Grimm should know better than most. As a former Special Agent in the FBI, he was literally on scene at the World Trade Center shortly after the attacks. “As an FBI agent, it’s very personal… because, I responded to 9/11. I was on top of the pile of rubble and wreckage for months at a time. And I saw the devastation with my own eyes.”

Grimm is currently locked in a primary fight with his opponent, Michael Allegretti. The seat, currently held by Democrat Mike McMahon, includes Staten Island as well as parts of Brooklyn.

Also a combat veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the first Persian Gulf War, Grimm has had the unique experience of serving in both the military as well as federal law enforcement. Experts today argue over whether the fight against terrorism should be classified fundamentally as a military action or a police action. Having worked in both worlds, Grimm absolutely sees the struggle against al-Qaeda as a military one, which is why he strongly disagrees with the Obama administration’s attempt to treat it as a law enforcement issue:

The current regime in Washington is content with bringing down… the nature of what happened. It was an act of war. It was not a typical crime that the NYPD or any local police department would arrest someone for. And I sincerely believe that when you hold trials in a criminal court, you’re sending a message to the world, which includes our enemies and our allies, that we are bringing this down a level to a criminal level and I think that’s a big mistake.

Grimm points to the Christmas Day bomber as a perfect example of what’s wrong with the system:

Again, an attempted act of war, and we turn around and afford this terrorist the Miranda rights that are afforded to citizens here in the United States. He’s not snatching a purse. He’s not stealing from a store. He’s trying to kill Americans in the name of Jihad or Islamic extremism.

As has been reported, alleged Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was Mirandized only 50 minutes after he was first questioned by the FBI. To Grimm, this was an egregious mistake:

It’s a terrorist act, an act of war…We need to have a firm military answer to that. Had they handed him over to the military, he would have been interrogated properly and effectively from the onset, and I think that Mirandizing him is only putting us in a position of weakness.

While he doesn’t support civilian trials for suspected terrorists, Grimm does believe that alleged terrorists should be held to account for their crimes in front of a military tribunal.  He argues that

We cannot just indefinitely leave them there. That would be inappropriate…They should be given and afforded military tribunals and tried for the war crimes that they’ve committed. And that should be without delay.

Grimm’s concerns also extend to the welfare of those brave Americans, whether military or civilian, who are tasked with bringing terrorists to justice. He effusively praised the courage and honor of those who serve our country, but is worried that they may not have the full support of their government.

What is getting in their way and hindering them is the politics… As someone who has worked with the CIA and with all the military intelligence agencies, when you start putting our troops on court martial, our Navy SEALs on court martial, and you start investigating secret operatives and threatening them with doing their job, you are tying the hands of every agent, every operative, every military soldier, because it makes them think and take a second to think about what they’re doing.

Furthermore, it could crush the morale of those whose job it is to keep us safe, thereby putting everyone’s safety at risk.

Think about the average FBI agent that has 18 years in the Bureau, has two or three children, and he’s relying on his pension to survive, and he could be possibly looked at to be investigated and possibly put on trial? It makes them think about every action they take and that’s a mistake.

While he is actively engaged in the debate about national security, he is also interested in turning around the fortunes of a Republican party that has had a difficult time of late.

We have to take responsibility. Republicans did lose their way… We have to admit that. In the Marine Corps, it’s called standing on the carpet. If you’ve done something wrong, you stand on the carpet and your commanding officer tells you what your punishment’s going to be and you take it like a Marine. We lost our way but I do believe that we’re finding our way back. And I’m very optimistic about that.

And just how can Republicans find their way back? According to Grimm, by embracing their true core values.

And the number one thing on that agenda has to be our fiscal responsibility. That’s what I think brings all Republicans together, is the idea of having that fiscal responsibility. I’m a true fiscal conservative. I was brought up that way.” Grimm went on to say that his family had a very simple philosophy that if they could not afford something, they didn’t buy it. “And you know what? That worked well for my house, and I think it works well for this country, Staten Island, and Brooklyn.

As for healthcare and the economy, Grimm’s positions fit right in with most conservatives. He certainly doesn’t support the current Democratic health bills winding their way through Congress. He does, however, support tort reform, as well as interstate competition between insurance providers. He believes market-based solutions can help bend the cost-curve down and he abhors socialized medicine. On the issue of the economy, Grimm supports dispensing with the capital gains tax for two years, extending the Bush tax cuts, and reducing the corporate tax rate to between 18 and 20 percent.

