Colin:

Unless my CHRONOLOGY's all wrong, wasn't 9/11 in there somewhere, and might that have had some sort of an impact on the books that Rudy left for Bloomberg? Do you think there's anyone on this blog who doesn't know that? Do you think there's anyone who doubts that Rudy cut government spending, cut taxes, and improved New York's economy, reduced crime, and made New York City great again? Why is it so hard to accept the fact that there's actually a politician out there who set goals, achieved them, and was therefore a success? Are you so lame that you can't give credit where credit is due?

Giuliani Reduced Real Per Capita Government Spending By Unprecedented 6.82%. (New York City Gross City Product Data 1990-2005, City Of New York Office Of Comptroller; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2000 Message Of The Mayor, p.3; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Message Of The Mayor, p. 3; Comptroller of the City of New York, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the Comptroller for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003, 10/31/03; U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Website, data.bls.gov, Accessed 5/3/07)

Not for nothing, but I attended several Giuliani events at his headquarters in downtown Manhattan, long before the first caucus in Iowa. For months, they've been talking about how they're not getting involved in the first states, and that they're focusing their attention on Florida. This strategy has been in place for a very long time - it's not some kind of after the fact spin. I have to say, although I'm a Giuliani supporter, I was very worried after New Hampshire - however, after Michigan, I'm starting to see what the campaign's strategy was all about. It's a risky strategy, but I'm getting the sense that the other candidates are starting to worry that maybe, just maybe, it's going to work!

Now that Giuliani has been trounced in Michigan by everyone except Duncan Hunter, will you admit that his campaign is over?

Josephsans -- Rudy did balance the budget...before then running up a defict thereafter. Chronology my friend. Chronology. Bloomberg had to clean up his mess after he left office.

KOZ -- you still never provided an answer as to WHY it would be bad to force Congress to actually make choices between spending cuts and tax increases. Again, if you really think that the public agrees with you on budget priorities then such a system would cement republican control of congress in perpetuity. Could it be that you know your message doesn't sell as well if people realize they can't have their cake and eat it too?

For those of you who have an agenda involving a candidate other than Rudy, well, it's your right to post what you want. I AM getting a little tired, however, of reading the same tired anti-Giuliani talking points over and over again.

My personal favorite is this refrain:

Crime goes down in NYC: nope, Giuliani had nothing to do with it

Economy improves dramatically in NYC: again, NOT Giuliani - can't be

9/11? Oh yeah, that was so TOTALLY Giuliani's fault!

Get real folks (or at least get consistent.)

For those here who maybe, just maybe are possibly open to hearing some facts about Rudy, here are some responses to these tired talking points:

Anti-Guiliani talking point #1: Rudy left NYC with a deficit.

Not sure where this one came from, but here's a good headline to look at: "Mayor Giuliani Inherited $2.3 Billion Budget Deficit And Turned It Into Multi-Billion Dollar Surplus." (Steven Lee Myers, "A Deficit Revisited," The New York Times, 7/31/94.) Yeah, that's right - the New York Times!

Anti-Giuliani talking point #2: Bernie Kerik might be a bad guy.

One of the best qualities I think any person can have is loyalty. The flip side of loyalty is that sometimes, it can really bite you in the ass. 'nuff said.

Anti-Giuliani talking point #3: Well, crime was going down throughout the U.S., so it's not like Rudy really accomplished anything.

NYC's crime reduction was THREE TO SIX TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE! NYC became (and remains) the safest big city in America!

Anti-Giuliani talking point #4: Rudy's been married three times.

Honestly, I could give a rat's ass how many times a candidate has been married, as long as I know he can get the job done. Rudy can get the job done.

And you know what? Let's put all of this stuff aside, because we have bigger fish to fry. For anyone just tuning in, the next 4 to 8 years are going to be a bumpy ride in the U.S. The biggest problem we're going to face? The terrorists was against us (they're just getting warmed up, folks - seriously!) In 1995, NYC hosted a big event at Lincoln Center for various foreign dignitaries. Guess who crashed the party? None other than Yasser Arafat. Rudy's response? HE THREW HIS TERRORIST ASS OUT THE DOOR! When the city's liberal elite cried foul, Giuliani replied, "I would not invite Yasser Arafat to anything, anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I don't forget."

Neither will we, Rudy. No matter what happens over the next few weeks, we will NEVER forget.

Why am I not surprised that the MSM continues to return to their pre-chosen candidates of Sen Clinton and Mayor Guiliani.

But then, who enabled Sen Clinton with the whole race-baiting thing in the first place ... yup, the MSM.

America would rather you talk about the issues. Four-fifths of us would say that those issues are pretty darned simple:

1. Economy (yo, remember that?)
2. Iraq (still a quagmire, still draining America dry, and now causing a RECESSION (see 1))
3. Health Care

Wake up and stop spinning for your pre-chosen candidates, you mainstream media types!

come to order. the Pelosi congress is hereby in session.

We are scheduled to vote on the balanced budget amendment. Ignore that we are not capable of passing any budget mush less a balanced one. After it passes we can then vote on a balanced budget immediately following.

Point of order. before we vote on the balanced budget amendment, I want to vote on whether we should vote on it.

and so on, just like the last year of the Pelosi congress.

so let me get this straight, - passing another liberal regulation which severly limits the congress on its ability to make decisions is advocating more......choice?

Is this one of those "depends on the meaning of is" things?

I am not afraid. If it is so important, just do it. It is the Dems who would not support this idea. I just happen to agree with them on this one.

