Posted on 06/09/2007 8:48:50 AM PDT by hardback
Most election years, uninspired voters have little choice but to follow the example of W.C. Fields who said, “I never vote for anyone; I always vote against.”
But not this year, and not in the GOP.
Watching “Rudy McRomney” (as the frontrunners have sometimes been dubbed) debate in New Hampshire, it was hard to believe that as recently as 1996, the major contenders for the Republican nomination were Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan.
If either of them had approached the stage Tuesday night, they would have been tackled by security and dragged from the building.
The GOP field for 2008 is a tough crowd. Tough, and talented.
Take John McCain, for example. He’s a war hero, he won the New Hampshire primary in 2000, he’s one of the most prominent members of the U.S. Senate, he gets more TV time than Paris Hilton and he’s in fourth place in the most recent Rasmussen poll of likely GOP voters.
This is partially due to McCain’s politically suicidal support for the Kennedy/Kyl amnesty plan. Of all the strategies he could have used to woo GOP voters Tuesday night, his ham-fisted inference that his opponents are anti-Hispanic bigots was probably the least productive.
But if McCain could somehow sell his “Illegals Stay, Americans Pay” Z-visa plan, he would still be up against a much tougher field than he faced in 2000. McCain’s only opponent that year was a “legacy” from Texas who couldn’t pronounce the word “nuclear” without the “y.”
If the George W. Bush of 2000 had to run as a candidate today, he’d be fighting Jim Gilmore and Sam Brownback for top spot in the second tier. And the George Bush of 2007 would do even worse.
Democrats know this, and they’re counting on Bush’s lousy numbers to hurt the GOP in 2008. They’re probably right.
But Democrats should remember that Americans vote for individual candidates, not political parties. And how do the Democratic frontrunners compare with the GOP?
Here’s one measure: John McCain has been in the U.S. Senate longer than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards combined.
Obama has never run for office outside liberal Illinois, and Hillary Clinton had to leave Little Rock for Chappaqua to find a winnable Senate seat. Meanwhile Mitt Romney - a member of both the Republican Party and a religious group best known for its history of polygamy - was elected governor of the bluest state in America.
And then there’s Giuliani.
Set aside Rudy’s two wins in liberal New York City. Set aside his inspiring performance as mayor on and after 9/11. Set aside the fact that he’s literally on a first-name basis with every voter in America.
Set all that aside, and still this fact remains: If there is another serious, successful terrorist attack between now and the national conventions, the only question about 2008 will be whether the Democrats nominate Giuliani, too.
Again and again Tuesday night, Rudy Giuliani showed that on the big issues (not the “creation/abortion” obsessions of Wolf Blitzer), he “gets it.” He knows that America’s top three issues are national security, national security and national security, followed by illegal immigration, which is also a national security issue.
Is he pro-choice? Is he pro-gay? Who cares? He’s pro-kick-terrorist-butt, and he’s tough enough to do it.
Plus Giuliani is smart. Unlike Bush, who seems to take pride in his political ineptitude, Giuliani is a talented pol. When lightning strikes - literally in the case of Tuesday’s debate - Giuliani knows how to seize the political moment.
And if he stumbles, if McCain melts down, if Romney flip-flops into oblivion, what then?
The Republicans always have their movie star.
Whatta joke!
1. this columnist must not know very much about Bob Dole
2. The War on Terror is (in my opinion) what most people will have in their minds when the go into the voting booth for President...and I agree that Giuliani has the others beat on this...most certainly the Democratic candidates.
The taunt did not impress the on duty Mod.
Bob Dole could probably takle security and take them down with one good hand.
In before the “Oh no, not this stuff again” photo.
Did he say that those opposing Rudy were ‘soft on Islamic terrorism’?
This is a no-brainer. You can’t invoke 9-11 forever. It’s like Chris Rock once opined, why is this guy a superhero for doing his job, going on television calming people down, assessing the damage and getting out there so that his city could see he gave a flip.
The only one to me who seems to understand it as Rudy does is Tom Tancredo and, unfortunately, he's not going anywhere.
Agreed...that is something that REALLY upsets me about his campaign against Clinton...he never played up his WWII experience...though Sen Dole was probably just not going to do that sort of a campaign...but then he did the Viagra commercials!!!!
Anyway, Dole was a hero and a pretty tough guy, and this columnist does not have a clue about that.
It is Verbotten to post pro-Rudy articles an FryRudyPublic.com
I would not vote for him in the primaries, but he handles himself very well and likes to stick it in the face of PravdABDNC.
Pray for W and Our Troops
The rudy koolaid does strange things to people.
lib paper lovin’ on a fellow lib.
LLS
Translation, Rudy is a Republican Hillary Clinton on the other issues so is acceptable to the Dinosaur media.
How many wives does Romney have again?
And I wonder why the esteemed journalist failed to point out that Rudy's "religious group" stresses marriage for life (no divorce), yet he's been married thrice. I'm not jumping on Rudy for that, just pointing out intellectual dishonesty of the Boston Herald as I see it.
By the way - it's kind of funny he pointed out that Obama has never won outside of Illinois and then didn't mention that Giuliani has never won outside of New York CITY. Guess it doesn't take much talent to write for a newspaper - you just have to throw a few sentences together and parrot the talking points.
Propaganda. I spit on this hack.
This thread hasn't been deleted yet, although the poster has a very recent signup date. If it turns out he's a retread, I'd like to think he'd be banned for that and not for posting this rah-rah piece.
By the way, was 'Verbotten' a Nazi reference?
Nope. I think what did him in was repeating the
Is he pro-choice? Is he pro-gay? Who cares? He’s pro-kick-terrorist-butt, and he’s tough enough to do it.
By doing so he appeared to agree with that position.
Claiming immunity from zots was the frosting.
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.