While Grimm is no doubt a dedicated conservative, he also demonstrates a pragmatic, common-sense approach to certain problems that, to be honest, is sorely missing in the Republican Party. One can see this in regards to immigration reform. Grimm supports placing undocumented migrants on an eventual path to full citizenship, provided they play by the rules, learn English, and stay on the right side of the law. Felons would be deported immediately. He is against “amnesty’, but also doesn’t believe that rounding up millions of people (many who pay taxes!) for deportation is a sensible solution . Such a position puts him at odds with much of his party, but it may demonstrate that Grimm is politically willing to do what is right, instead of what is popular. Sadly, this independence and willingness to buck the system is in short supply within the Republican Party.

As America becomes younger and more diverse, it’s vital that the party not alienate those who could be a key part of its constituency down the road. Latinos, for instance, make up a larger share of the country (and the electorate) every single year, which is why a policy of outreach, and not hostility, makes sense for Republicans in the long run. Perhaps the path back to prominence for the Republican party is to nominate candidates who exhibit not only conservative values, but also simple common sense. It is ultimately up to the people of the 13^th Congressional District of New York to decide, but they may already have found such a candidate in Michael Grimm.

The 8th Congressional District of Virginia, located just west of Washington, D.C., encompasses Alexandria, Falls Church, as well as parts of Arlington and Fairfax County. The district has voted Democratic for nearly twenty years, electing Jim Moran to eleven terms. Moran, of course, is no stranger to controversy. His comments about Jewish support for the Iraq war landed him in hot water. Plus, he’s also under investigation by the House ethics committee for possibly allocating government contracts to a now-defunct defense appropriations lobbying group, which then donated nearly a million dollars over ten years to Moran’s PAC.

Could 2010 be the year voters in the 8th District decide they want someone different?  According to a recent CNN poll, only one-third of voters believe that members of Congress deserve to keep their jobs. Anti-incumbent feeling is running incredibly high at the moment, which may portend significant upheaval in the 2010 Congressional elections. Republican candidate Patrick Murray certainly hopes so.

*Update- Congressman Jim Moran was cleared of any wrongdoing by the House Ethics Committee on Friday, Feb 26th. However, the lobbying group PMA continues to be investigated by the Justice Department for alleged improper campaign donations to lawmakers.

Murray on Extending Rights to Terror Detainees:

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo1CBsRmJnw

On the status of Guantanamo Bay:

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxklgehGRmg

On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3mHiFO1IXw

On Local Issues:

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNRk2DqV8fo

In 1980, the internet as we know it today, along with iPhones, email, etc., obviously did not even exist. Sailors aboard ships had no easy way to find out news from back home; information was passed on to the ship’s captain, who would then pass it down to the rest of the ship. Of course, this was a terribly slow way to deliver information, especially when compared to the immediacy of today. Naturally, such announcements about a hockey game were few and far between. Apparently the sailors aboard had some vague idea that the U.S. hockey team was playing the Soviets, but they had no idea as to the score or the winner. So when that unlikely group of college kids defeated the Soviets, the sailors aboard had no idea that the U.S. had just shocked the world.

As everyone well knows, the Miracle occurred at the height of the Cold War. And in places such as the Gulf of Aden, it was not uncommon for American and Soviet forces to come across each other in international waters. For instance, Soviet reconnaissance planes would sometimes come across a U.S. carrier group, as each had the right to travel in international waters. Just to make sure there were no misunderstandings (keep in mind that it wouldn’t have taken much for a Cold War to become hot), the U.S. carrier would scramble a jet to ‘escort’ the Soviet plane past our carriers.  The two planes would apparently establish some sort of contact, one would escort the other past the carrier group, and each went on their way. This was simply done to make sure that no funny business broke out.

Sure enough, a day or two after the Miracle on Ice, a Soviet patrol was spotted near the U.S. carrier. Like many times before, an American jet was scrambled for escort purposes. Except that this time something extraordinary happened – when the American pilot contacted his Soviet counterpart, the Russian pilot responded by congratulating the Americans for their hockey team’s victory over the Soviets in the Olympics. When the American pilot landed, he passed on word to his countrymen that we had won and the ship erupted in cheer. And to think, how the ship found out that we had beaten the Soviets from – a Soviet fighter pilot!

