POL-Giuliani Sex and Money Scandal

[JPhillips]

Long story short, Giuliani billed trips to the Hamptons with his then mistress to obscure NY city agencies. With as poorly as Rudy is doing in Iowa/NH/SC this may kill his candidacy.

The big question then would be where do his supporters go? I stand by my earlier prediction that Huckabee will be the nominee.

From the Politico:

Giuliani billed obscure agencies for trips
By: Ben Smith
November 28, 2007 08:59 PM EST

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”

The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.

Giuliani’s relationship with Nathan is old news now, and Giuliani regularly asks voters on the campaign trail to forgive his "mistakes."

It’s also impossible to know whether the purpose of all the Hamptons trips was to see Nathan. A Giuliani spokeswoman declined to discuss any aspect of this story, which was explained in detail to her earlier this week.

But the practice of transferring the travel expenses of Giuliani's security detail to the accounts of obscure mayoral offices has never been brought to light, despite behind-the-scenes criticism from the city comptroller weeks after Giuliani left office.

The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.

When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller.

But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.

Auditors "were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.

The letter, whose existence has not been previously reported, was also obtained under the Freedom of Information Law.

Long Island bills

The receipts tally the costs of hotel and gas bills for the police detectives who traveled everywhere with the mayor, according to cover sheets that label them “PD expenses” and travel authorizations that describe the trips.

New York's mayor receives round-the-clock police protection, and there's no suggestion that Giuliani used his detail improperly on these trips.

Many of the receipts are from hotels and gas stations on Long Island, where Giuliani reportedly began visiting Nathan’s Southampton condominium in the summer of 1999, though Giuliani and Nathan have never discussed the beginning of their relationship.

Nathan would go on to become Giuliani’s third wife, but his second marriage was officially intact until the spring of 2000, and City Hall officials at the time responded to questions about his absences by saying he was spending time with his son and playing golf.

The receipts have languished in city files since Giuliani left office, apparently in part because of City Hall's decision to bill police expenses to a range of little-known city offices.

"There is no really good reason to do this except to have nobody know about it," Carol O'Cleireacain, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was budget director under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins, said of the unusual billing practices.

A Giuliani spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, declined to comment on any aspect of the travel documents or the billing arrangements.

A Giuliani aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity denied that the unorthodox billing practices were aimed at hiding the expenses, citing "accounting" and noting that they were billed to units of the mayor's office, not to outside city agencies.

The aide declined to discuss Giuliani's visits to Long Island.

The trips themselves were a departure for a mayor who had prided himself on spending every waking moment in the city and on the job, and offer a glimpse into the dramatic and controversial finale to his tenure in office.

Receipts show him in Southampton every weekend in August and the first weekend in September of 2001, before the terror attacks of Sept. 11 disrupted the routines of his city.

Both the travel expenses and the appearance that his office made efforts to conceal them could open Giuliani to criticism that his personal life spilled over into his official duties and his expenses grew in his final years in office.

It is impossible to say which of the 11 Long Island trips indicated by credit card receipts were to visit Nathan and which were for other purposes.

Eight of those trips, however, were not noted on Giuliani's official schedule, which is now available in the city's municipal archive and contains many details of Giuliani's official and unofficial life.

The billing practices, however, drew formal attention on Jan. 24, 2002, when Thompson, the city comptroller, wrote the newly elected mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a confidential letter.

One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.

Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People With Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.

The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.

Increasing costs

"The Comptroller's Office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002 but was informed that, due to security concerns, the information could not be provided," said Simmons. Thompson took office in 2002.

Thompson also warned that travel costs had increased by 151 percent in Giuliani's final fiscal year, to more than $618,000, a number which also includes police security on campaign swings for Giuliani’s abortive 2000 Senate run and trips to Los Angeles by Donna Hanover, who remained Giuliani's wife and the city's official first lady, in the fall of 2000.

Most of that travel also was billed to obscure agencies, though portions — much of it trips to and from Washington by Giuliani deputies — were accounted for more conventionally, with a more visible charge to the mayor's office.

Thompson suggested Bloomberg "review ... the cost of mayoralty travel expenses, given your administration's focus on fiscal constraints."

A spokesman for Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, said: "When we received the letter from the comptroller, we referred the matter to the Department of Investigations, as we would in any case like this."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Investigations declined to comment.

The executive director of the Loft Board referred Politico to Bloomberg's office for comment.

The first trip to Southampton appearing in the travel documents runs from Aug. 31 to Sept. 1, 1999.

Four police officers spent the night at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn, according to an approval request for official out-of-city travel, billing the city $1,016.20.

Giuliani’s private schedule, available from the municipal archive, lists no events on Long Island that day.

The New York Post reported the following year that Giuliani "had long weekend visits with gal pal Judi Nathan at her Southampton, L.I., condo last summer, according to neighbors who said the mayor did little to conceal their relationship.”

The neighbors called their relationship and their time in Nathan's two-bedroom condo overlooking Noyack Bay "an open secret.”

"Several residents of the condo sometimes asked Giuliani's driver and members of his security entourage to turn off their car engines," the Post reported.

That first trip was followed by at least 10 more, according to the travel and credit card documents.

One of those trips, on Aug. 20-21, 1999, included a fundraiser on the evening of Aug. 21. Giuliani’s four-man detail arrived 24 hours early, billing the city $1,704.43 at the Southampton Inn, according to their approval request.

More trips followed in the summer of 2000, after the mayor's affair with Nathan became public and they were seen together publicly in Southampton. The trips accelerated in the summer of 2001, when he visited Southampton every weekend in August, as well as on Sept. 2.

Many of the trips show expenses only for gas, though his police detail billed the city $1,371.40 for the nights of Aug. 3-4, 2001, at the Village Latch Inn in Southampton.

Giuliani's police detail also spent a night in Palm Beach, Fla., according to the bill for the American Express card under Giuliani's name. The detectives spent $1,714.99 at The Breakers, a sprawling hotel and resort.

There is no indication that Nathan visited Palm Beach. Giuliani's aide did not recall the trip.

The 2001 travel expenses were billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, a little-known unit of the mayor's office involved in programs that provide lawyers to poor defendants.

None of the 2001 trips to Southampton appear in Giuliani's official schedule. However, the schedule does contain a potential clue to his destination. Before three of them, Giuliani paid a visit to his barber, Carlo Fargnoli, on York Avenue near the mayor's official residence, Gracie Mansion.

[Lathum]

I don't involve myself in politics at all but how could we expect the rest of the world to take us seriously if we have a president named Huckabee?

[Buccaneer]

Oh boy. Is this where we can copy and paste every scandal each of the candidates as well as current and past politicians have ever been involved in?

[MikeVic]

I don't involve myself in politics at all but how could we expect the rest of the world to take us seriously if we have a president named Huckabee?

Like a president with a weak handshake.

[st.cronin]

You rock, rock.

[JPhillips]

Oh boy. Is this where we can copy and paste every scandal each of the candidates as well as current and past politicians have ever been involved in?

