The results are in, and it was McCain with 35 percent of the vote to Mitt Romney's 30 percent. Oh, yes, and despite months of campaigning and millions of dollars spent there, Rudy Giuliani musters a mere 15 percent of the vote.
Yes, he managed to outperform Ron Paul.
While Romney polled well, nip and tuck with McCain, Florida's primary awards all of its 57 delegates to the winner, making McCain the front runner.
Rumor has Giuliani dropping out of the race and endorsing McCain. As the conservative apostate, McCain's sudden leaping over the establishment man Mitt reveals the deep fissures in the GOP between voters, and party leaders.
Wither the GOP? A saner, more responsible party can only help the country...but color me doubtful...
Rudy Giuliani has an absolute bust in the presidential race thus far.
In Iowa , he finished six points behind Ron Paul. (Ron Paul!) In New Hampshire , he finished one point ahead of Ron Paul. (Ron Paul!) In Michigan , he finished three points behind Ron Paul. (Ron friggin' Paul, people!) He wasn't even a factor in the Wyoming caucus. (And neither was Paul, for the curious.)
Giuliani's campaign claimed it wasn't really running in those states - although the former mayor did run pretty hard in New Hampshire . A sorry excuse, given the fact that Giuliani's polling numbers evaporated like mist as election days approached. Still, said the campaign, we're big in Florida !
Well...not so fast. Despite campaigning furiously there, spending millions, bombarding the state with ads and personal appearances - and often being the sole candidate campaigning there - his lead has slipped, and now John McCain and he draw the same amount of support. And some polls have Giuliani as far back as third.
In short, Giuliani is toast. Couldn't have happened to a better man. "What happened?" asks the NY Times' Timothy Egan of the former front-runner in this race.
Well, according to Josh Marshall, we might be seeing some good news:
I suspect that TPM Readers are as divided in their support of the candidates as much of the public seems to be. But as we get ready to kick off the 2008 election season I think it's an appropriate moment to give thanks for something we can all be thankful for, even across our political divisions and support for contending candidates -- that's right, the collapsing campaign of Rudy Giuliani.M
Rudy polls lower than Ron Paul in Iowa. He's dropping in New Hampshire. In Florida, one of his "firewall" states, the gloss on Rudymania is tarnished. He's lost his commanding lead in the national polls.
The striking feature of the recent polls is, regardless of which state is hot for Huck or Mitt or McCain, for Rudy they're all trending the same way. As electoral markets mature - ie, as primary day looms - informed voters grow more antipathetic to the Mayor. That's to say, his numbers are worst in Iowa, marginally less catastrophic in New Hampshire, out of contention in Michigan and South Carolina - but they've slid dramatically everywhere roughly in proportion to the imminence of the big vote.
This is insane. The same week that the Montana Republican Party blasts Jon Tester because he ostensibly "would support anti-gun [Republican] Bloomberg" for President (completely unfounded as a claim, other than a quote from Tester's office refusing to speculate since they hadn't anticipated the candidate.
And now, Dennis Rehberg is actually talking up Rudy Giuliani, another anti-gun Republican. Will Chris Wilcox demand a clarification?
Don't hold your breath.
This is the biggest problem with this kinda of "Gotcha" politics -- there's no way for anyone to be pure on it and it's stupid in the first place.
It's just fine that Rehberg is talking up Giuliani, but will this prevent the MT GOP from implying that Tester is anti-gun in the future? We'll see, I guess.
U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg finds his fellow Montana Republicans seem to look favorably on the presidential campaign of Rudy Giuliani because of trust - even though the former New York mayor's positions don't match with the gun-toting West.
Wait...did Rehberg just call Giuliani the most trustworthy? Maybe our Rep. should check in with this blog more often, but Giuliani is, if anything, completely untrustworthy. But then, it's true that the bar for trust among die-hard Republicans is pretty d*mnlow in these parts.
And while Rehberg denies it's an endorsement, this statement is about as close to an endorsement as you get. Naturally, we'll all be keeping our eyes on the polls to see who's the frontrunner when the Montana caucus swings around. You'd hate to back the wrong horse, eh?