The two mortal enemies, the proverbial ‘tips of the spears’, meeting eyeball to eyeball over international waters during the height of the Cold War, not long after the Soviets’ invasion of Afghanistan. And the Soviet pilot congratulated the Americans for their victory! Give credit to the Soviet pilot, obviously a hockey fan, for displaying a small measure of humanity, grace, and sportsmanship during what must have been a difficult time for the Soviets (as if it were ever easy or enjoyable). It’s amazing that the result of a simple hockey game may have thawed the ice between two mortal enemies, if only for a fleeting second.

So when you remember 1980, please keep this story in mind. The victory by the Americans at Lake Placid was no doubt a Miracle on Ice. But it inspired a much smaller miracle, far removed from the mountains of upstate New York. It inspired a ship full of Americans who were proudly serving their country. It demonstrated that, despite the intense hatred on both sides, our Soviet rivals weren’t all the monsters they were made out to be. And we have a plucky bunch of college kids, with a gruff head coach, to thank for it.

Lazio, however, does not match up well at all against New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo leads Lazio 63-26%. Lazio has actually gained three percentage points against Cuomo in the last month, yet he still has quite a mountain to climb if he faces the current AG.

Among Democrats, Paterson beats Lazio 56% to 31%. Cuomo, however, leads Lazio among Democrats 80% to 11%. Among Republicans: Lazio leads Paterson by over 60 percentage points, but only leads Cuomo 54% to 36%.

The research institute also conducted a poll considering various possible Republican and Democratic matchups for the New York Senate seat that will be open in 2010. Incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was pitted against former New York Governor George Pataki, Republican Bruce Blakeman, and Billionaire publisher Mort Zuckerman.

As of February 22nd, Pataki leads Gillibrand 47-41%, a slight dip from his January numbers. Gillibrand crushes Blakeman at 51-24% and beats Zuckerman 49%-29%.

The poll also placed former Tennessee Representative Harold Ford, Jr. in a race against Pataki, Blakeman, and Zuckerman. Pataki leads Ford 48-34%, but similar to Gillibrand, Ford trounces both Blakeman, at 41-23%, and Zuckerman at 40-26%. If Republicans hope to take the New York Senate seat from the Democrats in 2010, George Pataki is their best option.

However, some think the recent election of Scott Brown to the Senate may put the brakes on any such legislation. (In fact, nearly half of all union members who voted in the recent Massachusetts Special Election voted for Scott Brown.)  With 41 votes in the Senate, Republicans have enough votes to filibuster any Democratic agenda. Opponents of card check may sleep comfortably at night, with the belief that card check is essentially dead on arrival. Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago, in a lengthy critique of the bill, has said it would “reduce income and employment across the board” and that “the level of unrest in labor relations will increase, and do so in a time when the economy is still likely to suffer from a general slowdown.”  However, recent developments involving the National Labor Relations Board may show that the president could still radically alter U.S. labor law, including some elements of card check, without receiving any approval from Congress.

First, a little background. In 1935, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),

… to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy…

The purpose of the National Labor Relations Board, taken from the NLRB website, is as follows:

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing relations between unions and employers in the private sector. The statute guarantees the right of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers, and to engage in other protected concerted activity with or without a union, or to refrain from all such activity.

Currently, three Democrats and two Republican appointees sit on the Board. The current members of the Board and the dates for their terms expire to expire are:

Peter Schaumber (R), August 27, 2010

Wilma Liebman (D), August 27, 2011

Brian Hayes (R), December 16, 2012

Mark Gaston Pearce (D), December 16, 2013

Craig Becker (D), December 16, 2014

Historically, the NLRB has enforced its mandate through adjudication. That is, when a dispute arises between management and labor, the issue is brought before the Board. The Board reviews the facts, interprets the rules, and judges a case on its merit. It does not, at any point, actually write the rules by itself. That has always been the responsibility of Congress and Congress alone. The Obama Administration, however, may seek to alter this policy. The possible changes are detailed in a report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

These changes are not simply theoretical. The Chairman of the NLRB has even said as much. At a recent meeting of the American Bar Association, NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman (who was appointed Chairman by President Obama in 2009) was quoted as saying, “…the Board could engage in rulemaking as a more coherent way to make policy changes rather than decisionmaking.” Such a move is unprecedented for the NLRB. Congress has been charged with the responsibility of making the rules; now, that duty could possibly fall to an unelected body of individuals appointed by the President, (along with the advice and consent of the Senate). They would be able to make sweeping changes to American labor laws without any input from Congress.

