Every now and again, I read a column that “gets” the vicissitudes of American politics. Someone who understands that there are things which transcend a candidate’s stance on issues and his campaign bank account to try to fathom his political success.
People wrote off Ronald Reagan in 1980 as being too old and too conservative to unite the GOP and win election to the White House. That year, some marveled as former Texas Governor John Connally’s fundraising success, thinking that would make him a formidable candidate in the GOP primaries.
As pundits dismissed Ronald Reagan, they now seem to dismiss my man Rudy. He’s too liberal on social issues to win the GOP. Republicans will reject him because of his checkered personal life. Yet, George Will notes that the former New York City Mayor is “confounding expectations, calling into question some assumptions about Republican voters.” The facts about Rudy’s personal life — and stance on certain hot button social issues — are not, in Will’s words, “causing a recoil from him: According to the USA Today-Gallup poll, his lead over John McCain has grown from 31 percent to 27 percent in November to 40-24 today.“
In his column, Will offers some great insight into the 2008 presidential race, so now that I’ve whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!
The poll is +/- 5% points with 95% confidence. Moreover, the poll is not of likely voters or primary voters. It is a general, national poll.
When women in America, and some men, find out that Rudy announced his divorce at a press conference, before announcing it to his wife, you will watch those numbers drop.
The theory on Rudy is that his sleazy private life will cost him votes in the south and west, where the GOP’s margin is comfortable enough that it won’t matter. It won’t hurt him, and may actually help, in the blue states where personal morality doesn’t much matter.
I’m more concerned with Rudy’s history of support for abortion-on-demand, open borders, and restrictions on second amendment rights. I’m not sure how much more “compassionate conservatism” the country can take.
It is ironic that on the GOP side, the only guy with one wife is the Mormon.
I’m not sure I’ll support Rudy in the primary, but would definately in the general.
I am noticing an effort by some forces. i’m not sure if its conservative punditry or the media in general to delegitmize Rudy, and I think that’s wrong.
Rudy would make a fine President in my opinion… way better than any Democrat.
Fair enough Vince. That’s a perfectly valid way to look at it.
What gives me pause is all the socialish legislation the moderate Bush has pushed through a largely compliant Republican congress… like the prescription drug giveaway, and Bush himself signing off on bloated highway, education, and agriculture bills, and of course the
perpetual incumbency protection actMcCain-Feingold.So, I see two possible scenarios here. One in which a left-of-center Republican president vetoes legislation on partial birth abortion and parental notification, compliantly signs off on laws restricting second amendment rights, and continues to push for open borders and amnesty, while the Republican minority in Congress is reluctant to oppose him.
The other has a hard-left Democrat-Socialist as president, trying to push through a far-left agenda, energizing and uniting Republican opposition. And since both Hillary and Obama gave full-throated support to Democrat filibusters of qualified judicial nominees, how are they going to have a leg to stand on if the Republican minority decides to return the favor?
I gotta wonder what would be better, four years of Hillary followed by a real conservative like Maybe Bobby Jindal or Mark Sanford? Or four years of a mod/lib Republican paving the way for further leftward drift by another Democrat administration?
The country wont physically survive if we dont have a president who can stand up to the forces of retreat.
As it stands right now, terrorists could easily get one or more nukes across our wide-open southwest border and detonate them in any American city. That situation seems unlikely to change regardless of who is elected president. But there are other geo-political considerations.
Would Hillary sell out Israel in return for empty promises from the Islamo-Fascists? Yes. Would Rudy, probably not.
Would a Hillary Administration be bought and owned by the Chinese? Her husband’s was, so probably yes. Rudy, no.
Would Hillary stand up for American security interests in the face of international opposition? Almost definitely not. Rudy, probably yes.
I’ll concede all those points, but, I don’t think the argument that defeating Islamo-Fascism has to trump all other considerations necessarily leads one to the conclusion that we have to defeat Democrats. The Democrats will not support winning the war until they can be in charge of it. Yes, it is disgusting that they are holding American victory hostage to selfish political interests, but if winning the war trumps everything, that leads one to having to put the country in the charge of Democrats.
I know where you’re coming from 100% Though I doubt the Democrats would run the war if they were in charge.
They didn’t run Vietnam right (which is the source of all the current mental illness in the Dems now)
Clinton didn’t war against these folks
When he did anything there was no follow up.
I am aware of the arguement that says we have to let the Dems win so that they are forced to be responsible, but i feel no evidence that they have the ablity to be responible.
but we can differ on that.
Your precise argument occurred to me as I was typing the last paragraph. Democrats have no stomach for defending America, probably because they don’t believe the USA is worth defending.
So, I guess the closest thing we get to a Democrat who actually wants to protect our country is … George Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Sigh.