August 16, 2007

Rudy Hitting His Stride?

Rudy Giuliani got good news earlier this week from a CBS poll that most people have learned to mistrust -- for good reason -- but Rasmussen may provide some corroboration today. According to the normally reliable pollster, Rudy has his first significant lead in head-to-head polling against Hillary Clinton, and the crosstabs show some surprising depth (via Instapundit):

After being virtually tied with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for several months, Republican contender Rudy Giuliani now leads Clinton up 47% to 40% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

In the match-up of the frontrunners, this result marks a significant shift. For the last three months the two frontrunners have never been further apart than three percentage points. Last month, Giuliani and Clinton were separated by just a single point.

Senator Clinton fares modestly better against former Senator Fred Thompson. Clinton now has a three point edge over him, 46% to 43%. All four previous Clinton-Thomas have also been toss-ups.

It's significant that neither top 50% in the poll. Eight percent insist on voting for another candidate, even when the question gets posed as a two-choice affair. Five percent are unsure. We'll come back to them in a moment.

Rudy has some surprising strength in the demographics, especially women. While pundits believe that Hillary would motivate women to flock to her banner, Giuliani actually edges Hillary 44%-42% in this poll -- within the margin of error, to be sure, but much closer than most would imagine. Giuliani has a majority of those between 30-39 years of age (54-36) while Hillary has a slimmer majority in the 40-49 range (50-44). Despite Democratic claims on the youth vote, Hillary only gets a single percentage point lead on Rudy on the 18-29 demo (38-37), and Giuliani has significant leads among those 50 and older.

Otherwise, the only other surprise among the demographics are black voters. Hillary has a lead on Giuliani there, but Rasmussen shows the split 48-41 Hillary. I'd guess this to be a typo. The "Others" category is split 55-11 for Hillary, and I'd wager that they have the two turned around. Even so, only getting 55% of the black vote in a two-way race (18% unsure) looks like a huge problem for the Democrats.

As to those who are unsure, the most significant demographics for the undecided are those that favor Giuliani. That means that we could expect them to break more towards Rudy than Hillary when push comes to shove. All in all, this seems like the kind of boost that Rudy can use to make the case that he provides the best chance for Republicans to beat Hillary next November. John Podhoretz should be dancing over at The Corner with this news.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rudy Hitting His Stride?:

» Fred Fading? from Hennessy's View
A new CBS News poll of 302 Republicans shows that Rudy Giuliani has widened his lead over Fred Thompson. Captain’s Quarters breaks down the unreliability of CBS, the problems with the sample, etc, so I won’t repeat that here. Instead, let... [Read More]

Comments (41)

Posted by Lightwave | August 16, 2007 4:58 PM

It's less that Rudy hits his stride and much more that Clinton never had a stride to begin with.

Hillary Clinton will never, ever be an elected President of the United States of America. Period. If the Democrats nominate her...and that is all over but the shouting as Obama and Edwards continue to plummet with each "debate"...the Democrats are done.

And really, if we take a deeper look at this, Hillary is the most viable Democrat to run. Anyone else has even less of a chance. The more obvious that it becomes that Hillary will be the Dems' choice, the more obvious it will be that the people will turn to the GOP.

She cannot be defended on her record, her charisma, her experience, her policies, or her leadership. But the Dems will nominate her anyway...and there's a very good chance we will know who the next President of the United States will be by February 6th, 2008: the GOP candidate ahead at that juncture.

It boils down to two simple truths:

1) None of the GOP candidates running are George W Bush.

2) The Democrat candidate running *is* Hillary Clinton.

GOP wins by default.

Posted by Goldwater | August 16, 2007 5:23 PM

I swear I feel I live in an alternate universe.

How is it my people, my fellow conservatives are so willing to support this guy? Seriously, did the whole country lurch leftward when I wasn't looking?

Posted by Rovin | August 16, 2007 5:31 PM

The fact that Thompson is within the margin of error even while he is still in the exploritory mode still leaves this voter undecided. And if either Rudy or Fred can take the lady down, I'll wait for more to hear in the months to come.

