American voters angry over the war in Iraq and corruption on Capitol Hill Tuesday night punished President George W. Bush and his Republican Party, handing control of the House of Representatives to Democrats and putting GOP control of the Senate in jeopardy.

In nail-biting midterm elections viewed as a referendum on Bush’s leadership, Republicans appeared likely to lose at least 30 seats in once-safe GOP congressional districts. The losses ended a 12-year Republican stranglehold on the House.

The tide of anti-Republican sentiment also put Democrats within striking distance of seizing power in the Senate. Democrats gained at least three seats of six seats they needed to win, and were leading in three decisive Senate races. At least one Senate race, in Virginia, appeared headed for a recount and possible litigation.

Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid said the House results showed a “wind of change” in America.
“All over America tonight, they have come to the conclusion that a one-party town (in Washington) simply doesn’t work,” Reid said.

Democrats needed a net gain of 15 seats to take control of the House of Representatives. At press time, NBC projected a 30-plus seat gain for Democrats.

The signs of trouble for Republicans began almost immediately after polls closed across the country.  In Pennsylvania, a state which has suffered the country's third highest casualty rate in Iraq, incumbent Republican Senator Rick Santorum lost to Democratic challenger Bob Casey.  In Ohio, Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown defeated incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine, while anti-war sentiment cost moderate Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee his seat in Rhode Island.

The Senate race in Virginia was shaping up as the closest race of the night. With 99 per cent of ballots counted, Democrat James Webb led incumbent Republican Senator George Allen by just 2,700 votes.
Demorats were also ahead in Montana, where Jon Tester had built a 10,000-vote lead over Republican Senator Conrad Burns. A late-night turnaround for Democrats in Missouri gave Claire McCaskill a 25,000-vote lead over incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent. McCaskill declared victory early Wednesday, even though the outcome wasn’t finalized.

“We are not breaking out the champagne bottles yet.

It's going to be a long night,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee.

Republicans, however, lost several key bellwether House races early in the evening, setting a sombre mood at GOP campaign headquarters.

At press time, Democrats were leading in several key House races across the U.S. Northeast and Midwest, but a strong Republican turnout in the South was preventing a complete blow-out.


Evidence of the Democratic trend among voters was also apparent in elections for  governor in several states.

Voters in Massachusetts elected Deval Patrick, making him the first African-American governor in the state and ending 16 years of Republican control in the governor's office. In Ohio, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland also ended 16 years of Republican control.

The Democratic takeover of the House likely spells big trouble for Bush as he prepares for his final two years in office. While Bush will still set America's foreign policy, Democrats will likely ramp up pressure on the White House to change course in Iraq.

They could also scuttle Bush's legislative agenda and, with House committees under their control, launch a bevy of investigations into the administration's pre-war planning and controversial anti-terrorist programs.
In Ottawa, the Conservative government said it would work “constructively” with Democrats on trade and border issues.

“We’ve done that before and we’ll do so again,” said Jason Kenney, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “We think that the leadership of both parties understand the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship.”

While midterm elections are typically characterized by low turnouts, voters headed to the polls in higher-than-expected numbers.Election monitors reported sporadic problems with electronic voting machines used in dozens of states, but fears of widespread balloting problems were largely unrealized.

In Ohio, a judge ordered polling stations to remain open past the 8 p.m. closing time in the Cleveland area because of voting problems.

There were also reports that Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former president Bill Clinton, had difficulty casting a ballot for her mother, incumbent Senator Hillary Clinton in New York. The balloting capped the most expensive and, arguably, vicious midterm election campaign in American history, with both Republicans and Democrats spending record amounts on negative advertising.

In a sign of the hostile political atmosphere, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced Tuesday night it had opened an investigation into allegations of voter intimidation in the Senate race between incumbent Allen and Webb, the Democrat. Several voters reported receiving automated "robo-calls" urging them not to go to the polls, or directing them to the wrong polling station.

In heavily Democratic Maryland, some voters were handed sample ballots suggesting Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele was actually a Democrat.