Oh, before I go onto the next Dennism, there's this juicy quote:
Montanans have a tendency to say, 'You are more liberal than me so I don't agree with your politics, but you are true to your philosophy, you articulate your philosophy, you don't back off it,''' and voters in the state are willing to support such candidates, Rehberg said.
Boy, if that were true, we'd have different representation in the House. In any case, this is no doubt code for "Romney's a d*mn Mormon!" and "Huckabee jeopardizes our corporate goodie bags!"
Rehberg thinks that American troops may well be needed in Iraq for fifty years, news to those of us who were told by our government that the war would be won and paying for itself in six weeks...
That's right! A vote for Dennis Rehberg is a vote for fifty more years of war!
I guess he's comfortable with our grandchildren having to clean up his mess. Too bad no one's come out for the Democratic Party to run against this chump.
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
[snip]
All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.
Hey, he's a liar! What a shocker. Just consider the six different excuses his campaign has given for his Hamptons tryst accounting brouahah, the last of which is a blame-shifting "it's the cops' fault" defense, which doesn't go well with his "heroic" image as Mr. 9/11.
And before you start in on me for picking on the poor mayor - I do admit I think he's completely batsh*t and a danger to the country, and would like to seem him exit the race, preferably in disgrace - this is his own bed he's made, and now he's got to sleep in it. And there's more on Rudy. The guy is as crooked as the day is long. Which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I think he's unfit for office.
Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
Let's see - raided funds for the disabled and the indigent to pay for adulterous trysts in the Hamptons, used New York's finest to shuttle his girlfriend around the city? You kind of get the feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg, don't ya?
You probably heard this bombshell already: as mayor, Rudy Giuliani used taxpayer money to help fund trips to the Hamptons, where his now-wife and then-mistress Judith Nathan lived. Basically the mayor billed the cost of his security detail to "little-known city offices":
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.
That's right: Giuliani, an advocate of "fiscal restraint," used city taxpayer money earmarked for the poorest among us to help him carry on an extramarital affair in the ritzy Hamptons.
Fine, so Saint Rudy was having an affair. Not an unheard of concept. What on earth would make someone bill the expenses related to that secret affair to the city of New York? Did he think his penis was declared a city landmark? Did he think that his sexual exploits made the subways run on time? Was it somehow titillating for Rudy Giuliani to hide expenses for his sex romps to city agencies charged with helping the disabled? Did it make it more sexually satisfying for him to know that his Hamptons-based Republican affair was being paid for by agencies to help the indigent? Is this how Republicans make their sex "fun" -- to attach a monetary price to it, and then screw as many other people as possible in the process?
Or is this just a perfectly normal case of a crook being a crook, and doing what a crook does -- squeezing for every dime and dodge and cheat, just for the sake of the thing? Is Rudy simply so damn corrupt that to him, his now-indicted friend Bernard Kerik really did seem like a great fellow?
Another MSU-B poll came out, this on Montanans' attitudes towards the 2008 presidential candidates. McCain (49 positive/29 negative) won the favorable/unfavorable matchups for the GOP, with Giuliani (44/40) and Romney (24/38) chugging behind. (No word on Huckabee.) For the Democrats after Obama come Edwards (36/35) and Clinton (31/59). (No word on Dodd.)
I'm not terribly shocked at Clinton's huge unfavorable rating. It kind of goes along with what we've said on this site: a Clinton nomination would not go over well here, based on the present numbers. Still, Clinton's managed to budge her unfavorables quite a bit among Democratic voters quite a bit this year, so if anybody could overcome the prejudice against her, it's New York's junior Senator.
Twelve percent of those polled said they would not for for a woman for president. Period. Welcome to Montana!
I am a little surprised about Romney's numbers. Besides indicating either nobody's heard of him here, or the poll is an outlier, what gives here? Why is he so unpopular? Is it his religion? I doubt detail of this flip-floppin' snake's unpopular gubernatorial record has filtered out West among the common woman yet, so I can't imagine what else would be taking him down.
