http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&inifile=futuretense.ini&c=Page&cid=968332188492&pubid=968163964505

Probably should have been done months ago.

The lucky dog the administration puts up is going to have some interesting days during the confirmation process.

So Rumsfeld is going to be sacrificed so the Republican Party has some hope in 2 years time. :ugh:

Forget it guys. No amount of spin is going to make the public believe other than this administration was the greatest bunch of idiots to have gained office. :yuk:

Bush, the most lifelike puppet to have been seen in history. :uhoh: Cheney, the VP with responsibility for the transferrence of public monies to the pockets of party supporters :yuk:, and Rumsfeld, Sec of Defence with responsibility for the wasting of young lives in support of a political theory that any person with any experience of the Middle East could have told you was a sham. :=

I hope Hell has some special places for the lot of them. :E

... Good Riddance.

I think Gates will get his nomination approved, he seems to be reasonably respected accross the party lines, and anyone would be an improvement...

"any person with any experience of the Middle East could have told you was a sham"

Agreed.

"Cheney, the VP with responsibility for the transferrence of public monies to the pockets of party supporters"

Agreed.

PS: He's next...:ok:

A few Rumsfeld sound bites ~ from the Time magazine web site this afternoon ~ that might echo down the corridor as he heads out of the administration:

"It is unknowable how long [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
~ To U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy, February 7, 2003

"Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said."
~ Press conference, February 28, 2003

"Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the President and do wonders for your performance."
~ Wall Street Journal article he wrote entitled Rumsfeld's Rules, January 21, 2001

"I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you'll have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic. I understand this is tough stuff."
~ Testifying at a Senate hearing, August 3, 2006

"I don't do quagmires."
~ Press conference, July 24, 2003

"I don't do quagmires."

Yes you do Rummy, I was lucky, some of my friends weren't and didn't survive. We all had the option to bug out but stuck with it.

I hope our paths never cross.

mini civvie.

As we know, There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens"

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

"I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." -asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."

"Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said."

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." -on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -in Feb. 2003

"Well, um, you know, something's neither good nor bad but thinking makes it so, I suppose, as Shakespeare said."

"Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin's still learning."

"Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often."

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty."

"I don't do quagmires."

"I don't do diplomacy."

"I don't do foreign policy."

"I don't do predictions."

"I don't do numbers."

"I don't do book reviews."

"Now, settle down, settle down. Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

The next generation will not let the like of him or his cohorts off with similar crimes. In that respect he should be remembered as the benchmark of public service depravity and inter alia the cause of change in terms of eventual accountabilty. I hope...

Rumsfeld replaced - No - No-one could replace him!!!!

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/donald_rumsfeld.html

The next generation will not let the like of him or his cohorts off with similar crimes. In that respect he should be remembered as the benchmark of public service depravity and inter alia the cause of change in terms of eventual accountabilty. I hope...

Like Robert Mac Namara, right?

Give me a break.:hmm:

Rummy was doing a heckava job.

Caligula meets the front end of his horsehttp://www.tc.umn.edu/~cars0054/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

By demonising Rumsfeld (and Cheney) as somehow being primarily responsible for the Iraq debacle, you lot are playing right into the Bush Administration's hands.

The voters have highlighted their dissatisfaction with the entire Administration and its policies, not just with this or that personality. Firing Rumsfeld (and pretty soon Cheney) is a rear-guard cosmetic action of an Administration that thinks it has little or no chance of a re-election.

In this, yer very own Tricky Woo finally finds common ground with the present occupants of the White House: they very likely won't get re-elected, but this desperate tactic might just be the only chance they've got, small as it is.

Hopefully, these tactics won't work, and Bush and his hawks are consigned to history during the next presidential elections. The world can then get on with sweeping up the bloody mess they'll have left as a legacy, without having to worry about the mass-production of yet more mess by that Texan half-wit and his merry band of war-mongerers.

History was indeed decided by the clinging on of a bit of chaff to a few dozen ballots in Florida six years ago. "For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost..." Indeed it was.

TW

I'm no fan of Rumsfeld - far from it. However, I have to admit that the 'unknown, unknowns' speech is something I really admire. A huge part of research, forward preparation and planning lies in discovering the things that you don't know you are ignorant of and working out how to deal with them.

It's a great shame that he didn't act on the basis of his own speech.

"Firing Rumsfeld (and pretty soon Cheney) is a rear-guard cosmetic action of an Administration that thinks it has little or no chance of a re-election."