Two major polls conducted in the final days of the campaign showed double digit leads for Democrats, but several others suggested Republicans had gained some momentum. Bush spent the last 10 days of the campaign stumping for Republican candidates and arguing Democrats wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq before victory was assured.

The U.S. president cast his ballot at a fire station in Crawford, Texas, before returning to the White House to watch election results.

Though his name wasn't on the ballot, Bush was the focal point of a campaign that took place against the backdrop of escalating sectarian violence in Iraq and growing public skepticism that the U.S. can win.

More than 100 American soldiers were killed in October alone, one of the highest casualty rates since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even as Bush defended his strategy, many endangered Republican candidates spent much of the campaign distancing themselves from White House policy.

Exit polls showed the war in Iraq, terrorism and corruption in Washington topped the list of concerns among Americans as they cast their ballots. The exit polling, conducted by the Associated Press and the major U.S. networks, became notorious following the 2004 presidential election after results indicated momentum for Democratic candidate John Kerry.

But the polls, this year conducted among 8,211 voters, were revamped to try avoid misleading results and better reflect the broader electorate. The exit polls found more than three quarters of voters cited corruption and scandal as the biggest election-year issues.

Many of the voters motivated by anger over Washington scandals identified themselves as evangelical Christians, hinting at deep disaffection within the Republican base.

About two thirds of voters cited Iraq as a motivating factor in their vote. Of those voters who cited Iraq as a key issue, two thirds said they were opposed to the war and were voting for Democratic House candidates.

Although two thirds of voters said terrorism was a big issue, they cast their ballots evenly between Democratic and Republican candidates.

The exit polling also showed six in 10 of voters were motivated by national issues over local issues — a result viewed as potentially bad news for Republicans because of the focus on Bush's stewardship of the country.

"The president has said that Democrats are going to cut and run in Iraq. The voters are cutting and running from George Bush and the Republican (rubber) stamp Congress," Schumer said before polls closed.

The Republicans also spent much of the campaign defending themselves against a litany of allegations of political malfeasance over the past year by members of Congress. Former Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay resigned last year after being indicted on accusations of improper fundraising. Two other Republican congressmen — California's Randall Cunningham and Ohio's Robert Ney — quit after convictions on bribery charges. And disgraced Florida congressman Mark Foley stepped down in September after revelations he sent sexually explicit e-mails to teenaged congressional pages.

Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since 1994 and, heading into Tuesday night's election, held 230 of the chambers 435 seats.

The Democrats held 201 seats, with one independent and four vacancies. The GOP has held the Senate since 2002 and went into the midterm elections with 55 seats to the Democrats' 44. There was one Independent. Though every House seat and 33 Senate seats were contested, the election was ultimately to be decided in only a few dozen key contests.

While several big-name candidates were in tough re-election races, others spent election night more relaxed. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat rejected by his party over his support for the Iraq war, easily won re-election as an Independent candidate. Clinton was headed for easy re-election amid speculation she plans to make a bid for the White House in 2008.

In California, incumbent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was also expected to win comfortably over Democratic challenger Phil Angelides.


The chances of a democrat being the next president just got much better.

    

Rumsfeld resigns after US election loss

US President George W Bush has announced the resignation of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, following the Democratic victories in legislative elections.

Read on...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1784274.htm

Should read Rumsfeld first scapegoat of Iraq debacle.

Good to see him go,nothing but a warmonger.

Quoted from fajo

Should read Rumsfeld first scapegoat of Iraq debacle.

Good to see him go,nothing but a warmonger.

Hear hear!

Quoted from fajo

Should read Rumsfeld first scapegoat of Iraq debacle.

Good to see him go,nothing but a warmonger.

Rumsfeld is not a scapegoat, he's the perpetrator. Lookup what a scapegoat is.

Bolton has resigned as US Ambassador to the UN. It says a lot about Bolton and the way he was appointed that when Coffi Annan was asked if Bolton has done a good job as an Ambassador he said, "He's done the job expected of him." There has been universal agreement amongst the ambassadors to the UN that Bolton going is a good move, except by our ambassador, who along with two tin pot island regimes are the only ones who have always voted with the US on every resolution.

