he is the one to beat Obama.

Would it be the fact that he would be outright rejected in many of the strong conservative states,

or that he would cause more lethargy amongst our voters than McCain,

or that outside of New York, he does not carry the popularity that it would take to win the nomination,

or that his first run was a pathetic campaign filled with mistakes, stupidity, and laziness,

or that he has more baggage/skeletons then any contestant in the last 20 years,

or that he could not win enough votes to be in the top three back when he was actually a name on peoples lips and minds?

There is nothing about Rudy that makes anyone other than yourself and a few others get excited, nothing that will allow him to win enough states in the primary to even have a good showing, and nothing factual that shows he stands a rats ass chance to beat Obama. You have offered us nothing but nonsense and opinion and want us to not only accept your opinion on face value but also to not speak out against your nonsense.

Your best bet is to like who you want as that is your right, but stop with the one focus nonsense. This site is about more than who will or who will maybe run for president and you would get a lot more honest and open conversation if you did something other than post about Rudy and cry a sob story about how you were treated to an idiot who is getting exactly what he deserves, contempt.

I am sure you have more to offer, but you need to show it. Harping about Rudy when he has no chance at winning and more importantly, is not even in the race yet or ever, is not going to get people off your back. People on this site are not nearly as stupid as you think they are.

If I said nothing more than this, ? He could not win when he was actually a household name and Popular?, it would be enough for some people other than yourself who do not suffer from head in rectum disease.

yet not a damn person on here has mentioned the Iowa vote but you.

Technically, even though he finished 6th in the vote, he had withdrawn. So lets look at his final voted from the other votes prior to him pulling out after Florida.

New Hampshire 4th

Michigan 6th

Nevada 6th

South Carolina 6th

Florida 5th

Now, since you claim he would pull all the blue states or purple states, we would assume during that run, he was ahead in polls in his own state New York right. Wrong, What was the last straw in his campaign, he polled 5th in California, New Jersey 2nd, and in New York, 2nd a distant second.

Now cut the crap dude, you have no clue what you are talking about and that is an obvious fact. He could not even win his own state back then when he was even more famous and still being talked about. His early leads in national polls back then was attributed to a lethargic base, a lack of any real push yet, and his catch $9.11 fund raising along with the heavy push of his record during 9-11. In fact over half of his supporters in the early days stated during polling that they were behind him due to his actions on 9-11. But that only carried him so far and it will not carry him now at all.

If you are going to push your guy in here, you should at least know the facts about him. But if you like being the fool, by all means carry on!

Now explain how in the hell electoral votes would have done a thing for him back then or would help him now. You do not have one poll showing him winning the nomination right now, or a poll showing him beating Obama, nor a state to state head to head poll between him and the other potential candidates. So your cry of electoral votes holds no water at all, period!

your ignorance is showing for all to see.

You keep talking about PA, CT, NJ yet there are no polls out today to show how he would fare against another republican much less Obama and you keep ignoring the facts that he did not do well in NJ last time and was not the winner of all polls in CT. You also seem to gloss over that even if he did well in all three states, they are not the ones that win or lose an election for us. So where is the benefit.

But this is your best line to date:

“In short I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts and stop trying to push to a ridiculous conclusion that somehow he was deeply unpopular among the GOP rank and file. Most of us never had a say. He never competed in the states you mention?so why intimate he did.. You can decry a dumb strategy?but that doesn?t give you the right to mischaracterize what actually happened.”

Lets break down this nonsense shall we,

You are yet to show one single fact that he can beat the other republicans much less Obama,

No one has said he was deeply unpopular, but what we have said is he ran a pitiful campaign, was only ahead in polls at the start and much of that had to do with the fact the pool of contenders was light, few were doing much at that point, he pushed the 9-11 thing hard and added in the catchy $9.11 fund raiser, and that once it got started, he fell like a stone in all polls including blue and purple states you keep mentioning.

“Most of us never had a say” what kind of absolute nonsense is this. He knew he was beat, polls had him far behind in the big states coming up that he needed to win the nomination, and he was behind in your own state to McCain which would have been yet another state that he did not get the delegates. It is obvious you are a hard headed idiot, but when it costs million per state to run a campaign, people with any common sense do not stay in to lose just so you can get a vote in.

Him not competing is not our problem nor is the flip flop by Gov Christ. Good contenders know this can and will happen and they prepare for it. Not too mention if he was that well like, one loss endorsement would not have sent him into the basement like it did. He was beat with or without the Govs endorsement.

And if he was too incompetent to run a good campaign last time, tell us how we can trust him to run a better one this time and to do the job as president competently. You cant an you know it.

But setting aside all your nonsense, if a person can not win in their own home state, they have problems. You can excuse it all you want, but primaries in New York have nothing to do with liberals. He could not even get his own party in his own state to vote for him, yet you want us to forget his poll numbers and believe PA would have switched to his team. Yeah right….

So lets boil this whole thing down to the basic essentials.