The Board may try to do this through an expansive interpretation of the NLRA. For instance, collective bargaining is a right that has historically existed between employers and so-called majority unions. It is a right granted by the Congress through the NLRA (as well as the Taft/Hartley Amendments). That is, if a majority of employees seek to form a union, they can basically do so and the employer will be forced to bargain with them. Under an expansive view of the NLRA, however, employers may be forced to bargain not only with majority unions, but with “members-only, non-majority unions” as well. In fact, seven unions petitioned the NLRB in 2007 to do just that.

Section 7 of the NLRA contains the phrase, “…employees shall have the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” Furthermore, Section 8 (a)(1) states that, “…it is an unfair labor practice for an employer…to interfere with…employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.” The petitioners argued that because no actual limit is placed on which employees should be afforded the ability to collectively bargain, and furthermore that that right is guaranteed by the Act, it is therefore illegal for an employer to refuse to collectively bargain with a “members-only, non-majority union.” In plain English, through the rulemaking of the NLRB, employers could soon be forced to collectively bargain not only with majority unions, as protected by the Act, but also with all unions, large and small.

Why is this significant? From a micro point of view, it demonstrates how the Board could bypass the legislative process and legislate themselves. But from a macro view, it shows that the Obama Administration could force through various labor rules, potentially such as card check, without any input from Congress.  Why bother passing the controversial EFCA, when you can simply bully management into submission through the NLRB?  The concerns of the petitioners’ action are summarized in the report:

It does not take much of an imagination to envision that such a rule would have the potential for forcing private sector U.S. industrial relations to undergo the biggest change since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, without any new laws being passed and without overturning any cases of the NLRB.

If adopted, the rule would certainly lead to a surge in unionization since unions would be able to organize and force an employer to recognize for purposes of collective bargaining small, nonmajority groups of employees within a proposed bargaining unit who support the union. Employers could be confronted with scores of small, non-majority bargaining units.

It would also wreak havoc with collective bargaining by encouraging fractionalized bargaining within a single worksite, promoting needless conflicts, leap-frog collective bargaining, more numerous strikes and work stoppages, and so forth.

Finally, forcing employers to recognize and bargain with non-majority units of employees would lead to serious problems in administration of the numerous collective bargaining contracts for multiple small groups of employees, including for example check off of union dues by the employer.

This expansive version of the NLRA could have profound effects on a wide range of management/labor issues. Longstanding precedent in labor law could be overturned. The most important  example of this involve the Dana/Metaldyne cases.

A landmark decision in 2007 named Dana/Metaldyne illustrates the point. Dana/Metaldyne involved employees at a Midwestern company who wanted to join the United Auto Workers Union. There are two methods in which employees can form a union. Under the first method, employees simply seek the assistance of the NLRB to form a union. Votes are then cast through a secret ballot. A union is formed if a majority of votes are cast in favor of unionization. The second method of forming a union is employed through the tactic known as card check. There, employees simply sign a card issued by an employer, stating their desire to join a union. A union is created if a majority of employees vote in favor of the union. Labor loves card check because it prevents employees from being exposed to anti-union lobbying by management. Management hates it because it allows employees to be subject to coercion by pro-union forces.

In this case, card check was used and a majority of workers signed their cards, thereby joining the union. However, a small number of employees disagreed with the decision, and petitioned the local NLRB office to allow for a full election through a secret ballot. The local office disagreed with the petitioners, stating that union certification is valid for one year after creation of the union. The case was bumped up to the NLRB, out of due process concerns for the petitioners. The majority opinion of the NLRB then overturned the decision of the regional office, holding that if at least 30% of the workers filed a petition challenging union certification within 45 days of the card check vote, certification was invalidated. According to the Board, requiring employees to meet the 30% threshold within 45 days, “…would strike the proper balance between the two important but often competing interests under the National Labor Relations Act: protecting employee freedom of choice on the one hand, and promoting stability of bargaining relationships on the other.” The due process concerns of a group of employees wishing to challenge the formation of a union were of utmost concern to the NLRB in 2007.

