Bowers has thoughtfully put together some electoral college maps that, based on the latest state polling, show that Rudy Guiliani is the best hope for the Republicans. For example, Rudy crushes Edwards 327-211 and Obama 297-229, while Romney loses to Edwards 362–176 and Obama 344–186. This, of course, is not news to rank-and-file wingnut Republicans, like Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas. But Sessions must explain to his wingnut constituents why they should be voting for a gay-loving, pro-choice, immigrant coddling, philandering and fornicating low-life, like the former mayor of all that is evil and wrong. The gymnastics are delectable.
“Mayor Giuliani respects the values of social conservatism, and his position on these issues would categorize him as a predominately pro-life Member of Congress.”
Just call him pro-life and the problem is mostly solved. Call him anti-gay while you’re at it. Say anything…you always do.
The one thing Guiliani will do that conservatives will like, is he will take away more of your privacy and your civil liberties. You want to live in a country like that? Vote for Rudy. But he ain’t a social conservative. He’s from Brooklyn. He’s a politician. He’s dresses in drag whenever he gets the chance. He gets a new girlfriend every few years. He ain’t going to church…he’s going to the Yankees game.
It will be delicious watching the GOP explain to their socially conservative base that none of their concerns matter: God, guns, gays, or immigration, because Rudy is on their side.
More intellectual bankruptcy.
The one thing Guiliani will do that conservatives will like, is he will take away more of your privacy and your civil liberties. … But he ain’t a social conservative.
Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to. Reduced civil liberties and privacy go hand in hand with social conservatism these days. Rudy has all of the makings of a good social conservative, he just needs to find religion. It’s too bad he’s Roman Catholic – that’s his real problem. If he were some Protestant denomination he could go to a revival and find Jesus again. But he’s Roman Catholic, and while a nominal member of the RCC could “find the Church” and suddenly become a hardline social conservative, Rudy has the wee little problem that Rudy is not a member in good standing because of that small matter of his second divorce. He could find a different religion, but at this late date it would smell bad AND he’d risk pissing off conservative Catholics (who don’t like seeing “one of their own” jump ship like that). He certainly is in a pickle there.
The real question, though, is whether the Republican primary voters are still piss-their-pants bedwetters this election cycle or if they’ve found some courage and have decided that their fear of Islamofashionists shouldn’t be their primary reason for picking a candidate. If they have, Rudy is probably toast. But if they’re still hiding under their beds afraid of the dreaded Islamopharmacists, Rudy may well be a shoe in. He’s the only one crazy enough to take away all of their civil liberties, take away their privacy, and keep them safe from the big bad boogeymen who live in caves on the other side of the world.
They are still bedwetters.
I figure they probably are – so Rudy still has a shot at the brass ring. All he has to do is convince the “social conservative base” that they’re more scared of the dreaded Islamofarmers than they are mad about him having two divorces, treating his kids like crap, clamping down on guns, not going to church and wearing a dress.
Amusingly, of all of those things, the last one is going to hurt him the most. Because it can be parlayed into a narrative of “secretly, Rudy’s a wimp.” If any of his opponents start to play real hardball, they could destroy Rudy’s tough-guy narrative with a few well placed direct mailings.
The problem is that none of the remaining field is sufficiently “tough” to take on the super-scary Islamofaucets. Romney smiles too much. McCain already has a reputation among the crazy-base as a “Manchurian Candidate”. Thompson looked like he’d be the next incarnation of Reagan but he’s got his own religion issues and also is looking more like Reagan ’89 instead of Reagan ’80 at this point. Huckabee and Brownback look like “losers” and only “winners” can stand up to Islamoferrets (if you can’t beat Giulianni how can you stand up to Tehran?). Ron Paul … let’s not even get into why Ron Paul is unacceptable to those who are serial bedwetters.
So if you’re greatest fear is the great brown menace from across the sea Rudy looks like the great white savior. And if he’s not so socially conservative in his personal life, well, at least he’s tough and won’t let those Democrats tell him how to run the War On Terra.
The trick is to convince the base that Rudy wants to wage a War on Tara.
…because these guys are also claiming that Rudy can beat the acknowledged frontrunner.
I’m not actually buying Bowers methods in these aggregate maps. These polls are from all over the place timewise, and they were conducted by three different polling institutes with different methodologies. I mean he even says “In states where no polls were conducted this year, 2004 results were used” – some of this data is based on three year old polls that quite probably isn’t reflective of the current status of the electorate at all.
I don’t think these maps say much about anything. They might be good for generating conversations, but they certainly shouldn’t be used to say “well, Clinton is the only one with a chance of beating Giulianni” – they’re just not that solid.