If Thompson sells and holds his conservative values (especially his social policies), Rudy's liabilities may be the difference.

Posted by mikey | August 16, 2007 5:34 PM

I hope Fred gets it but no matter who gets the GOP nomination, there's just no way I'd vote for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 6:17 PM

Goldwater said:
I swear I feel I live in an alternate universe.

How is it my people, my fellow conservatives are so willing to support this guy? Seriously, did the whole country lurch leftward when I wasn't looking?

Eric said:
Yes. More or less. It's quite normal and it will go back the other way at some point, but for now it is what it is. I think that short of the capture of OBL, or another attack, Rudy's going to be the best chance you have. I know a lot of Democrats are talking trash about the Republicans, but I'm not because I know this thing is far from over -- I'm proof in the fact that I have not fully decided to definitely go Democrat.

The biggest danger to the Republicans is not Hillary; it's probably the idea of conservatives not voting out of apathy -- which is sort of a catch 22.

The average conservative in November off 2008 could be saying this:
"I didn't vote because my candidate wasn't conservative enough, and now I've got Edwards as president pulling us out of Iraq and announcing that he is leaving his wife for a man." (It's a joke.)

You conservatives better get your heads straight prior to this election because you are not getting another Ronald Regan. The sooner you get your head back in the game, the better off your party will be.

Posted by patrick neid | August 16, 2007 6:32 PM

the black vote is screwed up. by election time it will be 90-10 for hillary. same for the hispanics.

rudy may get more jewish votes than usual with the largest jewish community living in NY. I don't remember if rudy was well liked by that community. if he was and they turn out rudy has a remote chance of carrying new york state.

goldwater, this country is not conservative. a true conservative or liberal could not get elected. that's why hillary pretends to be just left of center rather than reveal herself as the socialist she is. she knows we know that a socialist is just a communist without the gulag. rudy is left of center on social issues and significantly to the right on fiscal, law and foreign policy. the majority of americans are more concerned with fiscal, law and foreign policy issues and generally agree with a lot of what he says.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 6:32 PM

It boils down to two simple truths:

1) None of the GOP candidates running are George W Bush.

2) The Democrat candidate running *is* Hillary Clinton.

GOP wins by default.

I'd say you might be right provided the right side of your party doesn't throw a temper tantrum.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 7:04 PM

Let be a bit more clear about what I mean by getting your head back in the game:

7 years ago, a man who called himself a new type of compassionate conservative ran for President against Gore. The Republicans had their head in the game at that time – they were making gestures to the left. He won, narrowly.

Then some idiots decided to turn the world upside down. I get it – it’s not his fault – he switches gears and becomes a true conservative. Again, I understand he was doing what he had to do. He essentially fixes that problem and gets no recognition from anyone that it’s fixed.

Finally, 6 years latter, he decides to go back and try to fulfill some of his original promises, now that things have settled down a bit. He tries to create an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. He even partners with the real leader of the Democratic Party (Kennedy – I know you hate him, but most Democrats do not, we like him.) He even has a fellow conservative backing him (McCain.) It would have been a grand gesture and a spectacular tool for Republicans to use in the next election.

And what happens? The conservative Republicans cut his legs out from under him. He may have been saving your party when he did it, but instead his own party clobbers him. And now, the conservatives consider him a turncoat and they wont even brag about the more important accomplishment of GWOT -- because they are mad about immigration stunt.

The conservatives won the battle. Now how will that fare for the war?

Posted by Bennett | August 16, 2007 7:24 PM

In political time, the general election is eons away. So much can happen to change everyone's point of view, things that no one can anticipate or plan for (and yes, I often have a penchant for stating the obvious). I've often thought that while many women admire Hillary Clinton, their approval of her is wide but not especially deep. And I've also thought that many men really dislike her, regardless of their political inclinations.

