"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Thursday, March 08, 2007

WHY RUDY IS NOT TOO LIBERAL TO WIN THE NOMINATION


WHY ISN'T RUDY TOO LIBERAL TO WIN THE NOMINATION?

SHORT ANSWER: IT'S THE WAR, STUPID!


When the liberal hawk Lieberman won re-election, most everyone thought that this indicated McCain could easily win.

I was the first to proffer that this was an indication that Rudy would do very well in a general election. (In that post, I argued that McCain is too conservative on key issues to get a lot of cross-over votes. Sure, many Dems like him, but I argued that they won't cross the line to vote for a man who is pro-life and pro-tax cut. I argued that Rudy's mix is better.)

Since then, Rudy is well up in the polls and McCain is way down. This has to do with many things - McCain's age is showing more and more, and rhetorically his "straight talk" is very "senatorial" compared to Rudy's managerial directness.

And then there's Rudy's accomplishments. The accomplishments associated with McCain are all bad for most GOP'ers: McCAIN-Feignold and McCAIN-Kennedy are bad bills and just plain bad-sounding for most folks in the GOP. Rudy's two terms - in which he SAVED NY! - compared very favorably to these two McCain "accomplishments."

And then there's this bottom-line: WE ARE AT WAR. And this issue will trump ALL the others for MOST GOP voters. And most GOP'ers want a COMMANDER IN CHIEF they feel has the guts and the executive ability to WIN THE WAR. (The Dems will nominate someone who will promise to "end" the war.) Rudy is clearly the most accomplished and toughest no-nonsense manager in the race; only Mitt comes close. And in the end, this may very well count much more than Rudy's stand on abortion, gay rights, immigration, and embryonic stem cells. Because we are at war.

Another plus: Rudy is very un-Bushlike, and the country has Bush-fatigue.

If and when Mitt proves he could manage a war better than Rudy, then I might change my mind.

In the meantime, I ask this: When Clinton picked fellow southerner/moderate (at the time) Gore it was seen a a bold and good move. COULD RUDY PICK MITT? OR RIDGE? OR WOULD HE HAVE TO PICK A WESTERNER OR SOUTHERNER?

5 comments:

miriam sawyer said...

I can only agree. Rudy is my man.

Dionne said...

I wholeheartedly agree with you!!

Jim Rose said...

Believe it or not, I think Mitt is a possibility for VP. Everyone will question two Northeasters on a ticket with no representation of the South or West, but I think we may have reached a point where the Democratic Party is so out of touch with the South and middle America that the GOP ticket will be a half-a-loaf they can't afford to shun.

And let's face it, looks count for something. Romney got those.

An interesting choice would be Mr. Newt. I don't know if his ego would allow him to accept a number 2 position, but that would shore up the Conservative base big time.

Reliapundit said...

rudy-mitt or mitt-rudy, i'm okay with that.

i like romney-ridge.
and rudy-jeb.
rudy-kyl.
mitt-kyl.

does anyone think that mccain's and rudy's cancer will be an issue? if not foe them for their veep picks?

Dionne said...

I would like to see either Newt or Duncan Hunter for VP.