Unfortunately, in 2010, this may be a different story. The dissenting opinion in Dana/Metaldyne argued that the 45 day period was unnecessary. Instead, employees wishing to challenge union certification were bound to the vague standard of “a reasonable time.” This would effectively make it harder to roll back a union formed through card check once the union has been certified. In the rush to unionize, the due process concerns of some employees could be easily swept aside. Not surprisingly, one of the authors of the dissent was none other than current NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman, who no doubt hopes to one day overturn the Dana/Metaldyne decision. The concerns of such a vague standard were set forth in the Chamber of Commerce report:

If Dana / Metaldyne is reversed, the period of a recognition bar would revert to the amorphous “reasonable period” of time following recognition before the employees could file for a decertification election and vote in secret ballot on whether they want to be represented by the union. If the union truly represents a majority of employees, it should have nothing to fear from an election where the employer has voluntarily recognized the union without an election.

If Dana/Metaldyne is indeed overturned, where does it stop? With a Democratic Chairman and a majority-Democratic Board, years of American labor law could be overturned in a heartbeat. Card check could become reality without Congress even debating the issue. Conservatives may gloat that the President will be unable to pass the EFCA now that the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority has disappeared. But what they don’t realize is that it doesn’t take 60 Democrats in the Senate to radically alter U.S. labor law. It may only take 3 of them, sitting on the NLRB, unelected, unaccountable to anyone but the President, waiting for their opportunity to deliver ‘Change’ to an unsuspecting public.

As for the 2010 New York Gubernatorial horse race, former Representative Rick Lazio and Erie County Executive Chris Collins each fare well in a potential matchup against current Governor David Patterson. Lazio and Patterson are tied at 42%, whereas Collins and Patterson are tied at 40%. However, they are far behind current New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo crushes Lazio among potential voters (66% to 24%), as well as Collins (65% to 23%).

The study, sends an ominous message: Under both House and Senate plans, federal healthcare costs will skyrocket. Deficit neutrality is achieved by hypothesizing reductions in Medicare and Medicaid spending. Those predictions however are not very credible. As Susan Tanaka of the Foundation delicately put it:

Maybe all these changes can end up being deficit neutral over the longer term, but it’s also possible, given the complexities of the health care system, that that’s not going to happen.

Politically, it’s much easier to increase benefits than it is to cut spending and to raise new revenues. There are certain pressures within the budget process that tend to drive us away from deficit neutrality. … We do not see any measures within either bill that would help guarantee that those type of developments, should they occur, will be offset.

Respondents included Grover Norquist, Mark Kirk, Chuck DeVore, Arthur Brooks, Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist, and many others.

Grover Norquist – President, Americans for Tax Reform

Mr. Norquist isn’t getting a turkey small enough to drown in his bathtub. Instead, he’ll probably need quite a large turkey – he’s having dinner with his family and relatives who are coming in from out of town.

Most memorable Thanksgiving? “My younger brother was born on Thanksgiving,” Norquist tells FrumForum. “That sort of changed our plans.”

Eli Lake – National Security Correspondent, Washington Times

This Thanksgiving, Eli is going to be in Dubai, on his way to Iraq. He’s not really sure whether or not they serve turkeys in the United Arab Emirates on American thanksgiving.

Rep. Mark Kirk – Republican, 10^th District of Illinois; Candidate, Illinois Senate Seat

Congressman Kirk is a Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve who spends one weekend a month as the Deputy Director of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center.

So, after spending some time with his mom and stepdad, he’ll be “pulling some Navy Duty” at the Pentagon over the holidays. He tells FrumForum that he’s hoping someone leaves some extra chow at the Pentagon for him while he’s on duty.

Richard Brookhiser – Senior Editor, National Review; Author, Right Time, Right Place

Mr. Brookhiser gives FrumForum an answer worthy of a much-lauded historian:

I spent the Thanksgivings of my childhood at my grandmother’s house in Johnstown, New York. It seemed like a step back in time: my grandmother was born in the early 1880s.