When we ask ourselves, what voice do we want to hear droning out of the television for the next 4 years, whose mug do we want to look at every morning on the front page of our newspapers, will so many of us decide oh, yeah, Hillary she's the one we want. Because we just haven't had enough of her yet? I think there is an indelible image in many people's minds of Guiliani, standing at that podium in those days after 9/11, calm and in charge yet clearly emotionally affected by the horrible events of that day. It wasn't staged, not scripted, just a man in real time coping with real events. And when I think of that time, I think yes, I can see this man standing at a podium in the White House telling us what he's going to do about this or that and I'm going to believe he's really trying to get it right.

But maybe I'm in the minority.

Posted by flenser | August 16, 2007 8:43 PM

John Podhoretz should be dancing over at The Corner with this news.

Not to mention Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters.

Posted by goldwater | August 16, 2007 8:51 PM

I promise you I will not vote for Rudy -- it is no different than voting for Hillary.

I will not validate Rudy my vote.

Posted by Captain Ed | August 16, 2007 8:55 PM

Let me restate my position on the primaries. I'm not endorsing anyone, because I really haven't made up my mind. People on CQ think I'm in the bag for Rudy, Fred, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee all at the same time -- which, in a way, is true. I want the best Republican nominee we can get.

Haven't made up my mind as to who that is -- honestly. In a general election, I could support all of the above, and Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback as well. When I really make up my mind, I promise to post it here at CQ. Really.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 9:00 PM

Bennett says:
But maybe I'm in the minority.

Eric says:
Not according to the above data. Sounds like you're in a slim majority.

How will your party stay there? Is Hillary going to quit tommorow? I'm guessing that she wont.

Is Rudy going to go off the defense and onto the offense? Is he going to develop a grand plan that counters health care and gives more people what they want? I'll offer him a suggestion -- look to oil for your answer (that is to say the lack of it, or the un-american nature of it.) There is something much larger than health care. Will the Rupublican far right show their wisdom by remaining quiet and behind the scenes, unlike the loud and vulger far left?

Somebody said yesterday at another site, "it's Rudy's election to loose." That statement seems to be made valid by the news from this post.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 9:03 PM

I promise you I will not vote for Rudy -- it is no different than voting for Hillary.

I will not validate Rudy my vote.

Posted by: goldwater at August 16, 2007 8:51 PM

I guess this kind of answers my question.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | August 16, 2007 9:15 PM

The biggest threat to the Republicans are the jackass conservatives who find sexual pleasure in political suicide.

I'm a Rudy backer, make no mistake. However I will vote for Fred or Mitt in a heartbeat to keep the Lying Miz. Clinton out of the White House (how many Asian donors to her husbands campaign fled the US under a cloud of suspicion?).

If the difference between Rudy and Ma Clinton is simply that Rudy is not beholden to the monetary influence of George Soros and his minions, that's reason enough to vote for Rudy if he is the nominee.

Any other answer by a "conservative" reveals a level of political maturity that can only be classified and infantile.

Posted by Bennett | August 16, 2007 9:17 PM

To Eric: I didn't mean to leave the impression I've decided on Guiliani. I haven't decided anything other than I can't imagine wanting to listen to or look at Hillary Clinton as President for 4 years (even possibly 8). In the end this is not even about her positions (which I consider malleable at best), I would feel this way even if she was rock solid on the three things I consider most important. I grew tired of her more than a decade ago and nothing about her now has lightened my fatigue. I would apologize for basing any vote against her on these grounds except I think in the end this is how a lot of us vote: who do we think we can put up with for 4 years. And for me, it wouldn't be Hillary. Even though I recognize I might have to.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | August 16, 2007 9:19 PM


.........................Any other answer by a "conservative" reveals a level of political maturity that can only be classified as infantile.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 9:27 PM

Lightwave says:
Hillary Clinton will never, ever be an elected President of the United States of America. Period.

Eric says:
They said the same about Bill. He ran against a man who won Gulf War I in 100 days. Remember -- he had the highest approval rating of any President EVER. Literally, the highest approval rating in history.

