Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:00 PM ET, 07/24/2007

Poll: GOP Likes Giuliani's Electability

By Post Editor

Sen. John McCain is drawing the support of only 16 percent of Republicans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

With many Republicans increasingly pessimistic about holding the White House in 2008, electability has become former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's most appealing attribute.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll of the Republican field shows Giuliani with a sizeable lead over his three principal rivals. The former mayor was the choice of 37 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, well ahead of Arizona Sen. John McCain and the still-undeclared Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, virtually tied at 16 and 15 percent, respectively. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ran fourth with 8 percent.

Giuliani's frontrunner status is fueled by a broad-based perception that he is the party's most electable candidate.
Nearly half of Republicans believe Giuliani is their party's best chance of winning in November 2008; that is three or four times higher than the percentage mentioning other candidates. Democrats and independents also said Giuliani would represent the Republicans' best shot at holding onto the White House.

But he has to get the nomination first.

Support for Giuliani is not deep -- only a third of his supporters said they are strongly behind his candidacy, which stands in contrast to the top two Democrats in the race for their party's nomination. Nearly seven in 10 of those who support New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton strongly back her candidacy, as do 56 percent of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's.

And many Republican strategists argue that Giuliani is a poor fit to lead a party in which social and religious conservatives hold considerable sway over policy and candidate selection.
About a third said they regard Giuliani's views on social issues as too liberal for their taste -- including 42 percent of conservatives and 51 percent of white evangelicals. Overall 54 percent said Giuliani's views on issues were "about right."

A quarter said they found McCain's social issue views more liberal than they liked, so Giuliani is not the only candidate with potential problems among a part of the GOP base. (A quarter had no opinion about Romney's positions; a third had no opinion about Thompson's.)

Despite lingering concerns about his candidacy, Giuliani has led the Republican field throughout the year. His overall support dropped significantly after Thompson emerged as a candidate-in-waiting, but Giuliani has remained the frontrunner in national polls throughout the early months of the campaign.

At 16 percent, McCain is at his lowest point of the campaign after a month in which he reported that his campaign was nearly out of money and his campaign manager, chief strategist, finance director and communications director -- among others -- announced their resignations.

Despite his problems, McCain has vowed to stay in the race, saying recently he could think of nothing other than "contracting a fatal disease" that would force him to quit. If he were to leave the race, however, Giuliani would be the primary beneficiary, according to the new poll.

Thompson, meanwhile, continues to be competitive as an unannounced candidate. His campaign now does not plan to make his presidential bid official until after Labor Day. And Romney continues to lag in the national numbers despite having moved to the top of the field in some Iowa and New Hampshire state polls.

Giuliani leads among both men and women, but his lead is significantly wider among women. Forty-one percent of women back his candidacy, compared with 32 percent of men.

And in contrast to Democrats, who by a small margin said freshness and new direction are more important in their assessment of candidates than strength and experience, two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say their priority is strong leadership.

That is another asset for Giuliani, who has sought to highlight his aggressive approach to dealing with terrorism and his executive experience leading the nation's biggest city. Among those who favor strength and experience, he holds a 25 percentage point lead over McCain and Thompson.

Among those who want a "new direction" candidate, McCain and Thompson are more competitive, with 26 percent supporting Giuliani, 20 percent McCain and 15 percent Thompson.

The lack of significant demand for a new direction among Republicans was underscored by another question. Half in the poll said whether a presidential candidate supported President Bush's Iraq policies would be irrelevant to their vote. Among the rest, 32 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for such a candidate and 18 percent said less likely.

Republicans remain less satisfied with their field of candidates than are Democrats. Sixty-five percent of Republicans expressed satisfaction with the GOP choices, compared with 83 percent of Democrats who were happy with theirs.

If elected, Romney would become the nation's first Mormon president and that makes some uneasy. Overall, 63 percent of all Americans and 63 percent of Republicans said they would be comfortable with a Mormon as president. But only about a third of each group said they would be "entirely comfortable."

-- By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, with polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta.

By Post Editor  | July 24, 2007; 5:00 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog, Candidates, Rudy Giuliani  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Thompson Reshuffles Staff
Next: School Choice,
Round Two

Comments

You people who live "out there"
have know idea what it is like to live in a City Like NEW YORK, I
don't mean visit but live and work
in a city of 8 or so million, to
see the changes from Kotch then to
mayor Dinkens(pardon my spelling)
but then to see what RUDY did to change the city from a place of
wealfare and didpsre, to a entirely different City, one of
hope and prosperity, from fear to
comfidence, I am not even going to
mention the...? But He got the World Series going again , and
gave US New Yorkers a sence of PRIDE, and all the little things
add up to one BIG THING, He really
cares about image,and if you think it is easy to look good as
a woman, just ask Hillary!!!!!!

Posted by: stantonover | July 29, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Polls are paid for by big media. Big media has an agenda. That agenda is clearly not in the interest of the average American. For example, this early on, the main stream media has already decided who the 'front runners' are, and more than 50% of American's haven't even weighed in yet on the subject. It really concerns me that our media is picking the so-called 'top-tier' candidates from these polls, and not allowing us, the American people, the chance to make that call. There is blatant media bias in this election (as shown on www.IHateRonPaul.com) and the American people are being kept in the dark about one of the most exciting candidates to run for president in decades...a true 'Thomas Jefferson' & 'Ronald Reagan' guy - Congressman and Doctor, Ron Paul. Consider...most all don't know of him, yet since May, his name has been the most searched term on the internet. His website, www.RonPaul2008.com, was the most visited Republican website in May. For this last campaign fundraising quarter, he raised $2.4 Million dollars, most from net supporters. Of those dollars donated, Ron Paul got 26% of all the money donated by US military to a presidential candidate - the #1 spot! Of the Republicans, Ron Paul got 50% of all the money donated by military personnel, with the other GOP candidates splitting the rest. In Februry, the USA Today thought it worthy to run a story about Barack Obama's support on YOUTUBE, which he started last Fall. Ron Paul was just getting ready to utilize YOUTUBE at that point and was no where on the radar. In May, Ron Paul tied Barack Obama with the same amount of subscribers (roughly 5,800). Today, Ron Paul is approaching 22,000 subscribers and Barack, the #2 presidential candidate on YOUTUBE has only 9,422 subscribers. Ron Paul is the #1 GOP candidate on MySpace.com, Facebook.com, Eventful.com, and Meetup.com. Please America, weigh in on this matter. Find out why so many people are sooooo excited about Ron Paul running for President. We desperately need integrity in the White House, and WE WILL NOT ELECT ANOTHER PRO-WAR REPUBLICAN. Ron Paul NEVER supported or voted for this war. Remember, Hillary voted FOR the war!