KOZ -- if you really support spending cuts, then how can you legitimately oppose a mechanism that would require them? If the american people are as opposed to tax increases as you say they are, then the type of amendment I'm advocating would instantly lead to a much smaller government. Your "solution," in contrast, of simply electing all republicans lead to the run away spending + tax cuts.

Why are you so afraid of a system that would actually require the american people to make a choice?

marenthia32

good for you. go get 'em. If you register as a Dem, you get to vote twice, not including hanging chads and other Liberal inventions.

this blog is a microcosm of liberal, Democrat and utter moonbat thought. It does not represent the real world in any way whatsoever.

the 50 state strategy is for the general election and hillary will be shocked she has to spend money in NJ, NY, CA, CN, WA, OR, NM, etc. what money ever is left after bullying and insulting poor little Obambi.

I happen to disagree with many on this post. Giuliani is definatly still in this race, the choices he has made we extremly wise. A conservative doesnt throw away money when they know where to get the bang for the buck at. I love the things he has done in NY with taxes, crime and welfare reforms. I wouldnt elect a person just for being there during 9/11 but he did show great leadership qualities. We need someone with his leadership skills who can work with both sides of the isle. And yes, I live in Florida.

Actually, the last time we had that debate, right before the election of 2000, it was the big spending Libs who lost. I predict they will lose the tax and spend debate again this year.

I was actually pre-emptivlly responding to your assumed claim that the chinese were buying the country, which I assumed would be your Kos-retort. I must have had you confused with the mindless jackel drindl.

Rather than require more taxes, I would require less spending. see how the Libs and cons are different? this election will be all about that.

Mark -- yes, substantively that's what I have in mind for the amendment. I think we need to force our politicians to start making some tough choices. And I say that with full knowledge that I may not like the end result, in terms of budget priorities. I'm willing to take that chance.

KOZ -- do you see the irony in saying that dailykos is the only place where people care about budget deficits? Barry Goldwater and small 'c' conservatives everywhere would be appalled. Moreover, if the Democratic party's budget priorities are so terrible, then you should embrace a system that would REQUIRE my party to raise taxes to pay for social programs and entitlement spending. If you have any faith in the american people, your party would win a real debate about spending with ease. Your comments lead me to believe that you know you would lose such a debate on its merits.

But if inflation rises, the debt becomes less valuable. It may pain the fixed income citizens, but they are all Dems anyway. they should consider gold.

Having several very large mortgages and student loans, I am hoping for run away inflation as soon as possible.

there must be something valuable we are finding to spend the borrowed money on, otherwise why are we spending it?

Our currency is safe enough. the entire world is still buying up US bonds, stocks and real estate. why do you think that is? do you think they beleive it is unsafe?

JD - please ck in.

KOZ, deficits in a given year are not, per se, bad. But deficits every year of a business cycle are.

Here are two simple monetary dangers to deficits run every year.

1. The ever increasing National Debt requires ever increasing current interest payments - now already a significant structural part of the annual pressure on the budget.

2. If interest payments are funded with more debt, the value of the currency in world markets becomes suspect. Runaway inflation can be a real result.

There are potential fiscal problems with it, too, in the macroeconomic sense. We avoided them during the Cold War because we had the currency of last resort. That may not be true any more. In other words, the rest of the world may not be dependent on our fiscal health, now, or soon.

Of course we must have a certain [reduced] national debt to float the SS system, which cn only invest in Fed debt instruments.

I think KOZ is right about medicare/medicaid, and not too far off about retirement being 3 of the elephants in the room. He would call them big donkeys, of course. But they are huge unfunded future liabilities. To address them requires current budget surpluses and methods for reducing the future unfunded liabilities.

Pork and war are the unbalancers of current budgets - coupled with tax cuts.

All solutions are painful, except for "growing the economy". If the economy grows faster than the fed current expenditures grow, while holding revenue growth constant with the growth of the economy, relative painlessness is achieved.

But even that simplistic approach requires management techniques and budget and tax discipline that are difficult to maintain
because of Dave's analysis of the federal system.

Colin, I see an Amendment that incorporated
Grmm-Rudman-Hollings as being something like what you want.

_colin - I don't. Go ahead and explain to me what is so drastically wrong with deficits? try not to use Kos as a citation if you can.

Why don't you geniuses actually work with the facts in a discussion?

do you have any idea what the "problem" with the US budget is? Hint - it's not the military or pork spending.

It is medicare, social security and medicaid. yet any thought about reducing them never enters a Libs mind. On the contrary, it is time to increase all of them and ignore where that leads in ten or twenty years.

Hide the numbers, advertise using fear, employ special interests that soak the rest of us - these are the tactics used whenever anyone suggests looking at these costs rationally.

the current crop of Dems are running on a platform which greatly expands health care and ignores any problems with retirement. does anyone think this will not lead to ever increasing tax burdens? Get real.

the rest of the budget is peanuts compared to these costs.

KOZ -- can we shorten your answer to "I don't actually care about deficits, spending, or balancing the budget?"

By the way, under the scenerio you proposed the GOP would instantly sweep into power because the governing party would actually be blamed for the results of what they did. That's my point -- the system needs to change so the folks in power now can actually be held accountable for their actions.

Mark -- what would you think about a constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority for any deficit spending? That would essentially require than any deficit be bipartisan, but would allow for flexibility for actual emergencies. I say actual b/c today congress and this administration are apt to call anything with a large price tag "emergency" spending.

