« Lessons from the Big Apple and the Golden State | Main | Fred Thompson in London »



Good article and I basically agree.

I may not be in the Christian conservative family but I'm pretty conservative and I think Christians like Land, usually self-righteous leaders, speak for a small minority: 7% think abortion is the highest priority and 1% gay marriage. The fundamentalist Christian movement is not as significant as in previous years.

But you're right, they cannot be taken for granted. A socially conservative running mate makes perfect sense. As close as our elections can be we have to believe every vote will count and just a couple of percentage points can make or break it.


It is also the Christian conservative wing that is the most supportive of GWOT and wants a strong leader in these difficult times. Guliani isn't exactly a social liberal either. He is usually referred to as a 'moderate' conservative.

I think any of the top tier Republicans would do a great job. Guliani will, indeed, have a close race against both Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

This article is worth a read, also:

Rudy Giuliani Could be Just the Ticket for Social Conservatives

March 19, 2007



Speaking of polls (a few threads down)....this is most interesting and serves as an example of my description of the complexities of American polling....


In Polls, Clinton Loses to Republicans

Los Angeles Times
June 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — It is a paradox of the 2008 presidential race. By a wide margin, several polls show, voters want a Democrat to win — yet when offered head-to-head contests of leading announced candidates, many switch allegiance to the Republican.

In a Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll conducted earlier this month, this dynamic was most clearly evident with Senator Clinton.

When registered voters were asked which party they would like to win the White House, they preferred a Democrat over a Republican by 8%. But in a race pitting Mrs. Clinton against Mayor Giuliani, a Republican, the former New York mayor was favored by 10%.

Mrs. Clinton's showing against Mr. Giuliani was the starkest example of how the general Democratic edge sometimes narrows or vanishes when voters are given specific candidates to choose between.

The poll also showed Mrs. Clinton trailing when matched against two other Republicans — Senator McCain of Arizona and a former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney.

The deficits, however, were within the survey's margin of error of plus or minus 3%.


Andrew Ian Dodge

I have to agree with NRO on this one. I don't think Guiliani can beat the leading Democrats. I do think Fred Thompson can. I would recommend watching this piece with Fred to hear what he thinks.


Frogg, if you don't believe that someone who supports civil unions for gays, promotes federal funding of abortion, favors gun control, and makes his city a sanctuary for illegal aliens is a social liberal, how do you define a social liberal? From the perspective of many conservatives, it's difficult to top that, especially given his two divorces.


I live in NYC and will vote for Rudy if I have too however, he is a social liberal politiciansand social liberal politicians are typically beholden to the billionaire Collectivist club (ie uber wealthy cultural Marxists like Mike Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger) Social liberal politicians are unable to govern fiscally conservative and my taxes are as high today as they were under Rudy...he may have helped big business with his undocumented illegal workers driving his sanctuary city but he didn't help the ordinary tax payer.

In other words, RINOs ruined Rudy's chance for gaining the party nomination.

It's bad enough having to live under the creepy nanny statist Bloomberg, it will be worse if a nanny statist ends up in the White House. I simply cannot trust Rudy not to do a Bloomberg/Schwarzennegger about face and stab me in the back with a bunch of nanny statist Collectivism.

Oliver McCarthy

Whenever I think of Giuliani I cannot but compare him with Michael Howard -- or, at best, Sarkozy. I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that Giuliani is a particularly subtle politician, and he shows about as much interest in uniting the Right in America as David Cameron does in this country (i.e. none whatsoever).

The article is perceptive, apart from the idea that Iraq somehow "glues" the Republicans together. They'll unite around a man who can be all things to all Republicans much more easily than they can around an specific policy -- and certainly one that most of them now like to think was a mistake.

On the other hand, if it really comes down to a straight fight between Giuliani and America's answer to Segolene, the next Presidential Election will be a contest to see which candidate can alienate his or her own side fastest. (Basically all this talk of 'leading Democrats' is flim-flam: the only "unknown knowns" in American politics at the moment are which Republican -- i.e. probably John McCain -- is going to beat Hillary and how badly she's going to lose.)


Polls are interesting, but votes win elections. At least now, Thompson is the only candidate who generates excitement. If this continues to be the case (that is, if Fred doesn't do something stupid to sabotage himself), I suspect if anyone else wins the nomination, a lot of conservatives won't vote and the Democrat will win.


Oliver McCarthy, John McCain has been fatally wounded by his stance on illegal immigration (i.e. he is a proponent of amnesty). He's not going to be the Republican nominee.

That said, I think your comparison of Giuliani to Sarkozy is quite apt.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker