British Conservatives would vote for Giuliani

UspollFormer New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the overwhelming favourite of grassroots British Conservatives to be the next American President.  More than three times as many UK Conservative Party members opted for him than chose Senator John McCain.

These are the full results:

  • Joe Biden: 0.3%
  • Sam Brownback: 0.7%
  • Hillary Clinton: 10.1%
  • John Edwards: 2.2%
  • Newt Gingrich: 4.6%
  • Rudy Giuliani: 43.9%
  • Al Gore: 5.9%
  • John McCain: 14.4%
  • Barack Obama: 10.1%
  • Bill Richardson: 0.6%
  • Mitt Romney: 2.3%
  • Fred Thompson: 4.9%

All of the issues that make Giuliani a difficult choice for many Republicans – abortion, gay rights and gun control – are not big issues in British politics.  His tough approach to crime, fiscal conservatism and national security credentials give him obvious appeal with British Tories.  Many Brits will also see the ‘Mayor of 9/11’ as the kind of competent communicator that can begin to restore America’s standing in Europe.  If ‘brand Bush’ is toxic for many Europeans many see Giuliani as the candidate as well equipped as any Democrat to tackle anti-Americanism.

29.2% of Conservatives opted for one of the named Democrat candidates –
70.8% opted for one of the named Republican candidates.  During the 2005 Tory leadership contest David Cameron declined to say whether he had backed Bush or Kerry in the 2004 White House race.  His defeated rival David Davis said he would have voted for George W Bush.

The website polled 1,294 Tory members from 31st May to 3rd June.


35 Responses to British Conservatives would vote for Giuliani

  1. Simon Newman says:

    A Fred Thompson Presidency though would be cool – he’s from the same small Southern town as my wife! 🙂 And he’s not ideologically wedded to massive uncontrolled Mexican immigration the way most of the candidates are.

  2. tired and emotional says:

    I voted for Gingrich in the poll, but he’s not running so I’m not surprised he doesn’t figure more strongly.

    I’d probably vote McCain if I had to pick a declared candidate but he does look to be fading. I’m not convinced Giuliani, though I respect and admire his leadership of New York, has a global vision of what the world should be like and how he would get America to lead it there.

    The social issues on which US conservatives are judged are, for better or for worse, rather moot here as is pointed out.

  3. Umbrella man says:

    McCain’s speech to the Tory Conference last year didn’t win him many friends it would seem.

  4. Robert and Edison – I doubt you’d be quite as keen on Obama if his highly dubious property transactions in Chicago received the full tabloid treatment here. I’m surprised he has any credibility left in the US.

  5. Marcus MacLean says:

    I’m actually surprised Romney didn’t poll higher – I think most Brits just haven’t heard of him. It would be interesting to hear support for the candidates among UK Conservatives in proportion to their name recognition: for example, Giulliani and McCain probably both have near-100% name recognition among party members, whereas Romney’s is probably less than 10%.

  6. Richard says:

    Didn’t he once defend the IRA?

  7. Conservative Homer says:

    Id vote Ron Paul. 911 or no 911 Giuliani is still a morally challenged media whore.

  8. TSS says:

    As an American, I think Cameron’s answer was appropriate. It enraged a lot of people when The Guardian did the Ohio letter writing campaign in 2004.

    I’m waiting to see how things shake out in the primaries before I start actively supporting one candidate. There are several that are acceptable to me. (McCain is not one of them.)

    FYI, Joe Biden is the guy who plagiarized Neil Kinnock’s speeches back in the 80s.

  9. Jacob says:

    “Why do British Tories necessarily feel they would vote for a US Republican?”

    I agree! As a ‘European Conservative’ I feel far more happy with the politics of Clinton and Obama. David Cameron is probably to the left of them.

  10. Matt Wright says:

    Yeah I voted for Guiliani as well. Nice to be in good company,


  11. Denise says:

    Tired and emotional, I actually did hear that Gingrich would throw his name into the hat later on IF he is unhappy with those running in the Republican party.

