http://mywebpage.netscape.com/big3tit/life-insurance-rates.html life insurance rates [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/big3tit/life-insurance-rates.html]life insurance rates[/url]

Guiliani wants to privatize education system in our school systems. What happened to the health care when privatized. Impoverished people will not get frequent check ups and go in when they're in dire sickness. We could go back in time in which parents would rather not put kids to work as opposed to school if there's tuition fees involved. Those that are pro-privatization of the school system will most likely say then we'll give funding for those that come from poor background. Well, that will require lots of paperwork and people don't like the hassle and will most likely not take advantage of it.

Better think twice about voting for someone's who's pro-privatization of the school system. (more federal funding for our public school system should be considered strongly if we want a stronger economy and an intelligent American public. Human asset should be on the top of the list for the next president)

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate

You bimbos breakin on Rudy need to wake up:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11726

Just wait til Romney's swift boat man, Perry, hijacks Guiliani's campaign by flying 9/11 victims all over the US to reveal who Guiliani really is and what he stand's for. Then we will see if conservatives in Iowa and SC still see him in a positive light. Conservative's don't know who Guiliiani is and what he stands for yet, that's why they support him. Guiliani has already began to fall in early primary states, and the organizational candidates, Romney and McCain, are rising. Check the latest polls vs. the former.

Just a few additional facts/observations. I was in Dallas in Dec. Rudy held a "Conversations with Living Legend" (really!) fundraiser that was apparently off the radar to get money from the beehive hair/ten gallon hat-let's go to church twice to get twice the godliness set. That's who he appeals to.

He doesn't like unions...including marital onces. He was kicked out of the mayor's official residence for carrying on an affair within the same walls as his wife and kids inhabited. Wound up living with a gay car dealer. He refused to give unions in the city contracts for years. Thats police, fire and teachers.

Oh, and about the Emergency center he built in the WTC...there is a perfectly good subway station that sits unused under City Hall that would have been a perfect location. Apparently high profile had nothing on safety and security. How a common thread does run....

Ohhhh, Rrrrrudy! You got some 'splainin' to do...

All right, everybody, group hug! But Zouk, watch where you put your hands this time. I think I'm going to have to keep an eye on you, mister...

To "the King of Zouk":

We in academia spell it "a-c-A-d-e-m-i-a."

kingofzouk--Trying to have it both ways again? I am just addressing your points here. For my part, suffice to say that I find New Yorkers the best-qualified to judge Giuliani's work. And they do not like him.

koz--"While inflation averaged 3.9 percent, Giuliani's average spending grew 2.9 percent annually. If the departed GOP Congress were that fiscally disciplined, the next federal budget would be $2.275 trillion -- $625 billion cheaper, Cato Institute fiscal analyst Stephen Slivinski calculates."

This is a damn fine piece of writing. It basically says this:

"Pink unicorns are good and fluffy. If the federal budget were a pink unicorn, it would be good and fluffy."

koz--"While hiring 12 percent more cops and 12.8 percent more teachers, Giuliani sliced other positions 17.2 percent. Overall, municipal headcount fell 3.1 percent."

Oh, OK. So 'throwing more money at schools' DOES solve their problems?

I have saved this for the next time you mischaracterise the liberal position on education. Perhaps you will refrain from that from now on since you have just invalidated that mischaracterisation?

koz--"These policies helped cut local unemployment from 10.4 percent in 1993 to 5.7 percent in 2001."

All that Clinton did can be attributed to the dot-com et al., except this which is solely the handiwork of Rudy Giuliani because, as we all know, New York had absolutely *nothing* to do with any tech- or other booms in the 90's.

koz--"Not insignificantly, the personal incomes of New Yorkers ballooned 53 percent during Giuliani's tenure."

This is indeed impressive. Unless you account for cost of living.

koz--"Through robust policing, Giuliani drove overall crime down 56.1 percent, while chopping homicides 66.6 percent, from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001."

There is a lot to be said about how, exactly, New Yorkers liked the enforcement--or comparisons with drops in other large cities in the same period. That is, if it was actually Giuliani's policing ideas and not the Commissioner's and it were not irrelevant.

koz--"Abortions on Giuliani's watch dropped 16.9 percent, ..."

This has been the trend in abortions and of course you as an economist are aware of the direct correlation between the economy and abortion rates. The proper sex education probably played some role in, you know, not getting pregnant in the first place.

"Safe, legal and rare."

koz--"Gotham's foster-care population fell 38 percent as Giuliani helped loving families adopt 17,804 boys and girls."

Nothing to say about this, not researched in any way (unless this was one of the agencies he made his cuts in?)

koz--"By fighting fraud and finding work for legitimate beneficiaries, Giuliani cut welfare rolls 58 percent, starting two years before federal welfare reform. Giuliani renamed welfare offices 'Job Centers.'"

Not enough space for this. However, renaming is always a sure sign of success.

koz--"Giuliani privatized 23,625 previously confiscated, city-owned dwellings, 78 percent of supply, benefiting family and individual homeowners and tenants."

He sold impounded properties. Genious.

koz--"Pursuant to his "One Standard. One City" campaign slogan, Giuliani dumped Gotham's 20 percent set-aside and 10-percent overbid bonus for minority and female contractors. ..."

And what was the effect of this on minorities and women?

koz--""

You cite figures and increases without giving context. Sure, for example the black enrollment rose but did it rise in plain numbers or in relation to other ethnic groups? And, again, you would do well not to forget about the overall economic updraft here.

These are merely the counterpoints to consider when viewing your facts, not necessarily irrefutable themselves. Perhaps you can take them into account in your next treatise?

If I look like one of those Blue State guys to you it is because I am holding my breath.

ZOUK and others: A quick check of my mail and an excellent example of why I do not reference articles, books, and so forth. From newsmax a book about Bubba is being pushed, and for those of you that do not understand, take a few minutes and go there and then you can see why I do not make references.

Before getting into the heart of what will surely become his stump campaign speech, Giuliani joked that as U.S. Attorney, he "was investigating the Sicilian Mafia," and that during that time he couldn't understand why he was never invited to dinner. Later, he says, he learned that news reports revealed there had been an $800,000 contract on his life and apparently neither his "friends" nor his enemies wanted to be around when and if someone tried to fulfill that contract. "Five years later," Rudy cracked, "when I was just about to leave the U.S. Attorney's office, another mafia guy put out a contract on me - Carmine Persico: we'd put him in jail for a hundred years and he took it personally - put out a contract to kill me and my assistant and the price was only four hundred thousand dollars. So, five years as U.S. Attorney and my value had been cut in half!"