Someone will surely bring it up, but for the moment let's leave aside debate about whether or not the Presidential election process was compromised (either inadvertantly or willfully). This is a post about process.

Unseating an elected official, such as a Vice President, is nothing like asking for or voluntarily receiving the resignation of a political appointee. Cheney is an elected official. Rumsfeld is (was) a political appointee.

For good or ill, Cheney became the Vice President of the United States through the electoral process, and can't be summarily fired, as can an appointee. Such a third-party undoing of voters' wishes smacks of outright totalitarianism and is also in direct contravention of the US Constitution.

The current administration cannot be re-elected. The President is limited to two four-year terms. Cheney could, however, run for President if he was chosen by a party to represent their platform. Even the most radical, hawkish true-believer would admit his chance of success at the polls would be modest ~ unless, of course, his running mate for Vice President was Donald Rumsfeld.

There are times in the life of a political party when "in opposition" is the sensible place to be.
:rolleyes:

I'm no fan of Rumsfeld - far from it. However, I have to admit that the 'unknown, unknowns' speech is something I really admire. A huge part of research, forward preparation and planning lies in discovering the things that you don't know you are ignorant of and working out how to deal with them.
It's a great shame that he didn't act on the basis of his own speech.

Absolutely correct :ok: :ok:

Though Rumsfeld's on-the-fly remark might seem circuitous and clumsy, it contains the fundamental truth about any activity that involves prospective ~ forward-looking ~ measurement of risk. Looking through the words themselves to the idea he's trying to explain, it's obvious Rumsfeld's familiar with the work of Karl Popper.

One of the fundamental problems with what some folks here in America call "Homeland Security," and others call inconvenience at the airport, is that it always seems to be about preparing for the previous emergency. Example: "Take off your shoes."

Such an investment strategy, whether it be for planning a war, deployment of financial capital, designing of secure systems, etc, is bound to fail. The future will always decline to obey your analysis of the past. In finance it's called "chasing historical returns."

Unseating an elected official, such as a Vice President, is nothing like asking for or voluntarily receiving the resignation of a political appointee. Cheney is an elected official.

Is that true? My understanding is that Bush was the one elected, and he appointed Cheney as his running mate to fill the VP role.Does the US constitution not allow the President to replace his VP as he sees fit?

Such an investment strategy, whether it be for planning a war, deployment of financial capital, designing of secure systems, etc, is bound to fail. The future will always decline to obey your analysis of the past. In finance it's called "chasing historical returns."

People with more military understanding than I have will be able to answer this better, but from what I have seen Rumsfeld's strategy post-Saddam in Iraq followed exactly that path - his thinking was from Cold War times, and he thought the reaction of the various East European populations when the Communists fell from power would be replicated. I don't think many would disagree that it didn't exactly work out like that!

In the military it´s called fighting the last war...

Strangely, the reason many in the military hated Rumsfeld is exactly because that is what he didn´t want to do. He was fighting to transform the military from it´s Cold War posture to be built around smaller more mobile forces to fight exactly the type of conflicts now happening.

It is true the Quadrennial defence review ended up doing almost the exact opposite - keeping the big procurement projects for jets, submarines, aircraft carriers etc - but I am not sure Rumsfeld can be held responsible for that. Too many Senators and too many pork barrels make only for the art of the possible. But it might also be because some people are looking forward and see the next major area of confrontation being in SE Asia and China, where those might be the things needed, not foot soldiers.

So, was he right or was he wrong, which is the right strategy for 20-30 years down the line? Hindsight says the USA screwed up over Iraq by not having enough troops on the ground.

Will that ensure that his successors ensure that the armed forces are changed to be able to do that in the future, fighting the last war.....again?

Hmmm, with the way elections are going in South and Central America one suspects the cousins next conflict will be a tad closer to home, not much difference in the distance our chaps will have to travel to lend a hand though.
:rolleyes:

One chose one's words carefully, Frau Akro. It's the Bush Administration that's been sunk, and that half-wit who occupies the Presidential seat is just the face of it. My greatest fear was that once he'd fcuked back off to his ranch, they'd wheel in Cheney or some other figure head, and then continue business as usual for another four, eight or more years.

As it turns out, we've only 2 more years to go, and then we see the back of the lot of 'em. And with both sides of the house against them, it's unlikely that this Administration's going to be allowed to do any more damage.

One hopes.

TW

Why didn't he just say, "you can't always know everything", rather than the lexicon limited wander down double negatives and nugatory clauses that he spouted. But then being short and pithy might be confused with being simple...