Quoted Text

Bolton resigns as US Ambassador to UN

Facing opposition from key senators, US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will leave office in a matter of days, the White House announced today.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said President George W Bush had reluctantly accepted Mr Bolton's decision to leave the UN post when the current session of the US Congress ends, possibly at the end of the week.

Mr Bush had bypassed the Senate in August 2005 by appointing Mr Bolton to the position when the lawmakers were in recess, avoiding the confirmation process and angering senators concerned that Mr Bolton had a temper and intimidated intelligence analysts to support his views while at the State Department.

Mr Bolton and White House officials felt that if the full Senate had had the chance to vote on his nomination that he would be confirmed, but some senators in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee opposed him.

"Despite the support of a strong bipartisan majority of senators, Ambassador Bolton's confirmation was blocked by a Democrat filibuster, and this is a clear example of the breakdown in the Senate confirmation process," Ms Perino said.

Mr Bolton is the second Bush administration casualty since the Democrats swept to power in last month's Congressional elections.

Outgoing Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down from his portfolio the day after the Democrats' victory.

scapegoat - a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scapegoat

Yes Rumsfeld was one of the (if not the main) perpetrators of the Iraq war. But he wasn't the only one, Cheney also played a large part so Rumsfled being the only one to get the boot at this stage does make him some sort of scapegoat as Cheney and other neo-cons were also involved.

I'd like to see Bush also thrown out of office for this very serious calculated mistake. The President (or elected leader) should have to take responsibility for the wrong-doings or bad information he was given by his inner circle. It appears our leaders are immune and can simply pass the buck when they do something wrong.

In business more often than not the CEO has to take responsibility when things go south, like the Enron CEO who was convicted and sentenced to 24 years in jail.

Hilary Clinton has announced she will stand for the US Presidency in 2008.  Does she have a chance?  I think she'll poll okay but is the US "ready"  to consider a woman president?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1830636.htm

Then there is the Barack Obama factor, though the Republicans are making a big deal that if he became president it would set a bad example because he smokes.

Hypocrites, when first a large chunk of the Republicans funding comes from the tobacco industry (as it does for our parties (all sides)), and when they were asked to do something about the alarming increase of celebrities smoking in movies they refused.

I found an excellent site for people to look up who voted for what. Interestingly, everyone is bringing up the fact that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Of course, because Obama is new to office, that little scuff mark is not on his record.

The URL is a link to Hillary's profile, but you can search anyone in office and see how they voted and what they voted for.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

It should be an interesting race to the Whitehouse...

Obama formally enters White House race

Democratic Senator Barack Obama has launched his bid for the United States presidency with a speech in the hometown of former president Abraham Lincoln.

Thousands of enthusiastic supporters watched on as Senator Obama delivered his speech in Springfield, Illinois.

The 45-year-old is widely seen as the first African-American with a realistic chance of winning the presidency.

Senator Obama says Americans have the chance to unite as one people reaching out for what is possible.

"That is why, in the shadow of the old state capital where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today, to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America," he said.

Senator Obama addressed America's involvement in Iraq, saying he has a plan to bring all US troops home over the next year.

He also acknowledged his relative political inexperience.

"I recognise that there is a certain presumptuousness in this, a certain audacity to this announcement," he said.

"I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1844901.htm

I'm surprised this political storm on Howard's massive gaff hasn't got a run in this board yet.

Even Republicans are distancing themselves from Howard and are criticising him. JWH went running to the US ambassador last night looking for support like he used to do with Schieffer, but with the current ambassador McCallum he only got the line "That is internal Australian politics and nothing to do with me."

Quoted Text

Obama dismisses Howard's Iraq criticism
Prime Minister John Howard has set off a firestorm between Australia and the US Democratic Party after he criticised the Iraq policy of Barack Obama, a wildly popular Democrat who is potentially the next president of the US.

Mr Howard, a close ally of current Republican president George W Bush, said a presidential win by Mr Obama, who wants to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq, would be welcomed by al-Qaeda.

Democrats have reacted with disdain, with Mr Obama saying if Mr Howard is so strongly supportive of the war in Iraq then he should send another 20,000 Australian troops into battle.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.