Posted by: MIForRonPaulcom | July 26, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Not mentioned is Ron Paul's recent "Surge" in this poll! Doubling from a previous 1 pct to 2 percent! If this keeps up... 2pct/4pct/8pct/16pct/32pct/ in 6 months 64percent!!! As the rest of the "top tier" candidates "Crash & Burn", ala McCain, it could happen. Hmmm? ;-)

Posted by: AAAANDRE | July 25, 2007 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Have the GOP gone "MAD"?????
Guliani's law firm is working with Cintras the Spanish owned company, this company owned by the king of Spain.............
He is backing the North American Union...and ultimately the New World Order..
Wake up he is one of them that is taking DOWN OUR COUNTRY>>>>>

Frustrated American

Ron Paul 2008... the champion of the constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: nervin | July 25, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Why has no one addressed NAFTA, the disolution of borders, Security and Prosperity Partnership, destroying the middle of the country for the super highway, the billions of dollars illegal immigration is costing us, the fact that our graduating seniors cannot read, write, spell, do math problems, willingness to negotiate with drug companies for lower prescrip costs, options to increasing any tax for insurance for children - like the novel idea of having the child's other parent ante up if single parent family or eliminating the tobacco subsidy and using that money, publishing a list of all payees and amounts for all bills signed which use our tax money, parents' responsibility - if you can't afford the children you have, why are you having one?

Posted by: honnmultimom | July 25, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Having lived through the Giuliani regime in NYC I know how scary he is, and I'm not alone: the closer you get to NYC, the worst his poll numbers get.

What I'm most puzzled about is why no one brings up what is possibly Giuliani's worst display: a couple of weeks after September 11, 2001, he demanded that the people running for mayor that November agree to let him be mayor until March, instead of changing administration on January 1st. He claimed that he was the only one that could help the city in such a terrible moment and that if the candidates did not agree he would have the term-limits law abrogated and then he would run as independent and beat every one else.

Leaving aside his arrogance, notice the astonishing disregard for the democratic process: a law that was passed through a referendum would have to be abrogated to please him !

Posted by: valeriol | July 25, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that anti-Rudy bloggers go on about Rudy's divorce, etc., but stay mum about Clinton's serial cheating. I guess when a Democrat commits adultery, and the media talks about it, it's "just sex" and not important, but when a GOP candidate has a divorce, it's suddenly relevant.

I think Rudy would be electable, and he would be able to beat Clinton, who is mean as a snake politically. Reading the latest bios that have come out on her, even her close supporters admit she's often ethically compromised and plays hardball. So the GOP needs a tough guy to beat her.

Don't get me wrong - Bush's failures of leadership have left me with a bad taste in my mouth re. the GOP, and if the Dems gave us a principled candidate, I'd vote for him or her. But the Clintons? I don't want to be reading about scandal after scandal for the 8 years after the next election.

As far as Rudy and NYC - I was a former New Yorker, and Rudy made my city safe. He cleaned it up and made it more business-friendly, which meant more jobs. He actually accomplished a lot. What, exactly, has Senator Clinton accomplished in her career? She's only running for President because she latched onto her husband's coat-tails, not because she has some sterling record of achievement.

I would love to see a woman run for President, but one who has her own record of achievement, not someone who just piggy-backed on her husband's.

Posted by: ssohara | July 25, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

2 votes for Rudi on this entire thread, and AT LEAST one of them is an avowed Democrat who just hates Hillary that badly (no doubt recognizing how much of the DIM AGENDA that Rudi would accomplish).

Real "ELECTABLE". haw haw haw!

Posted by: anombrerose | July 25, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Rudi, Fred, Mitt, McCain, Newt - all are totally unelectable.

I cite Gerald Ford and Robert Dole as evidence of their patent unelectability.

I myself also did not vote for Ford or Dole, but I voted for Bush.

I won't vote for these five RINOS - but as in the case of Dole, I will do a write-in.

Ron Paul is a bad joke. And not nearly as funny as Ralph Nader.

All of you who persist in pushing thise RINOS at us as "ELECTABLE" - i.e. Dah Ahnold Man - you will get what you deserve - but it won't have my blessing on it, or that of millions of other Conservatives.
You know that and do not care - so, se la vive as the old saying goes. Remember the old song, Que Sera Sera. Whatever will be, will be.
Have fun creating your own debauchle.

Posted by: anombrerose | July 25, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I see alot of people talking about dressing in drag, cheating on his wife, and so on. Personally I don't care if the guy showed up in drag to work everyday. As long as he has the bussiness sence to get the job done. we dont need anouther figuare head running this country as in look at my prity wife and great kids. who cares. can they do the job and make this country strong again. Rudy can, the others are nothin more than talk and prity people. Stop looking at the Presidential office as a beauty contest. Its a bussiness and we need a CEO that can do the job. Rudy is that person and has my vote.

Posted by: drmeola | July 25, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Its so sad to read all the liberal comments, and see them filled with hate, name calling etc... Especially when libs use to call themselves, caring, openminded, loving. I guess if you can't discuss the issues, it's all you have left.

BTW - Bush didn't destroy the Republican party, it's still thriving at the grassroots level. Look at what it accomplished with immigration - DOA! Republicans in Congress share a lot of the blame too - spending as bad as libs to curry votes later on. Now the dems are spending even worst, with 3 times the "earmarks"!! And their polling numbers are the worst in History!!

Posted by: dennisctc | July 25, 2007 6:18 AM | Report abuse

The abuse being heaped on Rudy is ridiculous. He embodies everything that makes America vote Republican.

--So he was a Democrat. So were Grant, Reagan, and this century's most popular Republican, Laura Bush. If it weren't for decent Dems like Rudy, Arlen, and Phil (Gramm), we would have no Republicans.

--Adultery? That's what put the "grand" and "party" in GOP. After Wilson made the world safe for democracy, Harding made the White House safe for adultery. See also: D. Eisenhower, N. Rockefeller, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, David Vitter - great Republicans and accomplished adulterers all. Only the perpetually naive Democrats could be nonplused by the ultra-hypocritical Clinton impeachment. It's how you spin the sex, stupid. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

--Abortion? Perfectly legal in every state, thanks to the pioneering work of Republican governors Rockefeller and Reagan in New York and California in the 60's and the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade by Republican-appointed Justices Brennan, Stewart, Burger, Blackmun and Powell. Only the Republicans had the guts to make a birth control method formerly reserved for the rich available to ALL Americans AND the skill to credit this accomplishment to the Democrats, a party whose base had consisted of conservative white southerners and northern Catholics and which has never quite recovered. IT'S A BIG TENT, YES IT IS.