  12. Frogg (USA) says:

    Guliani currently has the most respect of all the candidates. I think he would do a great job if he wins the nomination. I do disagree with him on some of the social issues (but,he is a Federalist by nature and would prefer those types of issues rest upon individual states). He is considered a moderate Republican.

    However, I think that once Fred Thompson enters the race and you Brits get to know him……he will blow you away. Fred also has the highest familiarity/support ratio of all candidates (those who are familiar with a candidate and would vote for him/her). No one comes even close to his ratio of either party (not Guliani, Hillary, Romney, Obama, McCain, Edwards, etc).

  13. Simon Newman says:

    “How does Ron Paul an anti-abortion conspiracy theorist candidate get the sympathy of people here?”

    People respect integrity; and Ron Paul is a genuine Constitutionalist, something that has been sorely lacking at the top for a long time.

  14. JF says:

    Da Coyote, don’t be too hasty. There has been a lot of hype surrounding the Fred Thompson cult of personality, but I don’t anticipate it will last. At best, he’s a weak imitation of McCain (almost identical voting records), and at worst, he’s an empty suit career lobbyist. Thompson was interviewed on CNBC this week, and I think all can agree that Thompson comes out looking like a lightweight in all senses: politics, business sense, and, unfortunately, intelligence.

    Gingrich, however, has proven himself to be an intellectual and effective conservative. He may yet ride out Thompson’s slow-motion crash over the next few months and still enter.

  15. Daniel says:

    “People respect integrity; and Ron Paul is a genuine Constitutionalist, something that has been sorely lacking at the top for a long time.”

    Then we have different definitions of who can and can not be trusted. I would not trust a person who wishes to remove a the right of a woman to decide not to become a mother to safegaurd the individual rights of anybody, individual rights and indivudualism is what makes the Western World in general and the Anglosphere in particular so great, any restrictions that are not neccessary such as hate speech/crimes laws (a year ago a 14 year old schoolgirl here was arrested when she was assigned to a group of asians who couldn’t speak English and requested that she be switched to a group of kids who could speak her language) as well as anti-abortion laws are wrong.

  16. bundyfan says:

    How can British conservatives give Obama and Hillary 10%. Don’t you guys realize they are a couple of socialist peaceniks?

  17. Da Coyote says:

    What do we have?

    Giuliani, who is pro-choice. Romney, who is pro-gun control and signed universal healthcare. And McCain, who has shot himself in the foot with both the campaign finance and immigration issues.

    Though each has good points, there are an estimated 60% to 80% of heavy Republican donors still not committed, indicating a wide dissatisfaction with the current field.

    Are they waiting for Thompson, for Gingrich? Maybe. But these things are certain:

    1. Giuliani’s pro-choice and pro-gay record isn’t winning him any points from the Republican base. His primary advantage is his perceived electability over a more conservative candidate. But the polls are already indicating he’s peaked and has nowhere to go but down.

    2. Immigration is a hot button issue this time around- more so than even abortion. McCain was already hemorrhaging cash, now he’s losing both donors and staff over his compromise immigration bill. If anybody’s campaign can be compared to a trainwreck, it’s McCain’s.

    3. Gingrich, Tancredo, and Hunter are all Republicans with strong ties to the base…but…the last time a Representative took the White House was, what? Lincoln? These guys have only a small chance to move up into the first tier. More than likely they’ll be on the short lists for VP’s or cabinet members.

    There has been alot of hype over Fred Thompson, but I think labeling it a cult of personality is a bit over the top. We’re not talking about Peron or Stalin here. In fact, the increasing level of venom directed at Fred Thompson and his wife, much more than for the declared second tiers, indicates that some consider Fred Thompson a credible threat to their designs on the White House.

    And don’t forget Michael Bloomberg. He could toss a major wrench in the works.

