GIULIANI '08: A REAL CHANCE

The New York Post ^ | 5/23/06 | John Podohertz

[Blackirish]

May 23, 2006 -- IN my new book ("Can She Be Stopped?"), I suggest that the Republican best suited to the challenge of preventing Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Oval Of fice in 2008 is Rudy Giuliani. A Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday offers some strong ballast for the idea: In a head-to-head matchup, Rudy beats Hillary 49 percent to 40 percent, the best showing among all Republican contenders.

By contrast, John McCain has a 46-to-42 advantage over Hillary - besting her but not as decisively as Rudy does. Rudy is viewed favorably by 64 percent of those asked, McCain by 49 percent (Hillary: 50 percent).

And this is not a poll of Republicans alone: The respondents are 41 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican and 21 percent independent.

It's probably not surprising that Rudy wins in a head-to-head contest for the presidency. After all, Hillary is a lightning rod - while he, once a hugely controversial figure, has become beloved.

But what about in a Republican primary? Can Rudy possibly win?

In surveys of Republican primary voters, two names top every list - Giuliani and McCain. Each gets support from around 30 percent, with every other possible contender hovering around 2 or 3 percent at most.

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL sometimes it seems a miracle that I spell anything correctly.

[One-Four-Five]

>Podhoretz belongs to a group of so-called "conservatives" who have spent far too much time living in urban nanny-states in the Northeast. William Kristol is another perfect case in point.

Do you reserve this illogic for those two, or do you apply it as well to folks like William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage?

Do you really believe that National Review is viewed as 'quasi-Marxist' by flyover country?

I think that you guys have boxed yourself into a corner that we will all regret, but that's your affair.

I'll be willing to look at the record of anyone offered as an alternative, whether moderates believe them to be viable or not.

I haven't seen one name mentioned who has a record of accomplishment that offers a fraction of what this guy did in one of the most liberal places in the country.

I think it's a good thing that he managed to change some minds. I see not one name offered by social conservatives that I believe has the ability to change the mind of even one person who disagrees with them.

But then you people aren't interested in results. You've proven that with your posts.

I have to agree with the poster who characterized what you had to say about Podhoretz as 'spam.'

And I find it most interesting that a politician managed to cause a seemingly higher percentage of liberals to consider voting for him, than 'social conservatives.' The social conservatives see that as a matter of the candidate being too liberal, but by that logic, so was Reagan. Some of us view it as relating to the importance of the accomplishments of the candidate.

It's clear where the priorities of social conservatives lie. As I've said, I'm interested in results. Well, perhaps someone like Mike Pence would've managed to reduce crime in a place like NYC on the scale seen over the last decade.

Maybe not.

It's been interesting discussing this with you. I wonder if I'll ever again have the privilege of discussing politics with someone who automatically brands Northeastern conservatives as 'quasi-Marxists.'

[George W. Bush]

There is no Rockefeller wing of the GOP. The man has been dead over two decades.

Yes, liberal Republicans keep telling us that. We're not convinced.

He will do well enough in Iowa to survive to win the major states. IF he runs and that is a big IF. Right now there is only McCain who can challenge him.

I don't think so. And the evangelicals and conservatives have already said no firmly to Romney, a Rockefeller type from Taxachussetts. McCain's time has come and gone. Sereral times, in fact. He just doesn't recognize it. And the media's flirtation with him is over because he no longer a useful dupe as a GOP maverick.

Allen is far more likely than any of these others.

[linda_22003]

It's easy to transpose or misread. For example, when I see the word "organism".... well, never mind.

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL. Now you have my mind wandering.

If I had a penny for everytime I typed teh for the I could retire.

[One-Four-Five]

>This is the arrogance of New Yorkers.

>To tell the truth, 9/11 just wasn't that big a deal for the rest of us.

I live around the corner from Ground Zero. It's a big deal to me. Sorry you don't see it that way. Oh...been to an airport lately? Those security restrictions that will be in place for the entire forseeable future are not in place because of what happened in New Orleans last summer.

This is an example of the sort of post put forth by someone opposed to Rudy Giuliani in a discussion of his chances for the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

That's very interesting.

Arrogance, indeed. Or, actually, something that requires a far more colorful description than I'm willing to provide here.

[timydnuc]

If Rudy take a "no nonsense" approach to illegal immigration, and a "win the war" on Terror, he could get it. If so, it's our fault as Republicans.

But, better the devil that I know than the devil I don't.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Romney's standings in the polls has improved since the beginning of this year. He is ahead of Allen though I could not tell you why. Didn't he do quite well at that gathering in Tennesses a few months back?

I believe you also exaggerate McCain's decline as well. Opinion of Freepers wrt Johnnie does not extend far outside FR.

[Blackirish]

I think Allen is stuck because he reminds people of W.
That model ain't exactly flying off the shelves.

Also his last couple of Sunday talk show appearances were disturbingly flat.

[justshutupandtakeit]

He just doesn't excite people. Though I try to keep emotion out of my analysis there is no doubt that it plays a large role in getting the People to vote for you.

[George W. Bush]

At any rate, two years out is forever in presidential polling and standing. We're over a year away from seeing who the party leadership wants. My guess is we'll know by October 2007 who the party leaders are backing. Until then, it's just a name recognition game.

A lot can happen between then and now. McCain's health might go south and I think he's not very well. Guiliani might marry an impeccably devout Catholic pro-family wife and recant his liberal ways with his bishop and join the NRA governing board as an ardent supporter of the Second. Giuliani might look a lot better if there were another terror attack. And he would raise his stock considerably if he came out hard, running against Washington on illegals. I listened to Mark Levin one night and Peter King was on. The good ol' boy caller from Texas was so thrilled with King's stand on immigration, he told Peter to come down and run for office in Texas if things didn't work out in New York. Peter King! Invited to Texas, of all places. But I dunno if Rudy is willing to be that bold. But it could make a large portion of the base overlook many other Rudy shortcomings.

The reason I mention King and the Levin show is that I thought about this thread more and I thought: If Guiliani is the solution, then what's the problem? It seems to me that he must try to run on his resume and his strengths. It seems to me that the way to bring a law and order resume to bear is on illegals. As far as his economic record, people don't at present seem worried about the economy.

One thing is almost certain: by fall of 2007, it won't look the same.

[Liz]

LAUGH BREAK

Rudy's smile is more presidential than Hillary's (not photo-shopped--Rudy really
dressed like this--future voters will decide whether he's a complete a** or not.)

And Rudy is seen as more "likable" than Clinton...Not to mention,
he looks better in heels, although those calves of his could use some lipo.....

[BCR #226]

Not Fantasyland... I've yet to meet a single gun owner that will vote for Guiliani if Mark Warner runs... have you? I suppose that is why the Republican slate is supporting legalizing the illegal aliens... they are looking for a new voting base to replace the gun owners, the anti-tax folks, and those that support a smaller government... you know, the groups that put the Republicans in control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000 but were then cast aside and shunned.

As to the polls, I don't listen to the polls since they are usually off quite a bit. The only one that counts is the one on election day.

I've been involved with Republican party politics for almost 7 years now. I resigned my position on my local committee this year due to the way the politicians have been treating the social conservatives.

I have decided to become a single issue voter and I don't really care what party the candidate is affiliated with. If they are pro-gun, they get my vote... If not, well, don't bother asking me for support... Guiliani is anti-gun. He won't get my vote and I sure won't help him in any way. Just because he has an "R" after his name doesn't mean a thing.

Mike

[Cincinna]

All my Grandmother's friends on the Upper West Side did not vote for George W. They are all ready and excited to vote for Rudy.

[Cincinna]

I agree. Although Rudy does not share all my beliefs, Hillary shares NONE.I could easily live with Rudy. I could never live with, nor could the country survive, another Clinton Presidency.

[sitetest]

Dear Cincinna,

"All my Grandmother's friends on the Upper West Side did not vote for George W. They are all ready and excited to vote for Rudy."

Wow! THAT'S a really powerful piece of evidence!

Not.


sitetest

[Alberta's Child]

How can you possibly say that you're "interested in results" when you have no idea what the results are going to be if Rudy Giuliani were to be elected to the White House?

Do you reserve this illogic for those two, or do you apply it as well to folks like William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage?

I don't know Buckley and Coulter well enough to comment on that, but I do know that Sean Hannity is a marginal conservative at best -- and I've taken a lot of grief for pointing out that Michael Savage is one of the biggest frauds in the media today.

[One-Four-Five]

You don't make any sense. You're trying to tell us that seeing someone elected whose accomplishments are miniscule in comparison is more conducive to desirable results?

I don't agree, but regardless, you are clinging to this implausible notion of Podhoretz as a quasi-Marxist.

I've been reading this guy for years. I'm still waiting for you to produce an example of his political philosophy that resembles Marxism in any way, but I suspect I'll be waiting for quite some time.

That you don't know enough about Ann Coulter to dismiss the thought of her as a quasi-Marxist out of hand is among the more enlightening tidbits of wisdom you've dropped into this thread.

It's quite amusing, really.

[George W. Bush]

William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage

I found this list strange. As though they're even comparable.

Buckley is the godfather of American conservatives. Bar none.

Coulter, a flamboyant columnist. Hannity, a radio/TV guy with a limited bag of tricks. Savage, the most rabid and far-out of the major right-wing radio personalities.

To include Buckley with the others is just odd. Besides, he's retired.

[George W. Bush]

It's one of the factors that pulled him through to beat sKerry.

Not as much as Lurch's repellant personality. And that wife!

Every election has something in common with a junior high vote for class president. It's a popularity contest, among other things. Everything else being more or less equal, people vote for who they feel comfortable with, who they connect with.