And yet the Clintons beat him -- because of their political machine. Do you still think that it's best to assume that Hillary can not be elected?

They actually got Perot to run and spend his own money to draw votes from Bush (Perot hates Bush -- don't kid yourself about what was going on there.) And doesn't this sound familiar?

Bloomberg. Bloomberg. Bloomberg.

Probably nobody remembers me posting a few days ago that NYC is going to decide the election for the entire nation. If you carry NYC, you will then carry New York State. NY State is Blue - always, and never red. Turn it red and the election is over.

Rudy is loved by NYC. He's a religion in that city.

Bloomberg is the spoiler.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 9:36 PM

Hugh Beaumont says:
(how many Asian donors to her husbands campaign fled the US under a cloud of suspicion?).

Eric says:
I actually forgot about that. You're right -- that was not cool.

Posted by mrlynn | August 16, 2007 9:39 PM

Sez Eric, "Probably nobody remembers me posting a few days ago that NYC is going to decide the election for the entire nation. If you carry NYC, you will then carry New York State. NY State is Blue - always, and never red. Turn it red and the election is over."

But Eric, Republicans can win without NYC. They just have to carry enough other places. I don't think Guiliani will run well in the heartland, but Fred Thompson will. Just a guess, at this point; it all comes down to name recognition and personality.

Guiliani vs. Clinton; two rather acerbic personalities. Thompson vs. Clinton: warm and avuncular vs. shrill. No contest.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 9:43 PM

Bennett -- I understood. I wish you would post more ofter. I enjoy hearing what you have to say.

Go Florida!

Posted by nate | August 16, 2007 9:43 PM

It will be hard for Rudy to win the Primary. After Mitt takes Iowa and NH.

Another observation: The Obama fans cant stand Hillary (can you blame them?). She may loose some of the democratic crowd in the general.

Posted by Eric | August 16, 2007 9:52 PM

mrlynn says:
But Eric, Republicans can win without NYC. They just have to carry enough other places.

Eric says:
Absolutely. But remember, New York is still the 2nd largest state with a bunch of blue electorial votes. You could let it stay blue and take both PA and Ohio, or Illinois and a small state (although I think you already get all of the small states.) I'm saying that you can win the election with one city - NYC. The rural parts of New York are purple leaning red, but they get pushed aside by "The City."

Incidently, I think Rudy might make a race of it in California also -- might even take it.

Florida and Texas will go red as usual.

Posted by Tom W. | August 16, 2007 11:29 PM

Lots of conservatives aren't done helping destroy the country by letting Democrats be elected.

If you really want your blood chilled, check out any Rudy thread at Free Republic.

Rudy's a "cross-dressing lib" who's going to force us all to become homosexual and then get abortions.

Plenty of Rudy haters piously quote the Bible, or put Bible verses in their signatures.

To me, that's the real alternate universe. We're fighting what amounts to genuine demonic forces, and yet this wing of the party is still obsessed with gays and abortion.

Genius, and so very moral.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | August 17, 2007 12:41 AM

Eric said:

Bloomberg is the spoiler.

Mwalimu Daudi says:

But for whom? While it's tempting to draw parallels between Bloomberg and Perot, there are enough differences to give one pause:

1. Perot was a political novice with no track record. Bloomberg by contrast has been mayor of NYC. Say what you will about Perot - he at least had big talk to go along with a big mouth. Bloomberg's War on Trans-fats and the Great Car Tax may get rave reviews in Manhatten, but I find it hard to believe that his microscopic ideas will sweep the country.

2. Both Perot and Bloomberg are filthy rich. While it's true that money is the mother's milk of politics, it does not guarantee anything. If all it took to win office was to be a rich dolt, Ned Lamont would be in the Senate now. And as I recall, the Republican in that race did not prevent Lieberman from winning a majority of the votes cast.