The self-deprecating remarks drew loud laughter but served to indicate two things about the man: that he is not only accustomed to taking on the bad guys but he is also aware of, and comfortable with, the dangers involved; in other words: he can take the heat.

Fighting Islamic Fascism
As for terrorism and America's fight against it: "Democrats want to go back to the way we were acting before September 11," he charged. "Because of our lack of response [to a series of attacks like the 1993 WTC bombing and the U.S.S. Cole], the terrorists believed we were weak... The lesson of September 11 is simple: we have to be on offense." Tracing the beginning of modern Islamic terrorism to the attack on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich in 1972 and the mild Western reaction to it, he stressed that, "If you negotiate with terrorists you demonstrate to them that you're afraid of them and you empower them. It's a terrible mistake not to be strong in the face of evil."

On Iraq: "We don't have a choice. We don't leave there until we put it in a position that it will act as a buffer against terrorism." He believes "we've got to get the Iraqis involved in rebuilding their country," and notes that there is 60% unemployment in Iraq. "If we could get it down to thirty percent unemployment, we're going to start to have stability," he said.

Giuliani asserts that Iran is more dangerous than Iraq. "[Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is either an irrational person or is giving a good imitation of one," he observes.

"Terrorism is a multi-headed organization," Giuliani continues, advising that "we should not let them become a nuclear power... It would be terrible to have to use military force against Iran, but it would be even more terrible if Iran had nuclear weapons."

Giuliani says comparing the present situation to Vietnam or the Cold War is misguided: "The Russians and the Chinese, as far as we can tell, were never planning to come here and kill us. They weren't organizing squads of people to come to the United States and blow up the World Trade Center, the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Stock Exchange, or to blow up American ships. These people are planning that. These people have done it. This is a different kind of enemy. Maybe it doesn't have the massive kind of power the Russians or the Chinese had, but in many ways it is more aggressive. If you don't show strength to this enemy, this is going to go on much, much longer and we are going to lose many, many more lives."

On illegal immigration, he seems not to have codified a plan yet, but says the goal should be to know who is here and why, and offered up a "tamperproof ID card" as something that could be accomplished quickly. He seemed in favor of a technological rather than a physical wall or barrier. As mayor of New York City, he tried to concentrate on throwing out drug dealers that were here illegally, he says, but had difficulty doing so because there was no priority at the Immigration Services office. "We need a rational set of laws and to concentrate resources on those who aren't productive or are a problem" he says.

A Short Private Interview
After the general Q & A, he gave me a couple of minutes for a brief taped interview, so I asked:

Q. As New York City mayor, you reduced crime in minority communities dramatically, yet have received little credit for it, particularly from some of the residents of those communities. Why do you think that is?

A. I reduced crime in New York for everybody. I ran with the idea that it is one city, one standard for everyone. We reduced crime in all the different neighborhoods in New York City almost by an equal percentage and I actually have gotten a lot of credit for it, and a lot of other people deserve credit for it [like former Police Commissioners] Bill Bratton and Bernie Kerik, all my police commissioners, all the cops. There is a certain amount of politics involved in everything and some people give you too much credit and others give you too little credit, but that's politics.

How can you or any Republican candidate appeal to minority communities?

You appeal to all different communities the same way. When I ran for mayor of New York I said we'll reduce crime; we'll reduce welfare; we'll help put more people to work. We'll reduce unemployment; we will reduce the deficit and try to create a surplus; that helps everybody. The same thing is true in this country. Everybody in this country is at risk of being harmed by terrorists. When the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, poor people were killed, rich people were killed, middle-class people were killed. People of all religions, races, backgrounds, so if you protect this country against terrorism you're protecting everybody. If you lower taxes and improve the economy, more people go to work. You've got to look for solutions that reach out to everybody and not solutions that put people in little boxes.

(According to Andy Granatelli, the $290,000 raised by potential presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is reportedly the largest amount ever drawn by a single candidate at a single event in Santa Barbara county; the guessing, however, is that figure will be surpassed as the 2008 election season progresses.)

ZOUK: I do not make reference to any article to support my FACTS for one simple reason that can be explained with ease. Take any magazine, newspaper, or book and you can find a sentence, paragraph, or even a couple of words that can be twisted to suit your goal. For someone as intellegent as you, I cannot believe for a second that you do not know and understand this.

Roses are red violets are blue
Conservatives are cool
Boo hoo hoo

Colin: We still don't know the exact facts of the Webb gun story, but that didn't stop Zouk and some others from going over the top right away. Pobably making it out to be more than is there. But, that's never stopped Zouk.

The posters who joined Zouk are probably still crying about the 2006 election. As they are so wont to tell the people still complaining about 2000, GET OVER IT !

You cut to the chase though. The whole thing probably won Webb a ton of votes he otherwise wouldn't get. Making it sweeter is that the shots at Webb keep the story going and get him even more votes from the other side.

Webb is like Percy Garris the mine manager in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid "I'm not crazy; I'm just colorful." We hope.

"I have had a carry-conceal permit for a long time. I have been in the Senate two months. It is dangerous in here. but I have always been borderline postal so I'll just take care of myself as always. do you know who I am.
I don't need your permission to shoot people. If anyone finds out, tell them it wasn't me. I wish I had a chin. I wear combat boots to formals and like to play soldier in my spare time. do not cross me, you don't know what I could do"

colin, no I'm not arguing against it. I'm merely pointing out the glaring contradiction between someone who supposedly has "the courage to stand up for what he believes in' and yet won't admit that the gun and two fully loaded clips were his.

Webb may be like clinton in that regard, just don't be friends with him or you may end up in jail. Or worse.

ProudtobeGop -- Just to be clear, you're now arguing against the Second Amendment, right? As it turns out, anyone in Congress who has a valid conceal-and-carry license from their state is allowed to carry the weapon in the capital. It's an explicit exception to the DC law. Which, if you've been paying attention, was recently invalidated by the DC Circuit anyway.

Want to know what's funny? I bet this whole "scandal" just won Webb a ton of converts in his next election.

