YOUR NOMINATION: Most flawed 2008 presidential candidate

12/26/07

[izzatzo]

Anyone the democrats nominate.

[budwiesest]

The HouseFrau of Chappequa.

[Liz]

No question-—Hillary Hosewife should stay home and bake cookies.

[Jane Austen]

That is a really stupid comment. Hillary, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich beat the others.

[calcowgirl]

Entries in the "Least Photogenic Candidate" contest.

Where do we submit other entries?

[x]

Flawed how? Giuliani’s certainly got the most checkered personal life, but he hasn’t put his foot into things the way Huckabee or Romney have. His campaign has taken off in ways that Thompson’s and Hunter’s haven’t. And any of them are preferable to the Democrats.

[Liz]

Heheh-—great entries.

I think we have a winner.

[Neu Pragmatist]

Glad you could relate .

At least with Rudy you know you’re getting a Liberal Romney otoh ....well he’s not very honest about his positions ...past or present ... and his track record screams Liberal .

[rockrr]

"Voters will NOT elect an individual who publicly humiliated his wife, who dumped his own wife at a news conference so he could carry on with a bimbo he met in a cigar bar."

I've been finding this not to be the case. In the world outside of FreeRepublic there is more support for Rudy than FReepers would care to admit. At first I doubted the polls and the LSM that propped him up, but sooner or later one must face reality - there is support for Juiliani.

So I started seeking out and questioning people who admitted that, not only would they pull the lever for him as a last resort, they actually favored him as their first choice.

Specifically with reference to Juiliani and his peccadillo's, I've found no resonance from those I've spoken to. It just doesn't occur to them, and doesn't bother them when asked. Don't get me wrong - I do agree that it goes to questions of character (or the lack of) but they seem either unimpressed with that argument, or unconcerned in general.

That media sound bite about 9/11 and "tough on terrorism" is what they usually mention first. When I ask them if they truly believe that "You don't believe that the other Republican candidates would be as tough on terrorists?" they look uncomfortable and admit the the others would be up to the task as well. "Well, except Ron Paul" is the usual response.

What Juiliani supporters tell me about their man:

1. The canard about being "the one" who can beat hillary.
2. Tough on Terrorism
3. Tough on crime.
4. Tough enough to deal with the democrats.

I still don't know why they hold these perceptions (other than being impressionable to the mesmerizing influence of television), but generally believe them to be sincerely held.

This is the reality. These are the views held by the folks that we want to entice to vote for the candidate of your choice. If you want their vote you need to convince them that your guy (whoever that is) would be tougher than Juiliani. Is he?