  18. Daniel says:

    Denise a woman never gives up her right not be a mother untill she is one (i.e actually has a baby who has been born), human life does not start untill a baby is out of the womb.

    Arguably a hacker taking a credit card number is the risk everyone takes when paying bills online, would that be a remotely acceptable argument to a people who lost their money?

    Sorry for the spelling mistakes, but wether threatened by hate crime statutes and laws against even hate speach (the Left) or by no abortion (The Right) restriction of individual liberties are wrong, which is why in America a heavily conservative Supreme Court has consistently upheld a womans right to choose.

  19. Steevo says:

    I’m not gonna get involved in an abortion discussion other than this one comment: it is a rare moment for a pro-abortionist to actually make the claim “human life does not start untill a baby is out of the womb.” Even most on the cutting edge will not directly state or imply that just because it is in the womb and throughout full term at that, is not a bonafied human being.

  20. Matt says:

    Daniel, just one question: how about the rights of the individual in the womb?

  21. Denise says:

    Daniel, you cannot tell me that my baby was not a living human being before he came out. I felt him moving and kicking me when I was only 4 months pregnant and saw the heart beating and limbs moving on the monitor. Just because the world doesn’t see the baby yet doesn’t mean it isn’t yet a living person. Are you trying to tell me that a baby’s heart doesn’t beat, blood circulate, nerves work and brain function until it comes out? How ridiculous. What’s even more ridiculous is that the very people who think this way claim to be so damn intelligent. Educated fools, I call them.

    Matt, exactly. Thank you.

  22. Da Coyote says:

    Simon Newman is right. The problem with the abortion debate is the wholesale abandonment of the Federalist principles the American Republic was founded on. If you want abortion to be legal, move to Connecticut where the legistlature has made it legal, or make an effort to legalize it in your own state.

    Almost all of the pressing social issues of the day in America could be easily solved if the people in New York and Florida weren’t fighting over what the law will be in Montana.

    And that goes both ways. For those in favor of nation-wide gun control and those in favor of nation-wide gun rights need to learn the same lesson:

    State Soveriegnty prevails over Federal Premption except in the cases of national defense, inter-state/national commerce, and foreign policy.

    The sooner people learn that, the better.

  23. Daniel says:

    If life begins at conception here are some quetsions.

    1. Why the lateness on naming the child? I have never heard of or seen a single person who gave a fetus a name, why is that?

    2. Why didn’t women who had miscariages before Roe v Wade in America who had miscarriages due things like a bad diet get arrested for manslaughter?

    3. Why is it unable to survive outside of the womb?

    4. Why is it that throughout history no country has ever had a census record a fetus inside a pregnant woman?

    From what I know about abortion laws here is that abortions become illegal when the fetus no longer needs to be inside the womb.

    Da Cayote I thought that in America it was just one soveriegn law that applied across the board so how does that work with the state vs federal powers?

  24. Matt says:

    Daniel, your questions 2 & 4 pertain solely to the bureaucratic framework of a state, I don’t see how that’s related to the matter at hand. Question 1 pertains solely to the human tradition, which also is not directly related to the issue. As for the question 3 – quite often ill people are unable to survive outside the hospital – are you suggesting they are already dead? You seem to rely on human/state traditions when forming opinion. I tend to trust science. Human fetus has unique DNA code, a human DNA code – and it is a form of human life.

  25. winston says:

    Guliani’s strength is his “gitterdone” reputation. Even before 9/11 he was credited for making major positive improvements in NYC.

    Keep your eye on Huckabee as a VP pick. Guliani/Huckabee would be a very potent combination.

  26. JF says:

    Winston, and what is interesting about abortion in particular is that it wasn’t legislated, it was imposed by activist judges. Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court is itself an extra-Constitutional entity.

  27. winston says:

    “Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court is itself an extra-Constitutional entity.”