3. When Perot ran in 1992, we had yet to experience the joys of the pants-down presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. Bush the First was weakened by his own inept campaign, and it's hard (but not impossible) to see the 2008 GOP nominee making the same mistakes again. Plus Bush-Clinton-Bush fatigue among the voting public might inhibit Bloomberg's chances, especially if he is seen as a spoiler for Hilly the Hun. Remember that Willy was liked better than his wife ever was.

Thus, I suspect that Bloomberg (if he runs) will prove to be another John Anderson rather than another Ross Perot. If you have never heard of Anderson, you are not alone. He was liberalism's Great White Hope in the 1980 presidential election. A media-created phenomenon, all he managed to do was draw equally from both Carter's and Reagan's vote totals. And Reagan still got 51% of the vote.

Posted by Adjoran | August 17, 2007 1:03 AM

Rasmussen's GOP poll - released yesterday along with the match-up showing Rudy whipping Hillary - shows a tightening race: Rudy slips to 23%, Fred 21, Mitt 15, McCain 13. If that is confirmed by other polls, it means it is a four-man race again, and wide open.

Those who refuse to vote for Rudy need to ask themselves something: if it is a choice between him and Hillary - or Obama, or Edwards - is there any doubt who would appoint better judges? Is there any doubt who would be more aggressive in pursuing our national interests abroad? Better on taxes? Spending?

Think about those things before you do something stupid.

Posted by Rose | August 17, 2007 3:23 AM

Why should a match between Rudi and Hillary be significant? It is like asking people if they see a difference between identical twins.

I know the shading is lost on most "MODERATES" - but they are counting on other moderates and cross-over DIMS to vote Rudi into office ---- so why are they so angry when we Conservatives tell Rudi, and other RINO GOP candidates to go take a hike????

They tell us all the time that we cannot have a candidate that suits us Conservatives, then get mad because we aren't going to vote for THEIR candidate - who if they won, would only move the nation AS FAR LEFT as ANY DIM candidate running.

Note: Dah Ahnold Man --- I rest my case!

I saw Rudi light up like a 75foot Christmas Tree when the hecklers at his appearances were shouting to set aside the Election and APPOINT HIM BACK to the office again - and I heard him say, "Well, if they really want me..."

Took him 2 weeks to apologize - if THAT is what you wanna call it - reminescent of the quality of the apology by the Clintons for the removal of all the "W"'s off the White House computers!!!

You "moderates", here - whether it is Rudi, Mitt, Fred, McCain, Newt, or kind - these are YOUR candidates - you know how we feel about th em - you support them at your own risk - it isn't OUR job to see to it they win - you already know how likely y ou ar e to gain our support, and there hasn't been a day gone by when you didn't tell us we were big idiots, you don't care what we think of the candidates, and you are going to pick the guys you like best anyway - you don't need our support and you can win big without us.

Then you get mad because we also will vote for who we like best, as well.

Makes you mad we vote for God's pleasure and not the applause of "moderates".

If God is pleased with our choice, then He will answer our prayers for this nation, even if our "candidate" loses the Election. But if we compromise our values to vote for your jerks and immoral creeps, then God will reward us with what we asked for - like when Israel demanded a king like King Saul, instead of a Prophet to guide them such as the Prophet Samuel.

I am looking for a name for the ballot that will make God's heart sing.

You moderates give us the sons of Nebuchanezzar, like the one who got the handwriting on the wall - and when he got the interpretation, ignored it and went straight back to his party, and carried on until the invading army burst into the ballroom, and killed his stupid self. The very same night.

No thanks - I don't vote for THAT!

Posted by Rose | August 17, 2007 3:35 AM

You conservatives better get your heads straight prior to this election because you are not getting another Ronald Regan. The sooner you get your head back in the game, the better off your party will be.

Posted by: Eric at August 16, 2007 6:17 PM

Unfortunately, if hte GOP consolidates for a RINO, then the GOP MAY win the General Election, however, given Gerald Ford and Robert Dole, I sure don't think so.

But the bottom line would be that if the GOP wins with a RINO, then we will have TWO DIM LIBERAL SOCIALIST PARTIES and NO Conservative Party at all!


