February 07, 2007


Okay, this was the post I was trying to post earlier, and as always, the second run probably gains something in readability but loses a lot of the wacky spontaneity that you've come to enjoy from Possumblog. Oh well.

ANYWAY, I saw a very compelling blog post the other day from one of my fellow Munuvians, a young lady named Annika, who has an interesting theory about all-but-declared Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and his supposed lack of appeal to those of us who are reliably full of Red State bigotry. Go read her take on things here.

As I read it, she thinks that a lot of liberal media-type folks are talking down Giuliani's chances down South because of a realization that if he does run, he could probably beat Clinton for New York, as well as for several other populous, liberal-leaning states. If he does that, he wouldn't even need the more conservative votes from the South to win. In order for the folks in the media to keep the favored Democrats in charge means not mentioning this too much, and instead just keep saying no one who's a conservative will even consider voting for him.

Well, if the completely unscientific TV station poll I saw yesterday is any indication, I have a feeling he'd not only do well up in Yankeeland but around here as well. I can't find now which station did the poll (it was either the NBC or FOX affiliate, but neither one of them has a website that is even remotely friendly for finding out actual information) but among the current choices of folks from both parties who've said they're running for President, the overwhelming choice was Giuliani--something like 45% (or more--I can't remember) to the 13% or so for the next highest challenger, Hillary Clinton.

Again, it's not the least bit scientific or remotely reliable, but still, I have a gut feeling that there are actually a good many people who do feel that way about Giuliani, despite his terrible marital drama that been played out in the news, his craptacular record on Second Amendment issues, his lack of concern about things socially-conservative people concern themselves with, and for the same reasons Annika has listed. He actually has a record of performing well under pressure, he seems to understand the nature of what it takes to fight evil, is actually willing to consider the idea that there is indeed such a thing AS evil, and that despite his personal failings, he's not particularly venal, stupid, or bad.

I guess my biggest objection to him is from the point of view of being a gun owner, but even with that, I still get a sense about him that I find rare among politicians, that being that whatever he believes, he believes it honestly, with little regard for what polls tell him he should believe. Sure, he's a politician, and he's bound to say stuff like that every once in a while, but in general, you get the sense he knows what he knows and will defend it without backing down, and what he knows--whether you disagree with it or not--is something that he can defend in a sane, calm, and logical manner without demogoguery.

It's still far too early to be trying to pick the winner of this mess, but don't count Giuliani out. People, whether they're conservative or liberal, recognize someone with some spine to them.

Posted by Terry Oglesby at February 7, 2007 10:59 AM

I tend to agree with you about Giuliani--and I think he would get more votes in the South than his detractors want to think. My objection to him is basically that he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but a) he is honest about where he comes from, and b) I don't really see any of the others being that much more socially or economically conservative than him when it comes to ACTUAL policies.

Furthermore we need a President with backbone to face the foreign policy challenges we have ahead of us, and I don't see anyone with more backbone than Rudy who would be electable AND more uncompromising on some of these issues. But those are my preliminary reactions and who knows who will be in the field in 2008. I'd consider Newt Gingrich or Sam Brownback, but I have a hard time believing one of them can be nominated.

Posted by: Stan at February 7, 2007 12:48 PM

It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out. Of the two guys you mention, only Newt has enough name recognition to get anywhere. But America will never have a President named "Newt," no matter what people think about his politics.

Posted by: Terry Oglesby at February 7, 2007 12:57 PM