If Mr Howard did not take up the invitation, Mr Obama said the comments became nothing more than "empty rhetoric".

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced (I would run for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination)."

Mr Howard started the fight when he criticised Mr Obama's plan to withdraw US combat troops by March 2008.

"If America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008 it can only be in circumstances of defeat," Mr Howard told Nine Network on Sunday.

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Mr Howard is under pressure over Australia's involvement in the war, with opinion polls consistently showing the conflict is unpopular with Australian voters.

The latest ACNielsen poll in Fairfax newspapers has the opposition Labor party 16 percentage points in front of the governing coalition on a two-party preferred vote while Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd also leads Mr Howard in the preferred prime minister stakes.

Labor has pledged to bring Australian troops home, through negotiation with the US, if it wins office later this year.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer later weighed into issue, saying Mr Howard has every right to speak out.

He dismissed Senator Obama's suggestion that Australia should boost its troop commitment to Iraq by 20,000 it if was so strongly supportive of the war.

"That would be half of our army. Australia is a much smaller country than the United States and so he might like to weigh that up," Mr Downer told ABC radio.

"It's entirely appropriate the Australian government expresses its view in a free world. You won't get anywhere trying to close down debate."

The foreign minister, in Turkey for meetings with the secular Islamic democracy on security, repeated the government's belief that a US withdrawal from Iraq would mean victory for al-Qaeda.

"A precipitous withdrawal by the United States from Iraq would be a catastrophe."

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd on Sunday demanded that Mr Howard withdraw his statements.

"Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States," Mr Rudd said.

"I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq ... But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the upcoming presidential election."

Quoted from boomslanger

I'm surprised this political storm on Howard's massive gaff hasn't got a run in this board yet...

I don't think it was a massive gaffe.  It was, however, an unprofessional comment; even though it was his opinion to which he is entitled.

Such a small gaff that has made the media around the world, has every major media outlet in the US commenting on it, mostly negatively, has the US Democrats saying that Howard better hope they don't win the next election and he is still PM of Australia and even has Republicans telling Howard to butt out of US politics.

It was a big gaff and totally wrong in every account. Not even the new US ambassador McCallum would stick up for him as the previous ambassador Schieffer used to.

It was not the opinion and legitimate debating point Howard made but how he went about it, linking Obama's planned withdrawal (which is what the majority of Americans now want) to a world wide victory for Al Queda and basically accusing Obama of being an indirect supporter of terrorism for his Iraq policy.

Obama who is miles smarter than Howard will ever be, came back with the perfect retort to Howard's attack. If John Howard is so concerned about a terrorist victory in Iraq why doesn't he send 20,000 Australian troops into the front line so some American troops can go home and don't have to die and be maimed every day.

I think it was a stupid comment by Howard but looking at what the comment was about, the US went into Iraq (and lets not start the debate) they can not leave the higly volatile situation that has been created by doing so, if done someone is going to fill the void left by the old dictatorship.

Obama's comment was also one of stupidity, those 20,000 troops are about 1/2 of Australia's military. The difference in military sizes may have something to do with population, he's just proven he has as much knowledge of the rest of the world as the average American.

You miss Obama's point which is a legitimate one. The number he pulled out of thin air was on only having a vague knowledge of the size of our Defence Force. The number was not important in the context of his speech.

As Obama stated everyone of the US's 140,000 troops can and do fight on the frontline, with 20-30 a week dying and being maimed. Very few of Australia's 1400 troops in Iraq are on the frontline and certainly not under daily attack, with several dying and being injured each day. The Australian troops are mostly in support roles (and important ones at that), in mostly safe areas or in areas where most of the Iraqis have respect for the British and Australians.

If Howard is so concerned and convinced that in Obama pulling out American troops by 2008 it will cause the rise of terrorism around the world, and make Australia and the world a far less safer place (a charge he levelled again today in parliament), then why doesn't he commit all the resources and troops he can to fighting the war in Iraq on the frontline?