Guiliani has been a slick self promoter since he was the US Attorney in NY and that has been his sole real talent. Beyond that he's been abrasive, egotistical and divisive... and haven't we just been through 6 or so years with a President like that?

An old friend of mine once said this about the ACLU: "They're a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos -- and thank God for them."

Few organizations dance closer to the very edge of the loony-Left precipice than it does...

The ACLU lost any shred of credibility when it offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia (NAMBLA),

and almost simultaneously sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park, land which they have used since 1915.

and they believe the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons.

Carter may not have been the main culprit in the Iran hostage fiasco, just as bush is not to blame for 9/11. american foreign policy is a chain of events leading back a long way.

But I do fault him for his handling of it and other predicaments. It seems I am not the only one.

Bush was a calculated move to the middle as a candidate. clinton had shown that you could steal issues and win the moderates. Bush stole education - a hot ticket at the time. It was not the conservative thing to do. the Dems have forgotten this, nominating Kerry. We forget at our own peril. that is why I support rudy, my issues represented, moderate issues covered too. what do you find objectionable about the current crop of Rs?

johnJ - I should have guessed you were R because you returned, admitted your error and continued on. a dem dissappears when forcefully confronted. any valid point goes unanswered. do not look to find lylepinks citation about crime. It doesn't exist. and she won't admit that. you will be able to tell you have won by the silence or by the insults and off-point rants.

notice no one has taken on the facts I presented earlier. Too convincing and terrible to discuss facts if you are a Lib. better to stick with the insults.

JAA3 - (Gulp) I agree completely. You see what I mean about consensus.

Zouk - agree on guns. I love all the amendments in the bill of rights. Especially the 10th. However, I don't think we should suspend liberty at any cost. America is never going to be completely safe. How can a free country be so? Part of loving freedom is the willingness to sacrifice. So, to be blunt. We have to be willing to accept the risk that maintaining our freedoms may make us less safe.

Yeah, zouk you got me. My memory was wrong about the "landslide". All I remembered was that I was incredulous that my guy lost when he had done a pretty good job.

BTW, I am still a registered Republican, I just wish I could find one to vote for and still look in the mirror when I shave. It does still have an advantage in that I don't get challanged at the polls when I go to vote! (They actually started to in 2004 until I pointed out that I was registered GOP. That stopped it dead.)

I notice that you didn't have a defence for claiming that Carter, and the Democratic Party caused the Iran Hostage event. I guess they also caused the problems with Iraq by supporting Saddam, ....oh wait, that may have been someone else!

I already agreed that rudy may have that tendency and it deserves watching. It may inure to our benefit at times.

but there are short-term requirements when we are at war and lives are at stake. We dimmed the lights in 1942. We shot spies. In 1962 we drafted people to go fight. there are very few "rights" that are not open to negotiation. the 1st amendment is breached by Mccain feingold. DC ignores the 2nd amendment. and so on.

why doesn't the ACLU think that my right to own a gun is important?

The ACLU is an otherwise impeccable organization that fell victim to the same misreadings of cultural theory and doctrines of multiculturalism that fueled the current image of liberalism as soft, emotional and relativistic.

Its a shame more organizations and political parties won't properly bear out the ACLU's message during the Skokie times, as it is more than relevant today.

Zouk, this goes back to my point about Giuliani earlier. The fundamental articles of our democracy should never be superceded by what appears as political necessity in the short-term.

I am deeply afraid of a presidential candidate that, already as mayor of NYC, attempted to subvert the democratic process in order to respond to 9/11 (term extension).

If we hold any absolutes above the absolute of democracy,if we can at any time point to something that would necessitate the suspending of democratic rights, freedoms and liberties, than we have become what we fight, and become deeply invested in the sort of dangerous theism that claims lives in its pursuit of a transcendental justice.

Mr. William San, we eagerly await your reservation! Can we expect you any time soon?

Zouk, you of all people should stay away talking about from calling something a fact and hope nobody notices.

That's one of your hallmarks.

Lylepink - it is customary to post links to supposed facts. you Dems do this all the time in an effort to shut down debate - call something, anything a fact and hope no one notices.
"lowering of crime rates across the country can be attributed to the prosperity " - you must be able to cite the think tank that came up with this one since it is so factual. you must counter this notion "New York's drop in crime rate in the '90s and '00s exceeds all national figures "

the appeasement of N Korea, you mean promising them things if they beahve and expecting them to behave? without checking? do you trust Rs this much?

john - "winning by a landslide" 50.1 % to 48%. some landslide. 297 to 240 ec votes, 40 M to 39 M pop votes. for what a landslide might actually look like:
Reagan - 50.7% (44M)
Carter - 41% (35M) but more instructive
electoral college
reagan - 489
carter - 49 (four states)

you have some 'splainin' to do.

this is what happened after everyone figured out what Peanut had to offer, "don't let the door hit you on the way out".

William - A traitor to what? And what specific laws have they (all the non-White Supremecists in this country?) broken?

Yeah, white people have it tough.

Seriously, is there anyone you don't think is guilty of treason? Everyone in the ACLU is a traitor. Bush is a traitor. Clinton was one too, along with presumably many other elected officials. And McCain is a Communist who hates America. Maybe it would be faster if you just listed all the people who aren't traitors deserving execution. It's got to be a shorter list.

"The ACLU is racist? Coming from William, I'm not sure how to take that."

Yes, they are racist against white people.

Although in the twisted liberal mind, that's not racism, since only whites can be racist.

Anyone who supports the ACLU is a traitor and all of their 400,000 members should be charged with treason, convicted and punished accordingly.

The ACLU serves a purpose and a good purpose for the most part. Civil liberties and conservatism should not be at odds with one another. I don't agree with the ACLU when they try to kill Santa and think that the first amendment means that one person can't hear or see one thing about god in any remotely public place. But they also do a lot in the areas of unlawful search and seizure, due process etc. etc. We need organizations to keep the government honest, no matter who controls it particularly in this age where the constitution is being flouted in the name of security, which by the way is the new liberty. This is one area where many true conservatives and liberals could find some consensus if they stopped bickering with one another.

"At least Webb has the courage to stand up for what he believes in "

lol Yeah right! He believes in the 2nd Amendment alright -that is until he gets (almost) busted flouting the D.C. gun law
(I guess it doesn't apply to him b/c he needs to protect himself in the Senate)

and then he has his executive assistant take the fall for him because he won't even admit that it's his gun!! wow -that kind of courage is rare!