The idea of the GOP winning with a RINO just doesn't excite me at all.
As I watch almost NO news about Dah Ahnold Man sending critical personal data of American citizens to the capital of American Identity theft and counterfeiting operations, along with the major source of American currency counterfeiting operations, as well. - IN MEXICO, for TRAFFIC TICKET PROCESSING!

SO F#$%#$ BARFING!!!

When I find a party that represents ME instead of the DIMS and the MUSLIM TERRORISTS, then I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, I will be voting - just NOT in "lockstep" with the guys carrying a scimitar with my name on the blade.

Rudi can stomp about terrorists and palestinians all he wants, but I saw the man ready to set aside an American election for his sake!
THAT is unAmerican - and treason.

Posted by Rose | August 17, 2007 3:49 AM

Those who refuse to vote for Rudy need to ask themselves something: if it is a choice between him and Hillary - or Obama, or Edwards - is there any doubt who would appoint better judges? Is there any doubt who would be more aggressive in pursuing our national interests abroad? Better on taxes? Spending?

Think about those things before you do something stupid.

Posted by: Adjoran at August 17, 2007 1:03 AM

I have already seen Rudi, Fred, Mitt, McCain, and Newt do things under pressure I have NO INTENTION AT ALL of endorsing THAT KIND OF CHARACTER.

What you said is PRECISELY WHY I WILL NOT vote for these RINOS, I do NOT trust th em to appoint BETTER than the Liberal Socialists on the DIM tickets - IN THE VERY LEAST.

Fred called Clinton's perjury a "TRIVIAL MATTER" - and HE is a former Watergate Prosecutor!

Rudi would set aside an election for his own self-agrandizement, Mitt institutied homosexual marriage in Massachusetts onthe say-so of a couple of insane Liberal Judges AND NOT ON THE BASIS of an ELECTION by Mass RESIDENTS, Newt was laughing at Sean Hannity about the pragmatic need to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and stop worrying about closing the borders - LAUGHING about it --- and McCain=Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy McCain Feingold censured by his own party in Arizona UNANIMOUSLY!

I won't put MY hallmark on those candidates with a vote.

Like the sweet old lady said - "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"
THESE RINOS ain't got none!

Trust THOSE turkeys to choose judges??? HAH!

You wanna punch holes in the bottom of the boat with all your might - go for it - I cannot stop you - but I don't have to JOIN you in the same activity!

AND DO NOT BOTHER TRYING TO TELL ME YOU ARE "SAVING THE BOAT" by letting all the water out of the boat with your holes in the hull.

You might FEEL better when you come to rest on the bottom of the ocean floor, if I am sitting beside you, but you won't really BE better! So, TOUGH!

Suffer, baby, SUFFER!

Posted by Red Wolverine | August 17, 2007 9:58 AM

Rudy has a more conservative record crime, reducing the size of government, nartional security and taxes then almsot all other GOP hopefuls. Quit calling him HIllary in drag. He is not.

Posted by Tim W | August 17, 2007 11:43 AM

The people who think Gulianni is no different from Clinton are living in a delusional wonderland and are just stupid, stupid, stupid people. Clinton is a hardcore socialist while Gulianni is a fiscal conservative. Look at Guliannis record in NYC cutting taxes, cutting crime, cutting welfare, keeping spending down, etc... Listen to Rudy's positions on issues as they are the polar opposite of what Clinton is proposing. Who do you snake juggling fools think is going to be tougher on the Islamists? Who will be tougher on immigration? Who is more likely to hold the line on spending?

If you dont like Rudy's positions on social issues, then stay home and wait for your taxes to be raised and get ready for socialized health care. As an added bonus, you get the democrats grand strategic plan of turning over Iraq to Al Queda and Iran. Lets also not forget that the Clintons are the most corrupt, unethical couple ever to occupy the White House in this nations history. Maybe Bill and Hill can sell the Chinese some more precision guided missle technology when there back in power. Yeah, there's NO difference!