That is what has happened in all previous wars in which Australia has assisted the US. We fought alongside and often ahead of US troops, more than pulling our weight and often taking more causalities per capita than most, but also inflicting proportionally more damage on the enemy than most other allies. If Iraq is so important to world peace as Howard keeps shrilly saying, then why isn't he more committed to fighting the war on the frontline instead of the tokenism he is now engaged in. Of course the reason is that if Australian troops start dying and being maimed on a regular basis he will lose all public support for his stance and his knows it.

So as Obama said, until Howard commits to fighting the good fight then all his words on Iraq are nothing but empty rhetoric.

Quoted from Paula

I don't think it was a massive gaffe.  It was, however, an unprofessional comment; even though it was his opinion to which he is entitled.

The fact is as the leader of a nation (or any other high ranking position) you cannot make such opinions public. Otherwise you incur the shitstorm that lil Johnny is still wiping off his face after 2 days!

This was another 'true colours' moment for lil john. He couldn't give a rats about the future of the AnUS (Australia n United States) alliance, all he cares about is sharing the big stage with Dubbya, helps him feel important, like a big man.

I've said it before, "little man complex".

Quoted from boomslanger

If Howard is so concerned and convinced that in Obama pulling out American troops by 2008 it will cause the rise of terrorism around the world, and make Australia and the world a far less safer place (a charge he levelled again today in parliament), then why doesn't he commit all the resources and troops he can to fighting the war in Iraq on the frontline?

What, in an election year?? That would be a PR disaster and would jeopardise the only thing lil john cares about in this world, staying Prime Minister.

I don't see the problem. It was said on a television program, not in a speech, and you have to agree with at least part of it.

What part TSS?

I agree with Howard's right to say what "he believes" will happen if the US pulls out of Iraq, but that is not what most others believe, including US General Peter Pace who is in Australia at the moment.

Very few are couching the pull out of America in the terms of the collapse of the free world as Howard is. Some are even speculating that with the American's out of the picture, who are directly and indirectly through their rorting of billions from the Iraqi people, the cause of the current violence, that Iraq after a bloody civil war will find an equilibrium and again become at worst a stable anti al-Qaida autocracy and at best a quasi democracy (having sampled it and liking it).

Btw even if Osama wins the election he can't be president until 2009 so cannot pull his troops out by March 2008.

Quoted from x452

... I've said it before, "little man complex".

Well that's a sweeping generalisation if I ever heard one.  

And the biggest crock I've ever heard.

It was unprofessional of him (is there an echo in here?) but not a massive gaffe and his opinion, just as this is mine.

Does anyone else feel how frenetic all this arguing is getting? . . these are the leaders of the Free World . .and they look like naughty little kids who need a clip around the ears . . election years . . WOMD's never found . . Iran now rattling sabres . . 1/3 of USA budget devoted to the war effort . . with NO end in sight . . Saddam dead . . and civil war all over Iraq (although no official will say those words out loud)  . . it looks to me like 'The Wheels Have Fallen Off' . .     . . * I have kindly left out the local issues we all face with IR laws and drought etc. . . *

Anyone got any answers ???  This poor planet needs them NOW!

Quoted from Paula

Well that's a sweeping generalisation if I ever heard one.  

Huh?  

Not sure if you understand, it doesn't mean ALL short people have the complex, only some.

Quoted Text

Little man complex (aka Napoleon complex, Short Man Complex):

In the fields of psychology and psychoanalysis, Napoleon complex (or Napoleon syndrome) is a colloquial term used to describe a type of inferiority complex suffered by people who are short. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives.[1] This can sometimes go as far as to lead to acts of violence or will to dominate those that are larger than the short person.

Alfred Adler pioneered the psychological work on inferiority complexes[2], and used Napoléon Bonaparte as an example of someone whom he thought was driven to extremes by a psychological need to compensate for what he saw as a handicap: his small stature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex

Quoted from Paula

It was unprofessional of him (is there an echo in here?) but not a massive gaffe and his opinion, just as this is mine.

John Howard doesn't make unintentional gaffes. His views were very clear. He was quite clearly trying to denigrate Obama and the Democrats, very unprofessional. But what do you expect from a foolish old man?

