Conservative Home's debate blogs


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Iain Duncan Smith: Tories should not expect a pear-shaped economy to sink PM Brown | Main | Bruce Anderson: Robin Cook was a master of opposition. The Tories aren't. »


Mark O'Brien

I don't know enough about the hopefuls for 2008 to be able to sound authoritative, but I would like to see Giuliani up there. I admire much of his work as Mayor of New York, particularly his policing successes. The whole world admired him for his response to the events of September 11th. I don't know much about his political beliefs, only that he is pro-choice and - gatherin from the article - socially liberal, which should pose more of a threat to his chances for conservative America. If I knew more about American politics, I'd be more open with my comments. But my way of addressing the imbalance between social liberals and social conservatives in Britain has always been to talk up both sides' belief in freedom. From that, the idea of a small State which doesn't intrude on peoples' private lives and our natural inclination towards social conservative ideas (e.g. marriage and raising a family) means both will be happy. I accept that my O'Brien Doctrine can't be fully applied to America, as much of my position depends on the tearing down of our labyrinthine social security network which discriminates for and against too many people. America, of course, hasn't really got the need for that kind of revolution. But nonetheless, Giuliani is someone I admire as a leader, and his name would certainly look very attractive somewhere on the 2008 Republican ticket, even if he isn't given the presidential candidacy.

James Hellyer

I thought Senator Allen (the former Governer of Virginia) was considered the frontrunner by most Washington insiders.

Either way, I can't see a Bush running next time, not least because Jeb has ruled himself out. I'd have though the likely nominees will have little connection to the current administration.

Simon C

Ironic that the land of the free, that turned its back on monarchy so long ago, should be content with dynastic struggles between Clintons and Bushes stretching over the horizons.

After Jeb Bush, there's a half-Hispanic Bush, whose name escapes me, in his 20s, who has been talked up - and what price Chelsea Clinton for say 2028?


Neither ex-Mayor Giuliani nor Gov. Bush would be eligible to lead the Republican Party if the Republicans followed the Tory Party rule of allowing only sitting MPs to lead. The Republican Party frontrunner under Tory rules would be the bland Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, liked by his colleagues but who has minimal support among the electorate. Obviously, America isn't a Parliamentary democracy like the UK is, but the Republican willingness to seek leaders outside the legislative leadership has resulted in a string of election wins at a time when the Tories have stagnated.

James Hellyer

If these polls,_2008

are anything to go by, Jeb Bush would lose to Hilary Clinton, while either Senator McCain or Mayor Guiliani would would beat her easily.

Selsdon Man

Jeb Bush has one of the best records of the existing group of Republican Governors. It is unlikely that he will run in 2008 as it would be too risky. That's why he has ruled himself out.

For me, Rudi Guiliani, John McCain and Bill Frist are the front runners. McCain and Guiliani are seen as being on the left of the Republican Party. Bill Frist is more right-wing and could attract a wider base of support than McCain or Guiliani.

McCain is an excellent campaigner but has his enemies in the party. Guiliani has suffered health and personal problems that could affect his candidacy. Frist appears to be fundraising and campaigning already.

Governor Bill Owens (Colorado)was touted as a possible candidate a year or so ago. He is highly rated but did not impress me when I heard and met him at the US embassy.

At the moment, my choice would be Frist. He is more likely to unite the Republicans and presents a younger, more attractive image. That could be vital against the Clintons.


Simon, you should realize that George W. Bush won the Republican nomination not BECAUSE his name was Bush, but IN SPITE of it. It is a common miscoception, promoted sedulously by the Liberal Press in America and abroad, that Republicans supported George W. Bush in 2000 because he was the son of the ex-President George H. W. Bush. In fact, Republican activists soured on Bush 41 early on, and George W. had to labor long and hard to pursuade them that he WASN'T like his father. The name was in most respects a handicap, not an advantage. The Democrats are actually much more beholden to political dynasties--witness the Kennedys, the Gores and now the Clintons.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home