Dave -- whatever your political affiliation, it's pretty clear that neither party has the gumption to actually reduce spending under the current system. Sure, republicans talk a good game but each politician still wants THEIR pork for THEIR district or state. Do you really think that's going to change absent a change to the sytem itself?

Dear taxpayer:
As you know the congress passed the balanced budget amendment last year. This requires the Federal government to pay for all of its programs in the year they are originated, there are no longer "off-books" programs like defense, social security and emergency management.

Due to the unusually destructive hurricane season and the lower-than-expected tax income, due in part to the new liberal government raising the rates of the "rich", we are forced to reduce some programs in order to provide hurricane relief while supplying bullets to the troops and continuing the social security rip-off.

Please return any medicare prescriptions. All subsidized child care and food stamps will be cancelled beginning next month.

Be assured the leaders of your government, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, will continue to strive to achive defeat in Iraq to ameliorate these difficulties. Even though they have never passed a single budget since taking power, they will continue to try and fail. This is in line with the measures taken against terrorism by the Clinton administration.

We will also reconsider the balanced budget amendment we passed as a gimmick to get elected. It seems our constituency actually does prefer to have someone else pay for it after all.

Sincerely,
President Sheen

claudialong - "but dave, doesn't that sort of guarantee that we will NEVER have a real discussion of how our money is spent?"

We seem to discuss it all the time. Everytime a Dem proposes a new program, the R's ask how will you pay for it. Likewise with tax cuts and R's. I think that a real discussion on how our money is spent (like people here seem to want) is something that A) most people don't want to discuss and B) would be a fruitless discussion. I think the country is too big and regionalized for us to come to consensus on anything. In Michigan, people would be all for unemployment help whereas in Northern Virginia people wouldn't care so much about that as transportation issues. The way we "discuss" it is by electing our representatives with the views we want and sending them to DC to work it out with the rest of the country. What we need to do is hold the people we vote for responsible for their actions and each of us decide if those actions are just being "flexible" or "irresponsible" and vote accordingly.

It is not strategy, it is an excuse for not being in position to win in any other state.

Rudy has been saying all along he is the most viable Republican because he can run a 50-state campaign. Of course this is probably true, as long as you don't count IA, NH, WY, MI, NV and SC as states. Or maybe he mis-spoke and meant to say he can run a 50 county campaign for governor of FL.

I think the Depression, followed by WW2, followed by the Cold War took "balanced budget amendment" off the table, because budgets were annually unbalanced, as a matter of course.

The 90s were a window of opportunity - and in fact, Clinton and Gingrich made some actual balanced budgets.

Further, if war and national emergency exceptions are written into a balanced budget amendment, most years will be exceptional.

The business cycle is not annual. It used to be something closer to five years.

Perhaps more useful than a balanced budget amendment would be the kind of management program that Peter Drucker suggested for the FedGov many years ago.

I will try to find an online citation for it.

doesn't that sort of guarantee that we will NEVER have a real discussion of how our money is spent?

Posted by: claudialong | January 15, 2008 04:34 PM

Actually the GOPs are having this discusssion while choosing a candidate. It is the Dems who don't refer to anything substantial in their talks.

always astounds me how little supposedly 'educated' people understand about economics and budgets.

the congess is free to pass a balanced budget anytime they like. nothing is stopping them but themselves - well, mostly the Democrats.

If we actually had to pay, right now, for what we spend, I don't think anyone would be suggesting we implement national health care or keep SS the way it is or...., for instance...

Too bad we don't have national primaries, or those national poll numbers you cite would matter.

We have primaries state-by-state, and Rudy's numbers are terrible in each of the upcoming primary states that aren't Florida (and not that great in Florida).

but dave, doesn't that sort of guarantee that we will NEVER have a real discussion of how our money is spent?

_Colin - "On a vaguely related note, can you -- or someone else -- explain to me why we shouldn't have a balanced budget amendment?"

My understanding is that a mandated balanced budget limits flexibility. If there is an economic downturn, people look to the government to help. It can do a number of things to try to help the economy and those affected by the downturn (cut taxes, increase or cover unemployment expenses and other hardship type programs, creat temp jobs, econ stimulis, etc). If there were a balanced budget requirement, these things would have to be paid for by either raising taxes or cutting other programs or both, but neither of which you really want to do during a recession/depression. I know many states have "rainy day funds" for this. The fed could do that but it would probably have to be massive and many people (like me) have issues with governments holding your money just in case...

'If it did, we'd all be forced to have much more substantive conversations about what the federal government should and should not be doing. '

'I would be fine with a balanced budget amendment. I think it would force some painful, but healthy, conversations around national priorities.'

I agree with you both on that one. If we actually had to pay, right now, for what we spend, I don't think anyone would be suggesting we stay in Iraq for another 100 years, for instance...

I would be fine with a balanced budget amendment. I think it would force some painful, but healthy, conversations around national priorities.

But children don't always like to take their medicine. And Congress is a bunch of children (both parties).

But Giuliani's fate is in the hands of others, precisely because he followed a flawed strategy from the beginning. And, even if he "wins" Florida--which would only be by a small margin--he hardly has the momentum to carry him through Tsunami Tuesday. He could cause a brokered convention, but that's about it.