--Cross dressing? The G in GOP also stands for Gay, as in Mary Cheney, America's first nationally prominent lesbian politician, and Mark Foley, the first gay leader in either Congressional caucus and the most accomplished gay politician in American history (save possibly, according to recent scholarship, Lincoln himself). Only a Gay Old Party would have the nerve and know how to pander to the fears of homophobic hicks and only the too-straight Democrats would be dazzled and confused by such tactics. Rove knows what the Dems don't: it's how you spin the sex, stupid.

No doubt about it: adulterous but now married to his true love, pro-choice/pro anti choice judge, cross-dressing/trash-talking, draft-dodging/9-11 hero, ex Democrat Rudy is the perfect Republican presidential candidate -- a man for all regions and all seasons. Real Republicans know that.

EXCEPT FOR ONE THING (and this is huge): RUDY IS TOTALLY BALD! Since the advent of photography in 1839, no bald man has been elected President and no party other than the Whigs (no pun intended) has understood this better than the Republicans. Some facts even fifth graders (used to) know: (1) Three of eight presidents elected before 1839 were bald (J. Adams, J.Q.Adams, M. Van Buren). (2) 1840: In the first modern campaign, bald Van Buren was trounced by W.H. Harrison, a senile Indian killer who had lost to Van Buren in 1836 and whose sole virtue was that he was not bald like Van Buren or perennial Whig favorite Henry Clay. (In 1844, bald Clay would finally get the nod, only to lose to the first "dark horse" candidate in U.S. history, James K. Polk). (3) 1848: Dems nominate bald Lewis Cass, who is soundly defeated by Zachary Taylor. Not because Taylor is a general -- in 1852, Whig Winfield Scott, a greater but bald general, lost to the beautifully coiffed, utterly inferior Franklin Peirce, possibly the most petulant and pointlessly divisive President in history until the election of his descendant, G.W. Bush. (4) 1868 & 1872: Dems go bald again, nominating bald Horatio Seymour in '68 and the even balder Horace Greeley in '72, each of whom is crushed by ex-Democrat, Ulysses Grant. (5) 1896 & 1900: Dems never learn. Rapidly balding 36 y.o. W.J. Bryan loses big to McKinley and an even balder 40 y.o. W.J. Bryan loses even bigger in the rematch. (6) 1904: Dems nominate balder-than-Bryan Alton Parker, who loses bigger to TR than Bryan did to McKinley. (7) 1908: Dems nominate the by then totally bald Bryan, who suffers his worse loss in three tries against fat but hirsute Taft. (8) 1916: Republicans, the majority party, blow it by passing over well-coiffed Elihu Root to tap bald Charles Evans Hughes to run against the not very popular Wilson. Both men retired on election night thinking Hughes had won, only to discover in the morning that Californians would not elect a bald President. Surprise!? CA rejected Scott in 1852, Seymour in 1868, Greeley in 1872, Bryan in 1896, 1900 and 1908, and Parker in 1904, and would reject Stevenson in 1952 and 1956. It's a mistake the Republicans haven't repeated. (9) 1952 & 1956: Dems go bald again, twice nominating Adlai Stevenson, who is twice trounced by the thinning haired BUT NOT BALD Eisenhower, a fact which the "I like Ike" buttons and posters never failed to convey. Dems never nominate a bald candidate again.

This may seem funny, but it's no joke. As Gay Republican Cole Porter put it, "we are merely mammals" -- and visual, over-sexed primates at that. And every voter, being such a mammal, spends a lot more time thinking and emoting about hair, their own and everyone else's, than about such evolutionary trifles as this year's war, next year's economic growth, healthcare, and education. Check the market: Americans spend a lot more on their hair than they do on elections.

It's the hair, stupid, because the hair is a big part of how you spin the sex, stupid. Just ask Ann Coulter or John Edwards - it may be the only thing they agree on. Or any evolutionary biologist -- if there are any after 6.5 years of Bush. Or Neocon Clan Kagan, any of whom can attest that Caius Julius Ceaser gained imperial power by crossing the Rubicon AND by filling Rome with statutes falsely depicting him with a full head of hair, thereby becoming CEASAR, the only politician in history whose surname is a synonym for ruler in Latin, German and Russian as well as the name of a salad enjoyed by millions of Republicans, Democrats and Independents every day.

But Ceasar of the Julian tribe lived in age of marble while his latter-day tribesman, Giuliani, lives in an age of TV and computer screens which broadcast a BALDNESS that no statue can dissemble. Will Rudy's peerless powers of hypocrisy and double talk seduce the Republicans into risking a reprise of the annus horribilis of 1916? We'll see.

Posted by: mnjam | July 25, 2007 2:24 AM | Report abuse

What's with all of the Ron Paul comments? He's the Lyndon LaRouche of the Republican party. It seems like a third of the comments on this blog are from Ron Paul's personality cult.

There are always a couple of kooks that run for President but usually they have an agenda consistent with the party in whose primary they run. Ron Paul hardly has any overlap with the Republican party. Because of that he can't push an agenda the way Dennis Kucinich tries to in the Democratic Primary.

Maybe reporters ignore the subterfuge of Ron Paul supporters because it's like pointing and laughing at the village idiot, but still I'd like someone to investigate who his supporters are, what their real agenda is. I don't mean Ron Paul's Taliban version of Libertarianism, but what his supports are trying to accomplish by overrunning every semi-serious discussion on politics with references to his ludicrous candidacy.

His supporters, though fanatical, are just a tiny fringe of far right-wing Libertarians who have no voice or support in the Republican party. What do they hope to accomplish? Do they really think they can hijack a mainstream political party by "commenting" their way to the nomination? Other than lead poisoning, what am I missing?

Posted by: afeinber | July 25, 2007 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani's lead in most polls really does show the party's weakness in this election. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the field offers very little potential for support either from the Republican base or from cross-over. McCain has no shot, after sponsoring a comprehensive censorship bill [McCain-Feingold] and supporting amnesty, among other things, he has no shot with the base; being a hawk kills his chances for cross-over... Romney is simply unelectable.

While Ron Paul looks good in some ways, his pacifist views kill support from the base, while his advocacy of a free market and small unintrusive government will kill any support his social liberalism could generate from the left. Thompson is the only candidate who has a shot, and while his image is excellent, his service in the senate was weak at best and his long service as a lobbyist and his seeming lack of work ethic could seriously hurt his chances with the party base, while he has about as much chance of cross-over votes as Bush did...