Posted by Preston | August 17, 2007 12:04 PM

Some people just don't understand. Rudy is THE CONSERVATIVE on fiscal, economic and national security concerns. He is to the right of the other GOP candidates on taxes, spending and keeping us safe.

Posted by dhunter | August 17, 2007 12:41 PM

I will vote for the Republican nominee, but I wonder with Rudy at the top doesn't that eliminate any conversation regarding BJ's antics as Hillary stood behind her philandering husband and Rudy is one? Just asking, how about the gals out there, what do you think? I really like Mitt at the top Rudy #2. Don't dismiss Mitt till you have heard his message we got it in IA. By the way, the numbers were down for the straw poll here because only Iowans were allowed to vote this year. In the past they were bussed in from out of state. Bet you never heard that in the MSM.

Posted by filistro | August 17, 2007 2:17 PM

Fred arrived in Des Moines last night and did a brief turn though the Marriott lobby. Eve Fairbanks was there, and blogs her impressions:

"Okay, lump me in with Chris Matthews, but watching him banter with staff and glad-hand for ten minutes in the hotel lobby, there is something weirdly alluring about Thompson -- unlike even Obama in person, you just want to keep watching, his presence is so much bigger and more glamorous than the diminutive peons buzzing around him. At the same time, I wondered if his variety of masculinity -- his main qualification for the White House, after all -- is at all the right kind: It's less strap-on-the-ass-kicking-boots and more kick-up-the-Bruno-Maglis-on-the-leather-padded-desk. Surrounded by Iowans, Thompson's silk shirt's texture looked a little too buttery and fine, his buttons were undone a little too low, his shoes gleamed a little too brightly, his tan was laid on a little too thick. The word that came to mind was louche."

I post this because:

a.) it's a vivid image, and I'm a very shallow person

b.) I know Rose is going to love it

c.) I've always really, really loved the word "louche"

Posted by Rose | August 17, 2007 6:55 PM

b.) I know Rose is going to love it

Posted by: filistro at August 17, 2007 2:17 PM

DADGUM! I am STAGGARED I tell you, STAGGARED, at my own transparency!
YOU NAILED ME GOOD! hehehehe :)

I do love it - I think the description is perfect and the word is the creme de la creme - the cherry on top! PERFECT.

Decadence. :)

BTW, I saw Fred on Fox News this evening, as he casually strolled through the State Fair... I was shocked to see that Fred looked a lot older, today - not in a good way - a little too much like he been rode a little bit too hard.

I've got family with Cancer, and some who just have passed away recently with it, too, and some friends with it, as well - so who doesn't??? - but point being, no harder than he has campaigned so far...just how strong is he? The reporters were discussing the rumors of Fred's "laziness"...I'm wondering more about his health.
So far, we only see him WHEN HE IS READY TO BE SEEN, and to me, that is critical in assessing a Cancer Patient's well-being based on "what you see with your own eyes" out among the folks.

Now in the spirit of open and honest - is there a person so stranger to me they might not know, I wouldn't vote for Fred anyway.???
I sorta doubt it.

But that doesn't mean I hate his guts and wish him ill - I certainly do not - life is hard enough for each person, I see few I wish had a more difficult burden to bear, and Fred isn't one of them - though I'm not interested in his POLITICAL CAREER having any future.

I am nevertheless very concerned, from a POV of someone who has seen too much Cancer, and the toll it takes. I have enough health problems to have some sympathy on THAT score.

Posted by Andrew | August 17, 2007 9:33 PM

One thing I haven't seen discussed (forgive me if I missed it) is the future of healthcare. Anyone who says Rudy and Hillary are the same has never considered this issue. Hillary would have us in the same failing systems used in Canada, France and England, which terrifies the patients from those countries who have the means to come here for the care that is simply unavailable at home. I do not believe Rudy would be so foolish.

Posted by mailman | August 17, 2007 9:33 PM

To say voting for Rudy is voting for Hillary is a complete sign of idiocy. It demonstrates the complete laziness in researching the issues put forth by both candidates. Truly sorry......