I would say that Rudys' chances of getting the GOP nomination are small but he still has a chance. It's a small chance but it's a chance. It's a scenario that has Romney winning MI today & Thompson or Huckabee winning SC on saturday or just a jumbled result that fails to give any one particular candidate the momentum he needs heading into the 1/29 FL primary. And that's a scenario where Rudy might just have a shot. The media likes a comeback story & if (big "if") there is a jumbled result in the next two contests & if (and it's a big "if") Rudy manages to win FL, guess who the media will be talking about between 1/30 & 2/5? But for all of this to possibly happen, Rudy is depending on events outside his control to get him back in the game for the 1/29 primary & that is never a good position for any campaign to be in.

JD -- in the interest of full disclosure, Rudy originally did balance the budget before then running up a big deficit. In his ads, he only mentions the first part. Tricky, but effective.

On a vaguely related note, can you -- or someone else -- explain to me why we shouldn't have a balanced budget amendment? I know i've repeatedly been told that would be bad for the economy, but it's not obvious to me why that is per se the case. Almost every state is forced to balance its books on a yearly or biannual basis. It strikes me the federal government should have to do the same thing. If it did, we'd all be forced to have much more substantive conversations about what the federal government should and should not be doing. And that would be a good thing, irrespective of where one lies on the political spectrum.

Guiliani gives me the feeling of watching death walking and fouling up the air, making it heavy and hard to breathe in. This is what I feel every time he opens his mouth and says nine-eleven. His soul vacated his body when he vacated on 9/10/2001.

Colin, a reasonable reply. In fact, I'd argue that Clinton in many ways governed as more of a Republican than the current guy we have in there (NAFTA, welfare reform, Bush 41-style tax increases, 'the era of big government is over', etc).

I didn't know that Rudy left a huge deficit in the NYC budget; I had heard that he actually cut taxes and spending, stood up to the overwhelming liberal tax-n-spend establishment, cleaned up the city, etc.

If all he did was borrow-and-spend, well, we can get that with any of the Democrats (and half the Republicans).

Let's be honest, there will not be the commensurate spending cuts needed to offset new tax breaks.

Further tax cuts would worsen the Deficit. A deficit which the Chinese are only too happy to finance.

I don't have the answer here, but I want to ask your opinions -- especially those of you in favor of making Bush's tax breaks permanent.

What are the long-term ramifications of the Chinese financing American deficits?

Meanwhile, back on topic:

I don't think that RG is dead. Yet. The realist in me thinks that at some point in this three-ring circus, the GOP will circle its wagons and go with whatever horse looks like it can win. Even if they have to hold their noses. Right now, that guy looks like McCain.

JD -- First, my comment was directed at Rudy's call for a missibe tax cut above and beyond retaining the current Bush tax cuts.

Second, I have no problem with those who think we should cut taxes and balance those cuts out with corresponding spending cuts. I don't agree, as a general matter, but that's a perfectly reasonable philosophical view. The problem is that the modern day GOP, from Reagan forward, has shown that it doesn't care whether or not tax cuts are balanced out. As has Rudy, I might add, who after initially balancing the budget spent like a drunken sailor and left Bloomberg a huge budget deficit to close.

I won't get into the causation argument about the Bush tax cuts, as neither of us can prove our perspective is correct. I will note, however, that the Clinton administration's economic plan lead to better results by essentially any metric. Which, at the very least, shows that tax cuts are not the only way to stimulate the economy. It also had the added benefit of being fiscally responsible.

what was the underlying cause:

abuse of power and lying under oath. what do you think it was?

spin, spin, spin, still spinning but no one is listening any more. All but the most moonbattiest know how corrupt and power hungry the clintons are. even Dems know it. If she doesn't win, she will cry. all that avarice frustrated. Must be dissappointing.

go quietly into history first trailer trash president and wife.

JD - you are arguing with the head of the leering jackels about the clinton morals. do you ever expect them to relent?

I don't recall rudy beign indicted for anything much less losing his law license, paying millions in damages, etc. but the equivalance in Dem eyes is still there.

you must be a moonbat if.....cue the comedians.

disregard that it was a private citizen who brought the suit against Mr clinton, not "THE GOP". disregard that the clinton administration had the most scandels in presidential history and the most convictions, the most refusals to answer, the most forgetful under oath, etc.

If a criminal continues to arrogantly break the law, eventually they get caught for something. but you know al Capone only got it for Tax evasion.....because all that other stuff was just the vast elliot Ness conspiracy.

to a true moonbat, this is all just the VRWC - cackle, cackle. but it does help avoid the issues for a time. and that is essential to the lefty cause.

JD -- listen. Is this entrapment in the case of a private affair, or is it not? I'm not talking about why he was impeached, I'm talking about what was the underlying cause:

"As Lewinsky's relationship with the President became more distant and after she had left the White House to work at the Pentagon, Lewinsky confided details of her feelings and the President's behavior to her friend and Defense Department co-worker Linda Tripp who secretly recorded their telephone conversations. Tripp delivered the tapes to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who was investigating the President on various other matters."

jimd52, you're right. Unfortunately for McCain, he has to win the Republican nomination first. And then he has to persuade the Republicans who hate him to vote for him in the general.

And I apologize, all, for my previous comment. I don't think all Republicans believe only in more power for Republicans. I do, however, know that some Republicans can somehow unthinkingly attack a Democrat and defend a Republican for the exact same offense. And I'm sick of having to scroll through the petty back-and-forth here instigated by a couple of stalwart Republicans who are more interested in heat than light. To me, that is boring boring boring. And, ooo, looky there, new thread.

JimD writes
"I agree that McCain and Clinton both have ceilings of support within their parties. However, I think that McCain's ceiling with the general electorate is much higher than Clinton's."

