictures of him in a dress.

*

Now, these are good points. I think I could assemble a list at least as damning for any of the other pet candidates, though. When the time comes, we'll go through all of that.

Did I miss anything?

Oh, one more thing, his dad may or may not have had very low-level, lookout-type, mob connections. I mention this only because I've seen it floating around on the internets (no, I won't link), and because if his opponents in either the primaries or the general get nervous, they won't hesitate to play this card.

Let 'em try. Let 'em first go to the Almanac on-line and look up the ethnic breakdown of the electoral sweet spot: that band of states from WI to NJ.

*

If someone like Allen or Barbour win in a fair fight, I think they have a fair chance of pulling enough "squishy"/South Park support to win.
If they win by sliming Rudy on any of the above topics, it's on like AuH2O.

The end, by me.

Yeah, I know, I should just get my own rant-page.

( on any of the above topics)

I should say: excluding the moderate thing, which touches directly on policy.

Only Yankees fans would be so upset that they don't win the World Series every single year.

I can understand the disappointment, but... the Yanks don't win the Series for three or four years and they start to go bonkers.

The Yankees are the most successful team franchise in America. Sometimes it seems like MLB is structured to have them in the playoffs almost every year.

A serious run, for which party?
He is a far better fit for the Democrat party.
Why are you recommending him without even considering for a moment what his stands on the issues are? Is it just about his 9/11 experience as mayor?

He would never, ever survive the presidential primary process in the Republican party.

Now if he were to run as Senator, he would have a credible shot.

Okay, I have done the above ethnographic data-search, and admit that my fingers ran away with me when I first typed.

Italians are present, in moderate numbers, in many of those states, but the distribution clusters a little too far east for my wild-eyed threats of demographic revenge to be accurate.

Still, as ace pointed out a while back: NY, NJ, PA. If the Democrats have to worry about these at all, for any reason, they're up the creek. A simple matter of resources.

Remember, Reagan won 'em. Nixon too. Bush 41 even won NJ (and PA? too lazy to check right now).

Wouldn't it be nice to win big next time? To not stay up until 5 in the flarin-flarin-filth morning to find that we won? To have to listen to months of BS whining about Diebold? (Okay, that last one is probably, sadly, inevitable).

So, going after Giuliani's italian-ness might not be fatal to another nominee - but it sure won't help.

"Why are you recommending him without even considering for a moment what his stands on the issues are? Is it just about his 9/11 experience as mayor?"

Well, I hardly think the issues I mentioned are *all of* the issues.

I have considered his stands. It's not just about his 9/11 experience as mayor - it's that he's more responsible than any other one figure in history for saving a major city from destroying itself. Those who've lived in NYC - hey, those who lived anywhere in the northeast - know what I'm talking about.

Maybe it's time we look for a president from somewhere other than one of these two groups: governors of rural states, and clueless northeastern liberal Democrats.

Maybe it's time for someone who's demonstrated actual success on the ground. If he can fix NYC, he can fix the country.

Make the case for someone else. It's not a question of "Giuliani versus generic conservative to be determine later." Who would make a better President? Who would make a better candidate? Cos you've gotta have both.

I would be happy to vote for him....but then I am a lefty left out in the cold by the now-a-days crazy Dem party.

I think the right wing base of the Rep's would tear him apart....unless they get so upset with Bush that they give up on the primary process which seems unlikely.

This&That

"He is a far better fit for the Democrat party."

?!!

http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2004/RudyGiulianiSpeechtoGOPConvention.html

"Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It started a long time ago. And it had been festering for many years."

"Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of our world, much like observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate the Soviet Union through the use of mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism, we must also be on offense. "

Yes, you're right. I can't count the number of Democratic politicians I've heard saying just the same thing.

Look, you could be right. If he doesn't demonstrate the understanding that he needs to change somewhat to fit the party, rather than vice versa (actually, it'll be a little of both), then it's not going to happen.

I'd like to see him in a debate with Allen. I'd like to see Allen cast the first stone. S'all I'm saying.

"I think the right wing base of the Rep's would tear him apart...."

How? Gay-baiting? "Rudy Giuliani does not support South Carolina values?" Be specific. They like him now - what's going to make that change? They like him even when they're told (what a lot of them already know anyway) about his (few) RINO-like stands on things. What's going to make that change? Who's going to come along and drip the poison in people's ears?

I just think people aren't dumb enough to fall for the smear ads on Rudy. I could be wrong.