For the record, my least favorite Republican presidential candidate is Rudy Giuliani, who I sincerely believe is batsh*t crazy and, if elected, will make Bush's unconstitutional terror policies look like fluffy bunny stuff, based on his stint as New York City mayor. And that's despite agreeing with him on most of his social stances - pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. Frankly, I'd rather see someone like Tom Tancredo as president - well, then again, maybe not.
And, honestly, when Giuliani got into the campaign, I didn't think he stood a chance, what with his numerous marriages, infidelities, cross-dressing, and his stance on the very social issues that I mentioned above. There's no way this guy gets past the religious right, I thought to myself. Boy, was I wrong. Apparently some leaders on the right want to remain relevant and are backing the front-runner, social policies, religious belief, and character history be damned.
Just what is it going to take to kill Giuliani's campaign? I mean, the man has more scandals than anybody, yet the mainstream media seems to want to stay out of the mayor's personal life, while wallowing in Hillary Clinton's. I mean, fer chrissakes! The Washington Post did a story on the Senator's cleavage! Couldn't the media spend a week on Giuliani snuggling with Donald Trump?
And Giuliani's scandals are serious. Take his relationship to his former police commissioner, Bernie Kerik, former nominee for the job at the head of Homeland Security. Kerik, of course, has been convicted of ethics violations - accepting bribes, etc. The guy's crooked as the day as long (which is why he was such a strong candidate for a spot in the Bush cabinet). The latest Kerik - Giuliani scandal (brought to you by Steve Benen) involves 9/11, sex, and Fox News.
Apparently Kerik used an apartment donated to the city for 9/11 rescue workers as a personal love nest, where he had trysts with publisher Judith Regan. Regan caught Kerik cheating and dumped him. Kerik stalked Regan. The usual sordid stuff you expect from folks like Bernie Kerik.
But that's not where the scandal lies - Regan worked for the News Corporation, the Murdoch media conglomeration that owns Fox News. Well?Regan alleges that someone at News corporation "encouraged her to lie" in federal depositions about Kerik to protect Giuliani's "presidential aspirations." Fox News head, Roger Ailes, is an old pal of Rudy, after all. Ailes worked on his mayoral campaign, and Giuliani later officiated Ailes' wedding.
Regan wouldn't lie and was fired. Now she's suing, and claims she has evidence to support her allegations.
The head of major news organization (indirectly) pressuring an employee to lie in a federal deposition to protect the reputation of a conservative presidential candidate? Sex? I mean?come on! This has all the hallmarks of a major scandal! If this doesn't sink Rudy, what will?
The latest and greatest baseball/politics news is Rudy Giuliani's avowed support for the Red Sox in the World Series in front of a New Hampshire crowd.
...fans interviewed at Yankee Clubhouse Shop in Manhattan gave Giuliani a Bronx cheer. "Any Yankee worth his salt cannot root for the Red Sox under any circumstance at all. Period. End of story," said Ken Schlesinger, 44, a lawyer from the Upper East Side.
Armando Quintero called Giuliani a "fake fan" for backing Boston . "He needs a true Yankee fan to talk to him, put him in his place, let him know what a real Yankee fan is all about," said the 39-year-old dry cleaner from Queens.
Montana Headlines notes that Hillary Clinton, too, is a newfound Yankee "fan." I agree whole-heartedly: the idea of two bandwagon Yankee fans winning their respective nominations is a harrowing thought. Indeed, for this True Believer (i.e., Red Sox fan, for you baseballphobes), it's enough to make me start work on my bomb shelter.
The New York Timesexamined the President's rhetoric on vetoing the bipartisan CHIP bill, and found...well...nothing. In short, the paper's editorial board finds only "blind partisanship" behind the veto.