Good stuff Tricky Woo. As always on this forum, if you want accurate insight into the USA you are far more likely to get it from the people who were not born there.

More accurately, the Vice President can't be fired ~ as was hoped for by TW (love your screen name by the way).

Perhaps for points of accuracy on how the system of electing, appointing, returning or removing members of government works, it might prove useful to, from time to time, ask someone who actually participates in the process.

Unless of course that stands in the way of one's seething anti-US rant ~ some of which is fun, some of which I agree with, and some of which is like that stuff that when you throw it fails to stick to the wall.

If he should decide that his lasting legacy (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/index.html)should be to ensure the destruction of Iran´s nuclear sites, there is nothing either House could do to stop him Mr Woo. Presidential Authority (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm) gives him the right to take such action, just as Clinton did on several occasions.

I am not even sure they would not secretly be pleased, they have more than enough members who believe Iran is the real threat, and it would mean they would not have to act themselves and would have a convenient scapegoat.....

Well the chap with the Football as always stands just outside his office door just ten small paces away Mr ORAC, although one believes it is sometimes a lady now and he or she is now allowed to sit these days
:rolleyes:

Dear Ms Acro,

I'll concede that Cheney can't be fired, but he can be marginalised a la Dan Quayle which is the next best thing.

I'll mind my own business with regards to your American electoral process just as soon as your Presidential Administration stops fcuking up the 95% part of the world that the rest of us 5.7 billion people live in. In other words I (and many many others like me) will mind our own business just as soon as your government does the same thing.

Your elected government's childish revenge policies has left a legacy on world security which will take many decades to undo. Its ostrich-like policies regarding global warming will take centuries to undo. One day your children, or more likely grandchildren, will shake their heads with wonder that 300 million people could possibly have elected such a bunch of right wing tossers, never mind re-elected them in 2004.

Your shame; but the shared legacy of the entire world.

Meanwhile your country's going to be paralysed for the next two years, as an 100% anti-Administration Congress gives knee-jerk 'no' responses to anything that passes over their desks. And that means anything. So get used to the body-bags and CNN footage of yet another mortar round in some Baghdad or Afghan market, because any hope of an early resolution evaporated this week.

More garrison troops? No!

Exit Iraq entirely? No!

Can I go to the bathroom? No!

TW

More accurately, the Vice President can't be fired ~ as was hoped for by TW (love your screen name by the way). He can always use his heart condition.

Rummy the Great deliberately dismissed all personal which did not agree with his Electronic Army Lite vision. The Powell Doctrine which worked so well in GW1 was totally abandonded, incl. the name giver and against the advise of most of the military top brass. Military probably are more happy to see Rumsfeld go than the Dems...

Bush should have accepted Rumsfeld's offer to resignate just after Abu Ghraib 3 years ago.

Rummy the Great deliberately dismissed all personal which did not agree with his Electronic Army Lite vision. The Powell Doctrine which worked so well in GW1 was totally abandonded, incl. the name giver and against the advise of most of the military top brass. Military probably are more happy to see Rumsfeld go than the Dems...


Dear sir, you nailed this fact.

Anyone remember Gen Eric Shinseki?

(hint, he testified, prior to the Iraq invasion, that the forces needed would exceed 200K and would be there for years. Rumsfeld sacked him as Army Chief of Staff.

To his credit, I've yet to hear the Gen publicly state "I told you so. But I bet he's enjoying a deep sense of satisfaction at being right. Actually, probably not since it's at the cost of too many dead and wounded troops.)

I say Acrochik I insist that you elect some left wing tossers immiediately.

It simply isn't fair to put so many authoritarian socialists around the world through so much pain. I mean right versus left (or right versus right in the US) is a battle of good over evil, I know because the BBC tells me so.

I mean Iraq was a wonderful place before Bush where the rivers flowed with chocolate and little orphan boys danced in the streets with joy. Now those self same orphans are choking on CO2 and being poisoned by evil oil companies, all because Bush told them to.

The BBC will expose them! We will have a huggy fluff world government! We must!

Perhaps for points of accuracy on how the system of electing, appointing, returning or removing members of government works, it might prove useful to, from time to time, ask someone who actually participates in the processThat's a telling statement. So to understand the way the US 'process' works one has to participate in it? Well, what complete and arrogant nonsense. When discussing the 'process' in totality, the only significant 'process' that non US citizens on here might not participate in is marking an X in the box on the US ballot paper. Hardly a difficult task, well in theory at least. And besides, who really knows what citizenships are held by the posters on this anonymous site.