While the above is true, there's really not much meat there in terms of helping predict a potential Clinton v McCain matchup in the general.

I tend to agree that independents would swing to McCain, but upon what base are their votes building? Will McCain draw committed GOP voters? Will Clinton inspire GOP voters to stop her? Will Dems be inspired to support Clinton?

Or is sex between consenting adults a crime?

Posted by: claudialong | January 15, 2008 01:47 PM

sigh. you know, I only have myself to blame for the headache I get when trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Claudia, please go back and re-read what I wrote. And when you realize it was not the sex he was impeached for, will you be willing to drop this? Ever?

What's that you say - No?

OK then. I give up. You win.

JD writes
"By any reasonable analysis, the two economic shots in the arm, in the form of tax cuts, largely mitigated the damage [of 9/11]."

An equally compelling theory is that, in the face of uncertain threats from external forces, Americans were looking to focus on personal security & comfort. Couple that mindset with the then-recent crash in the equities market & people turned to what felt like a safer investment - real estate. People upgraded to bigger houses, driving prices up, which put money into sellers' pockets, contractors' pockets and lenders' pockets. As our economy now teters on the edge of stagnation, if not outright recession, the cause is not that taxes have gone up - which your theory would imply - but that whatever was driving the economy recently has ceased to do so. That driver wasn't tax cuts, it was the booming real estate economy, coupled with cheap credit & lax lending requirements.

'Apparently it was targeted to a
religious audience - lots of talk about "morals." Maybe Rudy, like so many other candidates, would like the opportunity to reinvent himself?'

Hey pamela --I like Putnam County -- almost bought some property in Putnam Valley in fact.

'Morals?' Oh, that's rich.

novamatt

I agree that McCain and Clinton both have ceilings of support within their parties. However, I think that McCain's ceiling with the general electorate is much higher than Clinton's.

'Claudia, when someone commits a crime, do you blame the criminal, or the policeman who catches the criminal?'

You're getting all emotional and irrational, JD. If it's entrapment for political purposes, I think I'll go for respecting privacy. There was no 'crime' before the GOP decided to create one.

Or is sex between consenting adults a crime?

My sister, from Putnam County, NY, is currently in Florida. She hasn't heard a lot of buzz about the election, but what she has heard has been "all Rudy." His are the only commercials she's seen.

On Sunday, when she left church, there was a Rudy pamphlet on everyone's car window. Apparently it was targeted to a
religious audience - lots of talk about "morals." Maybe Rudy, like so many other candidates, would like the opportunity to reinvent himself?

The 9/11 attacks could easily have hammered this country's 'economy for a long time. '

Or they might not have. One is as likely as the other. NYC, particularly, is very resiliant.

Claudia, when someone commits a crime, do you blame the criminal, or the policeman who catches the criminal?

Hey, I have an idea: let's fire all the cops in the country. Then the US crime rate will be zero.

OK bsimon, I concede that correlation does not equal causation. But the problem is, things never stay equal; we have only causation to allow for educated guesses on their economic effects. If we could freeze all other variables, including inport, export, gas prices, weather, population/immigration, and technological advancement - well, maybe we could have such a measurement.

So, a little deductive reasoning is called for. The 9/11 attacks could easily have hammered this country's economy for a long time. By any reasonable analysis, the two economic shots in the arm, in the form of tax cuts, largely mitigated the damage.

"By watching that new ad it seems that Guiliani and his people are reading the papers, no mention of 9/11. This guy is so unelectable.

No matter how many people said after the attack on NYC that 'We are all New Yorkers' it's crap. Most people either hate or envy people from NY. They may like the idea of NY but know nothing about us or the city. Nor will they vote for someone from here. Least of all a wife cheating, mob tied, lisping freak like him."-pbnyc

I agree with the conclusion, ie Guiliani is unelectable, but come on dude... most people go their entire month without thinking about NYC... envy/hate ya'll? You gotta be kidding, right? My best friend growing up lives in NYC, Don't envy him, don't hate ya'll weeks pass without even thinking about the place..

I do hate the Yankees, but that's half the fun of baseball, right? You guys need to quit taking yourself so seriously.

' He was impeached by lying about it to a grand jury. You *do* understand that salient point, don't you?'

I asked you to stop being condescending. Do you have a permanent sneer? Why did a private affair get before a grand jury? Becuase the GOP wanted to bring Clinton down and they were willing to do anything to achieve that -- no other reason.

Of course if Republicans were really believed perjury to be such an ignoble act, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, friendless and alone, would be scratching another line onto his prison cell wall today.

Republicans believe in more power for Republicans. Everything else about their "values" and "policies" is pure sophistry.

Leave it to some lilly white honk feminist to dismiss racism. claudia, I've been the recipient of racism my whole life and I certainly know it when I see it. The Clinton's are likewise bigots and their supporters are either blind or, more likely, bigots themselves. The Clitnon's introduced racism into this campaign and now they are going to eat it and choke on it.

JD writes
"have the 2 tax cuts stimulated the economy, post 9/11? Any objective person would say yes: unemployment <5% (historically this is full employement), very low interest rates, growing GDP and productivity year over year. This is called evidence."

JD, what you post is not called evidence. You have noted multiple things that have happened during the Bush admin, but you haven't proved any causal relationships. For instance, why is the unemployment rate in Michigan so much higher than elsewhere in the US? Do they not have the same tax structure as the nation as a whole? What about the 90s, when low unemployment existed with higher tax rates than we have now? Same thing for the growing GDP & productivity - where is the proof that tax cuts have a measurable impact on changes to those metrics? You haven't offered any.