Good to see your small government bonafides.

And it is important in that it's going to define Rudy's campaign for the next few weeks. This is his Gennifer Flowers moment. If he can't talk his way out of this his campaign is done.

But obviously the potential downfall of the Republican frontrunner isn't worth mentioning.

[Drake]

...how could we expect the rest of the world to take us seriously if we have a president named Huckabee?

I heart Huckabees (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/).

[Drake]

dola...

I don't actually know anything about Huckabee or his politics, but I think of that movie ever time I hear his name.

[Flasch186]

I thought the movie sucked....is the politician any good?

[Buccaneer]

Good to see your small government bonafides.

And it is important in that it's going to define Rudy's campaign for the next few weeks. This is his Gennifer Flowers moment. If he can't talk his way out of this his campaign is done.

But obviously the potential downfall of the Republican frontrunner isn't worth mentioning.

So I conclude that if a candidate can talk his way out of it, just like in the Flowers scandal, then it would be a good thing?

There are a lot of things worth mentioning, like Hillary's lead getting smaller but I see you would only troll if it's beneficial to you.

For the record, I am not a supporter of Rudy nor would I plan to vote for him (or anyone) in the primaries (I can't). It's all an interesting game to follow, esp. watching partisan fans getting their shots in.

[Young Drachma]

I thought the movie sucked....is the politician any good?

Basically, a tax-and-spend RINO, without the fidelity problems of Clinton, though from the same hometown. And a reverend, so he wants to spend the money he raises taxes with, to oversee your morality.

[Buccaneer]

Besides, you forgot to put "POL" in the thread title, otherwise people might think you would want to have sex with Rudy.

[Kodos]

I'd say this is worse than getting a blowjob in the Oval Office.

[Abe Sargent]

I'm not sure how big ofa deal this is. When the mayor goes elsewhere, police go with him, and that should be paid for by the city, no question. He paid for it from his office, he just hid where, so that people wouldn;t find out he was cheating with his wife. The cheating aspect makes it a bit worse poltitically, but I'm unconvinced how bad it really is.

[Drake]

I thought the movie sucked....is the politician any good?

I can't say that Huckabee would get my vote based on my mental association with the movie.

Honestly, I thought the movie tried too hard to be clever and just never really got there...which makes it very much like a politician, I guess.

[Drake]

dola (again)...

For the record, any politician who doesn't even have the integrity to deal honestly with his/her spouse is automatically disqualified from getting my vote. If you can lie for years to the one person on Earth you've sworn to love and honor, you'll have no qualms about lying to the American public.

[JPhillips]

Ah Buc, you think you know me so well, but you just don't.

In terms of the race for the presidency it doesn't matter whether I think it's a good thing or not. This is important as it WILL define the Republican race in the month leading to the first contest. Do you really see the media and the other primary contenders just letting this go away? It's news whether you or I like it or not.

I'm assuming the Hillary lead you're talking about is the Zogby poll recently released. That poll is web based and has serious credibility issues.(See it's performance in 2006) But I'll match you and say that for the record I'm not voting for Hillary and while I can vote in the primary it won't matter by the time it gets to Indiana.

And if I were as partisan as you think I am I'd be much more in favor of pumping Rudy up as I honestly believe he's easier to beat than Huckabee. Out of all the Republican candidates I think Huckabee is the strongest if he can go one-on-one versus the Dem nominee. And when you believe I'm lying look at my past posts.

As for the thread title, I'll change it as I didn't intentionally leave POL off.

[Buccaneer]

dola (again)...

For the record, any politician who doesn't even have the integrity to deal honestly with his/her spouse is automatically disqualified from getting my vote. If you can lie for years to the one person on Earth you've sworn to love and honor, you'll have no qualms about lying to the American public.

You used the word politician and integrity in the same sentence. I have now seen everything (even Larry King would have seen everything).

[Drake]

Heh. :)

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, it's already half way down the latest news list on CNN and it will likely be off the list tomorrow. People will view this as business as usual. Rudy's marital troubles are old news since it was hashed out and re-hashed leading up to dropping out of the race with Hillary. I'm not saying that one shouldn't consider such things but one has to view all things about all candidates to be fair. For example, Obama inhaling would have been scandalous and election-changing not so long ago but it barely made the news and no posts here, esp. Oprah coming out in time to bury that.

[JPhillips]

And my point is fairness has nothing to do with the campaign. I'm not trying to urge anyone to vote for or against Rudy. To a large extent I don't care who wins the Republican nomination. That's where your cartoonish portrayal of me is so dead wrong.

I disagree that this won't be a major factor. Romney, Huckabee and McCain will, to varying degrees, beat the hell out of him for this. Tomorrow the news will break as the story came out too late for newspapers and network news. By the end of tomorrow you can judge if the media will back down. I think it will really hurt Rudy not because of the infidelity, but because of the fiscal irresponsibility that is likely to be a factor for primary voters.

Rudy was in trouble before, as he's trailing in Iowa, NH and SC by large margins. His plan has always been to weather the early storm and cash in later, but I think this story will make that strategy impossible. The meme will be that scandal sunk Giuliani and his candidacy will be over.

[revrew]

Basically, a tax-and-spend RINO, without the fidelity problems of Clinton, though from the same hometown. And a reverend, so he wants to spend the money he raises taxes with, to oversee your morality.

I take exception to this portrayal. But I agree the movie was awful.

As an Iowan registered Republican, I intend to vote for Huckabee in the caucus. As a candidate, he is socially conservative (abortion, gay marriage), unusually populist (for a conservative Republican) in environment and health care issues, and a major proponent of the "Fair Tax" system, which would abolish the IRS and replace it with a national sales tax.

His fiscal record needs to be put in the context of a governor who was constitutionally mandated to balance the budget but could not control the spending of his state congress. And while other governors were sending taxes through the roof to keep up with their respective congresses, Huckabee's approved tax increases are modest in comparison. His tax cuts, on the other hand, are in fact, rather impressive. To call him "tax-and-spend " is to either misunderstand Arkansas' political climate or to fail to compare him to other governors. He was consistently rated one of the nation's top governors.

On Iraq, his position is to complete the job with honor, build an economic and "rule of law" infrastructure that will provide a base for a lasting democracy. He is not as adamant on Iraq policy as McCain, but determined to get the job done right, rather than back out and leave the pot to boil over again.

On immigration, his record is admittedly less clear. He is saying what most of Republicans want to hear (build fence, enforce vs. employers who hire illegals, etc.), though he has some statements in the past that certainly show him to be less tough than Tancredo or say, Guliani.

He is extremely well-spoken and personable, a solid debater, and startlingly genuine for a political candidate. He is eloquent without appearing "polished" or phony. Especially if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, his down-to-earth personality and humor will stand in stark contrast to her often shrill or harsh temperament.

IMO, he may have a tough time winning the nomination (largely for lack of money), but he is likely the best Republican candidate to potentially defeat Hillary. He may not do as well vs. Edwards or Obama.