Unfortunately, I think in ~18 months we'll be getting used to the term "Madame President" [And I'll be moving to Canada]

Posted by: tekski | July 25, 2007 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani will be the next president. He will use the same tactic that got Dubya elected and got us into Iraq: FEAR.

And Rudy's got the Fear Franchise down pat. Dubya might even give him a boost there when Iran gets bombed.

He doesn't have to scare all that many people. Remember, two-thirds of Republicans still think Bush is doing OK.

And, you wanna talk about fear, just check out how Rainmaker Rudy gets the "religious right" in line when he conjures up torrents of FUD (in code, of course) about how Fearful, Dangerous and Uncertain it would be to have a WOMAN or a BLACK as president.

Check, and mate.

Posted by: metlcfargo | July 25, 2007 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who is truly "conservative," in the best sense of the word;
Anyone who is truly "liberal," in the best sense of the word;
Anyone who is truly "moderate," in the best sense of the word;
Anyone who truly believes in "equal justice under law";
Anyone who mourns the slaughter of more than 40 million babies by abortion in this nation;
Anyone who passionately believes in human rights, especially the most fundamental right of all--the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death;
Anyone who understands that every human being--from the tiniest embryo to the most senior elderly person--is a person to be loved and respected, not an object to be used or discarded;
Anyone who knows the truth that every abortion is intrinsically evil because it is the direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being, and therefore may never be justified or tolerated under any circumstances;
Anyone who places honor, integrity, love of the truth, and a well-formed conscience before party or politics;
Anyone who loves peace and hates violence;
Anyone who hates evil and loves goodness;
Anyone who is committed to doing what is right, no matter what;
Anyone who thinks and acts according to right reason...

--Will not vote for Rudolph Giuliani.

Posted by: thomas.centrella | July 25, 2007 12:16 AM | Report abuse

I abhor Guiliani. I have had the distinct misfortune of enduring his reign as Mayor, or should I say Il Duce, of New York. The manifold blemishes on his character are too numerous to recite in full, but let me draw attention to two issues -- issues that he would have you believe earn him the White House:

1) THE MYTH OF RUDY AND 9/11: We are told that he did a wonderful job on that date, but what did he do. He routinely went on television to say the attack was terrible, but any Grandma in Duluth Minn knew it was terrible. We should expect more from our leaders than statements of the obvious.

More importantly, how many lives did he save? Not one. In fact, his sins of ommission magnified the catastrophe.

First, WHERE WERE THE HELICOPTERS? Numerous police helicopters were in close proximity to the Towers. Most of the people in the towers who died lost their lives because they were in high floors above the walls of fire in the North and South Towers. They couldn't walk through fire and descend from the buildings so they died. The towers stayed erect for over an hour. Copters could have gotten there in 10 minutes. He should have sent copters to the upper floors of the towers to ferry people to safety. In the South Tower, the plane hit at around the 78th floor, the building had 110 floors, and smoke and flames would not have obstructed copters above the 90th floor.

Second, 8 YEARS TO PREPARE AND NOTHING DONE. Terrorists struck the WTC in 1993, at the start of his administration. Nevertheless, he did nothing to augment security in the WTC. Also, he never gave the fire department proper radio equipment so firemen never got the orders to abandon the towers -- and they died in the collapsing rubble.

2) GUILIANI DID NOT REDUCE CRIME. He would have us believe that he is responsible for the drop in crime in New York but this is hogwash:

A) Crime fell throughout the US in the Clinton Administration; this was not simply a NY phenomenon;

B) The homocide rate in NYC peaked two years before Rudy took office and started to decline two years before Rudy took office;

C) The aging of the baby boomers in NYC is largely responsible for the drop in crime. Very simply, 22 year olds have a greater propensity to commit violent street crime than older people;

D) In part, crime was reduced because of the ComStat program, initiated by Police Commissioner William Bratton;

E) Rudy was afraid that Bratton would take some of the credit for the drop in crime so he fired him.

That's just an appetizer. You oughta consume more info about Rudy's derelictions of duty. Sorry if it ain't easy on the digestion.

Posted by: dgnyny | July 24, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I abhor Guiliani. I have had the distinct misfortune of enduring his reign as Mayor, or should I say Il Duce, of New York. The manifold blemishes on his character are too numerous to recite in full, but let me draw attention to two issues -- issues that he would have you believe earn him the White House:

1) THE MYTH OF RUDY AND 9/11: We are told that he did a wonderful job on that date, but what did he do. He routinely went on television to say the attack was terrible, but any Grandma in Duluth Minn knew it was terrible. We should expect more from our leaders than statements of the obvious.

More importantly, how many lives did he save? Not one. In fact, his sins of ommission magnified the catastrophe.

First, WHERE WERE THE HELICOPTERS? Numerous police helicopters were in close proximity to the Towers. Most of the people in the towers who died lost their lives because they were in high floors above the walls of fire in the North and South Towers. They couldn't walk through fire and descend from the buildings so they died. The towers stayed erect for over an hour. Copters could have gotten there in 10 minutes. He should have sent copters to the upper floors of the towers to ferry people to safety. In the South Tower, the plane hit at around the 78th floor, the building had 110 floors, and smoke and flames would not have obstructed copters above the 90th floor.

Second, 8 YEARS TO PREPARE AND NOTHING DONE. Terrorists struck the WTC in 1993, at the start of his administration. Nevertheless, he did nothing to augment security in the WTC. Also, he never gave the fire department proper radio equipment so firemen never got the orders to abandon the towers -- and they died in the collapsing rubble.

2) GUILIANI DID NOT REDUCE CRIME. He would have us believe that he is responsible for the drop in crime in New York but this is hogwash:

A) Crime fell throughout the US in the Clinton Administration; this was not simply a NY phenomenon;

B) The homocide rate in NYC peaked two years before Rudy took office and started to decline two years before Rudy took office;

C) The aging of the baby boomers in NYC is largely responsible for the drop in crime. Very simply, 22 year olds have a greater propensity to commit violent street crime than older people;

D) In part, crime was reduced because of the ComStat program, initiated by Police Commissioner William Bratton;

E) Rudy was afraid that Bratton would take some of the credit for the drop in crime so he fired him.

That's just an appetizer. You oughta consume more info about Rudy's derelictions of duty. Sorry if it ain't easy on the digestion.

Posted by: dgnyny | July 24, 2007 11:49 PM | Report abuse

No matter who the next president is, I believe that the next president needs the folowing fiscal powers:
1) Restore the power to the president to impound funds for whatever reason.
2) Give the president a line item veto.

I also believe that a balanced budget amendment needs to be passed. I also believe the practice of hiding the size of the deficit by including such things as social security revenues in with general revenues should be done.