Posted by Rose | August 18, 2007 2:53 AM

Those of us who say that Rudi and Hillary are "the same" don't mean they have the identical same list of political characteristics, any more than any two Apple Trees may be IDENTICAL.

But they are still both APPLE trees, and the fruit you get from their branches may vary as to size, quality, and across hundreds of varieties - they are still going to both yield Apples.

When we say they are the same, we mean they are both going to do what suits THEM, regardless of party affiliation, and both will do more Socialistic deeds than they will anything else.


I've seen him on live TV ready to have a duly processed Election overturned in favor of allowing a handful of his ardent admirers APPOINTING him to the office he was no longer DULY qualified to have!
That seems nastily similar to his repeated adultery to me - and when those character FLAWS are applied to HIGH OFFICE, as he did, in that case, in 2002, I find him PECULIARLY UNFIT for ANY political office, whether elected or appointed, or HIRED, either, for that matter!

Hillary's record DITTO those character flaws is exceptionally obvious.

I think one day we'll even discover they both have the same identical hold on the same identical type of hot temper, as well.
That would be...NOT GOOD!

I find NEITHER of them possessing the quality of character VITAL AND ESSENTIAL in a President of the United States of America, the highest seat in the world.

I wouldn't vote for EITHER OF THEM - NOT EVEN to keep the other one OUT of office.

If either of them makes it in, that is the RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABI LITY of those who vote FOR them. NOT of those who refuse to vote AGAINST them.

I will vote for someone who I think best pleases God,, and that will be registered in Heaven as OBEDIENCE towards my prayers regarding 2 Chronicles 7:14, by which I can then LEGITIMATELY count on Him to turn the politicians and government leaders of my nation in His Hand, as He does the watercourses of the land.

I will NEVER be caught dead endorsing CROOKED, anti-democracy PEOPLE for office. THAT blood would be on MY head.
THAT I will never accept !

If those of you who claim you really want to beat the Dims REALLY DID, you wouldn't be trying to shove these RINO CROOKS down our throats, IF YOU WANTED OUR VOTES.
You would find someone to support THAT WE COULD VOTE FOR.

We ain't voting Left of Bush.

Posted by Rose | August 18, 2007 3:06 AM

Anyway, if the NATION is as far Left as you RINO "MODERATES" claim it is, then WHY are you running so short of votes that you must now DEMAND that the FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS must vote for your choice or be TRAITORS???? You used to say YOU DID NOT NEED OUR VOTES and it would be a horrible thing to encourage us by COURTING US for our votes.

If your RINOs are so great, then YOU vote them in --- WITHOUT US!

Phooie on you!

Posted by Zippi 390 Jesus | August 18, 2007 9:43 AM

In terms of actually improving the real, every day lives of real citizens in concete, nuts and bolts ways, Giuliani has done more than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards combined. The Biometric ID card was one of the greatest government innovations in the entire history of the human race.

Posted by William | August 19, 2007 2:27 PM

Illegal sale of social security numbers
By William Castillo - Aug 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm EDT
Many Mexican and other illegal immigrants. Purposely, Sneak accros our borders to have thier children here. Once here. They illegally sell thier childrens social security numbers to U.S. citizens for false and very illegal exemptions on their Federal Income Tax.

This happens way too often and has become an epidemic. With respect to the children (that should not have been born here in the first place). I would like to see what you're going to do about this.

Furthermore, My own wife crossed the T.J./U.S. border with just the use of a birth certificate and no photo I.D. and with now problem. How many terrorist have done the same thing? How many illegal immigrants are here and illegally selling thier American born children's social security numbers?

Are you going to do something about this or are these illegal immigrants going to be continually allowed to enter our country using fraudulent birth certificates and without the use of actual photo I.D.?

I will be surprised if you respond or call me on this issue. But, I can assure you this. If you call me. I will be more than happy to pledge my full support and loyalty to you.

Post a comment