[Angel]

Waht do YOU think?

[oceanview]

so he shouldn't be President, because he would actually dare to use Executive power? is that it? is this the best this author's got?

[joseph20]

This piece smacks of reverse psychology.

[AmishDude]

Sorry, I couldn't get past the writer's ego.

[bnelson44]

Jim Sleeper was a political columnist for The New York Daily News in the mid-1990s and an editorial writer for Newsday from 1988 to 1993.

That's what I think.

[cripplecreek]

I think he was a good mayor for New York but the rest of the nation is not New York, not by a long shot.

[airborne]

I think the media has a self imposed quota on Rudy articles.

A minimum of 10 a day, even if they're drivel, like this one.

[jess35]

We need a candidate who can WIN. A candidate who can win votes from people who aren't registered Republicans. I have no problem voting for the "lesser evil". It's a hell of a lot better than kissing my vote away. Hopefully in the future, I won't feel that way and can make an ideological stand with my vote but now isn't that time. looking at the field of potentials, my only hope is anyone but McCain.

[upsdriver]

What do I think? Giulianni reminds me of Elliot Spitzer.

[GSlob]

Regrettably, we did not clone Ronald the Great, and even if we did clone him, we'd have to wait till the clone turns Constitutional 35 at the earliest. Thus one has to look at:
: What is available, [i.e. what we are stuck with right now], and
What is realistic [out of what is available].
And then one needs to pick the lesser evil and take it for the greater good it is. This writer is in doubt of Giuliani's "overreach" - well, how would he like hillary's?

[mkjessup]

Waht do YOU think?

I think the predictable swarm of RudyBots are about to land on this thread, call you everything but a homo sapiens, and label the writer of the article as:

a.) A Rudy-hater.

b.) A homophobe.

c.) A right wing socon.

d.) A bought-and-paid for operative for another candidate.

e.) Stupid.

PS - If you post any graphics or pictures, at least be sure they're pro-Rudy, or you'll be labeled as a 'spammer' by the Rudyphiles who are by this time Saturday night, probably getting really rude from having nothing but Rudy-Aid to drink all evening, plus the time change.

Get into your Nomex(c) suit now.

Nice knowing you! (heh! heh!)

Best,

MKJ

[EveningStar]

This author is a total twit.

Now, did you obtain permission to steal this complete article without excerpting it?

[RunningWolf]

Well that cross dressing thing comes to mind right off the bat.

[nopardons]

The article is bombastic garbage. He spend the beginning praising Rudy, yet calls him a "racist", which is patently ridiculous and ends by claiming that Rudy would actually DO things as president, which isn't, according to the author any good. HUNH?

I'm going to reread this, for a third time, to see if it makes any sense at all, but I doubt that it will. He's FOR Rudy, but against him, against him, but for him, calls him a racists, them proves that he isn't one.

[WFTR]

I think he comes across in this article as being Bill Clinton without the laid back charisma that I never saw even though everyone else claims that it's there. Personally, I don't see that much difference between the two of them. This description also makes him sound a little bit like Richard Nixon.

The points about the stock market are good. He was in a position to seem strong on budget issues when the city was riding the wave of the stock market bubble. With more people investing in the 1990's, there was more money coming towards New York. That money could make anyone's administration seem better.

Bill

[rockinqsranch]

I read about half of this crap and started laughing uncontrollably at the sheer idiocy of this "author".

I can well understand how this logic would be consumed by liberals.

[Brad from Tennessee]

[. . .has forced me finally to break my long silence about the man.]

We've all been waiting with bated breath for your wisdom, Dr. Sleeper.

[TakeChargeBob]

As a Rudy supporter, in seeing the title, I was curious as to the arguments presented. There are a number of people on this site who are anti Rudy and currently state that there is no way they will vote for Rudy. I do not question their sincerity, however, if faced with a match up of Rudy vs Hillary, I cannot believe that they would not do everything to stop Hillary at all costs. Upon this match up arising in the general election, I intend on pressing this case hard .

I would assume that this author is writing from a liberal slant. I would more than welcome your reposting this article if Rudy is the nominee as there is nothing in the article from a conservative viewpoint that is problematic except for his overzealousness about his prosecutions. However, the conclusion that the writer reaches is that Rudy would appoint judges that prosecutors would defer to. This, by the way, is consistent with his record on crime.

The next point is that Rudy would be tough and would ruffle feathers. In the authors view overstepping his bounds. In my view this is how Rudy should govern. We are in a serious
battle with people that want to inflect as many casualties as possible on us. We need someone tough. This challenge is one that Rudy gets. One other point, I have been a strong Bush supporter but have been thoroughly disappointed. He has been great in standing fast and not backing down in the War. I was pleased to see him adding even more troops based on his assessment that this is the right thing to do, despite the BS whining from the left. Apart from being steadfast, Bush is too nice. There is no retribution for Republicans that buck him (prime example - Chafee) and he allows himself to be beat up by the democrats (this is true even before they took over). As a New Yorker, I have seen Rudy in action. I welcome his approach.

Finally, the junk about 9/11 fitting in with his aspirations. No one with an ability to reason and be fair can not admire his leadership during the crisis. In our current times, this proven trait is critical. I could care less about about the ridiculous psychobabble why he is good in a crisis.

The authors bottom line is that England rejected Churchill so we should reject Rudy (implying Rudy is like Churchill). One small item that is different. The war was over in England. Our war is far from over - a point not recognized seriously by the liberals. This is a time where a Churchillian person is needed.

[Carry_Okie]

I've said many times that Giuliani was a budding fascist. I remember well his questionable moves as a US attorney celebrated in the media. The man would consolidate executive power to a dangerous degree. That he is a liberal gun grabber would make matters worse.

Were there a serious terrorist attack while he was President, respect for our constituional rights would never be recovered.

[tkathy]

The ankle biters are out, blame others, but don't come up with a powerhouse candidate themselves.

[TYVets]

A poll that can be found at www.freerepublic.com


Fred Thompson
62.7%


Rudy Giuliani
21.5%


Undecided
4.4%


Write-in
4.2%


Third party
3.8%


Stay home
2.9%


Leave blank
0.5%