Posted by: bdstauffer | July 24, 2007 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I think the Republican base could hardly have made a better choice than Giuliani. Of course, that's from the viewpoint of them losing; an eminently desirable outcome. Giuliani's floundering attempts to appear informed and on point with foreign policy, his pretzel logic that could bring a discussion of a favourite ice-cream flavour back somehow to terrorists and terrorism - Rudy is out of his depth, and either doesn't care, or doesn't know. It's funny how you can get so excited at the possibility of being president (although why anyone would want it after George Bush has dragged the office all around the toilet bowl, I can't imagine), you can convince yourself you'd do a great job. Get the net.

Posted by: marknesop | July 24, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

walker1: Your comments are a bit bombastic for my taste. However, you are correct that deficit spending needs to come to an end and that we need to repay the debt so that China doesn't dictate policy to us. Generally speaking, I like W, but this is one of his true failures.

Posted by: bdstauffer | July 24, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

walker1: Your comments are a bit bombastic for my taste. However, you are correct that deficit spending needs to come to an end and that we need to repay the debt so that China doesn't dictate policy to us. Generally speaking, I like W, but this is one of his true failures.

Posted by: bdstauffer | July 24, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

walker1: Your comments are a bit bombastic for my taste. However, you are correct that deficit spending needs to come to an end and that we need to repay the debt so that China doesn't dictate policy to us. Generally speaking, I like W, but this is one of his true failures.

Posted by: bdstauffer | July 24, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Flash to the Dems: Here's the ticket: Fred for Pres., Rudy for Vice-Pres. Guess what? That takes away your shoe-in for NY. It would make it fun. You might only win CA. If you nominate Billary, this will be easy. Real easy.

Posted by: bdstauffer | July 24, 2007 11:20 PM | Report abuse

As much as the Republican establishment doesn't want to admit it Ron Paul is the most electable Republican.

Always been anti-abortion. The religous would support him.

Voted against the Iraq war where as Hillary voted for it. Would bring out all the troops fast where as Hillary would leave some in Iraq. That would bring many antiwar liberals over to Paul.

Paul is against the WTO and would pull out of it and negotiate fair trade with China. Where as Hillary is for global corporations. This would also bring many liberals over to Paul.

Ron Paul has integrity something few in either party have. After 8 years of lies from George W Bush America yearns for honesty.

Ron Paul is the best candidate.

Posted by: info4 | July 24, 2007 11:18 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans do not have a single viable candidate. McCain is toast, Romney is such a weathervane and a hypocrite that the people despise him, Giuliani is psychotic and New Yorkers are working to let the country know how insane the man really is, and the rest of the Rep. crowd are a bunch of religious fanatics.

Posted by: Gatsby1 | July 24, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

To put it mildly, he does not have a good track record in picking associates and advisors. Having his early campaign ads emailed to the U.S. from the Jerusalem Post indicates a tone deafness that could get him in big trouble fast with independent voters.

Posted by: robertmann | July 24, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Sure Rudy can be elected.

And William Shatner might get a lifetime achievement Oscar.

Posted by: BurfordHolly | July 24, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

No one but New Yorkers know what a psycho Giuliani is.

The guy has a very thin skin, hates criticism, has been known to lose it in public (the ferret episode),is dictatorial, secretive, mean-spirited, vindictive, and he suffers from an enormous agrandizing complex.

Giuliani is truly dangerously insane.

Posted by: Gatsby1 | July 24, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

No one but New Yorkers know what a psycho Giuliani is.

The guy has a very thin skin, hates criticism, has been known to lose it in public (the ferret episode),is dictatorial, secretive, mean-spirited, vindictive, and he suffers from an enormous agrandizing complex.

Giuliani is truly dangerously insane.

Posted by: Gatsby1 | July 24, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

No one but New Yorkers know what a psycho Giuliani is.

The guy has a very thin skin, hates criticism, has been known to lose it in public (the ferret episode),is dictatorial, secretive, mean-spirited, vindictive, and he suffers from an enormous agrandizing complex.

Giuliani is truly dangerously insane.

Posted by: Gatsby1 | July 24, 2007 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Rudy is a modern day Mobster. The GOP have no candidate. They will have to have Cheney run for President. Mitt will be like his Dad and lose. Karl Rove has destroyed the Republican party and Gonzales has made our Justice System liars. This is the real Bush legacy of bringing the United States to it's lowest over in the history of this once great country.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | July 24, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Ron Paul is the only top-tier candidate of either party with integrity. He is the only top-tier candidate who is not beholden to corporate interests - having the greatest percentage of small donors. The other candidates are beholden to the banking industry, big oil, those guys, and only Big Business will get richer if they are elected. The poor will get poorer. In contrast, Dr. Ron Paul is the only top-tier candidate to believe in individual liberty and freedom for all. Even donations from the military go to Ron Paul, a Vietnam veteran who volunteered, more than any other candidate. He has placed second in several straw polls so far. Time for a change!

washpost

Disclaimer: I am the original washpost, though the suits at Wash Post changed my moniker to washpost3.

Posted by: washpost3 | July 24, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani is a control freak with a fascist mindset, even if he can somehow be represented as a *social liberal.*

One revealing indication of Giuliani*s destructive control-freak personality is his war on ferrets, as mayor of Ne-e-eeuw Yawk during I think 2001. If Giuliani gets elected President, I sure am glad that I am not a ferret!

One of the first things that he will do after being elected POTUS is to issue an executive order for our entire nation, making mere possession of ferrets a felony, and sending Storm Troopers house-to-house across the nation searching for ferrets.

Think that I am exaggerating? Here are Giuliani quotes from the public record, on the Web, while he was campaigning frantically against repealing New York City*s ban on ferrets: *Theres something deranged about you,* Giuliani told the ferret advocate. *The excessive concern that you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist -- not with me . . . This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.*

What does Giuliani know about ferrets? Apparently not much. My daughter has owned many ferrets. They are legal in our state. They are meek, friendly, playful, sociable, and generally housebroken pets. After millenia of being domesticated, they cannot survive in the wild. (Some related creatures can.) But they are illegal in California and in Hawaii, and still illegal in New York City because Giuliani has campaigned frantically against repealing the ban on owning them.

Does Giuliani have this same wonderful level of judgment about everything else too? What else might he take it into his head to ban next?

I cannot believe that people consider fascist-mindset Giuliani to be some kind of liberal. Whatever he is personally against, hey, we gotta make that be illegal for everybody!