You have provided no facts, polls, or solid evidence he could win this time, not even in your state or the ones you keep mentioning. All you have given us is opinion and we all know the saying about opinions.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again I guess in hopes we will start buying it. We wont and it does not change the fact he was a dismal failure in his last campaign including in the states you mentioned.

I have shown his last effort and what he accomplished and it shows he lost big in every state that he was in the primary and he was loosing in all the upcoming states that were about to do primaries. He was smart enough to know he was beat and he quit. Too bad you do not have anywhere near the same level of intelligence.

He failed miserably last time when his popularity was still high and much higher than it is now. Since his last failed campaign, he has added more fodder for the left and other republican candidates via skeletons which will cause him to do even worse. Yet you are too stupid to see this and even attack the women for his behavior. I hope if he runs, he never takes any advice from you or he will be the laughing stock of the nation.

Your argument is worthless and not grounded in facts. You are preaching from a biased standpoint and your are too stupid to see reality. You can continue with this rant until the site grows weary of you and removes you, that is your right, but repeating the same nonsense will not change the fact he could not win back then, he will not win this time. And it does not change the fact you are an imbecile trying to drain water from an already sunk ship. I tried to tell you to save the little credibility you had left and move on to another subject, but you were too stupid to even do that. Shame stupidity runs so deep in you, it blankets any possibility that you could offer some relevant insight to the rest of us. So we are forced to continue to laugh at your nonsense and play cat with you as the mouse.

this stupid? Do you have some disorder we need to know about?

After this post, I will simply declare the Heinz rule on you and this matter and the rest of us will move on to posters with an IQ above 60.

But for the sake of argument, lets delve to your level of stupidity one time so that maybe it will click with you. Lets slide into the fantasy land you live in, it may be fun. Here we go………

First you claimed there were no polls, that he would win in NJ, PA, CT etc and that you just knew that to be fact. OOOPS you were and are wrong. Lets see what is more credible about who would in in those states, you constant repetitious opinion that he IS winning there and WOULD win there, or a legitimate poll that says otherwise. We all recognize that things change, but since you claim he is currently the front runner there, we either have to assume you are a liar or a fool. Which one is it? By the way, the poll was not about who WAS running, the question asked who they would WANT running. SO your nonsense about most people do not know he us running etc holds no water.

Now on to your make believe land concerning the polls that showed him beating Obama and Clinton. Would those be the same poles that at different times had Romney winning, Huck winning, Hilary beating Obama, and even McCain winning? Because by God a pole taken nearly a year out is the perfect one and would never change. Not too mention, the polls showing him leading were very early, before his meltdown, and before everyone saw his lousy campaign. Oh, and those are the same poles that showed him and everyone else being beaten in a head to head with Thompson, right? Now which one or ones are we supposed to take as the ONE or should we not take them as the one and instead look at the ones closer to election. Well us normal folks do, but since we are playing in your la la land today, we will just take them all and state they were all beating each other.

Now the next part, I have to return to normal land since you are plain out lying. He WAS NOT winning in NJ, he was second. It was his own polls in NJ, CT, CA, and NY along with his loss in every primary so far that made him drop out. Liars do not get very far in debates, and that may very well be the reason you stink. Again, if you are trying to prove you point about these states with a real early poll, all I have to say to you is……….loser! That is not how it works and you know it. Tides change, people change their minds, polls get more accurate closer to the final moment, and in every poll, he was not leading in any state, PA included.

Now to your final nonsense, Lets go back to your play land again.
Lets just slip back to 2008 and change a few things just so you would be happy. Lets out PA, NJ, CT up first in the primaries. Lets throw out all polls, his included, and lets just assume he wins. He still has to go to MI, SC, NV, GA, NC, FL etc and win there to get the delegate count needed to pull off the nomination. And he would not have done that. We know already in most of those states, he lost and lost bad. We also know in all the states he polled no higher than second, your state included. But even if we have him every delegate from your repeated blue states, he still loses. And no matter how many times you try to lie or alter facts, the outcome would be the same. Or are you suggesting we end our parties primaries and just let anyone run for president even if we have 8-10 contenders. Yep that would work out well.

And you keep saying the system screwed him. How do you get that? The voters rejected him, even in the states you keep talking about. The rejected him at the voter booth and the polls. He knew it, we knew it, you just seem to stupid to understand it. So not sure what we have to defend, he knew how primaries were held and he knew what he had to win. He was unable to do that, he failed. And you are failure for your argument as it holds not merit.

Now since stupid people can only be so fun………..

I DECLARE HEINZ RULE IN THIS IDIOT!!!

and since it is your right to like, love, be infatuated, put up pictures of her and worship in your own way, please continue to support her. But do not play us for fools with such nonsense as comparing her to Ronald Reagan. She is not even in the same ballpark and has a long way to go before we could even consider her in the same league.

Supporting her is one thing, using outlandish claims to make your argument ring true is another. And calling her the new Ronald Reagan is outlandish and an insult to the man himself and our intelligence.

Ronald Reagan would like Palin, would support much of what she is doing, but even he would have to make a comment had he been here to hear the comparison. I think his response would be along the lines of:

“There you go again..” which is the famous line he used to take Carter out of the game.

a different line that the overused on “scared of her” or in your case “scared silly.”