I am a passionate supporter of his and would encourage all Republican and Independent voters to investigate his platform. He is, thankfully, NOT just another candidate churned out by the Republican machine that has left its principles and constituency in the dust in the pursuit of money and power. He and Ron Paul are a breath of fresh air in the GOP, a call to true reform of a party gone wrong. Between the two, I definitely prefer Huck.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not really sure how Huckabee is a "call to true reform" candidate. He is a darling of the religious right for his social views, but a bit more populist and more willing to spend on some problems than the laissez-faire right. I'm just not seeing the reform here. Huckabee seems more like a 'hope to return to Reagan' type of candidate, rather than any real reformer.

[revrew]

I'm not really sure how Huckabee is a "call to true reform" candidate. He is a darling of the religious right for his social views, but a bit more populist and more willing to spend on some problems than the laissez-faire right. I'm just not seeing the reform here. Huckabee seems more like a 'hope to return to Reagan' type of candidate, rather than any real reformer.

Okay, I'll give you that. My point was the Bush administration and Republican leadership of the last 10-15 years has left a lot of Republicans like me feeling disenfranchised. "Who the heck are you, and what did you do with my party?" Huckabee is a candidate who is a break with the big money, powerlust, spend-and-lie politicos who have been in charge of the GOP lately. I'm not sure if he's a "return to Reagan," but his IS a break from Bush. That's what I meant by "reform."

[Young Drachma]

I've been right-of-center all my life. Probably way closer to the center now (though far more fiscally conservative than when I was before college) and I have to say that none of the GOP candidates excite me in the least.

All have major non-starter flaws for me.

I'll look forward to seeing the third-party candidates so I can cheerfully 'waste' my vote in yet another Presidential election.

[mauchow]

Huckabee has a damn good shot at becoming our president.

[path12]

Huckabee has a damn good shot at becoming our president.

I don't think so, but not because of any of his policies per se (my impression is that although he is extremely religious he didn't try to bring the church into state business), but more because I believe that a majority of Americans have become wary of the evangelical movement in general.

[Jas_lov]

Did anybody see the CNN/youtube debate tonight? Huckabee did well and got in a few good lines. McCain attacked Ron Paul out of the blue and even brought up Hitler as a reason to stay in Iraq. Paul pwned him and brought up how he receives the most donations from military personel. Giuliani looked bad in the opening segment when he attacked Romney. Romney was by far the worst tonight. He was exposed as the flip flopper that he is and he avoided question after question. It was worse than his performance at the CNBC debate where he said he needed to consult with his lawyers before going to war. I don't know how he and Giuliani are the frontrunners. Ron Paul wins every debate as far as I'm concerned, but Huckabee also did very well and they seem to be the only two who are consistent and actually conservative. Unfortunately, neither of them will probably win the nomination and we'll be stuck with Giuliani or Romney vs. Clinton.

[path12]

Unfortunately, neither of them will probably win the nomination and we'll be stuck with Giuliani or Romney vs. Clinton.

Actually, I am starting to think that Clinton is no longer a lock (not sure that I ever did though). Obama is the one candidate that can get votes from both parties IMO.

[astrosfan64]

And my point is fairness has nothing to do with the campaign. I'm not trying to urge anyone to vote for or against Rudy. To a large extent I don't care who wins the Republican nomination. That's where your cartoonish portrayal of me is so dead wrong.

I disagree that this won't be a major factor. Romney, Huckabee and McCain will, to varying degrees, beat the hell out of him for this. Tomorrow the news will break as the story came out too late for newspapers and network news. By the end of tomorrow you can judge if the media will back down. I think it will really hurt Rudy not because of the infidelity, but because of the fiscal irresponsibility that is likely to be a factor for primary voters.

Rudy was in trouble before, as he's trailing in Iowa, NH and SC by large margins. His plan has always been to weather the early storm and cash in later, but I think this story will make that strategy impossible. The meme will be that scandal sunk Giuliani and his candidacy will be over.

You sir are full of crap. You do care who wins the nomination. I'm not a republican or a democrat. But, it is pretty obvious that most democrats are scared shitless of Rudy winning the nomination. He is the only shot that the Republicans have of getting into the white house again.

I actually like Rudy and I will probably vote for him. I usually go Libertarian, but this election I think Rudy is the best man for the job.

This country does not need a president like Hellary. Obama is ok I suppose, but we really don't know much about him and I would feel more comfortable voting for him in 4 to 8 years from now.

But, please America I beg of you. No Hellary.....

[JPhillips]

No AF, you're full of crap. Trust me, Rudy doesn't scare me. He's got more skeletons in his closet than any other Republican candidate. Any competent Dem could beat him one on one. The country really hasn't heard about his mobbed up police chief or the pedophile he keeps sheltered on his payroll.

Remember that I think the Presidential election is all about likability. I guess Rudy could be more likable than Hillary, but I doubt it. He's too acerbic and vindictive and eventually that will get exposed. Huckabee's the one guy that scares me. He's extremely likable and I believe that he could beat any Dem.

So sure, vote for Rudy!

[Flasch186]

so before the "Hellery" comment I should assume you're unbiased?

[Logan]

Whoa whoa whoa...the rest of the country didn't know Giuliani cheated on his wife?

[larrymcg421]

You sir are full of crap. You do care who wins the nomination. I'm not a republican or a democrat. But, it is pretty obvious that most democrats are scared shitless of Rudy winning the nomination. He is the only shot that the Republicans have of getting into the white house again.


I'm not scared of Rudy at all. I'm scared that Republicans might wake up and nominate McCain, who does much better in candidate matchups than Giuliani. Most Dems I've talked to would prefer Romney as that would be a cakewalk, but are not afraid of Giuliani at all.

[astrosfan64]

so before the "Hellery" comment I should assume you're unbiased?

I thought that is how you spell her name. Am I wrong?

There are quite a few skeletons in her closet fellows or at the very last skeletons in Bill's closet.

I don't have a problem with Edwards or Obama. Hellary scares the crap out of me.

[bob]

Huckabee should win just because of this ad:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

[larrymcg421]

I thought that is how you spell her name. Am I wrong?

There are quite a few skeletons in her closet fellows or at the very last skeletons in Bill's closet.

I don't have a problem with Edwards or Obama. Hellary scares the crap out of me.

Hillary doesn't have skeletons in her closet and neither does Bill. They've already been taken out of the closet and beaten to pieces by the GOP. i'm sure the Republicans will still make issue of this in the campaign, but this isn't going to be the same as with Kerry, Gore, or Dukakis. If they attack her, they better be ready, because she'll actually fight back.

[JPhillips]

If you don't know Huckabee take a look at the debate footage from last night. His answer about the Bible is why I think he's so formidable. Not only did he give a good clear answer that satisfies the base, he specifically cited Love thy nieghbor and Least among us as the examples of the wisdom of the Bible. A great moment for him.

[chesapeake]

I'm not losing sleep over a Giuliani candidacy, and I don't think many Democrats are. Although he leads in the national polls, the nation isn't voting anytime soon.