Happy Birthday to his aide, who spent the night in jail and went to court in leg shackels the next day with many of DC's finest , on a charge that Webb the weasel should've been taking the heat for!

If Webb had any courage he would've said 'it's my gun, and I'll suffer the consequences' but noooo, just let the aide twist in the wind.

These kinds of actions are more telling than all of his bloviations imo.

The ACLU is racist? Coming from William, I'm not sure how to take that.

thank you lylepink,couldnt have said it better.

"Don't say the man isn't a patriot when he can't lift his arms above his head because of injuries he sustained when fighting for this country."

Ok. So he was tortured.

That doesn't mean he's a patriot. It means the enemy captured him in Vietnam and decided to torture him.

If a decorated police officer decides to become corrupt and start taking bribes from the Mob, is he still a hero?

McCain was a hero once.

Not anymore.

ZOUK: When you post false things about my favorite POTUS, Bubba, I will call you on it. This appeasement of N Korea is in the mind, not fact. The lowereing of crime rates across the country can be attributed to the prosperity created by Bubba. These are FACTS. Since you are so young and have no personal knowledge about these FACTS, try checking places where you can get accurate information.

Headline "zouk rewrites history".

Ahh, if you are a history teacher, wasn't something else going on during the Iranian Hostage thing? Do you remember one of our cronnies getting deposed as their ruler? The only thing that Carter did was allow him to come here for an operation.

I am not really defending Carter, he was a inept President but you are somehow trying to use him against the Democratic Party. I seem to remember him winning by a landslide. By your cult's reasoning, that makes him the GOPs fault. "They voted for him".

Rudy's about as good as the GOP can get right now. Essentially every "self-evident" idea that the Neo-cons had has been discredited by the results, so some new ideas, even if they are the Dem's ideas, is the only hope they've got.

The reason everyone keeps throwing his inablity to keep his zipper up at you is 2 reasons:
1)The GOP, while being lead by a man who was, at the same time, cheating on his wife, tried to overturn the popular election of the president, claiming moral superiority. People remember stuff like that.
2)Your inablility to use consistant logic makes it so easy. (That's what make it fun).

Spartan, i don't think you are the person who needs to comment on spelling issues.

-ok fine, but please dont pass your self off as something that your are not.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/95cius.htmand those crime statistics you wanted. feel free to look.

I am not an academic, I do run in those circles part-time. I have many interests. In my chosen field, you must comply with academic rigor when coming to conclusions. I try to demonstrate that this skill could enhance this blog.
-noble cause,but when you start calling people dingbat,lib and the like, you begin to sound like mike savage.im not saying that the left is innocent but if you want to make a point, lay off the insults.
but there is litle interest in actual facts from the left, it is just so easy to continue with emotional tirades instead. doubt me - scroll up.
-i have, and looked over some of your other posts on other threads, your just as guilty.

"Kevin, I don't hate the ACLU, in fact I was member for a long time"

That explains a lot.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The ACLU (founded by socialists) is a treasonous, anti-American, racist, socialist organization determined to destroy our country.

"Your guy Webb has certainly proved himself to be a weasel this week - but if that's the kind of thing you respect, then hey."

And McLame is less of a weasel HOW, exactly?

At least Webb has the courage to stand up for what he believes in instead of goosestepping along with the BushBots.

William is Zouk's relief flipping burgers in the UVA student union.

Spartan, i don't think you are the person who needs to comment on spelling issues.

Kevin, I don't hate the ACLU, in fact I was member for a long time. I was dismayed when they eschewed one of the amendments as unworthy of protecting.

I am not an academic, I do run in those circles part-time. I have many interests. In my chosen field, you must comply with academic rigor when coming to conclusions. I try to demonstrate that this skill could enhance this blog. but there is litle interest in actual facts from the left, it is just so easy to continue with emotional tirades instead. doubt me - scroll up.

William,

Maybe some day you will look back and realize how foolish you are now.

John McCain served his country with distinction ... have you. Don't say the man isn't a patriot when he can't lift his arms above his head because of injuries he sustained when fighting for this country. Maybe you are trying to be controversial, I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't even respond to what is pure nonsense.

How do you contribute to this country. Do you even pay taxes on the 2 grand you make in your summer job at the shore?

Colin - Jesse Jackson has a better chance of being elected president than Obama does. At least Jesse has an American sounding name that doesn't rhyme with Osama, and his middle name isn't the same as that of a dictator whom we recently went to war against.

You keep bringing up WA, OR and other light blue states.

I'll tell you for the millionth time:

Those states vote D because of late, the R's have been too conservative.

WA, OR, MI, etc are moderate states. They will not vote for someone perceived to be a "hard" conservative like Bush.

They voted for Clinton b/c he was a moderate Dem.

(And in some respects, in 1992, Clinton was thought of as more conservative than Bush I.)

Bush nearly won in WA and OR. He lost by only 1-2%. That 1-2% would almost certainly switch for a moderate, acceptable Republican.

By the same token, the 1-2% in OH, FL, NV, CO, etc would switch if offered an acceptable, moderate Dem.

But Obama is neither moderate, nor acceptable to most of the country.

I believe you said you live in the NorthEast? Well, most of the country is not like the Northeast.

There is no way Obama can win the general, as any rational person will admit. It is a mathematical certainty.

"In Southern Illinois, which is both rural and culturally conservative, Obama did extremely well in his Senate race."

Yeah, against ALAN KEYES!!!!!

Enough said.

My guess is that conservative rural IL voters simply stayed home and the small number rural liberals turned out to vote for Obama.

But even if rural IL voters did vote for him, I don't care, so don't bother looking up statistics.

Hillary did quite well among rural NY voters.

Ted Kennedy probably does well among rural MA voters.

IL is an extremely liberal state, hardly representative of most of the country.

A rural IL conservative is probably the equivalent of a liberal in Indiana or Missouri.

You want proof that IL is out of touch with the rest of the USA?

I have 3 words for you.

Carol. Moseley. Braun.

re: "why aren't you supporting Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel or Wesley Clark or John Warner?"

If they were running for president, I'd give them a look...Warner at least.

Hagel imo is a traitor with his vote for the pork-laden war appropriations bill.

