Thank you for saying this. I am very troubled by the fact that everytime someone in the media talks about Rudy's potential problems with a primary they only cite his lifestyle issues as something that could hold him back. By NOT mentioning his glaring deficiencies as an executive, they are either demonstrating their ignorance or complicity in this lie that Giuliani would be an even remotely competent POTUS.

And why is no one talking about the fact that this guy is going straight from fucking MAYOR to PRESIDENT?? If it's fair game to question Obama's candidacy because he's ONLY been a senator, then this seems like a no brainer.

At some point the Saint Rudy veneer will wear off. Maybe it will be when he looses his temper when some wingnut (O'Reilly?) asks him about his personal life or when some firefighter asks him why he ignored the need for appropriate radios for the NYFD before 9/11, or when some EMS worker asks him why he moved the NYC Emergency Response Center to the basement of the biggest terrorist target in the world, against that advice of numerous experts.

When this finally happens, then maybe the media will be "liberated" to discuss his abusive practices when he was US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, his Bushesque poll numbers in NYC on September 10, and his utter lack of experience with foreign affairs other than waiving a bloody flag.

I've been wondering, too, why no one seems to be mentioning the humungous leap it is from mayor to president, even if it is NYC we're talking about.

I think I take less issue with the merits of experience than I do with the media's inconsistency in criticizing Obama or Edwards for their lack of experience and not Giuliani.

I've met New Yorkers who think that Bush's fascist tendencies would be continued and increased by a Giuliani presidency.
As a judge of character, Giuliani can't escape his choice of Bernard Kerik for NYPD commissioner.

I think the real issue is whether the GOP starts to see Rudy as their only chance to win the presidency.

Among the Rudy issues for the media to point out, it's totally hypocritical to be pro-choice and support (some) gay rights but then say that you will appoint "originalist" judges like the ones Bush has appointed.

You're either for those rights and will support them by appointing judges who will uphold those rights, or you are against those rights and will appoint judges who will refuse to uphold those rights. There is no straddling that line. The appointment of judges is the only place where being pro-choice and pro-gay rights matters.

Criticizing? I'd settle if the national media MENTIONED it at all. Instead, it's "America's mayor" ad infinitum. The New York metropolitan media must be wondering why the national media is giving him such a free ride. He hasn't earned it, certainly.

But the conservatives will support him, because he fits in with the notion of a manly leader who can GET THINGS DONE. The whole marriage debacle? That doesn't matter at all, because, as it is becoming more and more apparent, the "moral majority" is anything but moral or a majority.

Dems should do a Rove and go after Rudy's strength. His performance on 9/11. A reporter quoted by Newsweek in its tongue-bath of Rudy says there is a lot in the record showing him focusing on his own PR more than doing his job.

Dems always cede Republicans their perceived strengths, while Republicans go after Democrats' perceived strengths. 9/11 presents the perfect target for Dems to pursue with Rudy.

I think that being a big city mayor is a significantly more difficult job than being a governor. It's not just NY. Being mayor of Philadelphia, Detroit or Chicago is a lot more demanding than being the goverernor of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Illinois. Governers tend to have more resources at their disposal in relation to the tasks they need to accomplish.
Njorl

Yes, I think experience when it comes to being president is overrated, just look at probably the 2 least experienced presidents we've had in the past 100 years, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Everyone knows how little their inexperience mattered, and what a great job they did.

Rudy's popularity owes more to the weakness of the Republican field and their chances at winning in 2008 than to his strengths. McCain is saddled with his support of the unpopular Iraq War, and that's destroying his candidacy before our very eyes. As for the other candidates, Romney? In any other year, would we even be talking about him? Forget his Mormonism and his past stands on social issues, he's no strong candidate (if that) than Lamar Alexander was or Tom Vilsak was. We are only talking about him at all because the religious right doesn't have any candidates they can rally around after their only decent candidate, Allen, imploded last year. Meanwhile, the rest of the GOP field looks like a collection of Chris Dodd campaigns.

Giuliani will probably win the GOP nomination by default, but it's hard to see any Republican winning in 2008. Of course, something unexpected could happen, and Rudy could win, but right now, he's doing well because the rest of the GOP field looks so weak.

I think the leaders of the Republican party may be thinking Rudy is more "electable" -- that he can satisfy their base on security issues without frightening, and perhaps even appealing to, moderates and swing voters beyond their hardcore conservative base on social issues.

But I wonder if this notion doesn't arise from stereotyped notions of, and some real misunderstandings about, voters beyond their base. (Stereotypes shared by many in the mainstream pundit class, too.)

For instance, it seems to be assumed, strangely I think, that voters outside the Christian Right don't vote on "values" and won't be at all disturbed by the "character" issues raised by Rudy's multiple marriages and, most especially, the very public humiliation he meted out to his second wife. Yet, it seems to me that that issue may loom even larger for voters -- women especially -- who don't, like the Republican party's base, have strongly partisan reasons to overlook it.

These same voters are less likely (than the Republican base) to find Rudy's total support for Bush's foreign policy and the Iraq War appealing, too.

And while they may find his positions on social issues less extreme than that of most other Republican candidates, whoever is the Democratic candidate is still going to have the advantage on those issues.

Perhaps Rudy can win the nomination. But I think, once voters got to know him, he'd have a very hard time winning the general election.

There's a part of his campaign that hasn't been mentioned here, and only fleetingly in news reports. But he's obviously making a lot of promises on hot-button GOP issues -- when Vitter endorsed, he said Rudy would make the best choices in nominating judges. He's pro-choice! He obvoiusly promised Vitter he would not nominate pro-choice judges. Another recent endorsee, I've forgotten whom, noted he would be the best choice (among republicans) on opposing taxes. He was mayor of NYC and endorsed Cuomo precisely on state support for th eCity! He must have promised "no new taxes."

I think he's running around doing beyind the scenes what Romney did out in the open -- sell his political soul.

All that said, I'm praying its Rudy. No one would put the South into play for the Democrats more than Giuliani. If they really do nomiate Giuliani, and things continue as they ahve been for hte past 2 1/4 years, it could be a reallignment election.

Yes, but did Giuliani look into Kerik's eyes?

It puts the "conservative religious voters" in a difficult situation. Voting for Giuliani essentially nullifies them when they say it's about abortion and gay marriage. If they vote for him, it's about something else. I'm interested in seeing the choice that is made and the debate that happens.