RUDY SURGES, MCCAIN RETREATS...
The UK MSM wants John McCain as the GOP Presidential candidate next year. Of course they would prefer it if a Democrat wins the race for the White House - Hillary or Obama will do nicely -but McCain is their fall-back candidate. Why? Because he is on the far-liberal side of the Republican Party.
So imagine their consternation at the news that Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, is opening a lead of up to 20 per cent over his declared rivals among likely Republican primary voters.
Naturally the UK MSM choose to portray this as "causing consternation on the right " of the GOP - pretending that "Right-wing"supporters are shocked - yes, shocked -that the more socially liberal Giuliani is doing so well. Rubbish. It's the UK MSM which is shocked.
If issues like gay-marriage and abortion were the primary issues facing the US then they might have a point - but we are AT WAR with militant Islam and we need a President who is very clear on THIS central point and who can show REAL LEADERSHIP on the issue. I believe this is Rudy's BIG strength - it is why I shall support him - and it is why I believe he can win the White House next year. We need a leader - not a follower of shallow defeatist MSM liberal values.
David Vance
56 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (56)
I think that you're probably right that Rudy has more of that almost indefinable leadership quality than McCain has, but I wouldn't denigrate McCain.
McCain is a contradiction in many ways. He is indeed very hawkish in some areas, but he will be extremely tainted amongst the GOP base by his 'Guest Worker program' (which Guiliani supports but didnt initiate). McCain still supports the US presence in Iraq, but Guiliani is quite clear that he feels that whatever is necessary should be done to 'win'. The problem for McCain is that there are only a small handful of 'Right' issues on which he has more credibility than Giuliani, and that GOP pragmatists know its Giuliani's liberal attitudes on those certain issues that may sway voters over from the Democrats.
Dick Morris has an article up in Newsmax about how McCain 'peaked' far too early, and I tend to agree.
Me, I'd be voting for Tom Tancredo given the chance, but thats because if I was an American I would put Immigration at the top of the issues even above the War on Terror. That's the perspective of a Brit who is sitting in misery at the end of the same tunnel the Americans are happily accelerating down talking of course...
Since Cameron will be PM i think Giuliani and he could work together pretty well and possibly undo the enormous damage done under Bush and Blair who seemed leagues apart on all but one issue.
The malign approach of the press towards Bush b/c of this was Blairs undoing - whatvere i thought of him locally we have huge international issues up ahead that need challenge - the more liberal Cameron and the more liberal Rudy would find it easier to keep the UK US relationship strong and make a better case.
I think Giuliani did a great job on New York which was a massive undertaking. I do think the US is too blase with immigration and associated issues which id hope he did focus on as it would be great if english was still the first language there in 50 years time. Course i have similar concerns about Cameron.
"The principal reason was a shift among white evangelical Protestants, who now clearly favor Giuliani over McCain. Giuliani is doing well among this group of Americans despite his support of abortion rights and gay rights, two issues of great importance to religious conservatives. McCain opposes abortion rights."
This is truly amazing and if maintained will propel Giuliani to the Republican nomination. I believe he could defeat any Democrat candidate, but a lot will depend on how Iraq looks in November 2008.
Fascinating changes - aren't they? I've been going on about Rudy for a while now so I'm glad he's on a role.
DSD,
Yip - I agre about the border issue - but I guess it is a little bit further down the perceived league od priorities. Bush has been almost criminally negligent on this important issue.
As a native New Yorker I can say Giuliani was necessary mayor whose self-confidence (bordering at times on megalomania) cleaned up New York City and restored common sense to civic government there. He had much of his success due to the fact that he owed the established political order nothing. It worked on a municipal level, a national level is something else.
His actions on 9/11 and in the aftermath were terrific and almost without a single mistep. In part, American affection towards him then resulted from a lack of leadership at the national level. He said and did the right things.
But he has a long road ahead of him in the primaries, let alone the national election. He has to step out of the spotlight of 9/11 and in so doing, will have to demonstrate what he proposes in a varierty of areas. I will say that it will be interesting as he is a loose cannon with a hair-trigger temper.
I support Ridy oops Rudy all the way, leadership qualities are rare and should be nurtured and kept, hope the American people still recognise this after the time has elapsed since 9/11.
Envy them, wish we had a leader somewhere in the background with star qualities. (We have only had a couple in the last century one with, and one without!)
Thats a good programme France 24.
