Skip to comments.James Lileks: Don't Underestimate Giuliani (And Newt still can't win!)
Posted on 02/06/2007 6:08:59 PM PST by quidnunc
Rudy Giuliani is in. Suggested campaign slogan: "He dealt with Brooklyn. He can handle Baghdad.'' He's not a sure thing; he has enough baggage to fill the cargo hold of a cruise ship. His sundry personal-life issues bother social conservatives; the gun control stance dismays the Second Amendment wing of the party; the pro-choice opinions alarm the evangelicals. That leaves about 47 Republicans, right? After all, it's just a party of cousin-marrying yahoos who'd sooner shoot up Planned Parenthood than vote for one of those fish-on-Friday types. Right?
No. Voters are more flexible and forgiving than you might expect. And none of the objections obscure the central appeal of the Rudy candidacy: He'll nuke 'em if he has to. That won't be the central theme of his campaign, of course, but it's the unstated strength of his candidacy. He's not a wuss. Look at the rest of the field:
Mitt Romney. He's a heavy fave, but the M-word makes his support in the evangelical community unsure. Many will vote for him, since he's an all-around moral guy, and no one wants a public debate over doctrinal differences. Other evangelicals regard his faith as something between David Koresh and Scientology, and would rather vote for Joe Lieberman. (Him you could convert!) Romney has an abortion flip-flop to confront, which softens his support as well. He's a solid candidate thus far because he's, well, solid: He appears hewn from the Presidential Quarry.
On the other hand, he could be a genial cyborg from an invading race. Wouldn't exactly surprise anyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at newhouse.com ...
Newt. The right loves Newt, just as the left loves Clinton. Newt's about six times smarter than Bill Clinton, but lacks the former president's oleaginous charisma. Could he win? Never. And probably just as well. President Newt would respond to a terrorist attack with a brilliant plan radical, simple, old wisdom and dazzling new thinking in a brilliant synthesis. Unfortunately, it would involve time travel or orbital space lasers.
I like the fact that the left thinks that Newt can't win.
Newt was best as an intellectual leader or back bench bomb thrower. He was not an effective Speaker and has no chance whatever of getting elected POTUS. I think he knows that.
Good piece. Lileks is a good writer.
McCain has been on my "absolutely not, not under any circumstance" list, all alone, I hadn't even included Hagel on that list as bad as he is because I simply didn't take him seriously.
I still don't take him seriously. But he's fought his way onto the list, right there next to McCain. So now there are two.
For the rest, my litmus tests are two:
#1, your name isn't "McCain" or "Hagel" and
#2, you understand we are at war, and are prepared to lead us through.
I've got a wish list that follows number two, but number two is basic. Its survival of the Republic.
Newt has an enormous ego, I wouldn't bet that he realizes he's unelectable.
"As milllions of Democrat wives will say, 'I don't know how he could have won. My husband swore he voted for Hillary."
Huge laugh at that one!
The right loves Newt? Don't really think so.
You said it!
He is vain but not stupid. If enough people hit him between the eyes with a two-by-four he will get the message.
LOL........ entertaining read in the midst of all this bloviating going on.
Howlin, click the link and read....
Fred Thompson hasn't declared, but should. He has been waging a stealth campaign simply by appearing as a guest host for Paul Harvey. He sounds like a man with his boots on the desk and a star on his chest. As a veep, he would make John Edwards look like Peter Pan. For the debate, Edwards might as well show up in green tights.
I would vote for him.
He is the most convervative.
He is the most experienced.
He understands history and what it means.
He would destroy ANY Dem in debates.
He is a good public speaker, no more marbles.
And the Dems absolutely HATE him because they know he is deadly to their cause.
I don't know quite how to say this but I'm going to give it a try. I think Newt is brilliant as a thinker, an expounder of ideas, a debater. But I suspect a flaw in his character which seems to lead him to put himself first.
Giuliani strikes me as someone who has character flaws, but does not let them infect his work, his public goals.
Understand that we are way out in front of the usual timetable for selecting a presidential candidate because of a number of things, one of which is that the Clintons have given us a 24/7/365 campaign in place of governance.
I refuse to be forced into rejection of or jumping onto any candidate love machine so far in advance of the actual primaries. But I am not going to be driven by the "he wasn't against this or that from birth" crowd or the leftists who come here to denigrate our candidates...and make no mistake, they are here.
Holding our horses and keeping our eyes open would seem to be a wise thing to do.
I don't think Newt can win, but I'd like to see him run so that his ideas get full exposure to the electorate.
I also liked the line about Mitt looking like he came from the presidential quarry, and the later one that no one would be surprised if he turned out to be an android. HA!
Also the description of McCain was spot on!
And I think Howlin can appreciate the visual of Edwards in green tights. Snort!
A light hearted read with some truth mixed in....
If Rudy were the GOP nominee, the MSM and the DNC will spend six months using Rudy's hedonistic social agenda to attack every GOP voter and every GOP officeholder. They will relentlessly drive GOP voters away from Rudy in the general election by putting pictures of him in drag, grand marshalling gay pride parades, holding press conferences with feminists and calling putting Pat Robertson, Dobson, Falwell and anybody else on TV to comment on how they approve of Rudy being married three times and cheating on his last wife.
Whoever runs at the DNC/MSM candidate will simply avoid speaking to the media or the public for the last 4 months of the campaign except for TV ads where they will appear with puppies, children, old people and fake doctors and nurses. It won't matter because we will be spending the last 6 months trying to explain how a party with the platform we have is going to support a candidate who governed for 8 years in direct opposition to it.
If you remember how much time the MSM spent trying to put some meat on the Bush-Was-A-Cokehead story, now think of what it would be like if there were video of Bush doing cocaine before appearing at an anti-drug rally?
Is Keyes running again?.....
1. "We'll show 'em" by staying at home if the candidate doesn't follow my agendae strictly down the line." We tried that this year. Keep it up for another couple of elections and we'll all be facing Mecca.
2. The lamestream leaders, McCain, Rudy, and Rumknee. The media anointed 'em which makes them look suspect. But for the most part they say the right thing about terrorism. They may have personal baggage that makes them less palatable to the more religious.
3. The good old timey back of the pack which is wussing out on terrorism. That's Brownback, Hagel, and Huckelberry. Of this group, I don't care about your personal faith. None of that matters if you surrender to Islam.
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.