Will Christian conservatives back a third-party candidate if the Republican Party nominates pro-choice Rudy Giuliani? I hope so. A commentator at the New York Times says:
Let the Republicans nominate Rudy so the Evangelicals can run a 3rd party candidate. We’ll get a Clinton in the office with just a plurality of the vote. Sounds like 1992 all over again!Yee hah!
Americans must observe this year’s Fourth of July with a note of somberness. The country is divided politically in a manner not seen since the Sixties. We are closing out the sixth year of an increasingly bloody and unpopular War on Terrorism. At home, heated debates are taking place over the balance between civil liberties and security. In doubtful times such as these, many are looking into the past and wondering how the Founding Fathers would have handled such a predicament. In the absence of their leadership, we must look for bold new solutions for the ills of our modern era.
With the indulgence of Misters DC, Fz, and GJ, I have one of these bold solutions, one that, in my opinion, has a high chance of success. It is my belief that the United States needs courageous and forceful leadership, the kind of leadership that, because of our current structure of government, cannot be offered by a President. What the United States needs now is a king.
Only a monarch has the political and moral authority to push through all the mealy-mouthed jabbering that renders our legislatures impotent and enforce the laws which will keep this nation safe and, more importantly, on top. When New York City was under attack on 9-11, did then-mayor Rudy Giuliani call a town council meeting to deal with the chaos? Nay! Using sheer political brawn, and with the sweat from the brow of the executive branch, he single-handedly turned what was could have been the most tragic day in American history into a celebration of American resolve and durability – a day we have come to call Patriot’s Day in his honor.
America, we need an autocrat. Those bleeding-heart lie-berals in the ACLU might whine and moan, but, as they are all atheists, they forget that America, throughout her history, has been a nation beloved by God. And the Lord will not hand over His promised land to some sniveling megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex. When Americans are united in a common cause, it is a cause that has been blessed by the Almighty. If we, as Americans, choose a king to lead us, he will be a king worthy of God’s endorsement. He will have a divine mandate, and rule as God intends a nation to be ruled; and what can the ACLU say if they have a problem with God’s will?
Moreover, such a reorganization of our government would not even require a huge movement of personnel or money, just a few creative name changes. The role of president becomes, obviously, the role of King; the Cabinet becomes assorted Princes, Dukes, and Earls; and Congress becomes a Parliament for the expression of grievances of the common folk, which can be called and dissolved at the King’s demand. To keep it super-convenient, we don’t even need to choose new people to fill these roles. Prince-Regent Cheney has a nice ring to it, wouldn’t you say?
We are in a dark place, America. As we celebrate our nation’s 231st birthday, quick action is our only hope for survival. In 1776, we threw off the yolk of King George the Third; this Fourth of July, we need King George – the Second, that is.
Giuliani's in trouble. Big trouble.
Despite being the most popular candidate from either party in the race (he enjoys a high 60% - 38% favorability rating), he is now tied (at 45% - 45%) with Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical match-up. Clinton, though, only has a 50% - 49% favorability rating. To make things even more interesting, let's look at the "would definitely vote against" statistic. 34% of respondents would definitely vote against Giuliani, but a whopping 48% of respondents would vote against Hillary. As a side note, they share a similar "definitely vote for" statistic: 29% for Giuliani and 30% for Hillary.
So why in the world is someone so seemingly likable tied with someone so seemingly polarizing? It seems that the undecideds (i.e. the 22% remainder who neither said they would definitely vote for nor against Hillary) are swinging toward Hillary, which is bizarre, given Giuliani's whole "America's Mayor" edge.
I don't have a ready explanation, except for this: Americans are fed up with Republicans, even the moderate, likable ones with an unassailable flag to wrap themselves in (after all, no one will call Giuliani on it when he references 9/11 out of nowhere). I know it is early, but these sorts of poll numbers bode well for the Democrats.
Thanks to Rasmussen Reports for the polls.
Below, DC noted that Rudy Giuliani was the loser of last night's debate. To be honest, I didn't catch the whole debate, but I did see at least one interesting moment that I think supports this conclusion.
Chris Matthews asked each candidate how he would be different from George W. Bush. While most candidates qualified their criticisms with veils of praise for our president, Giuliani made no criticism whatsoever. He basically said that history will remember Bush as one of the greats for starting to War on Terror.
He's gone too far. He doesn't know how to walk the fine line of sticking to his true opinions and trying to please the conservative base. As DC said, he continues to speak out in support of abortion rights, but at the same time, he refuses to criticize President Bush when given a golden opportunity to do so in a nationally televised debate. Did he think that conservatives would be happy with him because he had nothing bad to say about Bush? I tend to have little faith in conservatives (or at least in the brand represented by Bush loyalists), but I think they can see through such nonsense. Giuliani needs to work out his positions more. He's trying to conservatize himself in some areas (and is going too far), but he's remaining a moderate in others. Sorry, Rudolph: Republican primary voters won't have it both ways.
Unlike the Democratic debate, I think this was a debate with clear winners and losers. One winner was John McCain, who turned in a vigorous performance, got the most laughs of the night, and delivered a forceful response to questions about his age. On
The other winner was Mitt Romney. He just seemed presidential. As a
The big loser was Giuliani. His defense of a woman’s right to choose stuck out like a sore thumb in the Republican field. Props to him for not completely flip-flopping like Romney, but it’s going to hurt him. His more moderate positions might be an advantage in the general election but they sure aren’t here.
As for everyone else: Ron Paul did a good job representing the paleoconservative wing of the party. Tom Tancredo managed to differentiate himself on immigration without frothing at the mouth like he usually does. (Although I’m a little disturbed by how completely he conflates American and Israeli interests. I’m all for supporting an ally, but still… ). Tommy Thompson did a decent job, but how exactly does he think he’s going to implement his partition plan for
This Vanity Fair article reads like a hit piece on Rudy Giuliani but still manages to be optimistic about his chances:
Bush and Cheney have created a sense of something like guilt, or embarrassment, or, even, disgrace, among the faithful. Potential candidates on the traditional right seem to be hiding under a rock—they don't want the Bush-Cheney taint. So to find yourself a nationally admired figure (a kind of apple pie), in a field where something like 70 percent of likely voters (many your natural ideological enemies) still haven't expressed any opinion about the race, and where the opposition includes the 70-year-old John McCain, who both hates and sucks up to Bush (therefore getting neither advantage), and Mitt Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts, that's luck. What's more, choosing a relative social liberal—just at the moment when the religious right seems to have lost its way—with supersonic national-security cred might be a way to combine independents with Reagan Democrats, along with the South (which you get anyway), and for the Republicans to actually, miraculously, win.Barring a complete Democratic meltdown or a miraculous solution to the Iraq War, I don't see the Republicans winning in 2008 no matter who their candidate is. But Rudy probably has a better shot than anyone else.