Your guy Webb has certainly proved himself to be a weasel this week - but if that's the kind of thing you respect, then hey.

William: As usual your statements have major errors. McCain has never come close to becoming a Democrat. Speculation has been (if it's true nobody has admitted to it) that he was aksed to consider running as Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic nominee. In case you aren't aware it has been done before.

If he was asked obviously he turned it down.

McCain is Republican forever. He will never even consider being an Independent.

Thankfully most conservatives are not as "clear-thinking" as William. I don't like McCain either and would note vote for him unless desperate. but that is a far cry from calling everone out there cowards and traitors.

KOZ:" guess that depends on whether you want to win the war or lose the war. why no Lib outcry in 1942 when we locked up Asians? "
Do your homework before opening your mouth: Your ever-hated ACLU was from day one fighting the Japanese internmant camps.

What encouraged the 1979 Iraniains to take our embassy hostage - a hard line approach from Jimmy carter - hardly. there is no laying this cultural difference at the feet of the Americans. I suppose it is some form of envy and fear of modernism.
-uh no, its because we interefered with their government,overthrew a elected leader and installed a dictator. its callled history, did you at least take that class.

when we appease, we slide further down, leaving fewer choices. How did the appeasement of N Korea under clinton send us into a weaker position now?
-true,but when we dont live up to our side of the bargain,we are just as guilty.

how did not finishing the gulf war 1 properly set us up for round 2? lay that blame at the feet of bush 41. we go in and finish the job and make it worse, i cant think of a president who would do....never mind.
Wasn't shunning Arafart the right thing to do?
-no, but mispelling his name isnt either.ignoring arafat only made things worse. or do you take the isreali hardline position.
Ia m all for talking to opponents who are willing and able to make compromises - the russians, the chinese. but in many cases, we are not dealing with entities who live up to their agreements or who believe in the same metrics and procedures as we do. Which country on earth takes hostages as a normal foreign policy move?
-im not going to touch the rest of this,because its unreadable and the spelling and im wasting time responding to a academic who cant spell and spend his time here than, getting his grad studies done.

"John McCain is a patriot and a national hero who was held as a prisoner of war for the same length of time that we've been in Iraq. "

Good for him. That doesn't mean he's qualified to be president. He seems to have come back from Viet Nam with this weird pink streak. Maybe some of the communism he encountered there rubbed off on him.

Or maybe he's the Manchurian candidate.

In any case, he seems slightly deranged. Maybe it was the torture.

McCain is certainly no patriot. If he was, he would care about this country and its citizens and not try to shred the constitution or grant amnesty to criminal illegals.

McCain only pledges allegiance to himself. And maybe the communists who brainwashed him in Nam.

Ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome?

"At least have some respect for service to this country, william."

I do. But just because someone served in the military doesn't mean they will be a good president, or that they are still loyal to this country.

Benedict Arnold fought for the US before defecting.

And in any case, if military service automatically means that someone would make a good president and shouldn't be criticized, why aren't you supporting Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel or Wesley Clark or John Warner?

Or are you a typical hack who has a double standard for BushBots and everyone else?

Bush never served in combat and Cheney hid under his bed during Nam.

What do you have to say to that?

Both Bush and Cheney are COWARDS.

That's right, I said it.

Unlike you, I have a brain and I am able to think, instead of blindly parrot Bush talking points.

As a conservative Republican, I have 10 times more respect for James Webb than I have for Jorge or Dick.

Quite obviously, you have no values and blidnly support McPain just b/c he has an R next to his name.

But he nearly became a Dem. Would you still support him then?

spartan - I appreciate your response but you seem to have muddled your thinking. flatly stating that employment went up x% is a verifiable fact. On the other hand stating that the drop in crime MAY be attributable to other reasons is editorial. See the difference - one is numbers supported by outside sources and multiple ones. the other is a variety of someone's opinion about some facts, trying to tie a story together. If you are so sure of your facts, show me another mathematical citation that compares NYC crime to national crime. I would accept that.

here's another gem "generally seen as a battle of two large egos " do you really claim that this is scientific and above reproach? compare to my post which was 50% numbers, yours is 50% opinion and spin. and to lable it as bad is not justified. It is a fairly even treatment, despite the editorial license. whether rudy gets credit or not for some things doesn't reflect badly if it just happened by coincidence. Like clinton's welfare reform - he gets credit despite fighting it all the way.

And don't flatter yourself by assuming I am pointing my vitriol at you only, I group Liberals into a category for ease. you may not be one and they may not all fit into the box. but in this format, some short-cuts must be made.

Again, what is it with my residence or career or education? why does it matter?

What encouraged the 1979 Iraniains to take our embassy hostage - a hard line approach from Jimmy carter - hardly. there is no laying this cultural difference at the feet of the Americans. I suppose it is some form of envy and fear of modernism. It does not seem to be then case that reacting forcefully is contray to our overall goals. Quite the contrary, when we appease, we slide further down, leaving fewer choices. How did the appeasement of N Korea under clinton send us into a weaker position now? how did not finishing the gulf war 1 properly set us up for round 2? Wasn't shunning Arafart the right thing to do? Ia m all for talking to opponents who are willing and able to make compromises - the russians, the chinese. but in many cases, we are not dealing with entities who live up to their agreements or who believe in the same metrics and procedures as we do. Which country on earth takes hostages as a normal foreign policy move?

Spartan - wikipedia is harldy what we in acedemia call research. It is not permitted in my grad class as a valid resource due to its erroneous nature. "he may have been the beneficiary of a trend already in progress"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acidemia
-doubtful, if you were in "acedemia"you cant really despute the facts.plus were not in "raving troll"101
this is called speculation and tries to attribute a cause and effect relationship outside giving credit to Rudy. did you ever ask yourself why an "encyclopedia" would try to do this instead of simply reporting the facts. this is typical of wikipedia, whose transgrssions of history are well known.

-i posted facts that i can directly link to, and there are more links on the wikipage i gave out. if you want to ignore the bad part of rudy, thats your call.

and typical of Libs trying to make something noble seem disgusting.
-now your assuming im a lib, and using a personal attack. gee im honored by the "great" zouk that he called me a lib.

but the overall point of all this is that there are some accomplishments there, whether the lefties want to credit them properly or not
-you seem to be doing a great job pointing out the greatness of rudy, i just added the bad to banlence it out.
the voters see through this fog though and are supporting rudy, despite the attempts to smear him.
-a time poll this far ahead of the election,tell you what if he makes it out of the primaries ill give you that. but your assuming he's gonna win.its early in the game
In his case, the smear is uncalled for and out of line.who cares whose couch he slept on 15 years ago? who cares whether he dressed up for SNL? It seems Dems do but only to influence Rs in a negative way.
-only in your mind you equate what was already public knowlege as attacks and slander.
the Rs are MOSTLY ignoring this deception.
-you had one part right,when the primaries draw closer do you think the shine of rudy will stay on as the mud begins to fly?if you do theres a bridge in brooklyn i can sell you.
And for you dingbats who know nothing about me, don't assume anything foolish about my relationship with NYC. I would bet I know and love the city more than any but the most fervent native.
-we dont, but you saying your in "academia"and you living nyc is suspect when you can go onto a blog with a handle and say anything.

It is clear to me that Rudy is the candidate that the Dems feel most threatened by. Just look at these posts. Some nasty stuff. Now here is a guy that doesn't toe the line on the social issues and you rip him to shreds for his multiple marriages, family relationships etc. He is not Dobson yet you try to pin that to him and argue against him on positions that he has never taken. In fact, he seems pretty liberal on the social issues but that is never mentioned, no credit is given for this likemindedness.

And ok. Let us suppose Rudy is the nominee - a big if. Is Hillary the contrast you are going to draw to Rudy's thrice marriages?

koz,

But your "hard" approach is what's encouraged the killers of today and tomorrow.

A petulant response yet, but my point is that I don't think conventional "soft" approaches are what I'm discussing. No US leaders that I can think of have yet to re-examine the American strategic position in the Middle East in a fundamental way.

This is a watershed moment for rethinking Mid-East policy, precisely because our current, in my opinion, failed policy is having such broad repercussions.

I think you'd be hard pressed regardless to show that talking with Iran and North Korea is what bred terrorism in the '90s. I understand your point, of course, that too soft an approach allows terrorism to fester and, if it fails, the consequences are dire, but thats why talking with Iran is only a minor piece of the equation. Talking with Iran needs to be bolstered by a more flexible strategic stance in Iraq and a willingness to work with partners we've thus far eschewed.

That way, diaologue isn't appeasement - it happens within a framework of coercion. The Iraq War has been the greatest boon to Iran in years, and without it, we'd have enormous leverage with them. Its a question of restoring that leverage and using it properly.

Skeptical, no, no, it's 'acedemia' which is how they spell it at the community college level. KOZ teaches History 303, known by the students as "I Hate Jimmy Carter," at Long Beach City College.

But your "hard" approach is what's encouraged the killers of today and tomorrow.

A petulant response yet, but my point is that I don't think conventional "soft" approaches are what I'm discussing. No US leaders that I can think of have yet to re-examine the American strategic position in the Middle East in a fundamental way.

This is a watershed moment for rethinking Mid-East policy, precisely because our current, in my opinion, failed policy is having such broad repercussions.

I think you'd be hard pressed regardless to show that talking with Iran and North Korea is what bred terrorism in the '90s. I understand your point, of course, that too soft an approach allows terrorism to fester and, if it fails, the consequences are dire, but thats why talking with Iran is only a minor piece of the equation. Talking with Iran needs to be bolstered by a more flexible strategic stance in Iraq and a willingness to work with partners we've thus far eschewed.

That way, diaologue isn't appeasement - it happens within a framework of coercion. The Iraq War has been the greatest boon to Iran in years, and without it, we'd have enormous leverage with them. Its a question of restoring that leverage and using it properly.

zouk - you represent everything that is wrong with modern neoconism..represented in your short post -- Ignorance, fealty to irrational beliefs and ignoring of facts, while simultaneously ignoring any points and offering nothing of substance.

My qualifications are irrelevant, however impressive and sterling they are. concentrate on my arguments. why so interested in me? Is this another attempt to avoid the discusssion and pick on personalities. I already stated how weak and non-functional that approach is.

JAA - I fail to see how any talking or other diplomatic moves have been effective with Iran or N Korea. In my view, it is this soft approach that encouraged the killers in the 90s.

Kingofzouk is even in some tangential manner connected to "academia"? Wow, our educational system *has* lowered its standards. Maybe he flips the patties at the student union. I guess that would qualify as being "in academia".

Loudon - you represent everything that is wrong with modern liberalism. everything I decried today is represented in your short post. Ignorance, fealty to irrational beliefs and ignoring of facts, while simultaneously ignoring any points and offering nothing of substance.

Spartan - wikipedia is harldy what we in acedemia call research. It is not permitted in my grad class as a valid resource due to its erroneous nature. "he may have been the beneficiary of a trend already in progress"

this is called speculation and tries to attribute a cause and effect relationship outside giving credit to Rudy. did you ever ask yourself why an "encyclopedia" would try to do this instead of simply reporting the facts. this is typical of wikipedia, whose transgrssions of history are well known. and typical of Libs trying to make something noble seem disgusting.

but the overall point of all this is that there are some accomplishments there, whether the lefties want to credit them properly or not. the voters see through this fog though and are supporting rudy, despite the attempts to smear him. In his case, the smear is uncalled for and out of line. who cares whose couch he slept on 15 years ago? who cares whether he dressed up for SNL? It seems Dems do but only to influence Rs in a negative way. the Rs are mostly ignoring this deception.

And for you dingbats who know nothing about me, don't assume anything foolish about my relationship with NYC. I would bet I know and love the city more than any but the most fervent native.

';Now let me tell you why I find him the most qualified. He will hold the line and stop those killers, old school. that is, he will kill them with no remorse. '

I can just see zouk there, in his cowboy pajamas, eating cheetos and typing while watching old corboy movies. 'See, rudy has a white hat? he's one of the good guys! kill the bad guys, rudy... shoot them with their big hot smoking gun.' bedwetting cowards really love big, strong authoritarian dictators.

'Colin - The idea was to make a point. Feminists seem to blindly think of Hillary Clinton as one of their own.'

Not at all. Knowing quite a few, Edwards is their main man. NOW is an organization -- not a person. It hardly represents all feminists. And all that most 'feminists' share in common is a belief that we should have equal rights and opportunities as men, and get paid the same for doing the same work.

First, a historical question, because my knowledge of history is shallow and poor: Did conservatives respond to internment camps during WWII? (I mean this question in earnest).

