Let's see...pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-stem cell research, and in favor of civic unions...Rudy sounds like the kind of Republican I could support as well.

His only problem is his stance on Iraq. Sit back and watch his numbers fall (just like McCain) in the head-to-head polls against the Dem candidates once the American people become fully aware of his stance.

Lorie

Yeah, Rudy, the 9-11 dog & pony show, is soooooooooo compatico w/ your social conservatism.

I can hardly wait for you to sing the praises of "choice" at the next holy rollers meet-up.

Got any family uncles in the closet who might need a "civil union?"

I like how everyone knows all about who conservatives will support. The most important thing about Rudy IS his stand on terrorism - and judges.

Didn't Guiliani just recently say that Alito & Roberts were great choices for SC justices? Right on.

No wonder arepuke & Larkin sound very afraid.

Rudy will have to pry my vote from my cold, dead hands if he doesn't renounce gun control.

Actually the dog and pony show is going on over at Hillary headquarters.

Hillary says she wouldn't have taken us to war, yet she voted for it. And while both she and her worthless husband were weak on national security, she'd be "tough" on Iran.

Bwahahahahahahah....America is laughing.

No wonder arepuke & Larkin sound very afraid.

I might be if Rudy had a chance in hell of getting the nomination. Just wait until the religious right starts ripping him to shreds. Guiliani's got a heck of a lot of swiftboating baggage to carry around. It's going to be ugly.

I can't wait until we get to rehash these:

Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was using one of the building's unrented units for an extramarital trysts.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani has angrily denied a newspaper report that he and his girfriend used the St. Regis Hotel as a "love nest."

OH this is going to be fun.

O/T but is anyone watching O'Reilly? He's doing more and more of these Michael Moore type 'ambushing" of people (liberals) and it's about time somebody did this sort of thing. A couple of weeks ago he did it to some of those lib profs at Duke, and Nifong.

Anyway, he had a reporter go up to that WaPo Arkin guy (who wrote that disgraceful column last week about the military) and ask him questions - and Arkin didn't like it ONE BIT. He does this to judges and all sorts of hypocrite libs. I'm loving it!!

I'm starting to really like this O'Reilly guy. :)

Okay, back to topic at hand.

Yeah, I'll vote for Rudy as soon as the NRA endorses him.

/waiting for hell to freeze over

BillyBob - The NRA may be more pragmatic thatn you are. Since
they don't want Hillary to win...they are not going to endore losers like Tancredo, Paul, Hunter, Brownback, etc... but will in the end
endorse a winner like Rudy.

Wait till Rudy is shown on commercials dressed in drag at gay rights parades in NYC. The theocrats who control the party are going to have a field day. Repubs hate gays, except the closet cases like Drudge, Ken Mehlmen, Sen. Craig of Idaho, or Sen. Graham of SC. But God help you if you question Cheney on his dike daughter who is having a kid, unreal. Mark Foley and Ted Haggard now speak for that party!

Timbo,
There are plenty of Democrats who hate gays, and plenty of Republicans, like me, that don't. To say that all Republicans hate gays means you are either incredibly uninformed or not being truthful. Spend a little time at a gay conservative site, or even an independent site, like Tammy Bruce's and find out how much Democrats like gays that don't march in lockstep with them. They are not exactly accepting of alternate lifestyle choices when those choices involve voting Republican.

I don't call lesbians "dikes" like you just did. Take that talk somewhere else.

I had never heard of Haggard until the media treated him like he was some huge Republican spokesperson. I had literally NEVER heard of him before and don't know whether he is a Republican or Democrat, but since he was a preacher was assumed to speak for the entire Christian right.

As for Foley, me and every other Republican I know showed him NO MERCY, unlike the way Democrats treated Gerry Studds. Mark Foley sent dirty and extremely disgusting and inappropriate emails to pages, but Studds was having sex with a page. Foley got run out of town by Republicans for hitting on young people, not for being gay. Studds got defended and kept in office by Democrats, even though he was having sex with an underage page.

You guys who think no conservatives will vote for Rudy will be shocked to see how well he does down here in the South. He will have a lot of opposition from the right and I wish he were pro-life and pro-second amendment, but now more than ever the war on terror and Iraq are THE issues that I need a President to be strong on and I am convinced that on those issues he is leading the pack at this time.

Timbo, your link's dead...Lorie, I'll take a pass on "checking out" Mother Mary Katherine on Townhall's vanity mega-blog....As for Giuliani: disagree with his past policies (2nd amendment, especially), but I won't underestimate him. Cleaning up Time Square is one thing, but castrating La Cosa Nostra in a crooked police enviroment like Greater New York, is one for the history books. If this were a monarchy, he'd make a great king, but he doesn't like following rules. This nation is a republic of rules, so...With an incompetant scion like Bush, we can slide by, with a smart mofo like Giuliani, well, just hope he doesn't notice you! P.s. I hope Paul and Tancredo can combine or draw lots or something. Not that I'm not used to voting the losing ticket. Do it all the time: Paul in '88, etc.

Lorie, you're basically right in your comments to Timbo, but there is a noticible exhibition of dragsters in the GOP PR-ocracy. There's a 40-ish white campaign consultant who appears almost daily on MSNBC in the afternoons, who has eye liner TATTOOED on his lower eyelids. BIZARRE!

Timbo got nailed.

And most rightwingers had never heard of Ted Haggard till recently.

But nice try.