Rudy's great and a true leader. People just want to follow him. I'll be voting for him if Romney doesn't make it.
I think McCain is a war hero, but an incompetent legislator. He triangulates too much, and seems to always go towards the trend, which is terrible in a leader. He's pro-amnesty with Kennedy, he put together the Gang of 14 with the Democrats which watered down the Republicans power when they had the majority, and he co-wrote McCain-Feingold which - instead of stopping campaign funding abuse - took it to a new and less transparent level which is disastorous and enables George Soros among others to have undue influence.
I agree with you on McCain as a war hero but poor legislator.
Mormons are extremely close in social values to the evangelicals. And therefore, the political activism of the "liberals" (for lack of better word) will not get much traction with him as President and the evangelicals, and the MSM know this.
And those are what people admit, polls asking about prejudice tend not to capture the full extent.
Mormons do share some social values with evangelicals but don't rule out the doctrinal issues which are profound.
I think GOP voters in the Primaries will be genuinely balancing their own issue priorities and the question 'who can beat the Democrats' far more this time than they have for a very long time. And that may well be what takes Giuliani past the finishing post.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
I don't like his position on gun control and immigration. I could really care less about his position on abortion and gay marriage.
On his third wife, he can hardly defend the "sanctity" of marriage to oppose gay marriage, and I doubt he would (to his credit).
It's a long time until the primary. So far Rudy is out front for me. If Newt runs - I'll have to change my mind. lol
We could definitely do a lot worse than Rudy. We could do better too, though.
It is a long time until the primary indeed. I wonder if the whole process just hasn't turned off the best of what we could have to offer from both camps.
I think that's a real weakness for the two main Democrats. Bill Clinton had been a governor (even if he was in charge of a corner drug store looking to run Wal-mart). Neither Hillary or Obama has that experience.
That Newt vs Mario debate is available at Americansolutions.com
With a name like Newt he should have played baseball.
I doubt that Newt could win. What I know for certain is that Newt will keep the debate where it should be for the conservatives. It would be very interesting.
Mahons, yes Newt is caustic. But, if my theory (http://irisheagle.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-more-mr-nice-guy.html) is right this may be the election for someone caustic.
And, just curious. The tallest building in N. Dakota? Is it a missile silo? I think Newt would take that analogy any day.
I'm sure Mahons meant Newt was a Sears Tower amongst the prarie huts .
What percentage of Republican voters identify themselves as evangelicals- Do you happen to know? That will make a difference in the race.
I like Newt alot. Many Republican pundits say that he "can't win," though. Wouldn't mind knowing the details about why people think this.
I don't think that's what he was saying, Colm. There aren't many tall buildings in N. Dakota. I believe that Mahons was trying to say that Newt's stunted intellect is better than what he's up against. That's not saying much, for Mahons. Perhaps Mahons can clear that up for us.
As for Newt's electability - the press HATES Newt. The leftists cannot stand him. They crucified the man last time he was in the spotlight.
If the press loves you (witness Obama or even Keith Ellison:AKA some nation of islam name) nothing you can do is wrong.
The Republican party is very diverse.
There are plenty of Republicans, like me, who - although they personally feel strongly about marriage and abortion - don't make that the deciding point on any candidate.
Just my opinion, though.
http:/www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/religion/11929261.htm
"Broadly defined, evangelicals are Christians who have had a personal or "born-again" religious conversion, believe the Bible is the word of God, and believe in spreading their faith. (The term comes from Greek; to "evangelize" means to preach the gospel.) The term is typically applied to Protestants.
Millions of Americans fit the definition, although estimates vary on exactly how many. Forty-two percent of Americans described themselves as evangelical Christians in a Gallup poll in April, while 22 percent said they met all three measures in a Gallup survey in May. The National Association of Evangelicals says about 25 percent of adult Americans are evangelicals. Larry Eskridge, associate director of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College, puts the figure about 33 percent."
Really that high?
It is true Newt is to leftists what Hillary is to righists - toxic.
Incidently and off point, the two of them have love lives that would be rejected by Soap Opera writers as too unreal to be believed. Newt's hijinks are funnier because of his anti-Clinton posturing.
Phantom
London, where will soon be having a pint at the Magpie
Congratulations on being able to post a comment on ATW from the field. Will you be meeting up with other ATW regulars at the bar [pub] so you can do a conference call-in to Tangled Talk Radio?
The fact that he might not say what the so-called 'intelligensia' like to hear does not take away from his intelligence one whit.