"He is a far better fit for the Democrat party." Yes, the party of Truman and JFK. Of course, many of us who would have been in that party, which really doesn't exist any more, have started leaning, voting, or jumping to the Republican party in the last five years.

"Yes, the party of Truman and JFK."

I wouldn't even go that far - because Giuliani, in governing NYC, had to deal with a lot of the fall-out of mistakes that are attributable to the Democrats, and old-school liberal Republicans, which go all the way back to choices made (however well-intentioned) in the 40s, and certainly through the 60s.

Example: Giuliani probably has a few things to say about the way that government, with all the idealism in the world, can destroy communities and help create the conditions for a hopeless underclass - because he's seen it happen. A Republican in New York is either solely motivated by money - which doesn't apply to Rudy, and I dare anyone to try to claim it does - or he *gets it*, fundamentally.

I have to concede this to Ann Coulter, even though I'm trying to chill about Miers: if someone manages to stay Republican in that type of environment, it tells you something about them. Growing up, and remaining, Republican in, say, Idaho - not exactly beating the odds.

I'm not saying Giuliani is a starve-the-beast guy, by any means - but who is, these days? Obviously not Bush. Allen? Hmmm ... has he done anything to slow down the spending spree? The Senate does have a little role in that, right?

Which reminds me: Hillary has a big hurdle to clear - she's a Senator, and we all know they haven't had much electoral success for two generations now. How do we erase that barrier for her? By nominating another Senator!

(Yeah, I know Allen was governor in the mid nineties.)

There *are* no "Yankee fans". There are only bandwagoners, of various degrees.

If non-NYers want to get a sense of Rudy's greatness, read this.

from someone's link:

"That was just the part that made national headlines. Beneath the radar, Giuliani was taking on each and every one of the city's vast, overwhelming battalions of interest groups and public-spending beneficiaries, telling them that the old days were over."

Yup, sounds just like a Democrat.

"The U.S. Army recently credited his policing techniques as helping in the capture of Saddam Hussein."

Sounds a little weird to me, but can't hurt.

Its like this - if the other choice is Hillary, then there is no other choice. The far right will have to hold their noses and vote for him.

Everyone understands what a Hillary administration would result in.

PA, I hope you're right - but more than few posters on this site have said exactly that, that "they're not scared of Hillary," etc. Someone just today or yesterday said, in as many words, that in a Rudy v. Hillary race there'd be no point for them to vote.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

The main reason I'd seriously consdier Rudy is because he'd be a great wartime president, which takes priority over domestic concerns in my mind. I would have to hear what he'd do to tighten our borders and defeat terrorism before I got real enthusiastic, though.

The moonbat left has gone queer on Hillary because of her tacking to the center. We know its all fake and shit, and so should they, but apparently not.

So it boils down to this - will the moonbats staying home, or voting for some green candidate, balance out whatever defections there are from the bible thumpers?

I think the answer is they'd pretty much cancel each other out. I also think some of the Nixonian "silent majority" might wake from their slumber to defeat Hillary.

Don't you think all Rudy would have to do is play Hillary's "we know what's best for you" quote over & over & over?

The problem is, would a pro-choice republican presidential candidate have trouble with "Bible thumpers"? I'd say yes, and I think that the problem would be bigger than some would admit.

Hal, right now, that's not what the polls say.

Only Nixon could go to China; maybe only Rudy can advance the abortion debate past the current stalemate.

There are those in this country who see abortion as it is practiced today as a criminal system analagous to slavery and the Holocaust. There are others who seem to believe that abortion is not just a fundamental right but *the* fundamental right.

But most of us are somewhere in between. As long as Rudy is in between too, I don't think it destroys his chances.

If he tries to run within the Republican party as an abortion-on-demand-until-birth candidate, then he'll have a snowball's chance.

But Mama Giuliani didn't raise no fools. (Well, he probably has embarassing siblings, because that seems to go with the office these days. But you know what I mean).

I call this haiku "No Integrity, No Heart":

Ace forgets his roots:
Who needs real conservatives?
"Mmm these balls taste good"

If Arlen Spector had been mayor of New York City on 9/11/01, how many of you would now tout *him* for President?

Anyone?

There isn't a dime's difference between the policy preferences of Spector and Giuliani, and Giuliani's got a ton of personal baggage to boot. Why on earth should Giuliani be the Republican nominee for President?

When Cheney has to resign in disgrace, Bush will appoint Giuliani, who will then be able to start running for prez while VP.

Or not.

Whoa, what did Cheney do? Bang an intern and commit perjury?

