SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT GIULIANI'S COMPETENCE TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY

Let's leave aside Rudy Giuliani's penchant for dressing like a woman-- something he did serially throughout his entire life-- and let's leave aside his relationship to organized crime and his bad judgment in promoting, partnering with and a criminal figure like Bernard Kerik. A couple of other developments in the wild and wooly adventures of Rudy Giuliani have come to light today that illustrate the inappropriateness of taking his bid for the presidency seriously.

Former Senator Gary Hart, co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century wrote Giuliani a letter today, published at the Huffington Post that answers-- in spades-- Giuliani's Bush-like smear of the Democratic candidates for president last week (when he claimed that we would be bombed by al-Qaeda if we elected a Democrat president).

" Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City," writes Hart, "and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?" Good question, and one Giuliani should be forced to address while he runs around the country giving the impression that he fought off the Arab armies storming New York on September 11.

Hart didn't pull January 31, 2001 out of a hat. It was the day the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The Bush Regime "did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do," Hart asks Giuliani, then mayor of NYC, "during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention? Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer. Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism. You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States."

That's serious. But will Republicans and the media, who have chosen to lionize Bush for his disgraceful and contemptible 9/11 role, reassess Giuliani, who has, until now, gotten a free pass?

Perhaps it will be easier for them to just look at the garden variety incompetence that has been plaguing Giuliani's campaign. The latest example came today when he released a list of New Hampshire backers to the press. The only problem is that many of them don't support him.

Alongside a former state GOP chairman, a congressman and an executive councilor who do support Giuliani, a handful of people made the list of 125 supporters despite their objections.
Some are openly criticizing their mistaken inclusion; others who did not want to be quoted or embarrass the campaign have since decided to join it.

We're just coming out of the most incompetently run White House in history. We should be striving for something better-- much better-- now, not more of the same.


AND THE MORE THE REPUGS GET TO KNOW GIULIANI, THE LESS THEY LIKE HIM

The newest Cook/RT Strategies poll just came out today-- and it wasn't good news for Giuliani. "Among 319 registered voters that identify with or lean to the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani now leads [McCain] by seven points (28% to 21%), followed by Mitt Romney (11%), Fred Thompson (10%), Newt Gingrich (6%) and all others at 2% or less. That result represents a drop in Guiliani's lead over McCain from 17 points (34% to 17%) a month ago (among 290 Republicans), a decline that looks right on the edge of statistical significance given the relatively small sample sizes."


UPDATE: IS RUDY OFF HIS ROCKER? ON DRUGS?

The new Vanity Fair makes a good case for insanity in the GOP's leading contender for the presidency. "It's a Catch-22 kind of nuttiness. What with all his personal issues-- the children; the women; the former wives; Kerik and the Mob; his history of interminable, bitter, asinine hissy fits; the look in his eye; and, now, Judi!, his current, prospective, not-ready-for-prime-time First Lady-- he'd have to be nuts to think he could successfully run for president. But nutty people don't run for president-- certainly they don't get far if they do." The writer insists, for example, that it is crucial to find out-- by asking him-- "whether he's on antidepressants or any other pharmacological mood stabilizers."