Washington Post's Eugene Robinson goes even further, and calls Bush's excuses "lies":
To say that George W. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor is to insult every gin-soaked patron of every dockside dive in every dubious port of call. If Bush gets his way, the cost of his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon reach a mind-blowing $600 billion. Despite turning a budget surplus into a huge deficit, the man still hasn't met a tax cut he doesn't like. And when the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Bush might as well have signed their pork-stuffed spending bills with a one-word rubber stamp: "Whatever."
So for Bush to get religion on fiscal responsibility at this late date is, well, a joke. And for him to make his stand on a measure that would have provided health insurance to needy children is a punch line that hasn't left many Republicans laughing.
Considering the popularity of the bill - and the unpopularity of Bush's veto - it's a head scratcher that all four top-tier Republican presidential candidates - Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain -- support the veto.
I know the candidates have to win a primary before facing the bulk of the American electorate, who rank Bush right up there with wart removal and genital herpes, but CHIP is popular with Republicans. It's not like the health care industry is sending money around to squelch the bill, either. As far as I can tell, the veto is just plain partisan stubbornness.
What gives? Are these guys really this bad? And why do I keep putting McCain in the "top tier" of candidates?
I flipped on last night's GOP debate for awhile and couldn't help but notice the empty podiums on stage. Those podiums belonged to the four front-runners in the Republican primary: Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson.
The debate took place at historically black Morgan State University and was scheduled to talk about issues important to African Americans. It's pretty obvious that either the top-tier Republicans don't want to be associated with African Americans, or feel the questions wouldn't play to their strengths, and they declined to show.
You have to wonder about this 'big tent' we used to hear a lot about. You might remember that though all of the candidates were invited to speak before the NAACP event, only Tom Tancredo showed up. You might also recall that all the Democratic candidates took them up on the offer.
Remember all the hooplah from the media for Democrats refusing to debate on Fox? What was that quote...how can we trust you to stand up to al Qaeda if you can't handle Fox News? Well, how can we expect these men to govern the nation if they won't talk with their own citizens?
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Here's a nice summation of the man's political career, especially enlightening if you know Rudy only from his days during 9/11, and explains why, out of any candidate of either party, Giuliani is the last guy we should want as President.
Update: Just saw this Village Voice article, "Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11," which is a good read...
You may have caught the news, but Rudy Giuliani's 17-year-old daughter is allegedly a fan of Obama's presidential bid, not of her own father's candidacy. Evidence of Caroline Giuliani's loyalties appeared on her FaceBook page, where she labeled herself a "liberal" and was a member of the Barack Obama FaceBook group.
Attention, folks: this is not newsworthy. Not only that, this little tidbit falls into an Internet ethics gray area.
First, family members of candidates have a right to privacy. In this case, Giuliani's daughter was not actively campaigning - in fact, as soon as Slate contacted her about the membership, she pulled out of the group. While FaceBook is open to the public, I think there should be a modicum of privacy about what members publish there, especially if it's not directly relevant to an issue - like the fact that a presidential candidate's teenage daughter prefers someone else, politically.
Second, as Atrios notes, Caroline Giuliani is a minor. Exploiting a minor's online MySpace group membership to draw some sort of conclusion about the inner workings of the Giuliani family is...well...tacky. Not to mention publishing Giuliani's picture and full name, without her or her family's permission.
But that's just me.
Update: After an anonyous tip, I took a closer look at the Slate article, and the violations of Caroline Giuliani's privacy is even more egregious. Slate author, Lucy Morrow Caldwell:
In what may be an effort to avoid public connection to her famous father, the future Harvard freshman and recent graduate of Trinity School in Manhattan uses a slight variation of her name on the Facebook site. But she didn't lock her profile, allowing any Facebook user with access to the Harvard or Trinity School networks (more than 42,000 people) to view her detailed profile. (As a Harvard student, I was able to see it.)
Not only was Giuliani trying to hide her identity, she was posting in a restricted group, limited to Harvard students. That is, she did not post her profile for the general public to see.
So...when is it appropriate to violate a minor's right to privacy? Does posting in a large group -- about 40,000 in this case -- mean it's the same as posting to the general public? Do members of any restricted group have the right to expect that what they post won't be published to a broader audience without their permission?