When discussing the 'process' in totality, the only significant 'process' that non US citizens on here might not participate in is marking an X in the box on the US ballot paper.

Isn't that the POINT!?

Well, there is that whole pesky actually being a US citizen. But other than that, hey, you're almost one of us!

One thing's for sure, Iraq's streets are a long way from chocolate these days, Mr Spin. And at least 51% of your voters agree.

TW

Your elected government's childish revenge policies has left a legacy on world security which will take many decades to undo. Its ostrich-like policies regarding global warming will take centuries to undo. One day your children, or more likely grandchildren, will shake their heads with wonder that 300 million people could possibly have elected such a bunch of right wing tossers, never mind re-elected them in 2004.

The USA is actually doing quite well, its CO2 only increased by 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2004. Far less than most Kyoto signatory nations, particularly in Europe, who are all missing their targets, let alone those excused limits such as India and China. I don´t the earth cares about quotas.

The vote against Kyoto in the Senate, by the way, was 95-0, so it has nothing to do with this particular administration of "right wing tossers", throw in middle America and all the left winger Democrats as well.....

Since when are Democrats left wingers?

Your average American Democrat would be considered right of centre or right wing in a lot of European countries.

I said left wing Democrats just to cover the spectrum from one end to the other. I´ll accept that even the most left wing Democrat would probably be considered a Social Democrat in Europe.

It seems to me that both of the parties are in a tricky situation now. After some thoroughly nasty electioneering you wouldn't expect any favours from the Democrats though if their intention is simply to scupper GWB's presidency then they are probably harming their own election chances in 2 years time, not to mention being 6 years too late.

It will be interesting to see how Bush copes with the situation. He's probably the only person without an eye on the upcoming presidential elections. A large number of voters swung to the Democrats at the last minute, none of whom will be impressed by a purely obstructionist strategy.

Your average American Democrat would be considered right of centre or right wing in a lot of European countries.

And that, sir, has made all the difference.........


(Apologies to Mr. Frost)

http://milbut.org/smilies/frwtf.gif is this simpleton on :confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dox9baCLxA

Dear Ms Acro,
I'll concede that Cheney can't be fired, but he can be marginalised a la Dan Quayle which is the next best thing.

That marginalization would have to come via members of the current administration. You think this is likely?

I'll mind my own business with regards to your American electoral process just as soon as your Presidential Administration stops fcuking up the 95% part of the world that the rest of us 5.7 billion people live in. In other words I (and many many others like me) will mind our own business just as soon as your government does the same thing.

I'll never ask you to, "mind your own business," as you put it. I'm glad to know your opinions. For my own part, i try to learn what I can about what I'm opining about so my opinions stick to the walls... like the other s***.

Your shame; but the shared legacy of the entire world.

Okay, color me personally embarassed. You're right about everything, everywhere and your opinions form the basis of my reality. Globally. Should I go stand in a corner with my face to the wall? Or, vote?

Meanwhile your country's going to be paralysed for the next two years, as an 100% anti-Administration Congress gives knee-jerk 'no' responses to anything that passes over their desks. And that means anything. So get used to the body-bags and CNN footage of yet another mortar round in some Baghdad or Afghan market, because any hope of an early resolution evaporated this week.
More garrison troops? No!
Exit Iraq entirely? No!
Can I go to the bathroom? No!
TW

Take a deep breath, TW. And, yes, if you need to visit the loo you have my explicit, written permission.

Good question... hmm... on balance, I think you should stand with your face against the wall.

TW

Pardon you for being American Acrochik. :ouch:

Very silly of you not to choose your nationality more wisely considering the seething resentment expressed by people thousands of miles away.

That's a telling statement. So to understand the way the US 'process' works one has to participate in it? Well, what complete and arrogant nonsense. When discussing the 'process' in totality, the only significant 'process' that non US citizens on here might not participate in is marking an X in the box on the US ballot paper. Hardly a difficult task, well in theory at least. And besides, who really knows what citizenships are held by the posters on this anonymous site.

I'm not an arrogant person, as a review of my posts on this site will prove.

When I wanted to understand the British system of elections, in example, which is quite different from the way elections are timed, organized, operated and majorities formed in the US, I asked. You can find my posts about this.

The process under discussion in my post, and the one(s) to which I replied, really comes down to how authority is divided in the US government. How are appointees removed (at the whim of the executive), and how are elected officials removed ("fired") ~ which is by the will of voters, their terms expiring, or through the long, agonizing process of impeachment.