In the polls that really matter, Iowa and New Hampshire, Rudy's losing. He likely won't even finish second in Iowa. So Rudy will spend the first several days of January trying to explain to the country why he isn't a loser when he just lost -- twice. How did that work for Howard Dean?

If I were putting money down right now on who will win the Republican nomination, I'd take the odds I'd likely be getting with Huckabee. He's surging in the state you need to be surging in. I saw a poll last week showing him close to even with Romney in Iowa. If he finishes a close second or even wins, the positive buzz that follows will be substantial.

[larrymcg421]

Actually, the most recent Rasmussen poll has Huckabee in the lead in Iowa...

Huckabee 28, Romney 25, Giuliani 12, Thompson 11, Paul 5, McCain 4

Bad news for Romney considering the amount of money he spent in Iowa.

Some other recent state polls...

New Hampshire (Suffolk) - Romney 34, Giuliani 20, McCain 13, Paul 8, Huckabee 7, Thompson 2

South Carolina (Clemson) - Romney 17, Thompson 15, Huckabee 13, McCain 11, Giuliani 9

Matchups (Rasmussen)

Clinton 46, Giuliani 44
Clinton 47, Romney 42
Clinton 46, Huckabee 43
McCain 47, Clinton 45

Obama 45, Giuliani 43
Obama 46, Romney 40
Obama 49, Huckabee 38
Obama 46, McCain 43

[molson]

If you don't know Huckabee take a look at the debate footage from last night. His answer about the Bible is why I think he's so formidable. Not only did he give a good clear answer that satisfies the base, he specifically cited Love thy nieghbor and Least among us as the examples of the wisdom of the Bible. A great moment for him.

I don't know much about politics, but Huckabee was very impressive, and Rudy seemed shaken and clumsy.

Though I don't think that matters because I don't think many people actually watch these things, and I REALLY don't understand how good debating skills = good presidential skills.

[flere-imsaho]

The debates serve two purposes:

1. Forces candidates to go on record about some issues (unless they can manage to avoid it without looking stupid).

2. Show who's going to be a smooth, unflappable candidate in the general election (and who's not).

Even so, I don't think their importance is terribly high.

[flere-imsaho]

Matchups (Rasmussen)

Clinton 46, Giuliani 44
Clinton 47, Romney 42
Clinton 46, Huckabee 43
McCain 47, Clinton 45

Obama 45, Giuliani 43
Obama 46, Romney 40
Obama 49, Huckabee 38
Obama 46, McCain 43

This I find incredibly fascinating (seriously).

[astrosfan64]

I'm not losing sleep over a Giuliani candidacy, and I don't think many Democrats are. Although he leads in the national polls, the nation isn't voting anytime soon.

In the polls that really matter, Iowa and New Hampshire, Rudy's losing. He likely won't even finish second in Iowa. So Rudy will spend the first several days of January trying to explain to the country why he isn't a loser when he just lost -- twice. How did that work for Howard Dean?

If I were putting money down right now on who will win the Republican nomination, I'd take the odds I'd likely be getting with Huckabee. He's surging in the state you need to be surging in. I saw a poll last week showing him close to even with Romney in Iowa. If he finishes a close second or even wins, the positive buzz that follows will be substantial.

Didn't McCain beat Bush in both of those states in 2000?

Did NY, NJ, PA etc... suddenly become smaller states in terms of their voting weight?

I'm pretty sure Rudy will take those states.

New Jersey --- Giuliani Thompson McCain Romney Spread
RCP Average 51.7 9.7 10.3 6.7 Giuliani +41.4

Michigan --- Giuliani Romney Thompson McCain Huckabee Paul Spread
RCP Average 23.7 20.3 14.0 12.3 6.7 3.7 Giuliani +3.4


Here are two polls from other states. NJ he is crushing and Michigan he is winning.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_republican_primary-258.html

Here is a link to the CA poll. There a bunch of them there. Rudy is kicking ass in quite a few of the major states.

[Drake]

Huckabee should win just because of this ad:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

Okay, that was funny. :)

Like I said, I don't know anything about Huckabee's politics outside of what I've read in this thread, but he might just get my vote based on that video alone.

[Maple Leafs]

I think Guiliani made a salient point when, in his own defense, he pointed out that "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!"

[larrymcg421]

Didn't McCain beat Bush in both of those states in 2000?

Did NY, NJ, PA etc... suddenly become smaller states in terms of their voting weight?

I'm pretty sure Rudy will take those states.


While Giuliani waits for those bigger states to come up, a strong contender will emerge (probably Huckabee), racking up all the good press and donations along the way. When we get to those later states, his lead won't be so big anymore. Look what happened to Howard Dean. He was leading all over the country before the Iowa primary, and he immediately began sinking after that defeat. Sure, Giuliani will still win NY and NJ, but it will take more than that. He's going to get creamed in SC as well, which makes three consecutive major primary defeats, bnot to mention certain defeats in all southern primaries, including Florida (where huckabee is surging).


New Jersey --- Giuliani Thompson McCain Romney Spread
RCP Average 51.7 9.7 10.3 6.7 Giuliani +41.4

Michigan --- Giuliani Romney Thompson McCain Huckabee Paul Spread
RCP Average 23.7 20.3 14.0 12.3 6.7 3.7 Giuliani +3.4


Here are two polls from other states. NJ he is crushing and Michigan he is winning.


You conveniently neglect to mention that not only is that Michigan poll an average of three polls, but the most recent of those three was back on November 13th and the other two polls were from October.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_republican_primary-258.html



Here is a link to the CA poll. There a bunch of them there. Rudy is kicking ass in quite a few of the major states.

This is another poll from October. The most recent poll is from the 21st, 5 weeks old.

[Young Drachma]

Huckabee should win just because of this ad:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

That was good work by someone on his team, to come up with that AND to convince Chuck Norris to do it. Great work.

[Young Drachma]

Whoa whoa whoa...the rest of the country didn't know Giuliani cheated on his wife?

When he moved Judith Nathan moved into Gracie Mansion, it was big news to folks in the NYC sphere, even though he was still married to Donna Hanover, but...the media outside of our part of the country didn't care and of course, 9/11 defused whatever problem that was for a lot of people that knew him after he hit the speaking circuit after he left office.

So I doubt it would have the same sting now that it did back then, since most folks concede that he's pretty got the moral spine of an insect.

[Logan]

Yeah, the guy didn't even wait til his divorce was official to start strutting her around publicly.

[Young Drachma]

Actually, I am starting to think that Clinton is no longer a lock (not sure that I ever did though). Obama is the one candidate that can get votes from both parties IMO.

I think he has two things in his favour right now. Just from a strategy standpoint.
Most of the polls of him in other areas are showing Hillary doing better with blacks than him, but I think it's all a smokescreen because those polled are lying on purpose.

Sure the old black guard are in the Clinton camp, but despite the portrayal of lock-step blacks, people would only vote for her because they like Bill and even that is not enough to stop the most formidable declared black candidate for President ever. I think when it comes time to vote, they'll (they being black democrats) trend to him in droves in places like the South where the Hillary folk are probably reading too closely to the polls.