McCain, it seems to me, like Clinton, has a ceiling of support in his own party, and both may be around 50% or so. Of the three legs of the GOP, all have legitimate beefs with him. Plus, I haven't heard lately, but I'm guessing he's still underfunded, and that's going to really matter in another week. Time will tell if the non-McCain Republicans coalesce around a single candidate, but it's difficult for me to believe that McCain will end up the party's nominee.

My WAG at this point for GOP nominee is still Romney. No one in the GOP likes him very much, but no one hates him either. Still hoping, though, for a BROKERED CONVENTION.

Though I think Rudy has a chance at the nomination, the idea that he could win NY is laughable. He is loathed there. And the idea that he would complain of Obama's experience, when he himself has zero nada zilch federal government experience (yes, I am aware of his time as a federal prosecutor, but it was still focused on his region), well, that is laughable too. He has experience leading New York, I grant you. But to compare his experience to Obama's? That would be foolish of him, methinks.

Claudia, I guess you don't listen.

#1) it wasn't 'my party' who impeached Bill. It was the GOP.

#2) my read was that he was impeached not over the sex act, not over the infidelity, and not over the sexual harrassment. He was impeached by lying about it to a grand jury. You *do* understand that salient point, don't you?

#3) if you have a problem with Rudy's morals, then you're welcome to not vote for him. But to act increduluous that some would support his policies (including some very reasonable ones) is to betray your ignorance on the subject. Hence the (appropriately targeted) condescention.

Now, we're begging you: Drop the Clinton rant. We get it; he charmed you (along with most American women). He's not running anymore (sort of). So, as your favorite 527 suggests, move on.

US senator John McCain, once widely written off in the race for the White House, has emerged as the clear favourite for the Republican presidential nominee as support for Rudy Giuliani plummets, two major nationwide polls showed yesterday.

A survey conducted jointly by CBS News and The New York Times indicated that following his primary election win last week in New Hampshire, Senator McCain now leads the national Republican race over former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, by 33 per cent to 18 per cent.

Senator McCain is seen as the most electable and leads among conservatives as well as moderates with 41 per cent of the vote, up from 7 per cent in December, according to the poll.

Support for Mr Giuliani, the former Republican national frontrunner, is at just 10 per cent, down from 22 per cent at the last poll. His perceived electability has fallen to 12per cent, from 43 per cent last month.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll yesterday also had Senator McCain as a clear leader for his party nationwide, again at the expense of Mr Giuliani.

FORT MYERS, FLA. -- For an hour Monday, Rudolph W. Giuliani passionately made his case to voters seated in the Shell Point retirement community chapel.

He talked of tax cuts and terrorist attacks, of building up the military and cracking down on illegal immigration.

But in the end, he didn't seem to close the deal.

Dozens of the more than 1,000 who attended the town hall event took off before Giuliani finished his speech, leaving rows of seats empty.

"I didn't hear anything I hadn't heard before," said Barbara Vitello, 71.

I don't need a coach, thanks. I can see for myself what's going on.

Please stop your arrogant condesension. This is what passes for you as 'debate'. Sorry, but it makes YOU look foolish and childish to deny the fact that your party spent $70 million taxpayer dollars and ground the whole nation's business to a halt over a bl*w job and now you support a man with the morals of a junkyard dog is a tad -- shall we say inconsistent? Or perhaps even--dare I say it -- hypocritical?

Drindl votes based on what she reads on Pahe 6. she must ignore
taxes
war
economics
health care

she and her moonbat friends have no ability to analyze the situation, prefering to rely on Krazy Keith, huff and Kos to dictate talking points. when the issues actually surface, which they inevitably will ( the Rs are already debating them while the Dems studiously avoid them) the Dems will look like a bunch of washed up old hippies with no adults to tell them to bathe.

Claudia, I'm going to use this as a coaching moment for you:

If you think I haven't been against Bush admin increasing spending and ballooning the deficit, you're either crazy, lying, or not paying attention.

And have the 2 tax cuts stimulated the economy, post 9/11? Any objective person would say yes: unemployment <5% (historically this is full employement), very low interest rates, growing GDP and productivity year over year. This is called evidence. If you've got evidence ot the contrary, preferably not cribbed out of Huffpost, I'd be happy to read it, post a cite.

And please stop citing the Clinton impeachment; we've moved on. By continually re-fighting this battle, it makes you look foolish and childish.

Interesting. Our "liberal" feminists like braindead claudialong toss off sexist terms and accuse men of homosexual tendancies as if it were an insult and, in the next btreath, accuse everyone else of sexual bigotry. It's very easy to tell a Clinton partisan, they're all sociopaths for who right and wrong, reality and delussion, have no meaning whatsoever. Racist bigots and scounderals all.

republicans screamed in horror at a bl*w job

Actually it was abuse of power over a sexual misconduct suit. the clintons use private eyes, the IRS, the FBI, anything to smear their opponents. they simply have no morals to speak of. It only emerged as related to sex because the liberal media ignored all the other non-salacious stuff.

Listening to POTUS '08 on the way to lunch, I heard the pollster, John Zogby, say that Ds would vote for McC 2-1 in MI, despite being asked by Kos [sp ?] to x-over to vote for Romney. He said that he thought 17% of the R Primary vote would come from Ds.

FYI, if anybody without POTUS08 is interested.

So many Libs so eager to declare the Rs dead and buried. Just like the losing the war claim. Always eager for a loss.