I KEED.

"Why on earth should Giuliani be the Republican nominee for President?"

Um, because he's demonstrated excellent executive ability, not just in a moment of crisis, but in a decade-long period of crisis.

Unlike any other candidate nameable.

So that handles the "nominee" part.

Why Republican? Well, until recently, Republicans had the distinction of being the party that understood that we were at war.

Now I'm not so sure.

StopStopGiulianiNow

It's on.

As long as we agree, whoever wins, gets the big tent. And let's keep it above the belt.

(And dude. Arlen Specter? Did you really have to go there? You could have at least said Colin Powell or something).

Haiku war begins
do you want a purer loss
or a big-tent win?

Giuliani/Your Fantasy Candidate Here 2008

"Whoa, what did Cheney do? Bang an intern and commit perjury?"

Nah, just set up an office (WH Iraq Group) to catapult the pro-war propaganda. Also an energy task force with our money, but refuses to let us see what our money bought.

OH yeah, and outed a CIA agent and then lied about it. Unless somehow Scooter was just acting on his own. Right.

Obviously consensual sex is worse.

Man, you totally convinced me this time. If Cheney lied that WOULD be worse than perjury!

Oh... wait...

Man, tubby, usually you just come off as a delusional crank, but you totally convinced me this time. If Cheney lied that WOULD be worse than perjury!

Oh... wait...

Sortelli,

The accusation is that the lies were to get you to support the war, and punish someone (Wilson) who was pointing out the lies.

Important? Depends on if you think a couple hundred thousand dead folks, the fate of a country, tens of thousands wounded, and several hundred billion dollars matter.

Obviously an event of consensual sex is a much bigger deal. I mean, no need to even point that out.

Oh yeah, and lying to a grand jury, obstructing justice, violating the espionage act...

What's interesting is that the Plame investigation might wind up actually demonstrating how our elected officials used our money to lie to us. One version says that 50 stories were planted in the MSM. Don't know if that counts Judy MIller channeling Chalabi.

What's interesting is that you keep wasting pixels, fathead.

What's interesting is that Fitzgerald might issue indictments, and might pull down this house of criminals, because of their conspiracy of lies, largely swallowed and reproduced by the MSM.

That's WAY more interesting than anything I might do.

But it IS kinda interesting the extent to which wingers like yourself will go to avoid confronting that truth.

I have to chuckle (as in "you chuckle-heads!") when I see those on the Left describe Bill and Monica's exploits as "consensual sex". As if a 20-year old intern and the POTUS came at things on equal footing.

Is that really what you think of WJC's rutting-like-a-goat antics in the White House - with his WIFE AND CHILD upstairs? Merely "consensual sex"? If so, I'd say that your rationalization skills are honed to a keen edge - but they would have to be to support Clinton and his gang of lackadaisical lackeys, huh?

Would you think the same if your barely-out-of-her-teens daughter was having "consensual sex" with, say, her English Lit professor?

Unfortunately, tomaig, tubino and his fellow travellers are morally bankrupt so, to them, it really is 'just about sex'.

And they wonder why the 'values' voters always vote Republican! Reality sucks.

What makes it especially amusing is that the Left invented the concept that it was not possible for a subordinate to have consensual sex with the boss because of the inequality of their positions. Still, one good outcome of the Clinton administration: corporate America doesn't have to turn out en masse for sexual harrassment courses any more. That was getting to be a drag; like I needed any pointers.

No, I meant Specter when I said Specter. Colin Powell deserves much more respect than either Specter and Giuliani. I'd vote for Powell, although he's not my first choice. I voted against Specter in the 1998 general election, and I'd vote against Giuliani in almost any 2008 Presidential election. I suppose I'd stay home if Kerry was the opponent, but that's about it.

Let's look at the comparison between Specter and Giuliani.

Former prosecuting attorney, tough on crime? Check.

Abrasive personality? Check.

Social liberal (anti-gun, pro-abortion)? Check.

Fiscal moderate (at best)? Check

Effective politician? Check, like it or not

Baggage? Rudy's got more, both personal and political (Kecik???)

The only reason to support Giuliani is because metaphorically speaking, you think he'll make the trains run on time. That shouldn't be the guiding principle of the Republican Party.

Colin Powell? Yeesh! Man's squishier'n a Boston creme donut.

"The only reason to support Giuliani is because metaphorically speaking, you think he'll make the trains run on time."

Well, thanks for letting me know my motivations. I was wondering what they were.