The other side of this is the fact that he does play well against every GOP candidate for good reason. He's young, he's fresh, he's different and he doesn't have the stench of an outsider.

Sure, they'll hit him on his last name, on his supposed time at an Islamic school and they'll say he's a "clean, nice guy" but that he hasn't "done enough."

But this is clearly the Southern Strategy + perception coming to bite the GOP back in the ass.

No one saw this kid coming. And if we'd elected Colin Powell in 1996 (basically by inducing him to run), the Obama thing never would've gotten the steam it did and so now, the Dems get to continue parading the false myth that they're good on race, when they're just good at race pandering.

Back to the "no one saw him coming..." the blueprint for anyone who thought the first black President we had, was never a "biracial guy whose father wasn't even American, and who has a global upbringing..."

It just wasn't on the radar.

Politically, I think Obama is too much star and not enough substance. But that's just on the surface. I hear him talk and I appreciate his shrewdness and the inner wonk inside him that's just ready to jump out. I still am wary of his views on the expansion of the federal government, but given that the GOP hasn't gone out of its way to really help us fix anything on that end...it's not as if they're going to really give us -- or succeed much with a Democratic congress if they do win the White House -- much progress on that front.

I think he represents to me, an America that I always knew existed and that the mainstream media refuses to embrace. So I do want to see him do well for all of those reasons, because it basically declares to people who still this country as a very linear place and who want to embrace the division of the past, that times they are changing..and that there isn't anything you can do about it.

That all being said, politics are a lot like sports. There aren't always good stories and while we can wax poetic about the "significance" of this and that, the bottom line is...stuff will happen the way the machinery intends it to, regardless of who is the ringmaster of the whole circus.

I won't vote for him, but...that's pretty much my thought on him and watching it all unfold is more than interesting as a result.

[JPhillips]

AF64: I don't think it's a stretch to think that Giuliani won't win any southern states. Do you really think the Republican nominee will be the guy who can't win any of Dixie?

[chesapeake]

Didn't McCain beat Bush in both of those states in 2000?

No. Bush won Iowa handily. McCain didn't even qualify for delegates there. After McCain had been leveled on Super Tuesday, may folks questioned his decision not to mount a campaign there.

[astrosfan64]

AF64: I don't think it's a stretch to think that Giuliani won't win any southern states. Do you really think the Republican nominee will be the guy who can't win any of Dixie?

That is a good point.

[astrosfan64]

I just looked at the latest texas poll and he leads by a small margain. In the latest Florida Poll he is up by like 13 points.

If he wins Florida, Texas, NY, NJ, PA, CA that is a butload of delagates.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Can anyone explain to me why Iowa and NH matter? They don't have many votes. I just don't get it.

[ISiddiqui]

I just looked at the latest texas poll and he leads by a small margain. In the latest Florida Poll he is up by like 13 points.

If he wins Florida, Texas, NY, NJ, PA, CA that is a butload of delagates.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Can anyone explain to me why Iowa and NH matter? They don't have many votes. I just don't get it.

It's called press and PR. Guiliani's big leads in some of those states may evaporate to nothing if he loses big in Iowa and New Hampshire. Basically, if you win or finish close, you get some nice media play and if you lose big, you are seen as someone who "can't win". And being seen as a candidate who can't win ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[JPhillips]

Iowa and NH matter because the powers that be in both parties are idiots.

If there were sensible people in charge the primaries would be decided by the large states where advertising matters more than personal appearances. That's what it takes to win the national election. Being able to stand in a barn and answer a question on farm prices really doesn't matter when the general roles around. It's months spent honing skills that don't matter.

However, they are important because they tend to set the media narrative and once that's set it's very hard to change. If Rudy loses in Iowa and NH he'll be branded a loser and it will be very hard to come back from that. I don't know off-hand, but I bet almost no one has won the nomination after losing in both Iowa and NH.

[larrymcg421]

However, they are important because they tend to set the media narrative and once that's set it's very hard to change. If Rudy loses in Iowa and NH he'll be branded a loser and it will be very hard to come back from that. I don't know off-hand, but I bet almost no one has won the nomination after losing in both Iowa and NH.

Well, Clinton lost both, but Iowa was not contested that year (because Harkin was running) and he successfully played New Hampshire as a victory.

[revrew]

Iowa and NH matter because the powers that be in both parties are idiots.

If there were sensible people in charge the primaries would be decided by the large states where advertising matters more than personal appearances. That's what it takes to win the national election. Being able to stand in a barn and answer a question on farm prices really doesn't matter when the general roles around. It's months spent honing skills that don't matter.

I may be an Iowan, but I take exception to this concept. I see value in Iowa and New Hampshire opening the primaries season. In their many Iowa personal appearances, the candidates give us a more detailed view of them as people, not polished sound bites. Because of their experiences in Iowa, certain true colors have been revealed. Guliani is NOT a man of the people, and riding far too much on his name recognition. Romney is a polished spender with a temper, slightly out of touch with middle America. McCain is not as stiff as he appears on TV. Huckabee is a man of humor and surprising wit. Paul's inspires passionate followers, but often out-of-the-mainstream ones. Thompson is surprisingly inarticulate and devoid of substance. Tancredo is one-dimentional and angry. (I don't follow the Dems, much, admittedly). If the rest of the nation would take the time to FOLLOW the Iowa process, you'd know your candidates MUCH better. Their advertising wouldn't be nearly as effective at pulling the wool over your eyes, and we might not have as many scam artists in Washington. It's not necessarily who wins in Iowa, but how we get to see the candidates in the process.

As for New Hampshire, its status as a state of independents presents a tremendous early challenge to the candidates that they don't get anywhere else. Frankly, I think N.H. should do more to emphasize its importance.

Without these two oddball states, I think we'd get exactly what was suggested: the biggest spenders who are the best at bullshitting and look the best on TV would always win the nomination. (True, that too often happens as it is, but I think that's only because people don't pay ENOUGH attention to what happens in Iowa and N.H.)

[ISiddiqui]

I see value in Iowa and New Hampshire opening the primaries season. In their many Iowa personal appearances, the candidates give us a more detailed view of them as people, not polished sound bites.

Why can't this happen somewhere other than Iowa? Early primaries in Iowa means you have a bunch of bullshit ethanol subsidies because candidates keep promising pork for Iowans to win the caucas.

[astrosfan64]

I may be an Iowan, but I take exception to this concept. I see value in Iowa and New Hampshire opening the primaries season. In their many Iowa personal appearances, the candidates give us a more detailed view of them as people, not polished sound bites. Because of their experiences in Iowa, certain true colors have been revealed. Guliani is NOT a man of the people, and riding far too much on his name recognition. Romney is a polished spender with a temper, slightly out of touch with middle America. McCain is not as stiff as he appears on TV. Huckabee is a man of humor and surprising wit. Paul's inspires passionate followers, but often out-of-the-mainstream ones. Thompson is surprisingly inarticulate and devoid of substance. Tancredo is one-dimentional and angry. (I don't follow the Dems, much, admittedly). If the rest of the nation would take the time to FOLLOW the Iowa process, you'd know your candidates MUCH better. Their advertising wouldn't be nearly as effective at pulling the wool over your eyes, and we might not have as many scam artists in Washington. It's not necessarily who wins in Iowa, but how we get to see the candidates in the process.