Well Mc Cain wasn't out of it. the war wasn't lost. And rudy will return to prominence. he is still leading in all but a very few national polls. and to Libs this is dead and gone.

If I were you Libs, I would concentrate on not getting a candidate who you will cause you to suffer great remorse (again). but alas, it is too late for that already. you have already narrowed the field to two losers. A corrupt power hungry megalomaniac and a sheltered, idealistic neophtye who would be the second coming of Jimmy carter.

'That alone qualifies him to be worthy of the top job, imo, and should he get the nomination I would gladly support him.'

funny how republicans screamed in horror at a bl*w job -- he's not fit for office! what will we tell the children! but a man who puts his 3rd mistress on the public payroll, then publicly parades her around humiliating his wife and children, then dumps his wife and children for a loony goldigger -- no problem.

Proud - I beleive that most of the R candidates are short of $$. but as far as I know Rudy has about $7M on hand, the most of them all. he is also spending it in expensive states like NY, FL and CA.

It is a good lesson to do what you can with less, something the Ds are totally incapable of doing. If they run out, they forcibly take it from you to continue spending. that is the Lib way.

Rudy's problem is that the more people pay attention to the race, the more appealing other candidates become and the more his numbers drop. Back last summer and fall when all this was purely theoretical, his name shone like gold. As we got closer and closer to people actually voting, people started looking around for someone they actually liked rather than had merely heard of.

My question: after Rudy finishes third or fourth in Florida, will he endorse one of the remaining candidates when he withdraws?

'Every Democratic candidate has proposed huge increases in spending (around health care particularly) without an honest accounting of how it would be paid for. A vote for one of them is a tacit vote for exploding the deficit, increasing inflation, and weakening the dollar.'

Strange how that's exactly what the Bush administration has been doing for 7 years now but it never bothered you. Odd how that works, isn't it? And if tax cuts always stimulate the economy, well we;ve had 7 years of tax cuts and funny thing-- I don't see a great economy. But i do see an enormous and growing deficit -- also a dollar so weak we're now the bargain basement mall of the world. Also, remember how tax cuts were going to create jobs? Where are they?

And when the number one reason people are going bankrupt is medical bills, gee, maybe it would be sensible to do something to address that, if you REALLY had any interest in the economy, rather than just a willful blindness and hatred of paying taxes.

"Libertarians would tell you that reducing federal revenues would constrain the ever-growing suffocating presence [of government]"

They could say it, but that wouldn't make it true.

My final scorecard on these five issues is as follows:

On the war on terror, Giuliani is the best candidate; McCain is a distant second.

On immigration, Giuliani is the best candidate; Romney is a close second.

On the economy, Giuliani and Romney are equally strong; McCain is a distant third.

On health care reform, Giuliani is the best candidate; Romney is a distant second.

On Supreme Court appointments, all three candidates are equally strong.

In sum, Rudy Giuliani is the best choice among the three leading GOP candidates. He is not a "perfect" choice. His liberal social views and his messy personal life are hardly what we would like to see in a Republican president. Nevertheless, on the issues that matter most, he offers the most conservative policies and the most effective leadership.

Rudy Giuliani should be the GOP nominee for 2008.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/rudy_giuliani_should_be_gop_no.html

"Conservatives would tell you that lowering taxes is one of the surest ways to stoke the economy"

They could say it, but that wouldn't make it true.

'What is truly despicable about this is the Clinton's use of surrogates to defame Obama's church. '

Uhhh, the Washington Post is Clinton's surrogate. I'm sure that will come as a surprise to George Will and Krauthammer.

"After rommney wins MI the muddle will be clear as mud and ripe for the pickin'. anything to stop the evil clinton monster."

I agree 100%, zouk. I think Romney will likely win today in MI. Rudy's strategy does sort of hinge on him getting a much needed influx of cash, but if he can prevail in FL then that should take care of itself.

In a year where everyone's clammoring for change, Rudy is one of the rare pols who actually made it happen in the quagmire of adversity known as the Big Apple. That alone qualifies him to be worthy of the top job, imo, and should he get the nomination I would gladly support him.

Colin, you ask why the country needs more tax cuts (or, more accurately, why the 'Bush cuts' shouldn't be allowed to expire in 2010).

Conservatives would tell you that lowering taxes is one of the surest ways to stoke the economy, which at this point certainly seems in the downward stroke of the economic cycle.

Libertarians would tell you that reducing federal revenues would constrain the ever-growing suffocating presence that big federal government and regulations
can stifle small business.

Every Democratic candidate has proposed huge increases in spending (around health care particularly) without an honest accounting of how it would be paid for. A vote for one of them is a tacit vote for exploding the deficit, increasing inflation, and weakening the dollar.

That's Rudy's argument, and it's not a bad one frankly.

"McCain has been a consistent supporter of the Iraq war and recently said that he could imagine keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years. When asked about this during an ABC News interview the day after his New Hampshire victory, McCain added with a flourish: "Could be 1,000 years or a million years."

What flavor koolaid do they put in the RNC's water cooler? I mean, wtf? This election looks like a contest to see who can prove they're the most batsh*t crazy.

The Republican delegates--who, through the primaries, get to choose the party's candidate for the general election--seem hell-bent on electing a Democratic president.

Why would I say such a thing? Well, so far, polling suggests that these people are more interested in propping up candidates who have little or no chance of winning a general election, based on the fact that most of America is socially moderate, fiscally conservative, and more or less in the political mushy middle.