    Please elaborate. The Supreme Court and its powers are spelled out in Article 3, sections 1 and 2.

    Until relatively recently the SC interpreted the 4th amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,…)as a protection of property. Now the SC interprets the amendment as a protection of privacy. Therefore the right to make what’s seen as a private decision cannot be violated by the fed govt. Since it is now seen as a right, the 14th amendment prevents the States from abridging it.

    Personally I think it’s a bit of a stretch to use the 4th amendment to guarantee abortion rights, but it is proper that rights granted by the federal Constitution must be respected by the States.

  28. Daniel says:


    1. I asked questions which I do not believe you could answer on account of your lack of even an attempt to do so.

    2. Are you sure you are a conservative? Because the Torry Party is firmly against twisting someone’s words to what you know the person did not mean. What you did in your #2 is as obnoxious as it is revealing of your barbarian ability to close your mind from outside opinion, I suppose though it takes a barbarian to restrict individual rights. I said a person who can not exist outside of a hospital would have been a dead person 500 years ago inr resonse to your answer to if a fetus isn’t human because it can not live outside of it’s mother’s womb is a person who can’t live outside of a hospital dead? I said nothing about sick people not being human. However since you have demonstrated a lack of any civility or desire to understand or debate intelligently by both dodging questions, insulting me, and twisting my words and creating strawmen I see no reason whatsoever for me to continue to be civil. The civilized world by the way is on my side, only Barbarian countries like Saudi Arabia still have bans on abortions, there is not a single Western Country that has them banned, and that is because it is the opinion of science and tradition that human life begins at birth, not at sex.

  29. Matt says:

    1. Daniel, none of the “questions” (later discussed by Denise, by the way) were relevant and/or in any way connected to the matter at hand, and you still haven’t demonstrated otherwise, have you? Anyway, let’s look again – lateness on naming the child, legal relation of miscarriages to Roe v. Wade, bureaucratic census record as related to a fetus. Are you seriously suggesting that any of these issues is related to the issue of determination of the beginning of life? I personally believe in one objective truth. The answer to any of these “questions” does not change the answer to the question of whether the life begins at inception, since it is independent from any of those issues. I am aware that there is an opposite approach – a negation of the existence of the one objective truth. It leads to moral relativism. And it doesn’t have much to do with conservatism.

    2. Quoting your own words: “at the present day a fetus must be in it’s mother’s womb, and so it is as unborn and so as not human as a person who lived 500+ years ago who can not survive outside of a 21st century hospital would have been dead.”

    Simple logic:
    Premise A: a person who lived 500+ years ago who can not survive outside of a 21st century hospital would have been “dead”
    Premise B: at the present day a fetus must be in it’s mother’s womb, and so it is as “unborn”
    Premise C: … as not human

    By saying “at the present day a fetus must be in it’s mother’s womb, and so it is as unborn and ***so*** as not human” (emphasis mine) you say: since A & B, it follows that C. Therefore, you’re drawing an implication “unborn” => “not human”. Likewise, you have also concluded the correspondence to “dead” in your 500+ years ago “dead” example.

    Therefore, it is not true that “[Daniel] said nothing about sick people not being human.” Perhaps without realizing so, but that doesn’t change the meaning nor the implications.

    By the way – I have to say I fully agree with your statement: “I suppose though it takes a barbarian to restrict individual rights.” The question remains – have you taken into account the individual rights of an unborn baby? If not, on what basis are you assuming them away?

    Note also, that abortion is effectively illegal in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, completely illegal in {Malta, Chile, Vatican City, …}, illegal with exception for maternal life in Monaco, illegal with exception for maternal life and/or health in Queensland and Victoria (Australia). Not really “only Barbarian countries like Saudi Arabia”, are they?

    // source:

    Furthermore, note that fetal right are protected and fetal homicide is punishable as a crime in many jurisdictions. Why do you think is that so?