As for New Hampshire, its status as a state of independents presents a tremendous early challenge to the candidates that they don't get anywhere else. Frankly, I think N.H. should do more to emphasize its importance.

Without these two oddball states, I think we'd get exactly what was suggested: the biggest spenders who are the best at bullshitting and look the best on TV would always win the nomination. (True, that too often happens as it is, but I think that's only because people don't pay ENOUGH attention to what happens in Iowa and N.H.)

Rudy is a man of the people, just not hicks in Iowa. He is a city person.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, Rudy is a man of the scummy people who constantly cheat on their wives ;).

[astrosfan64]

Yeah, Rudy is a man of the scummy people who constantly cheat on their wives ;).

That is over half the people in the US now. Since more then 50% of marriages end in divorce. I would say he is right no target in terms of being a man of the people.

I would say Hellary is weak. I mean her man not only cheated on her, but he cheated on her with someone who was nasty. She should of divorced Bill's ass right there.

[ISiddiqui]

That is over half the people in the US now. Since more then 50% of marriages end in divorce. I would say he is right no target in terms of being a man of the people.

Every divorce involves cheating?

There are very few people in this world, let alone country, who are as scummy as Guils

I would say Hellary is weak. I mean her man not only cheated on her, but he cheated on her with someone who was nasty. She should of divorced Bill's ass right there.

Hillary can't win. She stood by her man and the conservatives are going to go after her for that... when that's what they'd argue women should do if it concerned a Republican politician. If she divorced him then they'd trash her for being a divorcee.

[chesapeake]

The value of having Iowa and New Hampshire first continues to be debated pretty actively by both parties. Part of the problem is that the candidates themselves all agree to support the status quo fearing that, if they support changing the primary system and nothing ends up happening, they are going to get creamed in IA and NH and their campaigns are over.

The only value I see in these two particular states is that they can and do swing both ways in the general election, so if a candidate can win in these states, they may have more appeal in a national election. This theory applies better to NH than IA, however, because IA picks delegates using caucuses that only a tiny fraction of eligible voters attend.

[astrosfan64]

Every divorce involves cheating?

There are very few people in this world, let alone country, who are as scummy as Guils



Hillary can't win. She stood by her man and the conservatives are going to go after her for that... when that's what they'd argue women should do if it concerned a Republican politician. If she divorced him then they'd trash her for being a divorcee.

Good question, I would be willing to bet that the majority have some type of cheating. I didn't see a stat on that though.

Hellary can't win. I would of respected her for dropping Bill. But, I can see what you mean. A Christian right would be pissed at her for leaving. But, Bill cheated quite a few times didn't he? I thought he had an issue with cheating when he was the governer.

I really didn't have a problem with Bill cheating. I mean it sucks that he would do that to his wife, but that is between them.

My issue is that he lied about it. If you are caught, just tell them damn truth.

I don't care about Rudy's personal issues. The simple fact is, NY was better after his run at mayor then before. Most New Yorkers would agree with that also. That to me is the most important piece of information.

Maybe, I'm on the outside looking in. But, I'm not sure that the USA should have a woman in the white house right now. I guess that is my issue when I get down to it. We don't have any female generals and the President is the commander and chief.

Do we want a woman as the commander and chief during a time of war?

[Klinglerware]

Maybe, I'm on the outside looking in. But, I'm not sure that the USA should have a woman in the white house right now. I guess that is my issue when I get down to it. We don't have any female generals and the President is the commander and chief.

Do we want a woman as the commander and chief during a time of war?

Did it matter to Israel and the UK's military fortunes when Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher were at the helm of their respective countries?

Even muslim-majority countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia have already had female heads of state. I wonder why there is such a hangup in the US?

[ISiddiqui]

Good question, I would be willing to bet that the majority have some type of cheating. I didn't see a stat on that though.

Maybe, but while divorce is "relatively" ok, cheating never has been.

My issue is that he lied about it. If you are caught, just tell them damn truth.

How is that Hillary's problem?

I don't care about Rudy's personal issues. The simple fact is, NY was better after his run at mayor then before. Most New Yorkers would agree with that also. That to me is the most important piece of information.

NYC was better after Bloomburg's run at mayor than before as well. That should make Bloomburg a better candidate than Guils, no?

Maybe, I'm on the outside looking in. But, I'm not sure that the USA should have a woman in the white house right now. I guess that is my issue when I get down to it. We don't have any female generals and the President is the commander and chief.

Do we want a woman as the commander and chief during a time of war?

Uh... wow... that's... wow.

I mean that's quite a mysogynist statement right there. Who cares what gender the President is vis-a-vis the military?! There are no female generals in the JCS (I assume that's what you meant, because the US military HAS had female generals and currently does)? So? Guiliani never served. Why does he have a better standing with the military simply because he was born with a penis?

Wow.. I know its just your opinion... but it's amazingly bigoted. What's the difference between that and saying do we want a black person as commander in chief during a time of war?

[revrew]

While the previous poster may not have put it well, I think its premature and inflammatory to suggest a debate on the merits of a female commander-in-chief is "bigoted."

I think reasonable people could discuss whether innate differences between men and women would or wouldn't be a factor in military leadership. They might conclude that, no, it wouldn't be a factor; but just raising the question isn't necessarily bigoted. For that matter I think people could discuss if cultural factors in the U.S. would effect the effectiveness of a black (or white, or asian, or...) commander in chief, as well. The life experiences and cultural reactions to men vs. women, white vs. black, etc, can't be ignored. The only question is, how do they become a factor in certain positions of leadership? I think recent events in sports have shown us that black quarterbacks and black coaches face different pressures and circumstances in their respective positions of leadership. Why might it not be so with military leaders?

Now, to arbitrarily say, "A woman can't be a general," or "A black can't be president," is bigoted. But to question how sex (or race) might make a difference isn't. And once we start questioning, rather than namecalling, what answers will we come to? Just how open minded are those that accuse others of being closed minded? My point is thus: being willing to question these things isn't a sign of bigotry.

[astrosfan64]

Wow.. I know its just your opinion... but it's amazingly bigoted. What's the difference between that and saying do we want a black person as commander in chief during a time of war?

There is a huge difference in my opinion. I believe it goes back to our animal instincts. While, I believe woman are very adept at tackling social issues with the united states, I'm not sure that they are best suited to aggresive strategies when it comes to tatical and military operations.

Take a look at the top chess players in the world. The top game players in the world. The top generals throughout history. When it comes to tactics and strategy the male mind is more geared to that style of thinking when compared to a womans.

Men have instincts ingrained into them to be the "hunters".