Posted by: cwh2 | July 24, 2007 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I am just afraid how any of us will have any money left in our paychecks after taxes if either Clinton or Obama gets elected. Our gov't throws around more than enough money for every program that is necessary. Let's get someone in there who is more likely to not raise taxes and just budget as needed (i.e. cut pork for programs needing more funds). When after all of the different gov't deductions you only get to keep less than 60% of your paycheck we by no means need higher rates. Just prudent spending. Which I hate to admit neither party has been good at in any of the last four terms.

Posted by: brianbuschman | July 24, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Bloomberg is the only choice for real conservatives to stop NeoConMens commie rot, The Republican party has become a bunch of anti conservative commies under George Bush Junior. It is the Republicommie party now it has no idea about how to run the US economy it just practices credit card economics with massive foreign debt that HAS TO BE PAID BACK in US Citizens taxes. Everyone of us knows we have to pay our credit cards but not apparently these Republicommies under George Bush Junior.

The Republicommie TAX DEBT under George Bush junior is the equivalent of a second mortgage on every US family. Subprime would not even exist if it was not for the dammage that George Bush junior and his Republicommie buddies have done to the US economy. Most other countries rate the US ecomnomy so badly that the once mighty dollar is now a shadow of its former self, your better off putting your savings in European account the dollar is so low.

The US TAX DEBT now stands at nearly 9 trillion dollars the equivalent of 30,000 dollars for every US citizen or 70,000 to 90,000 dollars on an average family per household and MORE FOR LARGE FAMILIES!

Most of this debt is owned by China who now tell George Bush Junior and the rest of his Republicommie buddies what to do on trade.

This bunch of NeoConMen entryests conned their way into power in the once proud US Republican Party, they conned conservatives with their Straussian texts and as to American Christians the Republicommies consider evangelicals to be: "boorish," "ridiculous," "goofy," "nuts," according to David Kuo, a conservative Christian, former assistant to President Bush and Deputy Director of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program, in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.

As David Kuo points out NeoConMen are "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that are "politically friendly to the administration." For those who became part of the Republicommie NeoConMen team 8 billion dollars was promised but only about 21 million was paid out. And all the recipients of the 21 million made a big fuss about how good Bush was to the Christian evangelicals and used the cash for their bid for control of their particular church group.

The main people the Republicommies gave money to, were people like Rev. Ted Haggard who was there to run the Republicommie owned church. Of course he was more interested in paying 200 NeoConMen Republicommie dollars a go by cash in envelopes to give a gay rent boy oral sex and snort methamphetamine.

Interestingly the NeoConMen removed this budget from the oversight by congress to keep anyone from blowing the con.

It is there in black and white from a conservative Christian witness a bunch Republicommie evangelical hating Reds now sleep in the Whitehouse beds.

Real conservatives should vote for Bloomberg but I think there is also a place for a real Christian Conservative party but it is not going to be found in the candidates of the Republicommie party who are just going to look to con the evangelicals again after all the Republicommie NeoConMen of George Bush Junior believe in never give a sucker an even break.

I think Americas Christian Evangelicals know they need to find their own way.

In the mean time American Conservatives know America needs a Real Conservative to put America's economy back on the straight and narrow; it needs A Real Conservative like Michael Bloomberg.

Posted by: walker1 | July 24, 2007 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Will the Republicans still like Giuliani after they read August's issue of Harper's ("A Fate Worse Than Bush -- Rudolph Giuliani and the Politics of Personality")?

How many know that he was once a Democrat for McGovern?

Posted by: Mithras | July 24, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

This is all propaganda!
Ron Paul has more public support than Rudy, Mitt, and John combined. Of course Ron Paul wasn't an option on this poll.
Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.
And he will easily defeat Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: eco-pharm | July 24, 2007 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Richard Land does not speak for all Southrn Baptists. Neither did Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson. I have been a Southern Baptist for 73 years and I have always understood that Southern Baptist churches are autonomous meaning each individual can speak for him/herself. Some people would like to think all Baptists are Republican, but that is definitely not the case.

Posted by: mdelung | July 24, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Richard Land does not speak for all Southrn Baptists. Neither di Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson. I have been a Southern Baptist for 73 years and I have always understood that Southern Baptist churches are autonomous meaning each individual can speak for him/herself. Some people would like to think all Baptists are Republican, but that is definitely not the case.

Posted by: mdelung | July 24, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Sure, it's true that religion will still play a part in the 2008 election. But the so-called family values, NASCAR Dads, Soccer Moms and other catchy slogans are hardly going to be leading issues that will bring out the voters. Mitt Romney, putting aside his Mormon faith and in spite of the huge Mormon money being pumped into his campaign, has for all purposes crashed and burned with the Bible Belt South. It's mainly because the video footage of his past campaigns in Massachusetts will come back to bite him. His poll numbers are dismal at 8%.

Giuliani? Yes, he wants to be the president of 9/11 but that's about all the mileage he'll get in the long run because he's spouting total support for Bush's war, almost trying to outdo McCain on who can be the most machismo in waging a Holy War against Islam. That will get some votes but fall far short.

The majority of Americans believe we can spend our resources in better places than in countries that historically have been unfriendly to the United States but are more than happy to see us squander our nation's treasury as long as it enriches their monarchies, kingdoms and sheikdoms. Yes, that same $73 per barrel of oil that we need to propel our SUVs that is being pumped into the madrassas in Pakistan that train the future terrorists.

America wants change -- big time, but they won't get it from any of the Republicans running for office today. War Forever just is so 2003.

Posted by: gr8wx | July 24, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

tddroy typifies the WaPo reader who is a 'truther' and can't think. Rudy has to swim upstream to reach the electorate, but he is better than Clinton Inc or the naive, gullible, simple-minded Obama.

Posted by: djman1141 | July 24, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani had a hand in 9/11 attacks himself. He was caught on the camera saying the buildings will come down before they came down. Now he is trying to benefit from murdering thousands of Americans.

Posted by: tddroy | July 24, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

"This would make him the winner of the Infamous Name Recognition contest."

I still think Ru Paul has a good shot at this one, at least!

Posted by: thrh | July 24, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Back when he was Gov of Massachusetts, Romney used to favor gay marriage. Now that he's a Conservative again, he thinks marriage should be limited to one man and ten women. Well, maybe twelve....

Posted by: thrh | July 24, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

But seriously, now: is there anyone in this group of wannabes who you'd really want to be President? Even of your local PTA?

Posted by: thrh | July 24, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I'd vote for Ru Paul! He has nice dresses!

Posted by: thrh | July 24, 2007 8:53 PM | Report abuse

As long as Republicans are standing by this Unitary Executive Cr4p, there will be no electable Republican.
============
They cannot be trusted.

Posted by: v1gv1g | July 24, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama sealed his fate in a recent statement when he said one of the first things he would do is confer with all the worlds leaders to kind of see what/how they feel. Hillary retorted with a bit more expertise she would [in my words] play more hard to get and feel out the leaders. A much smarter idea.

In any case, I wouldn't vote for either one since Obama is "green" and Hillary is "jaded"

I think Rudy is well rounded if not more articulate in his ideas as well as focused.

Posted by: Helix5 | July 24, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani would be the Democrats dream come true but the Republicans don't have much of a chance anyway since Bush damaged the Party so badly.
Is the country really ready for a cross-dresser of dubious morals hated by the NYFD and targeted by the Truthers as the Bagman who got rid of 911 evidence.
Dr. Ron Paul is not exactly on fire but his strong point is that he still supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


Posted by: swami35 | July 24, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Arent these the same cruel-aid drinkers who elected the current idiot in chief?

Posted by: BrendaBlueNY | July 24, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

It is true that, RIGHT NOW, Giuliani is the MOST electable of the GOP candidates for the fall election of '08! And then there's Thompson breathing down his neck!!

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | July 24, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't he that wonderful Italian man that divorced his dying wife?

Posted by: glenroach | July 24, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Let me clarify, Guliani's authoritarianism will kill him in New England.

Posted by: jhbyer | July 24, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

To Vunderlutz's insightful list of places (West, Midwest, South) where Guliani will not rise from the operating table, you can add New England, where authoritarianism will kill his candidacy.

Posted by: jhbyer | July 24, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I think at this point in the campaign, Rudy wins the Name Recognition contest. We all know where he was on 9/11, after all. McCain's claim to fame is the disastrous illegal immigration bill he helped to craft. This would make him the winner of the Infamous Name Recognition contest.

There are other candidates out there who just need to get their names and views known. When that happens, you can take another poll and it might actually MEAN something.

Posted by: wgadget | July 24, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I think there should be a link from Achenblog where it mentions 20 foot-long snakes to Giuliani's name.

I don't expect someone untrustworthy in personal relationships to the kth degree to be trustworthy in the rest of his/her life. You are who you are, it's not situational.

Granny, I believe the correct term for someone who supports abortion is *pro-choice.*

Posted by: trisha2154 | July 24, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's put it this way, I'm a Democrat. Not just any Democrat, I'm one of those people who knocks on doors, gives money, mans telephone banks, and help to elect Democratic candidates. Right now, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I'm going to vote for Mr. Guliani. Why? Because Hillary Clinton supports outsourcing our jobs, supports increasing the number of Indian guest workers on H1-B visas, and hasn't shown any concern nor knowledge of the plight of ordinary working men and women. It may sound cynical, but I really hope Rudy Guliani is the Republican nominee because I want a chance to cast a vote that counts if my Democratic Party continues to run their train off the Hillary cliff.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 24, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani is a chickenhawk who made a fortune exploiting the tragedy that happened on his watch. Much like his BFF George Bush.

Posted by: contrai1 | July 24, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Folks, I want to remind you that, in a recent interview, Giuliani stated that he thought George W. Bush would go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Yes, I really heard him say that. Do you really want to elect a man who is dumb enough to think that?

Anyone who disparages the above statement is welcome to ask the people of pre-9/11 New York City what they thought of him as a mayor. Then decide.

Posted by: bucinka8 | July 24, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is right. Giuliani has a lot more crossover appeal than Hillary or Obama.

The comparison to Kerry (on electability) is not a good one because Kerry is from very blue Massachusetts, and had nothing to make him appealing to red states. Wes Clark was the most electable Democratic candidate in 04 for the general election.

Giuliani is from NYC, and can put NY in play. Winning NY wins the general election for him.

The Democrats better stop worrying about winning primaries and think about winning general elections. Edwards, Richardson, Wes Clark (if Democrats are lucky and he gets in again).... they can put red states in play.

Posted by: Alan4 | July 24, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Like it matters. Remember Kerry? Right now electability won't win a Red Bushie the Presidency, not while three-quarters of America won't back a war-supporting failure like the current field of Red candidates.

If you want to win, you'll need Ron Paul to even have a SHOT at it - but your pride and arrogance won't let you Reds see that, and you'll choose one of your comrades as a candidate ... and then wonder why you have to wander for 40 years in the wilderness.

Sometimes, the lay of the land is what it is. Arguing about it, spinning it, won't work. You adapt to the terrain - or DIE.

And America wants you to die.

Posted by: WillSeattle | July 24, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone find it ironic that the two likely presidential candidates are both "from" NY? It's enough to make those Cheney Western conservatives all have heart attacks.

Posted by: DesertLeap | July 24, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"Electibility" is why Democrats picked Kerry. Don't think it will work any better for Guiliani.

Posted by: dotellen | July 24, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Ah...I have been waiting for that word! Electability.

It's when the discussion of ideology and integrity leaves off - - that is when the talk of electability begins.

Well, Guliani is not electable. So the ABC/Post pollsters can take the rest of the day off! This poll is like a trial balloon...th pollsters want to see if it will float. Well, it won't.

Guliani is a cut and paste marvel. A political product pieced together into Frankenstein-like candidate...HE'S ALIVE!!!

He is the most unreal political product that's out there, including all of the other wannabes; Republicans or Democrats. His handlers think he is a little bit of everything, but in reality he is a lot of nothing. A pro-choicer for the liberals, and a hawk for the conservatives.

Isn't it more complicated than this? Hardly so. Besides, Guliani will never play in the Midwest, the South or the West.

Is he electable? In your dreams pollsters...in your dreams.

Posted by: Vunderlutz | July 24, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani is just George W. Bush on steroids! And that includes progesterone spikes every month, when he has his period.

If our country is resigned towards choosing a New Yorker for POTUS, I'll back Bloomberg, rather than choose a womanly man or that manly woman.

Posted by: DreadPirate | July 24, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party is making the Democrat (ANY Democrat) the sure winner in the 2008 election if they nominate Trudy Giuliani.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the evening. Smells like.....VICTORY.

Posted by: khoreia | July 24, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

But still...the best Post headline ever was "You Can Put Pickles Up Yourself"

Posted by: jhaines | July 24, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

If Possible Rudy would be worse than Bush..He is not open to ideals think he knows it all and a strong hint of corruption lingers around him. The only honest politicians is Ron Paul!

Posted by: american1 | July 24, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Funny brain glitch:

I read "sizeable lead over his three principal rivals" as

three 'principled' rivals.

