Can Giuliani beat Obama?

[12th Doctor]

getting the economy back on track, cutting spending and lowering taxes.

Yeah, like Giuliani would do that, all in between starting World War III.

And yet, Rudy spent most of the primaries talking about issues other than 9/11... and the more he did, the more his poll numbers dragged down.  There are times when it is proper to blame the voters, not the candidate.

Doesn't change the fact that Giuliani is a neocon warmonger who has nothing to offer other than war, war, and more war.

"Neoconservatism" is a myth.  If there is one thing I have learned about politics over the past 8 years, it is that.  Its a ridiculous notion, cooked up by fear mongering conspiracy theories, and based off of the notion that there is some kinda of attempt to form a New World Order in the bowls of government, when, in reality, these people have little or nothing to do with one another.

Also, there has never been a foriegn policy perspective called "conservatism" so I am not sure what we are "neo-ing" here.  The perspective of these people is actually "neo-liberalism" but if we called it that, people might get warm and fuzzy feeling about it, so we must call it something that sounds sinister.

What is your point?

I guess I didn't make it clear enough:

"People who run around spreading fear about "neocons" starting wars to spread a NWO are dumbasses."

Clear enough for you?

No, not really. All I gathered from your posting here is that you have a hard-on for Rudy and that you tend to reflexively attack anything that could possibly challenge your worldview.

An ironic observation, as your reflexive attacks against a worldview that doesn't exist are exactly what started this discussion of ours.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

getting the economy back on track, cutting spending and lowering taxes.

Yeah, like Giuliani would do that, all in between starting World War III.

And yet, Rudy spent most of the primaries talking about issues other than 9/11... and the more he did, the more his poll numbers dragged down.  There are times when it is proper to blame the voters, not the candidate.

Doesn't change the fact that Giuliani is a neocon warmonger who has nothing to offer other than war, war, and more war.

"Neoconservatism" is a myth.  If there is one thing I have learned about politics over the past 8 years, it is that.  Its a ridiculous notion, cooked up by fear mongering conspiracy theories, and based off of the notion that there is some kinda of attempt to form a New World Order in the bowls of government, when, in reality, these people have little or nothing to do with one another.

Also, there has never been a foriegn policy perspective called "conservatism" so I am not sure what we are "neo-ing" here.  The perspective of these people is actually "neo-liberalism" but if we called it that, people might get warm and fuzzy feeling about it, so we must call it something that sounds sinister.

What is your point?

I guess I didn't make it clear enough:

"People who run around spreading fear about "neocons" starting wars to spread a NWO are dumbasses."

Clear enough for you?

No, not really. All I gathered from your posting here is that you have a hard-on for Rudy and that you tend to reflexively attack anything that could possibly challenge your worldview.

An ironic observation, as your reflexive attacks against a worldview that doesn't exist are exactly what started this discussion of ours.

Listen, if you really think there PNAC & crew are figments of my imagination, you have serious issues.

[12th Doctor]

getting the economy back on track, cutting spending and lowering taxes.

Yeah, like Giuliani would do that, all in between starting World War III.

And yet, Rudy spent most of the primaries talking about issues other than 9/11... and the more he did, the more his poll numbers dragged down.  There are times when it is proper to blame the voters, not the candidate.

Doesn't change the fact that Giuliani is a neocon warmonger who has nothing to offer other than war, war, and more war.

"Neoconservatism" is a myth.  If there is one thing I have learned about politics over the past 8 years, it is that.  Its a ridiculous notion, cooked up by fear mongering conspiracy theories, and based off of the notion that there is some kinda of attempt to form a New World Order in the bowls of government, when, in reality, these people have little or nothing to do with one another.

Also, there has never been a foriegn policy perspective called "conservatism" so I am not sure what we are "neo-ing" here.  The perspective of these people is actually "neo-liberalism" but if we called it that, people might get warm and fuzzy feeling about it, so we must call it something that sounds sinister.

What is your point?