You can seethe all you want about American policy (I'm interested to learn what you feel), opine all you want as well (I'll read it). But, when someone suggests that the realities of how things actually operate influence what you think is possible, why insult the writer?

Hmm?

Sorry for the thread creep, but:

There's quite a niche market for folks who'd pay to watch you stand in the corner......



I'm just saying..........:}

Sorry for the thread creep, ]

I'm no longer sure which one is the thread creep.

Acrochik,

One chose one's words carefully, and that makes me the second person to point that out to you.

What do I think? I think it's great news for America and the World. The US goes through dark patches every now and again, and one of it's strengths is that it can shake out of them. Takes too long top do so and the world suffers in the interim, but it eventually sorts itself out. Bush (and read what Tricky Woo said, he doesn't mean the person) has taken the US into a very dark patch and hopefully the Democrats will get the US back onto the straight and narrow again. That is as a neighbour with a big stick but which knows how to wield it responsibly.

Now do I say the above as being part of the US political process or not? Does it matter one hoot whether I am part of it or not? Doesn't the above stand on its own? Why do you consider the opiinions of people who are part of the US process to be superior to those of people who are not? Isn't your attitude similar to those who have made the US the ugly neighbour that it is over the past five years?

Isn't your attitude similar to those who have made the US the ugly neighbour that it is over the past five years?

Not in the least, as I never said whether or not I was agreeing with TW's opinions. I have no argument with his opinions, or yours, one way or the other. Nowhere in my posts ~ the ones we're speaking of ~ do I agree or disagree with his underlying thesis, or yours, or anyone else's.

I haven't a clue what TW does or doesn't know about the Constitutional processes or governance mechanisms in the States. My intention was and remains to help him or yourself ~ or anyone ~ understand them to the best of my ability. Others who post here are much more knowledgable about the subtlties of these mechanisms than I.

The content of my posts bears this out.

.....as I never said whether or not I was agreeing with TW's opinions. I have no argument with his opinions, or yours, one way or the other. Nowhere in my posts ~ the ones we're speaking of ~ do I agree or disagree with his underlying thesis, or yours, or anyone else's.....

Surely a great political future lies ahead of you.

Heh heh heh, my thoughts entirely.

TW

Beats flying I suppose.

Next presidential nominee for the Republicans? ... Presidential nominee for the Democrats?Giuliani and Bayh.

Most of the political pundits in the media here have Giuliani and McCain as the front runners for the Republicans.

Now for the Democrats the issue is a bit more muddy. Okay cloudy :p . Nearly everyone expects Her Majesty Hillary Clinton to be the automatic Presidential Candidate for the Democratic Party. There are probably good reasons for this, she will have the total and complete, if not fanatical support of the Hollywood crowd, she will have the backing of the richest liberal Americans and the same team that got her husband elected will be working for her on her campaign.

However, and this just my opinion mind you, this time next year there will be at least six or more Democrats running against her for the Candidacy. Because realistically there is a strong possibility she cannot win the election.

Now make no mistake about this, she is already running for President. With all the very close, very important Senatorial races this election, guess who spent the most money?

Yup, Hilliary.

It is going to be very interesting to watch all the infighting and backstabbing that is soon to start.

(Personally I would just as soon go to St. Maarten and stay there until the election is over.)

Giuliani and Bayh.

I'm a New Yorker. While I was too young to know the difference during most of his tenure, I think Giuliani was a terrific mayor. Crime dropped precipitously here while he ran the place ~ he really ran it ~ and the city's rocky finances were strengthened. He certainly did shine when our city was thrown into crisis at the end of his second term. He was everywhere, all the time, holding the city's morale together.

Unfortunately for his fans (myself among them), his business activities since that time seem to cast a shadow over any potential candidacy for national office. The November 13th issue of Forbes carries an article that chronicles business done with sketchy enterprises, unusual share dealings, and association with more than one questionable fellow traveller. Some of the stuff is downright sorid.

Reportage in Forbes is generally measured and well-researched. There's certainly no lack of first-person attributions for the claims made in the article. If this stuff is true, it would be merely the skin on a much larger creature unearthed during the usual inquiries made into candidates during the heat of a campaign.

Makes me sad.

I am sorry to read that AC, makes me rather sad myself, because I really admire the man.

Isn't it funny how such smart people can end up doing such stupid things.

Now I'm really going to run away until the next election is over.

Well, he wouldn't be the first failed businessman, with a dodgy personal life, to be elected President.

It's not the person, but the machine behind.