    Perhaps you could clarify your position – are you arguing for abortion solely for maternal life and/or health or just any abortion on demand? _If_ the latter, are you aware that you are then effectively arguing against the personal responsibility, a fundamental concept underlying the conservatism per se? How do you reconcile that with your supposed – to – be – conservative views? A CINO springs to mind…

    What about partial-birth abortion (a.k.a. late-term abortion)?

    On the other hand, if you are arguing for abortion at or before 8 weeks, take note that “When the fetal stage commences, a fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length, and the heart is beating. The fetus bends the head, and also makes general movements and startles that involve the whole body. Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception.” In general “biologically speaking, the zygote created at fertilization possesses a unique genome of human DNA, and many of the biological manifestations of a living organism.” If these characteristics (beating heart, brain stem activity, unique human DNA, biological manifestations of a living organism) are not enough to convince you it is a living form of human life, what other do you require to (mercifully) allow these people to live?

    As for the straw men – quoting you once again: “life begins at birth, not at sex.” Would you be as so kind as to tell how is it relevant at all in the discussion and who are you directing that to? I remember very well I’ve been arguing that the life begins at inception. So much for “firmly against twisting someone’s words to what you know the person did not mean”, eh?

    I cannot help you that you feel insulted, though in no way were I at any point intending to insult any person.

    Ultimately, I think I would like to dedicate you a quote to ponder: “We need to get back to the principles of personal responsibility and away from this culture where everybody plays the victim.” — US Republican Congressman Ric Keller

  30. Simon Newman says:

    “Winston, the Supreme Court is extra-Constitutional in that its powers of Judicial Review are not explicitly granted to it by the Constitution”

    I didn’t know this, and it explains a lot – I always wondered how the founders of the USA could create a careful system of checks and balances, and then trash it all by giving absolute power to one body, the SC. That they didn’t actually do this is very revealing.

  31. winston says:

    “Supreme Court is extra-Constitutional in that its powers of Judicial Review are not explicitly granted to it by the Constitution”

    Article 3 section 2 “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States…”

    “Winston’s absolute faith in the wisdom of the court is misplaced.”

    My faith is not the issue. I’m merely explaining the practical Constitutional issues. I’m talking about how the Constitution IS interpreted not how it “should be” interpreted.

  32. winston says:

    Section 2 doesn’t mention the exact words “judicial review”, but that is what it is describing.

    “ALL cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution…” (Caps mine)

  33. JF says:

    Section 2 doesn’t mention the exact words “judicial review”, but that is what it is describing.

    So you say, but as even luminaries such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea of judicial review, you can’t categorically claim that it was intended by the framers. The logical proof of this is that judicial review wasn’t even formalized until Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

  34. JF says:

    Da Coyote, it certainly seems like a tough nut to crack, as you pointed out–as soon as we restrict the powers through legistlation, the court with strike it down. The only way to get around that is with a Constitutional amendment, and I don’t think enough people care to pass that.

    The best solution in the short term is to appoint as many conservative justices as possible. We’re on the tipping point right now, and another GOP Presidency may just outlast Souter or Ginsburg.

  35. Joanna says:

    On the Supreme Court issue…Marbury v. Madison only claimed for the Supreme Court _a_ power of judicial review. Until this century it was commonly held that all three branches–legislative, judicial and executive–had the right to interpret the constitution. I think it was President Andrew Jackson who once said the Supreme Court had ruled…now let it enforce its decision. It’s only late in the 20th century that judges have claimed such absolute power.

    Daniel and Denise–perhaps your fundamental disagreement is in philosophy? Denise pointed this out, actually. Daniel finds the right or wrong of an abortion as resting in public opinion or state recognition, while Denise is resting her argument on natural law. That’s what it looks like to me. I’ve been told that’s a distinct European-American difference in outlook too–Europe often transforms moral issues into technical ones, while America tends to see far more things–economics, for example–in terms of values. Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: