Posted on 04/17/2007 12:22:58 PM PDT by pissant
The conventional wisdom about presidential nomination campaigns is almost always wrong. And the pundits' dismissal of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani's bid for the Republican nomination will not improve their batting average. Even though Giuliani is way ahead of everybody in early primary polls, the experts are already writing Giuliani's obituary.
Some of this spin is wishful thinking by Democrats who don't want to face him in the general election. Other than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), he is better known and more popular than anyone running for president, even Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). And Giuliani has a better chance than any other GOP candidate to turn blue states red. Depending on the Democratic presidential nominee, he could put into play states like New York, New Jersey and California that are normally off-limits to Republicans.
The rap on Giuliani is that he is a great prospect for winning the general election but has almost no chance to win the GOP nod because of his personal history and his stands on issues such as gun control and gay marriage. But there are at least a couple of reasons why he could go all the way and come out of the Republican National Convention in Minnesota as king of the hill.
First, GOP primary voters, especially born-again Christians, are so horrified at the prospect of Clinton becoming president that they would nominate the devil if they thought it would keep her out of the White House. The stronger Clinton becomes in her bid for the Democratic nomination, the better Giuliani will look to the religious fundamentalists on the Republican side who descend on the Iowa caucuses by the busload.
In backing the most electable candidate, Republican voters would be following a long history of calculation and pragmatic voting in presidential primary campaigns. In 2004, Democrats were so eager to block the reelection of President Bush that they voted with their heads for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), rather than with their hearts for former Vermont governor Howard Dean.
We may finally get the dream race that everybody wanted in 2000, when then-mayor Giuliani was ready to run against then-first lady Clinton for the U.S. Senate in New York, until fate and the mayor's former wife Donna Hanover intervened.
The other factor that could propel Giuliani to victory in the Republican race is that voters, even primary voters, care more about qualities like leadership and strength than they do about the positions the candidates take on issues. In this context, the reputation for strength that Giuliani built after the Sept. 11 attacks should serve him well in his campaign to win the approval of GOP voters.
To the extent that any single issue will be a factor in voting decisions, national security will trump anything else. No Republican candidate projects the strength that a president needs to stand up to the bad guys like the one who claims that he rid New York City of thugs and saved the city from ruin on the worst day of its proud history.
As Giuliani prepares to officially announce his candidacy, he appears to be softening his position on gays and guns to appeal to the born-again Christian wing of the GOP. He said recently that gun control was good for New York City but might not work nationally. Despite his friendships with gay couples, Giuliani also announced that he was opposed to same-sex marriage. But fudging the issues is a mistake for Giuliani, because renouncing long-held beliefs undermines the reputation he has for strength and integrity.
Democratic activists are afraid of Giuliani, and Republican diehards fear him, as well. But the Bush presidency is slowly sinking into the sunset and Giuliani is the GOP's best bet to hang on to the White House.
(Brad Bannon is president of Bannon Communications Research, a Democratic polling firm in Washington).
Nonsense. Rudy will lose a lot of the very committed conservatives, who’ll stay home or go shooting in disgust at the lousy choice next November. Losing those people will cost a couple of close states, which will tip the election to Shrillary. Rudy simply cannot motivate the Republican base - he’s too liberal and he doesn’t have the charisma.
Did this make anyone else laugh?
And federal judges and the SCOTUS will make the final determinations. Rudy gives us nothing in that regard.
"No POTUS will touch the gun thing."
That is your opinion and has no bearing on what might actually happen.
"Rudy is for civil contracts for gays, which most people find reasonable."
Homosexuals have every civil right that any other heterosexual citizen possesses. Homosexuals want special rights and Rudy is someone who might very well use his bully pulpit to advance special rights. I can't say so with authority, but I don't believe that most people are in favor of a special set of rights to appease the homosexual community.
Says WHO???
Rudy IS the moderate Republican’s dream candidate
Yup.
And federal judges and the SCOTUS will make the final determinations. Rudy has said he will appoint strict judges
Then, the GOP has no hope.
The last time Rudy had the opportunity to appoint conservative judges, he did not. That is his record, and you want me to rely on his word? That was then and this is now?
Thank you for that reminder of The Gipper’s words. Rudy supporters would be wise to study them. Rudy would definitely change the Republican Party forever ... and not for the better, IMHO.
Absolutely not, he is clearly the most under rated liberal in poltitics today...
Spoken like a true wingnut straight from the fever swamps of Buchananesque crankery.
Like Paul Greenberg, I'm a conservative but I try not to be a damnfool about it.
If you look it up, Rudy as mayor had no choice. Reagan appointed some awful judges by the way.
The 80s are gone, the 1860s are gone, the demographics are changing as we speak. The republican party must adapt to the realities or the rep party will be gone with the wind.
I’m no expert but it looks like a nice Italian gun, Beretta maybe.
I have done some reading and asked many questions about the system that Rudy was dealing with and, it is my understanding that Rudy could have fought with the system to get better choices but chose to put his efforts into other areas. Some fearless leader.
Reagan did a few things that I didn't agree with, however I don't think that he is running this cycle. Anyway, are you arguing that because Reagan made some bad choices in the past ... Rudy is entitled to make bad choices in the future? Never subscribed to that philosophy. But you seem to be allowing for the fact that Rudy may make some bad judicial nominations which, I guess, is progress.
And what, exactly, are those realities? That liberals want to take over the party? That those who 'hate' but accept abortions want to throw out the pro-life plank? That the 2nd Amendment was just a suggestion, not something that we should defend? That certain citizens that want special rights should have them granted? Maybe that the border should remain as open and inviting as it is currently?
Please enlighten me as to what realities I am missing.
Rudy would be far from perfect, but, if the democrats get POTUS as well as the house and senate, it would be awful for the country.
So why are you arguing so hard on his side????? Oh, I forgot, he is the only one that can win, right?
Which brings us full circle to the statement that got us into this exchange. If you want to drop the 'talking points' and debate with your heart and brain, let me know. Until then I wish you well.
The republicans are going to have a hard time winning no matter who runs.
What I like most about Rudy is his ability to “frame the issues” and take the fight to the democrats, make them look wrong, and win hearts and minds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.