Zouk, to respond to your point about "whether or not I want to lose or win the war": this is only a legitimate context for understanding my qualms about Giuliani if we accept that there is no foreign policy that could balance the need for immediate results with a respect for Democracy. That being said, I've been discouraged by the Democratic approach to foreign policy in this election cycle. Obama probably had the most incentive to stake out a more courageous position on foreign policy issues, but has long since abandoned his iconoclasm for empty rhetoric about "new" politics. Edwards is overly-focused on the Domestic, and Hillary is too beholden to AIPAC and the Israel lobby, quite frankly. Nevertheless, in the absence of real courage, I think newness is always better than more of the same.

I have a number of other theoretical disagreements with you that I think at some point collide with the Dershowitz v. Zizek and other critics debate about when its ok to torture, but those are not worth pursuing in this forum.

I will say though that I'm very weary of the approach you indicated you favor earlier today - the "kill 'em right" approach. I think that exacerbates tensions, particularly in the middle east and I think it ignores the widespread repercussions of failure in Iraq.

In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq has:
- cemented Chinese power in the political arena, whereas it was once economic (case in point: China offering to host 6-party talks on N. Korea, but also increased partnerships between Old Europe and China on weapons deals, etc...)
- Increased strength of autocrats in Middle East (Iran, Saudia Arabia, Syria...Prior to 9.11 Bush administration promised to no longer support these regimes just for short-term US gain...since 9.11 this has been derailed).
- Decreased our flexibility to confront Iran (fractious split between pro-US iranians and zealous conservative iranians now effaced by unified nationalistic fervor. remember: Iran helped us in afghanistan significantly)
- Forced us to blacklist potentially useful partners in bringing about moderate rise in middle east (most notable the Brotherhood, but also, depending on who you talk to, elements of Hamas)

Will Giuliani's straight-ahead approach really resolve these tensions and increase the strategic standing of the United States? I really don't think so.

"Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani says if elected, he'd be open to his wife attending Cabinet meetings on issues in which she's interested."

Heck, Rudy and his wife and all their ex's in one room could BE the Cabinet. Does his Aunt have a barn? Maybe they could hold the Cabinet meetings there. Judy'll sew the costumes and maybe Uncle Goober can be the Secretary of War.

'moral rectitude + republicans' sorry -- that does not compute. that is an oxymoron.

hey the republicans just shut down a hearing on the coverup at Purgegate because Kyle Sampson testified under oath that Gonzales was lying. Gonzo swore he'd had no knowledge of the firings. Sampson swore they had no less than 5 meetings about it. So republicans shut it down in the middle of his testimony with some arcane procedural rule.

got your moral rectitude right here...

"guess that depends on whether you want to win the war or lose the war. why no Lib outcry in 1942 when we locked up Asians?"

It is quite possible that we would have had a larger outcry if there was the availability of information that we have today.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-29-Thu-2007/news/13463833.html

Why Rudy will stomp Hillary's head!

I meant to add this final paragraph to that primer on objectivity I wrote to Chris:

Had you done this, the sentence would have read, "... a party that has made THEIR DEFINITION OF moral rectitude a central plank...", would it not? Assumptions can convey messages that perhaps you did not intend.

"It's true that the political climate has blued since then, but the chances of it being as blue as it was in 2006 two years from now in Nov 08 is unlikely....By 2008, we will be withdrawing from Iraq, so I don't really see that as a big issue."

William: what makes you think either of these assertions is true? Both appear to be wishful thinking given today's headlines.

Anon:

I guess mine was a botched joke too. By the way, I don't agree with either of them. I admire very much our military men and women.

Colin - The idea was to make a point. Feminists seem to blindly think of Hillary Clinton as one of their own. Maybe she is! The problem is, most of us think of feminist as liberals, when they evidently are not. From what I could gather from the NOW convention, many (most?) of Ms. Clinton's supporters are rather right wing; not just unconcerned about outsourcing and guest workers and shabby treatment of Amercian workers, but outright hostile to them. They support continuing the tax breaks that have resulted in the wealthiest 1% of American's paying 14% less in taxes while the poor and middle class, those making less than $100,000 a year, pay an average of 9% MORE in taxes. Take a close look at their corporate doners - Ameritech, AT&T, Archer Daniels Midland, DuPont, General Mills, Gillette, Merrill Lynch, and RJR Nabisco, Dell, the May Company, Capital Cities/ABC, DuPont, AT&T, and General Mills .... Sound familiar? These are THE SAME corporations that funded the religious right that brought Bush to power, and give money in about the same amount! These are the same corporations that gave so generously to George Bush and are now financing Hillary Clinton's hit job on American workers. These people don't care about "choice" or "life" or "absortion" or "equal rights" or "religion" or anything liberal or conservative. They care about making money and lots of it. To that end, every one of these corporations are leading proponents of outsourcing. They support Clinton for exactly the same reaosn they supported Bush - both provide them free reign to pit cheap foreign workers against Amercian workers for wage and benefit concessions, both support laws that allow corporations and corporate officers to dodge responsibility for actions of the corporation or corporate officers, even if they are supposed to be overseeing them, and both support even more widespread use of special visa's, allowing companies to bring in millions of guest workers to displace Amercian workers; they all support the continued rape and pillage of ordinary working men and women. So, Colin, ask yourself, do these whack jobs deserve your support? I don't think so.

" guess that depends on whether you want to win the war or lose the war. why no Lib outcry in 1942 when we locked up Asians? "

The same reason that there was no outcry when the crew locked the "steerage" passengers into the lower decks as the Titanic sunk....it was a different time.

I hope we've grown since then (at least some of us have).

William -- Wow, where to start. First, you view Thompson as a center-right candidate? That's pretty interesting. I'll grant you he's a mainstream bush republican, and certainly COULD win a general election, but "center-right?" If that's true, then the modern GOP is even scarier than I thought.

With respect to your analysis on specific states, I honestly just don't think you know what you're talking about. Sure, Kerry didn't win Washington or Oregon by huge margins. That's b/c there is a solid 40% of the population that is rabidly conservative in those states. But the GOP hasn't won statewide in either state (with the exception of liberal republican gordon smith) in 10+ years. Moreover, the general public is FAR more upset with the war and the GOP today than they were in 2004. Why exactly do you think that will change before '08? Obviously Bush isn't going to change his failed Iraq strategy.