I guess I didn't make it clear enough:

"People who run around spreading fear about "neocons" starting wars to spread a NWO are dumbasses."

Clear enough for you?

No, not really. All I gathered from your posting here is that you have a hard-on for Rudy and that you tend to reflexively attack anything that could possibly challenge your worldview.

An ironic observation, as your reflexive attacks against a worldview that doesn't exist are exactly what started this discussion of ours.

Listen, if you really think there PNAC & crew are figments of my imagination, you have serious issues.

Yes, PNAC... a massively well organized, global conspiracy that, thus far has succeeded in achieving absolutely none of its goals.  But that is the way these conspiracies always seem to work, right?  I mean, they are always dangerous because of how influential they are, but then never seem to be influential enough to actually get anything done.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

getting the economy back on track, cutting spending and lowering taxes.

Yeah, like Giuliani would do that, all in between starting World War III.

And yet, Rudy spent most of the primaries talking about issues other than 9/11... and the more he did, the more his poll numbers dragged down.  There are times when it is proper to blame the voters, not the candidate.

Doesn't change the fact that Giuliani is a neocon warmonger who has nothing to offer other than war, war, and more war.

"Neoconservatism" is a myth.  If there is one thing I have learned about politics over the past 8 years, it is that.  Its a ridiculous notion, cooked up by fear mongering conspiracy theories, and based off of the notion that there is some kinda of attempt to form a New World Order in the bowls of government, when, in reality, these people have little or nothing to do with one another.

Also, there has never been a foriegn policy perspective called "conservatism" so I am not sure what we are "neo-ing" here.  The perspective of these people is actually "neo-liberalism" but if we called it that, people might get warm and fuzzy feeling about it, so we must call it something that sounds sinister.

What is your point?

I guess I didn't make it clear enough:

"People who run around spreading fear about "neocons" starting wars to spread a NWO are dumbasses."

Clear enough for you?

No, not really. All I gathered from your posting here is that you have a hard-on for Rudy and that you tend to reflexively attack anything that could possibly challenge your worldview.

An ironic observation, as your reflexive attacks against a worldview that doesn't exist are exactly what started this discussion of ours.

Listen, if you really think there PNAC & crew are figments of my imagination, you have serious issues.

Yes, PNAC... a massively well organized, global conspiracy that, thus far has succeeded in achieving absolutely none of its goals.  But that is the way these conspiracies always seem to work, right?  I mean, they are always dangerous because of how influential they are, but then never seem to be influential enough to actually get anything done.

None of its goals? Two perpetual wars built upon lies that have cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the rapid transformation of our foreign policy into one of total pre-emptive recklessness, the bombing and committing of war crimes indiscriminately around the world, and now the agitating for more war against Iran and Pakistan? Along with this has come nearly a decade now of "terror" hysteria, the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the PROTECT America Act, illegal wiretapping, indefinite imprisonment without trial, torture. The neocons don't exist? Wake up, man.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

there were many reasons why Giuliani lost the primaries.

1. Iowa was a relatively inhospitable climate for a liberal Republican like Giuliani, plus Huckabee and Romney had sucked most of the oxygen out.
2. NH much more receptive, but dominance by neighboring-state Romney and McCain.
3. Michigan, see above, with a more conservative base at the panhandle.
4. SC - speaks for itself.
and after 4 consecutive last place finishes.. is Giuliani ready for victory?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

there were many reasons why Giuliani lost the primaries.

1. Iowa was a relatively inhospitable climate for a liberal Republican like Giuliani, plus Huckabee and Romney had sucked most of the oxygen out.
2. NH much more receptive, but dominance by neighboring-state Romney and McCain.
3. Michigan, see above, with a more conservative base at the panhandle.
4. SC - speaks for itself.
and after 4 consecutive last place finishes.. is Giuliani ready for victory?

Even Huckabee finished ahead of Giuliani in NH.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

there were many reasons why Giuliani lost the primaries.