Lorie and jo (Lorie especially): Never heard of Ted Haggard until the scandal??? Whenever there was a Dobson piece on the news magazine shows centering on the Colorado explosion on nationwide church ministries (if there was 1 in the past decade, there were 50), they would also feature the localized, but equally politicized Haggard church. For use as contrast, or for purposes of a bathroom break, or something. Hate to ride you, but there is sentient life reading you!

Lorie writes;

As for Foley, me and every other Republican I know showed him NO MERCY, unlike the way Democrats treated Gerry Studds. Mark Foley sent dirty and extremely disgusting and inappropriate emails to pages, but Studds was having sex with a page. Foley got run out of town by Republicans for hitting on young people, not for being gay. Studds got defended and kept in office by Democrats, even though he was having sex with an underage page.

It's a pretty thought if it were true, however your statement lacks, umm..... facts.

Your Republican leadership covered for Foley for YEARS. The Foley scandal should have rightly been called the Hastert scandal.

And Foley didn't get "run out of town". He resigned pretty much on day one of the scandal.

And you also forget about Dan Crane, Republican from Illinois who in that same year was playing hide the salami with a female page of the same age. Both men were censured.

Finaly, since the page was 17 and the tryst was consensual it was legal. You can continue to make a big deal about it, but no law in existance at that time was violated.

When you say he was "kept in office", to give the man credit, he was re-elected SIX more times by his district, after the scandal.

I assume he was doing a good job representing his voters. We can't say that for Crane.

John

That was without a doubt the saddest justification for your sides actions and/or inactions I have read in a long time. Sad. ww

WildWillie: I am slowly becoming convinced liberals live in an alternate universe with their own made up version of truth and news.

...

Terrorism good, gets the Iraq war, he is no lefty denier. How about a trade, one fake right for one that is written. Count me unconvinced.

WildWillie rambles aimlessly with this;

That was without a doubt the saddest justification for your sides actions and/or inactions I have read in a long time. Sad.

I can't imagine... It's not a justification for "my sides" actions in doing anything. It's just 5 quick points showing the lies and inaccuracies in 4 sentances Lorie wrote. It has nothing to do with what my sides been up to, or the Iraq war as Bill tries to bring up.

Just 5 truths. Feel free to whine, make character accusations and blather about alternate realities. My 5 points ARE true, and I've noticed that you don't care to dispute them.

John:

Funny how the right tries to sidetrack their own debate about Rudy Guiliani by bringing up Foley, isn't it? They're worse than pathetic.

Now, as for Guiliani: he's pro gay rights, pro gun control, pro abortion rights, and was a registered democrat before he decided to run (in a crowded democratic field) for mayor of New York. And most importantly, he OPPOSED the formation of the 9/11 Commission. Why?

So, folks, how desparate are the republitards that they have to place all their hopes on a Northeastern liberal in order to keep the White House in '08?

Gee, seems to me that it was just 4 years ago that the right ranted about how terrible "liberals from the Northeast" were. Talk about an "alternate universe"!!!!

Say, how does Rudy poll against Hillary in New York?

Let's find out!

So people who know the sham for what he is, will vote against him.

qwerty, what exactly does that poll prove? Apparently you missed this part of that article, "In the poll, twice as many respondents identified themselves as Democrats than as Republicans." So they polled democrats to republicans 2 to 1, and Rudy still took 32% to Hillary's 53%? Meaning out of 600 respondants, 400 were democrats, and Hillary still only got 318 of those in her favor. Yeah, great poll.

So they polled democrats to republicans 2 to 1,

It's New York. Not surprising.

Meaning out of 600 respondants, 400 were democrats, and Hillary still only got 318 of those in her favor.

Well, not necessarily. It could be less as some Republicans may have favored Hillary, though I doubt too many. As far as the Democrats are concerned, they very well may favor a different Democratic candidate ant thus answered "Don't know/No response/Refused to answer." It's very early on yet.

I agree with you Mantis, my point was that it is pretty stupid to take any stock in a poll that, first of all, only polls 600 people, and secondly, skews it 2 to 1 in favor of democrats. To try to use that as some kind of negative towards republicans is assinine.

HMMM? Rudy or Hellary? Who will New Yorkers vote for?

And whats more, what will they debate? Which one has the lousier sex life? We know Hellary will win that one.

Maybe they should be on the same ticket as the unisexers!

only polls 600 people, and secondly, skews it 2 to 1 in favor of democrats.

If random, and as far as I can tell it was, 600 is enough to get a picture of attitudes for the state of New York with about 3-5% margin of error. And it wasn't skewed; this sentence,

In the poll, twice as many respondents identified themselves as Democrats than as Republicans.

implies that the 600 were randomly selected and that's simply how it broke down. 2 to 1 Democratic is the political breakdown of that state, more or less. There are some unknowns and Crain's doesn't seem to post their surveys in full. I'd be interested to know if the primary questions only counted those with that party affiliation. Also there is no mention of independents. Anyway, random selection doesn't skew results by party, at least no purposely. If people from one party are more likely to pick up the phone, that would skew it, but that's about it.

Maggysturn writes;

Funny how the right tries to sidetrack their own debate about Rudy Guiliani by bringing up Foley, isn't it? They're worse than pathetic.

Indeed. And the point of my post, which was totaly lost on WildWillie and bill, is that when you can take one of Lorie's paragraphs and find 5 inaccuracies in 4 sentences, you ought to be getting a good idea about the integrity of the source.

Most of the stuff Lorie writes is pure slanted crap, and it's sad that people come here to get their news, and having done so, consider themselves educated on the issues.

One thing that Lorie does do well, is write articles that get lots of replys. That makes the page hit counter go up, which makes the advertising revenue go up, which is the ultimate goal of this site. Not to inform.