Are there exceptions, sure.

I don't believe there are really any differences when comparing race. But, there are definately huge differences between gender.

I mean a black guy has a dick and so does a white guy. A black guy is testorine based and so is a white guy.

Woman have a menstrel cycle. Woman have different organs. There are physical differences between them. Woman are estrogen based.

[astrosfan64]

NYC was better after Bloomburg's run at mayor than before as well. That should make Bloomburg a better candidate than Guils, no?



I actually like bloomburg and I might agree with you on this. Though Bloomburg was brought into a NYC that was already in better shape then what Rudy started with.

[Young Drachma]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30williams.html?ref=opinion

[larrymcg421]

I think he has two things in his favour right now. Just from a strategy standpoint.
Most of the polls of him in other areas are showing Hillary doing better with blacks than him, but I think it's all a smokescreen because those polled are lying on purpose.

Sure the old black guard are in the Clinton camp, but despite the portrayal of lock-step blacks, people would only vote for her because they like Bill and even that is not enough to stop the most formidable declared black candidate for President ever. I think when it comes time to vote, they'll (they being black democrats) trend to him in droves in places like the South where the Hillary folk are probably reading too closely to the polls.


Yeah, I'm not really buying this. Even if it is true to some extent, then you can't ignore that the opposite is true to some extent. Obama is polling really well among white Democrats, but how much of that is negated by the "Bradley factor", which notes that black candidates always do much worse than their polling numbers because whites will lie when being polled.

The other side of this is the fact that he does play well against every GOP candidate for good reason. He's young, he's fresh, he's different and he doesn't have the stench of an outsider.


Except he's not playing any better than Hillary against the GOP candidates.

[ISiddiqui]

There is a huge difference in my opinion. I believe it goes back to our animal instincts. While, I believe woman are very adept at tackling social issues with the united states, I'm not sure that they are best suited to aggresive strategies when it comes to tatical and military operations.

Um... as stated, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher

Tarring the entire female gender with a "non-aggressive" label makes me wonder 1) if you've ever met women and 2) what about the historical examples of women leaders who have led wars?

Hillary seems much like a Thatcher-ite in personality than some dainty non-aggressive female stereotype you've kicked up.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, I'm not really buying this. Even if it is true to some extent, then you can't ignore that the opposite is true to some extent. Obama is polling really well among white Democrats, but how much of that is negated by the "Bradley factor", which notes that black candidates always do much worse than their polling numbers because whites will lie when being polled.

The Bradley Factor was pretty much negated after Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee. Whites are far more likely to admit whether they'll vote for a candidate than they used to and most polls show that they're less and less likely to oppose a candidate based on race.

Obama is the first black candidate to deliberately court his base of support among white voters.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/408/can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects

[larrymcg421]

The Bradley Factor was pretty much negated after Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee. Whites are far more likely to admit whether they'll vote for a candidate than they used to and most polls show that they're less and less likely to oppose a candidate based on race.

Obama is the first black candidate to deliberately court his base of support among white voters.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/408/can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects

I don't think that data from one election year is proof that the Bradley effect no longer exists. 2006 was an odd year where the GOP was hated at unprecedented levels. I think that hatred probably trumped alot of people's uncertainty about electing a black candidate. We'll see if that trend continues in 2008.

[astrosfan64]

Um... as stated, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher

Tarring the entire female gender with a "non-aggressive" label makes me wonder 1) if you've ever met women and 2) what about the historical examples of women leaders who have led wars?

Hillary seems much like a Thatcher-ite in personality than some dainty non-aggressive female stereotype you've kicked up.

On to point 1) Yes, I didn't mean erratic physco aggression.

2) what historical examples are you referring to? Joan of Arc?

[Klinglerware]

Take a look at the top chess players in the world. The top game players in the world. The top generals throughout history. When it comes to tactics and strategy the male mind is more geared to that style of thinking when compared to a womans.



This is a pet peeve of mine, equating war and chess. It is a fallacious analogy, since a chess match is essentially a closed system with a fixed set of rules with two interactors. War (and foreign policy) is not as bounded as chess. I think it can be dangerous to think of foreign policy as "the great chess match" as even many leaders in history have, because you can easily lose yourself in the minutiae of tactics without thinking about or accounting for the overall context of your decisions and without clearly thinking through the repercussions of your actions, especially in regards to third parties.

Anyway, as far as gender differences go, yes, some of them are real. But typically, differences can be thought of as greatly overlapping normal curves. In the context of foreign policy decision-making, I think that gender differences of the decision-makers are further mitigated to a great extent, because the decision-making elite have all been socialized, educated, and incented to think in similar ways.


Edit to add: Some of the best tacticians are some of the worst strategists. The cognitive psychological literature seems to suggest that men do a better job of "hyper-focusing" on details then women, but women may be better at integrating disparate information and seeing things as part of an overall context. That may have some implications for decision-making (but again, elite decision-makers have to be good at both, and generally are regardless of gender).

[Huckleberry]

As an Iowan registered Republican, I intend to vote for Huckabee in the caucus. As a candidate, he is socially conservative (abortion, gay marriage), unusually populist (for a conservative Republican) in environment and health care issues, and a major proponent of the "Fair Tax" system, which would abolish the IRS and replace it with a national sales tax.

I wish conservative meant what it used to mean.

You just called a candidate "socially conservative" based on the fact that he supports the federal government's interference in two States' rights issues.

Big government indeed.

[ISiddiqui]

On to point 1) Yes, I didn't mean erratic physco aggression.

2) what historical examples are you referring to? Joan of Arc?

Not even "erratic physco aggression", but competitive fire in sports or whatnot.

And I provided two historical examples of Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. You can't claim they didn't lead their countries in war. Just because they were Commanders in Chiefs rather than actually in a tent somewhere near the field doesn't mitigate it (it doesn't for the men we vote for, why should it for the women?). Add to that, Indira Gandhi (who led India to a crushing victory over Pakistan in '71) and Queen Elizabeth I (Queen Mary, aka Bloody Mary, didn't shy away from aggression either), among others.

[Passacaglia]

This is a pet peeve of mine, equating war and chess. It is a fallacious analogy, since a chess match is essentially a closed system with a fixed set of rules with two interactors. War (and foreign policy) is not as bounded as chess. I think it can be dangerous to think of foreign policy as "the great chess match" as even many leaders in history have, because you can easily lose yourself in the minutiae of tactics without thinking about or accounting for the overall context of your decisions and without clearly thinking through the repercussions of your actions, especially in regards to third parties.

Anyway, as far as gender differences go, yes, some of them are real. But typically, differences can be thought of as greatly overlapping normal curves. In the context of foreign policy decision-making, I think that gender differences of the decision-makers are further mitigated to a great extent, because the decision-making elite have all been socialized, educated, and incented to think in similar ways.


Edit to add: Some of the best tacticians are some of the worst strategists. The cognitive psychological literature seems to suggest that men do a better job of "hyper-focusing" on details then women, but women may be better at integrating disparate information and seeing things as part of an overall context. That may have some implications for decision-making (but again, elite decision-makers have to be good at both, and generally are regardless of gender).