Posted by: annpatricia1 | July 24, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

That Republicans think Giuliani is electable in a national campaign shows just how
radically out of touch the party has become.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | July 24, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, I guess that puts to rest the entire notion of the Republican party being the "party of moral values." If a cross dressing adulterer who has not only married 3 times but married his cousin can win the Republican nomination, we can consider the Republican party the party of hypocrisy and nothing more.

The only hope for saving the Republican party at this point is to nominate Ron Paul. He is the only Republican on the ticket who has any integrity whatsoever.

Posted by: khoreia | July 24, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm an independent. I'd vote for Rudy before I'd vote for Hillary. Sorry.

Posted by: mikem1 | July 24, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey sfaghani

The Times once ran a headlne on its front page that half the state's students tested below average.

It was corrected in a later edition the same day.

Posted by: YondCassius | July 24, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Please, please, chose Giuliani.

I want to make sure that the Republican candidate is a family values guy who has 1) married his cousin, 2) committed adultry, 3) is estranged from his children, 4) loves to dress in drag, and 5) has an absolute gift for divisiveness.

He'll make Hillary look like a philospher saint.

Posted by: reporter1 | July 24, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Electing Guiliani would be like electing Cheney's meaner twin. Guiliani has a very sincere hatred for the rights of Americans. (From a former New Yorker.)

Posted by: ericalaska | July 24, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Right now if God were a republican, I wouldn't trust him to run this country. That's how much faith I have lost in the republican party or their ideas.

I have switched to independent and already know what my plan is for the upcoming election.

Get rid of all this trash that has led our nation to ruin.

Posted by: justjunkemail | July 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani may be the NWO's choice, but no self respecting American would ever vote for him.

Posted by: eco-pharm | July 24, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush is the gift that keeps on giving. He has ruined the Republican brand. In a way I feel sorry for the person who gets the nomination. Because of Bush, he will have no shot.

Thanks George!

Posted by: daveb99 | July 24, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Rudy was one of the inside men of the 9/11 debacle, with
the stones to stand there w/ bush saying how bad and how
sad. The painted wagon left town on a tight string, but as
with everything, sprung a leak, and now truth is trickling
down and too many people have doubts, and sound of the dead crying out is getting to those who are still alive inside. Rudy
is the prime opportunist, much like John Kerry in most ways.
Another potential GW Bush finger puppet. There can be nothing good come from his running for president. being a turncoat appeals to the Republicans, since they have no real alliegency's.
Of course New York dirt is years ahead of the rest of the worlds
but that;s no qualification for leadership.

Posted by: bebeyond49 | July 24, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I recall reading that Richard Land, political director of the Southern Baptist Convention, said recently that the GOP will lose Giuliani becomes the nominee. Land said that enough evangelical conservatives will refuse to vote for Rudy that the Dems would carry Ohio, probably Tennessee (he may have said Kentucky) and maybe even Texas! And he said this would happen even if Hillary was the Dem nominee. Land said his people simply could not and would not vote for anyone with Guiliani's record of social issues such as gay rights, gun control, and abortion.

Remember, these are the same people who think that we deserved 9/11 because of gay rights, gun control, and abortion.

Posted by: Garak | July 24, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, well they *heart* GW Bush, too.

No accounting for taste. Apparently, the bigger the fraud the guy is, the more the GOP likes him.

Posted by: LiberalTarian | July 24, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

What, electing capable politicians has gotten down to "electibility"? You mean, which one we hate the least? The "lesser" of all the other evils? Seems like a perfect scenario for an antichrist-like creature to step into this picture... oh, too, they're heeere!

Posted by: glenknowles | July 24, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Just when you were sure that NO ONE could be as bad as George W. Bush, here the Republicans come with Rudy. Apparently they never met a miscreant they couldn't vote for.

Posted by: noGOP4me | July 24, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

did you vote for Bush partly because he is Not an abortionist? republicans won't win if their voters put abortion on top of the list. the country is in desperate need of a competent president, which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Posted by: fairfaxnova | July 24, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

If I were a Republican, I wouldn't want to get my hopes too high. I doubt there is a snowball's chance in Haides that they get more Americans to vote for their candidate than for a Democrat. And we Democrats are in no mood for more of the Republican electoral magic in the Electoral College.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | July 24, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Only republicans would "like the electablity" of a dishonest, slimey, shallow POS like Rudy!

(on second thought they DID give us Nixon, Reagan, and Bush...)

Posted by: kase | July 24, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Who looks better in a dress - Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani?

Posted by: RobtBrock | July 24, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Who looks better in a dress - Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani?

Posted by: RobtBrock | July 24, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Poll: Republicans Like That Republicans Like Giuliani.

My head hurts.

Posted by: 1123581322 | July 24, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

How ironic that a lifetime Dem is the Repubs' best chance at "keeping" (using the term lightly after the past two presidential elections) the White House. It's refreshing for a Repub like Giuliani to not be hard right on social issues. That said, his politicizing of 9-11 and his use of racial profiling in NYC is enough to prevent me from supporting him over a Dem candidate. Repubs are shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak, with their candidates. Guiliani is too liberal, Romney isn't a Protestant, and McCain is, well, too old and too flipfloppyish. Dems have the same potential populist problems with Obama and Hillary. But since it's all about he Benjamins these days, nobody outside of them and Edwards could literally afford to run for prez--at this juncture.

Posted by: con_crusher | July 24, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

sfaghani: You ain't seen nothin' yet. The NY Times once ran a piece on British playwright Joe Orton with a headline that called him "Joe Orwell."

Posted by: misterjrthed | July 24, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Rudy Giuliani's is an abortionist, a serial adulterer and not on exactly friendly terms with the NYFD.
Giuliani is not electable and the GOP will not nominate him in Minneapolis next September.

The nomination will go to Congressman Ron Paul.

Posted by: grannymiller | July 24, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Guess these people have not seen Rudy dressed in drag (four separate times) nor have any inkling of his dictatorial tenure as Mayor. I hope the Republicans choose him, easier to beat than teflon Romney, especially if Hillary is nominee. More and more looking like I will vote for a third party.

Posted by: merganser | July 24, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see the correction to the headline.

Posted by: sfaghani | July 24, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This poll does not reflect the reality of Rep. Ron Paul's resonance with the majority of true conservatives in this country. His message is reaching more and more GOP voters, as demonstrated through online polls, which more accurately represent opinions in this era of cell phones and call-screening.

Posted by: franklinmjohnson | July 24, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The headline on the front page has Giuliani's name misspelled -- "Guliani". The Post has many editorial errors on a regular basis, which is not a good thing. But come on -- a lead story with a major public figure's name misspelled? Your readers deserve better copyediting.

Posted by: sfaghani | July 24, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company