Fox poll: Giuliani would beat Clinton by 14 points - if terrorist attack happens

[Tender Branson]

NEW YORK —  A majority of Americans say they would feel more comfortable with Rudy Giuliani in the White House than Hillary Clinton if another terrorist attack were to happen in the United States, according to a new FOX News poll.

When compared to other top Republican candidates, more voters see Giuliani as hardworking and as a strong leader, while Clinton leads the Democratic field for not only having the right experience, but also being able to bring about change — as well as doing whatever it takes to win. Views are divided on whether it’s appropriate for Oprah Winfrey to use her celebrity status to encourage support of Barack Obama.

The latest FOX News poll shows that if the United States were hit with a terrorist attack, by a 50 percent to 36 percent margin, Americans would rather have Giuliani in charge than Clinton, including 28 percent of Democrats and an overwhelming 80 percent of Republicans. Independents split in Giuliani’s favor 47 percent to Clinton’s 28 percent.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 11 to Sept. 12. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296714,00.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully Bin Laden doesn't get any ideas.

[Tender Branson]

Hopefully Bin Laden doesn't get any ideas.

Or the Republican Special Teams ...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would be great if he was arrested before he does another reverse psychology endorsement of the Republicans.

[Reaganfan]

No surprise here, Republicans tend to be seen as stronger on national security. After all, the only two democratic presidents in nearly half a century (Carter and Clinton) were terrible foreign policy leaders.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No surprise here, Republicans tend to be seen as stronger on national security. After all, the only two democratic presidents in nearly half a century (Carter and Clinton) were terrible foreign policy leaders.

What?

[Middle-aged Europe]

No surprise here, Republicans tend to be seen as stronger on national security. After all, the only two democratic presidents in nearly half a century (Carter and Clinton) were terrible foreign policy leaders.

What?

I'm quite not sure what's the most hilarious aspect of Naso's post here.

But instead of the obvious one, I will simply go with the fact that he a) seems to consider 30 years to be "nearly half a century" (yeah, 600 years are almost a full millenium too ) or b) recognizes JFK and LBJ as Republican presidents.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

No surprise here, Republicans tend to be seen as stronger on national security. After all, the only two democratic presidents in nearly half a century (Carter and Clinton) were terrible foreign policy leaders.

What?

I'm quite not sure what's the most hilarious aspect of Naso's post here.

But instead of the obvious one, I will simply go with the fact that he a) seems to consider 30 years to be "nearly half a century" (yeah, 600 years are almost a full millenium too ) or b) recognizes JFK and LBJ as Republican presidents.

It's been 40 years since LBJ, not 30.

[Reaganfan]

No surprise here, Republicans tend to be seen as stronger on national security. After all, the only two democratic presidents in nearly half a century (Carter and Clinton) were terrible foreign policy leaders.

What?

I'm quite not sure what's the most hilarious aspect of Naso's post here.

But instead of the obvious one, I will simply go with the fact that he a) seems to consider 30 years to be "nearly half a century" (yeah, 600 years are almost a full millenium too ) or b) recognizes JFK and LBJ as Republican presidents.

1969 to 2009 is 40 years...that's almost half a century.

(R-CA) Nixon (1969-1974)
(R-MI) Ford (1974-1977)
(D-GA) Carter (1977-1981)
(R-CA) Reagan (1981-1989)
(R-TX) Bush (1989-1993)
(D-AR) Clinton (1993-2001)
(R-TX) Bush (2001-2009)

Only two democrats. 5 out 7 Presidents in 40 years are Republicans.

[Middle-aged Europe]

1969 to 2009 is 40 years...that's almost half a century.

What, and now it's 2009 already? Damn, I must have missed two birthdays!!!


Even to call 38 years "almost half a century" is a bit of a stretch... especially considering that 46 years (1961-2007) is even closer to "nearly half a century" and this would mean four democratic presidents instead of two. But it's quite amusing how are you trying to weazel out of this. So, go on please.

[RRB]

I'm sure the neocons have something planned as we speak.  This is the only way to keep Hillary from winning and they will do anything to keep the money and the war machine going.  A false flag means a republican in the Whitehouse and bombs headed to Iran.

Somebody call my broaker, I want stock in KBR and Exxon.  If the right wing criminals are going to make money than I may as well too.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The thing that boggles my mind is calling Carter and Clinton bad foreign policy presidents.

Ok, the Iranian episode was bad - but he did broker the ONLY lasting ME Peace Agreement. Clinton had the 1993 Accords (1998 kinda screwed things), the overthrow of Milosevic, working with Blair over N.Ireland.

You do realise foreign policy and military policy are at time separate things. Bush has turned international diplomacy into an d**k measuring contest... with not wholly positive outcomes.

Funnily, the only thing this poll tells me again, is that Giuliani's only ONLY claim as presidential candiate was who he was and where he was on 9/11.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The thing that boggles my mind is calling Carter and Clinton bad foreign policy presidents.

Yeah, that's the one I called "obvious".

[Eraserhead]

Why would the neocons worry about Clinton getting in? She agrees with their foreign policy views.

[Angel of Death]

I can't believe how stupid Americans are in not realizing how the Republicans are trying to have it both ways when it comes to the occurrence of terrorist attacks.

[Hash]

What are retarded poll question.

They should ask what if aliens invaded the earth next.

[Lief 🗽]

Carter and Clinton were more successful foreign policy-wise that Ronald "Overthrow democracies, replace 'em with fascists" Reagan and George W. "Worst foreign policy disaster in our nation's history" Bush.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Typical of FOX News and typical of the right-wing media. Always trying to scare people, no it seems they've even done it with opinion polling. If they really wanted to scare people they should have asked, would you vote for Rudy Giuliani over Hillary Clinton if a terrorist attack occured, if Giuliani was in drag.

[RRB]

Why would the neocons worry about Clinton getting in? She agrees with their foreign policy views.

Good point!!!!!!

[Person Man]

What if the zombies of soldiers came back to vote democratic?

[Eraserhead]

Murdoch is pushing for a Clinton-Giuliani election because then either way he wins in the end.

[HardRCafé]

The thing that boggles my mind is calling Carter and Clinton bad foreign policy presidents.

With all due respect, is this the first you have heard of the Carter presidency?  Carter's foreign policy was as big and bad a joke as Bush's malapropisms.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The thing that boggles my mind is calling Carter and Clinton bad foreign policy presidents.

With all due respect, is this the first you have heard of the Carter presidency?  Carter's foreign policy was as big and bad a joke as Bush's malapropisms.

Respectfully - Carter made some WHOPPER mistakes (his handling of Iran in particular) - the Nicarguan Ports issue, I'm aware of that - but the Egypt-Israel Agreement is the only one to last.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Murdoch is pushing for a Clinton-Giuliani election because then either way he wins in the end.

Truth.