Hillary Clinton ...
Because realistically there is a strong possibility she cannot win the election.Yes (flameproof suit ON), America is not yet ready for a woman president. All the glitz which would surround a Clinton ticket would mean diddly to a majority of the electorate.

Techman, you make a very good point.

His personal life ~ which was an open secret and accepted by New Yorkers while he was mayor ~ includes that he and his wife were separated and he was having a long-term relationship with another woman. Allowable here in the "big city," just as Bloomberg ~ who's also turned out to be a good mayor ~ has a relationship with a woman to whom he's not married and no one blinks. I'm not too sure how it would play in the heartland. So, I'm thinking this is an aspect Giuliani might have to overcome.

Coupled with these new revelations, if they have underlying substance, the complete story might just be too high a hurdle over which to leverage a viable candidacy.

There is, though, Rudi's background as a squeeky clean Federal prosecutor. He pretty much dismantled two of the Mafia families in NYC and also busted some large-scale Wall Street corruption. That's an asset.

I guess we'll just have to wait to see how party leaders evaluate all this when deciding who to run for office. Giuliani says he'll make a "yes" or "no" announcement in early '07.

A lot of good people, Colin Powell comes to mind, eschew political office largely because of the personal scrutiny and defamation resulting from skeletons, real or contrived.

Bush was labeled a drunk though he hadn't had a drink in decades (What about Ted Kennedy?). Clinton had to contort his response to the question of pot smoking in the 60s (how many back then didn't?).

We'd be a lot better off if people could freely come clean, fess up, and show redemption from past mistakes.

On the other hand, when people are shown to be fundamentally dishonest or involved in other illegal or poor judgment-reflecting behavior, it's our responsibility to wisely decide whether or not to vote for them, even if they otherwise reflect our views.

I don't care if a candidate was caught shoplifting when he was 12. I want to assess who he (or she) is now.

America is not yet ready for a woman president...

I'm not so sure thats true. I'd expect Condoleezza to be up there in the running.

Come to think of it I'd expect her to win against anyone the Democrats could throw up too.

The November 13th issue of Forbes carries an article that chronicles business done with sketchy enterprises, unusual share dealings, and association with more than one questionable fellow traveller.The article deals with Giuliani Partners not the man himself, although it does seem he is not exercising "due diligence" over the activities of his firm.

And, maybe nothing, but he did defeat Steve Forbes in 1996 :hmm:

Not that I'm endorsing the man, but minor improprieties don't seem to matter much in US politics. I can't think of any other democracy in which the head man would have survived revelations of a different kind of job while on the job. :E

PaperTiger, you also make good points.

The one about him having defeated Steve Forbes, I had totally overlooked as potential motivation for publishing the article in the magazine issue that coincides with the mid-term election. Good call.

How the combination of potential issues can be played by an opposing campaign and how they might ferment in the mind of voters is an unknown for me. I dont know how to make that sort of forecast.

I do, though, see the mix of potential issues as problematic. This might be, to some extent, colored by my personal experience of living here. As mayor, Rudi was very much a "buck stops here," guy ~ except when dealing with the Board of Education ~ which he pawned off on anyone dumb enough try running the system.

Maybe because of an emotinal attachment, it's difficult to separate, in my mind, what his company does under his authority, from what he himself is doing. People think of America, Americans and the President in the same way. Log onto PPRuNe to see it.

It's a wait and see scenario.

I'm a New Yorker. While I was too young to know the difference during most of his tenure, I think Giuliani was a terrific mayor. Crime dropped precipitously here while he ran the place ~ he really ran it ~ and the city's rocky finances were strengthened. He certainly did shine when our city was thrown into crisis at the end of his second term. He was everywhere, all the time, holding the city's morale together.Actually Bratton got the most credit from the New Yorkers, after which Giuliani, as usual very aware of his public image, quickly dismissed him...

His pro-choice stand on abortion may cause him some problems in the Bible Belt though.

His pro-choice stand on abortion may cause him some problems in the Bible Belt though.

Probably not if he runs against Hilliary, the intense dislike of her by middle America would neutralize the pro-choice issue except to the most extremest of the Bible thumpers.

America is not yet ready for a woman president.

In my best Robert Shaw from Jaws impression: "That's no woman......"



or how about this:

"She's a witch! Burn 'er!"

Clinton had to contort his response to the question of pot smoking in the 60s (how many back then didn't?).
I still have to look this up and verify it, but my understanding is it was a line from a film. Still he should have known better than to think that any of his audience would have any sense of humour.