Quoted from blahNii

it looks to me like 'The Wheels Have Fallen Off' . .     . .
Anyone got any answers ???  This poor planet needs them NOW!

Oh ye of lil faith blahNii, the second coming is nigh my friend, have some faith. The big J (not Howard!) will chime in very shortly and rid the world of evil-doers, restoring it back to the once peaceful place it was, umm, can't remember when. Just ask Gizmo.

Hello to all! What does everybody think of Rudolph Guiliani. I lean to the republican side of things and think he would make a great president. Obama would be good but democrats tend to eat their own and Im sure Hillary would have him in her sights. Hillary seems to divisive for republicans to ever give her a fair go.

Is that the ex mayor of New York? I loved him when he was Mayor and if he was running for anything he would get my vote. Hilary... well there are similarities between her and Margaret Thatcher . Obama, don't know enough about him to comment.  

The Hillary and Obama camps are into the full swing of things with the Hillary cam blasting of its most direct attack yet. Its getting messy already. If one thing destroys the democrats at the next election it will be themselves.

Its official Republican Rudolph Guiliani is running for president and according to latest polls is ahead of

Hillary Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.c....._vs_clinton-227.html

And Barack Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....ni_vs_obama-228.html

Guiliani is the former mayor of New York at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
I think he would make a great American President and seems like the best candidate for the Republican Party.

Quoted Text

Clinton, Obama vie for black voters
US Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took to separate church pulpits in Alabama today using a civil rights commemoration to battle for support among the country's crucial black electorate.

I wonder who's ahead on this front, the black man or the white woman  

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21325871-5001028,00.html?from=public_rss

Quoted from The_Pragmatic_One

Guiliani is the former mayor of New York at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
I think he would make a great American President and seems like the best candidate for the Republican Party.

Why's that?

Quoted from aquamonkey

I wonder who's ahead on this front, the black man or the white woman  

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21325871-5001028,00.html?from=public_rss

I think the church plate would have gotten a good boost.

Quoted from tramp

Why's that?

I like the way handles himself. We already know he has a cool head in a crisis. I have seen a few interviews with him since he announced his intention to run for President and I like his ideas of where he wants to go with it all. Its not just me either, the polls suggest he, as of November last year is  the most popular politician in America. He appeals to democrats more than McCain so that will give him an edge.

Check out this link for the story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/politics/main2211669.shtml

Don't you think Cain’s experience with torture would make him more suited to be American President? *scarcasm*

But what did Guiliani  do except media interviews?  It was his staff and the various heads of services that that did all the work and organisation.

Quoted from tramp

Don't you think Cain’s experience with torture would make him more suited to be American President? *scarcasm*

But what did Guiliani  do except media interviews?  It was his staff and the various heads of services that that did all the work and organisation.

He basically turned New York around.
He lowered crime in New York. The homicide rate dropped by an amazing 65-70% . He lowered taxes when he came into power by  reducing the size of government and streamlining the way they used the money. All up he made probably 23-24 tax cuts in his tenure. He took a 2.4 billion dollar deficit and turned it around to a 3.2 billion dollar profit. I like his thinking on social issues which I can name if you would like, but that is another post in itself. And he conducts himself well to people and the press. He left as Mayor to battle testicular cancer and beat it. There aren't many angles to attack him from because he hasn't really failed.

These good economic times has happened across the board in most Countries.  It is a character of the times brought about by the resurgence of the Chinese economy.  Australia has benefited greatly by this also and skiing behind the wave taking the credit is our 'ittle Johnny.

What are his (Guiliani)views on social issues?

Guiliani is a very likeable politician and has the experience to be a big player in a Republican administration but I wouldn't hold my breath on the GOP electing a pro choice candidate...the far right will see to that. A victory for Guiliani should be a seat at the Cabinet, he would make a handy adviser even to a democratic administration.

I think cross pollination is a good idea – it should happen here.

Once you have been elected Government and there is a member in opposition that in the Zone when it comes to a particular issue then why not use him/her.  There is no law that I know of, that says members of the opposition can not be given a Ministerial portfolio.