The only candidate with any mass appeal or ability to prevent a Democrat from getting into the White House is Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani's the only GOPer who could destroy B. Hussein Obama: If Obama manages to pull an upset over Hillary Clinton and take the Democratic nod (and that's a BIG 'if'), Giuliani's the only one with enough experience to make Obama look like a toddler - or rather like a yappy puppy with his nose pressed up against the pet store window barking, "Change, change, ch-ch-ch-ch-change, ruff, ruff, change". B. Hussein is equally in danger of ending up where thinks he wants to be, without a clue as to what to do once he actually gets there.

The media hates Rudy: The mainstream media loves Mike Huckabee and hates Rudy. When you're a conservative who suddenly finds yourself on the same cheering squad as the liberal media, doesn't that concern you?

Rudy Doesn't Need Cheat Sheets: As nice a guy that I think Fred Thompson is, he has the habit of referring to notes a lot. (Memorize the damn script, Fred. You're an actor!) Electing a president who's glued to notes while talking about the economy as we potentially head into a recession is like choosing a surgeon who has to consult a manual when performing a craniotomy. Giuliani can talk about anything from in-depth foreign affairs to his growth-generating tax plan without having to resort to using his hand as a cheat sheet.

Giuliani's the only GOPer who can withstand a Clinton dirt-digging mission: Hear that noise? It's the infamous Clinton bulldozer, revving up in preparation for a major excavation in the GOP nominee's backyard! Giuliani's the only one in the Republican field who has inoculated himself against a "smutological dig" by taking himself out of the contest for Jesus' Gold Star early on. Not to say that Giuliani would ever pull a Bill Clinton "Oral Office" stunt, but if he ever did, you'd know he'd be thinking about Bin Laden the whole time.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1390

What is truly despicable about this is the Clinton's use of surrogates to defame Obama's church. Today the Post carries an "hit job" accusing that chruch of being connected with Louis Farrakhan. The truth is, the pastor used Mr. Farrakhan, Bill Cosby, and Colin Powell as examples of black men who advocate families, not using drugs, not being in gangs, avoiding pre-marital sex, community action, all those things everyone claims to want for the black community. They even have claimed that the chruch is racist, one Clinton operative claiming that they hate whites. Having been to that church I can tell you that the keyboard player on the worship team is white, a number of members of the congregation are white, and Trinity is in no way anything other than a very good Evangelical Christian church. Yet, the Clinton's have smeared it, stooping so low as to use race baiting and racist attacks on a mostly black Christian church in their negative campaigning. Hillary obviously desires blacks to be slaves, to "know their place", and be dependent on and grateful for her lilly white mastership. It's sickening. The racist scumbags of the CLitnon camp are a throwback to the KKK and the worst of the Southern cross burners. I thought we had consigned these monsters to the garbage heap of history. Now, we find out that this "liberal white feminist" is a racist swine. It make me want to vomit. And, where is the Democratic leadership in condemning her and her racist campaign? One thing you can say about Romney, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, all of the Republican's, is that none of them has stooped to the level of Clinton's racist campaign. Clinton needs to drop out of the Presidential contest. She is now a liability for all Democrats.

On "Meet the Press" Sunday, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton repeated her bogus claim that she voted for the Iraq war resolution because she thought it was "a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did, in fact, pose." She's taking heat for her vote on the war. What to do? Deflect the heat from her record.

San Francisco Chronicle, by Debra J. Saunders

Out of sight, out of mind for Rudy. Thought he was a shoo in. Now I like Huckabee or McCain in FL. Rudy is very authoritarian like Bush so would be an awful Prez plus he knows zero about governing a state. NYC is some help but it is a third world nation and not much help in learning how to govern a rich nation like the USA.

simply because all the loony lefty moonbats are contrary to Rudy enforces my conviction that he is the best for the job.

go rudy.

Win FL, NY, CT, NJ, CA just as planned.

After rommney wins MI the muddle will be clear as mud and ripe for the pickin'. anything to stop the evil clinton monster.

I'll find out myself. Thanks

"spacefreak Aug 22, 2004 07:31 PM

46.000 registered to vote in both NY and Florida
Simply amazing.
Quote
Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows.

...............

The News' investigation also found:

- Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party.

- Nearly 1,700 of those registered in both states requested that absentee ballots be mailed to their home in the other state, where they are also registered. But that doesn't raise red flags with officials in either place
"

r

u

f

'bsimon, as usual you are an island of reason amid a sea of emotional immaturity.'

the definition of 'emotional immaturity' is having a different viewpoint than JD, just so you all know.

I agree, and have been saying in here for months, that Giuliani could win the nomination. He will have to win Florida to remain viable. His support has been fading here. McCain and Huckabee are both gaining ground and this process seems to be accelerated when they win a primary or caucus. Should McCain win Michigan and South Carolina, I think that would propel him to victory in Florida. Should Mitt take Michigan and Huckabee South Carolina, Rudy could emerge as the winner in Florida. Then we would have a mad scramble for February 5th.

CC, you write "Romney's lead in his home state creates the real potential that three different Republican candidates will have won the first three states,".

I hate to break it to you, but this situation has already come about. Huckabee won Iowa, Romney won Wyoming and McCain won New Hampshire. If Romney (or indeed McCain) wins Michigan it will be his second state.

You also might like to note that Nevada votes on the same day as South Carolina, and elects more delegates - more than Michigan too.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

CC's post about Rudy is indicative of the growing media attention that will be paid to Rudy as the FL primary approaches. R