Finally, you're not being at all objective in your critique of Obama. In Southern Illinois, which is both rural and culturally conservative, Obama did extremely well in his Senate race. He polls BETTER than any of the other declared Democrats among independents; although Edwards does nearly as well. Plus, he's running on general election themes now rather than pandering to the base.

Despite all of that, however, you argue that he CANNOT WIN? I'm not so arrogant that I feel confident predicting that any Democrat WILL win in 2008. MOreover, I concede that in a country as polarized as ours MANY of the republicans are CAPABLE of winning the general election. Yet you are "sure" that Obama can't win. That's pretty interesting William.

loundon voter-agreed here, i had to look rudy up on wikpedia, is a good source to cut thru the bullcrap. its called research. maybe zouk would like to actually try it sometime without going to the press releases.

Dear Mr. Cillizza:

Please try to re-read this paragraph you have published and try to guess what enormous, and frankly quite questionable to anyone living in the 21st century, assumption you have built into your writing:

"In the Giuliani piece, Von Drehle explores the unique conundrum of how Giuliani -- a thrice-married man who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights -- could possibly be the leading candidate of a party that has made moral rectitude a central plank of its agenda over the past several decades."

I hope you can figure it out. "Moral rectitude". There are millions of Americans who consider deigning to give women sovereignty over their own bodies and extending gay Americans the same rights as real Americans the MORALLY UPRIGHT thing to do. The evangelical right, in their medieval anti-science and anti-freedom religious obsessions, do NOT own our moral values as a country. I am sick and tired of assumptions to that effect being mindlessly inserted into our national dialogue.

From universal health care to extending equal rights to pursuing peaceful solutions to geopolitical conflicts, it is quite evident to me that the LIBERAL LEFT is actually the portion of this country that is concerned with "moral rectitude". If you disagree with that, that's your prerogative (as it is to stick your head in the sand while history is passing you by). But as a journalist, at least try to build some semblance of objectivity into your writing, even if you cannot usher any modernity into your "values".

I sign this sincerely on behalf of,

Many Other Likeminded 21st Century Residents

TG - That's almost lame as Warner's posting. His was vile.

Of course KOZ has to read from Rudy's press releases. As a true rightwingnut he would never live in, and if at all possible never even set foot in, a big city like NYC.

In his first term as mayor, Giuliani, in conjunction with New York City Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton, adopted an aggressive enforcement-deterrent strategy based on James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows research. This involved crackdowns on relatively minor offenses such as graffiti, turnstile jumping, and aggressive "squeegeemen", on the principle that this would send a message that order would be maintained, and that the city would be "cleaned up".

Giuliani also directed the New York City Police Department to aggressively pursue enterprises linked to organized crime, such as the Fulton Fish Market and the Javits Center on the West Side (Gambino crime family). In the breaking up of mob control of solid waste removal, the city was able to save city businesses over $600 million.

One of the first initiatives of Giuliani and Bratton was the institution of CompStat in 1994, a comparative statistical approach to mapping crime geographically and in terms of emerging criminal patterns, as well as charting officer performance by quantifying criminal apprehensions. CompStat was operationalized by the empowerment of precinct commanders, based on the assumption that local authorities could best institute crime reduction techniques specific to their experiential knowledge of their own localities. This system also enhanced the accountability of both the commanders and the officers themselves. Critics of the system assert that it creates an environment in which police officials are encouraged to underreport or otherwise manipulate crime data. The CompStat initiative won the 1996 Innovations in Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government.

Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine in 1996.Giuliani forced Bratton out of his position after two years, in what was generally seen as a battle of two large egos where Giuliani was unable to accept Bratton's celebrity

The amount of credit Giuliani's policies deserve for the drop in the crime rate is disputed. A small but significant nationwide drop in crime preceded Giuliani's election, and he may have been the beneficiary of a trend already in progress. Additional contributing factors to the overall decline in crime during the 1990s was federal funding of an additional 7,000 police officers and an overall improvement in the national economy. Many experts believe changing demographics were the factor most responsible for crime rate reductions, which were similar across the country during this time.Different studies show that New York's drop in crime rate in the '90s and '00s exceeds all national figures and therefore should be linked with a local dynamic that was not present as such anywhere else in the country: "most focused form of policing in history. Zimring (Frank Zimring - The Great American Crime Decline) estimates that up to half of New York's crime drop in the 1990s, and virtually 100 percent of its continuing crime decline since 2000, has resulted from policing." However, any "credit for keeping Gotham on the path of ongoing crime reduction belongs to Ray Kelly, serving his second tour of duty as the NYPD's commissioner. Giuliani loyalists, perennially predicting le déluge, greeted Kelly's appointment with dismay."
all this and more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Giuliani

jaa - I want to repond to your points:

"The vast number of New Yorkers, anecdotally and statistically are very ambivalent towards Rudy Giuliani,"

Aren't NYers ambivilant about many things including any Dem nominee?

"For me, distaste for Giuliani stems from a case in which process supercedes results. "

I guess that depends on whether you want to win the war or lose the war. why no Lib outcry in 1942 when we locked up Asians? We all wanted ti win back then. I am not for increasing the size or reach of the federal government, but am willing to accept some inconveniences. there is a difference between gathering evidence for a criminal trial and averting a terror attack - both in precedures and outcome.

"Whether or not you agree with this position," .....Tentativelly I agree

"(I'm sure you don't), many voters, on both sides of the fence have been troubled by Bush's hubris in pursuing the war in Iraq, etc... and see it as evidence of a non-functioning, vertical system of government. I think there's reason to be wary of Giuliani in light of this."

Yes there is that concern with him. But mostly I trust my public officials to do the right thing for the country. some procedures are ill-advised. Others - a necessary compromise. We do have oversight by congress on occasion.

Steve Forbes endorsed Rudy Wednesday. Was he the flat-tax guy, or was it flat earth?

Normally reasonably insightful and articulate, you include this clunker, which too much reflects the shallow level of analysis we are getting: "In the Giuliani piece, Von Drehle explores the unique conundrum of how Giuliani -- a thrice-married man who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights -- could possibly be the leading candidate of a party that has made moral rectitude a central plank of its agenda over the past several decades." In one sentence you allow the bigots among us to conflate "moral rectitude" with