…Apart from her and her trappings, the holiday was noteworthy for being commonplace. There was a turkey; it was stuffed. There were mashed potatoes; they were served with gravy. Special flatware came out of velvet bags, tied with grosgrain handles; nuts were served in cut glass dishes.

We ate to insensibility. We watched the Macy’s parade on television, followed by football games. We ate the same meal for dinner, warmed up (the food seemed better and better as it became more and more left over). We were as comfortable as clams, and as unconscious.

And isn’t not having had to think about it, something (later) to be thankful for?

Chuck DeVore – Candidate, California Senate Seat

DeVore explains his Thanksgiving tradition to FrumForum:

Every Thanksgiving, as well as Easter, my family invites people over for a traditional banquet.  Our nearest relatives are far away, so we decided to create our own tradition for these two key holidays. We invite over friends who have no local family as well as friends who are financially strapped.  For the day, they become our extended family.

Marco Rubio – Fmr. Speaker of Florida House; Candidate, Florida Senate Seat

Rubio’s Thanksgiving tradition is playing flag football. He’ll be spending the day at his house with his family. See his Thanksgiving message on YouTube here.

Sergio Gor – Director of Outreach, Americans for Limited Government

This year, Sergio is going to be snacking on a deep-fried turkey with his family, who are flying in from California. Sergio recalls taking care of his own turkey one year in high school for an elective veterinary and agriculture class. His time with this turkey came to an abrupt end when he slaughtered and ate it for Thanksgiving one year.

Shmuel Herzfeld – Rabbi, The National Synagogue; Contributor, FrumForum

Rabbi Herzfeld is welcoming over 100 people to his synagogue for a free Thanksgiving dinner. Shmuel tells FrumForum that they’re invited to come dressed like pilgrims.

His Thanksgiving tradition involves going to the police station for their 6AM roll call to bring them breakfast, as well as bringing some pizza by the local fire station as a gesture of thanks.

Sen. James Inhofe – Republican, Oklahoma

Senator Inhofe will be spending Thanksgiving in Oklahoma with his wife Kay and their twenty kids and grandkids. As per tradition, Kay will be fixing up a traditional turkey dinner.

Arthur Brooks – President, American Enterprise Institute

Arthur Brooks is staying home with his family and a few friends. His tradition, in his words, is “overeating and then self-loathing.”

Gov. Charlie Crist – Governor of Florida

Governor Crist and the First Lady will be having Thanksgiving dinner in St. Petersburg with the governor’s family.  The Governor tells FrumForum that he is thankful for the freedoms we all cherish, and most of all to the men and women in uniform.

Soren Dayton – Editor, TheNextRight

In his first Thanksgiving since he got married, Soren is having dinner with his mom and his wife’s family. His Thanksgiving tradition involves making pumpkin pie with his mom.

John Boehner – House Minority Leader

Rep. Boehner will be spending time celebrating the holiday with his family in Cincinnati.

Mitch McConnell – Senate Minority Leader

Senator McConnell is set for a busy week – he’ll be travelling through the state of Kentucky over the Thanksgiving holidays.

David Frum – Editor, FrumForum

David Frum will spend Thanksgiving in the same way he always does – not watching football.

The most recent polling of potential races in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election show that Giuliani currently lags behind Cuomo, 53% to 41%.

The former mayor, who may have his sights set on New York State’s Executive Mansion, is one of only two Republican candidates (Former Governor George Pataki being the other) who have favorability ratings over 30%. Giuliani’s rating currently stands at 62% favorability, with Pataki running second with 55%.

Not surprising, Giuliani crushes unpopular incumbent Governor David Patterson in a head to head hypothetical, with his support standing at 56%, compared to Patterson’s 33%.

However, as a Republican, Giuliani faces an uphill battle in a state that was carried by Barack Obama in 2008, especially if Cuomo runs.

The 2008 presidential candidate has been maintaining a high profile since the end of his national campaign last year. According to a July article on FrumForum, Giuliani may still harbor presidential ambitions.

Mayor Giuliani has also continued to endorse candidates, putting his support behind Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in the recent NY-23 race. He even went so far as to lend his voice to robocalls made on Hoffman’s behalf.

In the last week, he has condemned the Obama Administration’s decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal Court in Manhattan. Speaking to CNN, Giuliani labeled the move as an “unneccessary advantage” for terrorists that poses “risks for New York City.”