1. Iowa was a relatively inhospitable climate for a liberal Republican like Giuliani, plus Huckabee and Romney had sucked most of the oxygen out.
2. NH much more receptive, but dominance by neighboring-state Romney and McCain.
3. Michigan, see above, with a more conservative base at the panhandle.
4. SC - speaks for itself.
and after 4 consecutive last place finishes.. is Giuliani ready for victory?

Even Huckabee finished ahead of Giuliani in NH.

because Giuliani didn't campaign there. (not that i supported him anyway) but Giuliani's strategy was to lose 4 or 5 primaries, then jump in at Florida and say "Here I am, ready to win!" it was a serious blunder. Thompson's was equally bad, though his purpose was more or less to throw the primary to McCain.

Although, even under more favorable circumstances, I'm not sure Giuliani could've won the primary. I remember reading somewhere that Giuliani's biggest problem was Giuliani.

[President Mitt]

there were many reasons why Giuliani lost the primaries.

1. Iowa was a relatively inhospitable climate for a liberal Republican like Giuliani, plus Huckabee and Romney had sucked most of the oxygen out.
2. NH much more receptive, but dominance by neighboring-state Romney and McCain.
3. Michigan, see above, with a more conservative base at the panhandle.
4. SC - speaks for itself.
and after 4 consecutive last place finishes.. is Giuliani ready for victory?

Even Huckabee finished ahead of Giuliani in NH.

because Giuliani didn't campaign there. (not that i supported him anyway) but Giuliani's strategy was to lose 4 or 5 primaries, then jump in at Florida and say "Here I am, ready to win!" it was a serious blunder. Thompson's was equally bad, though his purpose was more or less to throw the primary to McCain.

Although, even under more favorable circumstances, I'm not sure Giuliani could've won the primary. I remember reading somewhere that Giuliani's biggest problem was Giuliani.

Actually, Giuliani campaigned quite tediously there. I think he spent the third largest amount in New Hampshire, only behind Mitt Romney and John McCain.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

there were many reasons why Giuliani lost the primaries.

1. Iowa was a relatively inhospitable climate for a liberal Republican like Giuliani, plus Huckabee and Romney had sucked most of the oxygen out.
2. NH much more receptive, but dominance by neighboring-state Romney and McCain.
3. Michigan, see above, with a more conservative base at the panhandle.
4. SC - speaks for itself.
and after 4 consecutive last place finishes.. is Giuliani ready for victory?

Even Huckabee finished ahead of Giuliani in NH.

because Giuliani didn't campaign there. (not that i supported him anyway) but Giuliani's strategy was to lose 4 or 5 primaries, then jump in at Florida and say "Here I am, ready to win!" it was a serious blunder. Thompson's was equally bad, though his purpose was more or less to throw the primary to McCain.

Although, even under more favorable circumstances, I'm not sure Giuliani could've won the primary. I remember reading somewhere that Giuliani's biggest problem was Giuliani.

Actually, Giuliani campaigned quite tediously there. I think he spent the third largest amount in New Hampshire, only behind Mitt Romney and John McCain.

And he still finished fourth, in a state where he was expected to do far better to boot.

[milhouse24]

Rudy would never get the GOP nomination.

[Derek]

I agree with him not winning the nomination. Too much of a bad past but at least he wasn't tied to acorn or Bill Ayers or look up to Saul Hulinski.

[sentinel]

Giuliani is a joke

[ScottM]

He'd never even get through the primaries. I don't think he'd be the type of candidate that could garner enough support to be a serious threat.

[milhouse24]

Do you think if Giuliani ran for Governor, he could jump to the Presidency?  He just seems way too liberal for GOP voters.  He also has a strange lisp. 

I don't think he has any voter base at all, especially none within the GOP.  He may have been mayor of NYC, but people elsewhere in the country aren't that impressed with NYC, its a very large scary city, and it doesn't relate at all to average rural-suburban Americans, the base of the GOP.