It is an overused, pathetic, and silly statement that dimwhits use to avoid debate. And you are not clever enough to be the first to make it sound plausible. So try again, but drop the stupid and ancient “scared” line. It only shows how much of a fool you are.

And I hate to tell you, other than in the general should she even run and make it that far, will not be voting for Palin. In fact I doubt a majority here will outside of the general election. Fool yourself, but do not try it with us.

Last note which I am sure you will ignore, and we will keep this a secret between you and me, Palin is not Jesus no matter how much you want her to be or act as if she is. She is not even close for that matter. But shhhhh, do not tell the others!

but every once in a while you have to call the Obamalites, I mean Palinites on their “god”adoration. Same nonsense day after day, just waiting for the tears and trembling knees. It is Obama craziness all over again, this time the only difference is it is our side acting the fools.

Had Palin never shown up on scene with McCain and thrown out the little catchy phrases after the election was over, but only was put up for nomination based on her public service record, none of the ones worshiping her would be doing it. That is what I find most amazing about the idiocy going on. And what makes it worse, they are the ones most vocal about the other possible contenders and their “lack” of relevant work history.

Funny, just plain out funny.

we all get a few wrong here and there.

And as far as your apology, get back with me when hell freezes over.

it was radically different and you went past calling for budgetary control on Medicare or an over time ending of the program, you called for an immediate end to the program even though the older folks have paid into all their lives. We disagreed there but you took it a step further and went on to say how unfair it was that you had to pay for end of life care for the older people who were sick. I called you on it and you again stated how it was not the conservative way to continue to pay for the care of them when death was assured. You railed about how it went against conservatism to pay for what you deemed excessive care for the elderly.

Now if you want to deem your posting as right and that I am in an unenviable position, fine. But you did call for the stopping of care for the elderly and even called for payments to be refused when you deemed care to be nothing more than a postponement of what you deemed as an upcoming death. And as I recall not a soul was willing to back your euthanasia argument. You got offended that you were called on it and I guess your feelings are still hurt.

It is not like I need to explain anything to you, but when the worshipers throw out the “you did not worship her as I do, you are scared of women, scared of her, scared of a woman’s success” they need to be told just how much of a dimwit (see audax I spelled it right) they are. That is as much of an attack and more than the word dimwit.

Now I am moving on, feel free to continue “correcting me” if you so desire.

going through life as a cry baby, but try to drop the sissy act for a few.

It absolved you of nothing, you made plenty of comments I only posted one. And it does not only suggest adjustments and you know it. If keeping your head firmly planted in your rectum helps you absolve yourself of what you said, so be it. But with that comment and the others you made, you clearly called for the ending of care for the sick and the elderly and justified it by claiming they voted for 40 years democrat.

You are a joke, and your opinions on the elderly is sick. But if being pious helps you justify your behavior, if justifying behavior that you do which is the same that you preach to others about helps you feel better, and if a self verdict of innocence helps you feel you did not call for the early deaths of the elderly, so be it. But it is only you who finds you innocent, no one else did on the debate.

So grow up, quit crying, and stop seeing a big ole bully around every corner. If you want everyone to pat you on the rump and tell you how clever, smart, right, and perfect you blog, find a kid blog over at Disney. Here we say what needs to be said and if dimwit hurts your feelings so bad, I suggest you skip reading anything I write. I would also suggest you stop reading posts by MBecker, Neil, Moe, Streiff, etc who have used much stronger language for dimwits such as idiot, jackass, fool, etc.

Now grow up and move on. If you want to think you “showed” your innocence, fine. But anyone with a single digit IQ can read what you wrote on that diary and see you said what I said you stated. Whether you meant it to look that way or not, and only you and God know that, your argument for cutting off the care for the elderly and your “voted democrat” justification was a borderline to full euthanasia mindset. If you do not support it, watch what the hell you say and be careful how you word it. And if called on it, do not continue to justify it with statements like “they deserve it because they voted dem.”

Now if you can not understand that, I will add you to the dimwit ranks. But just in case you need a dose of common sense, let me give you a bit of it.

If you were simply for the “fixing” or “adjusting” of SSI and/or Medicare, you would simply state something needs to be done before it bankrupts the country. You would not need to state, as you did, how old people will just have to accept the removal of care, suck it up, accept it, etc. You would also not have had a need to expand on your opinion and state that keeping these folks alive when death is imminent is breaking the country and we can not afford it anymore. I agree the system needs to be fixed, but the debate was about ending medicare for the old who are on it now. I told the original poster that was crap, they had paid into it for 50 plus years, they earned a right to keep it. You jumped in with the nonsense about they will have to get used to not being able to get care and that they were at fault for voting dem for 40 years.

If you can not accept that either your opinion was way out there or you used a very poor word choice, then there is no hope for you, period. You did not just argue for adjusting medicare, you argued ending it and taking needed care away from the elderly and tried to justify it. Nothing more nothing less.