You mean you wouldn't want to see Bobby Fischer as Secretary of State? ;)

[astrosfan64]

Not even "erratic physco aggression", but competitive fire in sports or whatnot.

And I provided two historical examples of Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. You can't claim they didn't lead their countries in war. Just because they were Commanders in Chiefs rather than actually in a tent somewhere near the field doesn't mitigate it (it doesn't for the men we vote for, why should it for the women?). Add to that, Indira Gandhi (who led India to a crushing victory over Pakistan in '71) and Queen Elizabeth I (Queen Mary, aka Bloody Mary, didn't shy away from aggression either), among others.

Maybe your right, I suppose I should think on this more.

[Galaxy]

I wish conservative meant what it used to mean.

You just called a candidate "socially conservative" based on the fact that he supports the federal government's interference in two States' rights issues.

Big government indeed.

Sounds like Paul is what an "old conservative" is.

[Galaxy]

I just looked at the latest texas poll and he leads by a small margain. In the latest Florida Poll he is up by like 13 points.

If he wins Florida, Texas, NY, NJ, PA, CA that is a butload of delagates.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Can anyone explain to me why Iowa and NH matter? They don't have many votes. I just don't get it.

Texas has a primary?

[Klinglerware]

You mean you wouldn't want to see Bobby Fischer as Secretary of State? ;)

Hmm... considering his interesting stances on paying taxes and US foreign policy, perhaps the libertarians will take him. :D

[flere-imsaho]

We don't have any female generals and the President is the commander and chief.

Wow, this is amazingly false. The first female one star general in the Army was Brigadier General Elizabeth Hoisington in 1970. The first one star general in the Air Force was Brigidier General Jeanne M. Holm in 1971, who received a 2nd star in 1973. The first one star general in the Navy was Rear Admiral Fran McKee in 1976. The first one star general in the Marines was Brigadier General Margaret A. Brewer in 1978.

As of 2006 there were at least 14 female generals in the Army, and the highest ranking female general in the Army was Lieutenant General (3-star) Claudia Kennedy.

And that's just the U.S. Do yourself a favor and talk to someone about the Israeli Defense Forces sometime.

Do we want a woman as the commander and chief during a time of war?

Can't be worse than the current one.

[astrosfan64]

Wow, this is amazingly false. The first female one star general in the Army was Brigadier General Elizabeth Hoisington in 1970. The first one star general in the Air Force was Brigidier General Jeanne M. Holm in 1971, who received a 2nd star in 1973. The first one star general in the Navy was Rear Admiral Fran McKee in 1976. The first one star general in the Marines was Brigadier General Margaret A. Brewer in 1978.

As of 2006 there were at least 14 female generals in the Army, and the highest ranking female general in the Army was Lieutenant General (3-star) Claudia Kennedy.

And that's just the U.S. Do yourself a favor and talk to someone about the Israeli Defense Forces sometime.



Can't be worse than the current one.

Someone corrected me on this already, I meant on the Joint Chiefs. Sorry for the confusion.

Just in case anyone has noticed, the "surge" is working/worked. Iraq is getting better.

[Klinglerware]

Someone corrected me on this already, I meant on the Joint Chiefs. Sorry for the confusion.

Just in case anyone has noticed, the "surge" is working/worked. Iraq is getting better.

Troop levels should have been at this level or higher to begin with, as Rumsfeld's obsession with "leaner and meaner" left the US without the force levels required to adequately pacify the country. Eric Shinseki proved to be right.

I don't think drawdown will happen any time soon, and would be a mistake to do so. The fractious Iraqi government has thus far not proven that they could take over security functions or govern the country effectively. If the United States were to leave at this point, I have my doubts as to whether the Iraqi government could survive in its present form.

[flere-imsaho]

Just in case anyone has noticed, the "surge" is working/worked. Iraq is getting better.

For certain cherrypicked values of "better".

[miked]

I am shocked at the level people are informed when making such big decisions. Technically, I'm not, but wow.

I was actually talking the other day about how history is a pretty neglected subject in high schools in the US.

[chesapeake]

Our troops continue to do a great job with just about everything they have been directed to do. But the surge is unsustainable. It currently costs us about $14 billion/month and is draining our military of equipment and ability at an alarming rate.

The surge is nothing more than a last ditch plan to try and buy time for the Iraqi government to gain some kind of control over the situation. The latter part of that sentence is why I doubt that it will ultimately be successful.

[JPhillips]

The downward trajectory for Giuliani continues. According to today's Rasmussen tracking poll he is at 18% nationally and tied with Huckabee. Five days ago he enjoyed a little post debate bounce and was at 27% with Huckabee at 12%. To put things in a broader context, at the beginning of October Rudy was at 23% with Huckabee at 6%.

It's clearly coalescing into a two man race between Rudy and Huckabee and I'd put money on Huckabee winning it all.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

[flere-imsaho]

Two man race? I think Romney's still in it.

[JPhillips]

As of today he's running fifth nationally. Admittedly the gap between 3 and 5is within the margin of error, but he's not doing well. Huckabee is looking more likely to win Iowa and even when Romney wins NH, he'll not have the momentum the campaign was counting on. He'll have to win South Carolina to stay in the race and even though polls put him even with Giuliani and Thompson, I don't believe he can win in the South.

I may be wrong, but right now I think it's Rudy vs. Huckabee with Rudy fading.

[larrymcg421]

Some other interesting numbers from Rasmussen...

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings

Clinton 47/53
Obama 48/47
Edwards 48/44

Vote For/Vote against

Clinton 32/44
Obama 23/44
Edwards 22/41

So while Hillary (obviously) has higher unfavorable numbers, not all of those unfavorables are determined to vote against her. This doesn't surprise me. There are alot of people on the left who don't really like Hillary, but they're still going to vote for her if she's running against fundamentalist Huckabee.

Now if we compare this to the GOP candidate ratings...

Favorable/Unfavorable

McCain 52/40
Giuliani 47/50
Romney 41/40
Huckabee 40/36
Thompson 40/42
Paul 27/37

Vote For/Vote Against

Giuliani 27/40
Romney 19/39
McCain 18/33
Thompson 17/40
Huckabee 17/36
Paul 9/46

People seem to really like McCain, but not very sure on whether they want to vote for (or against) him. I still think he's the GOP's best chance at winning, but it looks like they won't be going that way. Giuliani is in the same boat as Hillary, with high negatives, but with those negatives still open to voting for him. Huckabee is making a nice surge in the overall polls, but he still doesn't have anythign close to the money required. When the others start really paying attention to him (which they're already late in doing, IMO) they can unleash that money and sink him.

[JPhillips]

The other thing that should be mentioned is that the Iowa caucases are probably going to be dependent on second choices. If a candidate doesn't recieve a high enough percentage(I think 15%) at each individual caucus they have to make a second choice. With things as tight as they are Iowa will likely be won by the candidate who has the most second choices.