My Friend Rudy
By mikeleader Posted in 2008 — Comments (79) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In 1993 it became obvious that if Rudy was to avenge his narrow defeat for Mayor four years earlier, he would need more Democratic voters to cross party lines and support him. His campaign strategists knew I was disenchanted with the incumbent and put a full court press on me to meet with Giuliani. I was the elected head of the Democratic Party in a large Democratic district whose vote could be pivotal if it turned out for the non Democrat challenger.
I met him and we talked for about an hour. He impressed me then as he does now with his intelligence, humor, and vision. I agreed to publicly support him, and shortly thereafter I stood on the steps of City Hall with Rudy in a far reaching press conference where the press corps did everything they could to dig up a nefarious motive for my sacrilege of becoming the first Democratic Party Leader to endorse Rudy. I felt then he was the best candidate for my city .Though I was a Democrat, and an unpaid Party official, I had to choose reason and conscience over Party. The “man bites dog twist” made for a good story and it was picked up by all the city papers, and went national when the Associated Press picked it up.
Read on . . .
Rudy won by a scant 60,000 votes with about a third of that number coming from my staunch Democratic district. On many occasions after that, he praised my political courage and occasionally stated that my support at that time launched his successful elected political career. For the next eight years, I served as Rudy’s (unsalaried) Personal Representative at three different City funded agencies. I got to know him, his public and private personae, his convictions, his strengths and his weaknesses. Unless something totally unforeseen happens he will run for President. Many of my fellow conservatives at Redstate are wondering if they can hold their collective noses and vote for someone with very different social views. I say they can, they should, and for the good of the America they must!. Here’s why!!
Rudy will not change his views on abortion or homosexuality. He won’t waffle, he won’t fudge with words, he won’t take a poll and then decide what he believes. If he were running for priest or rabbi, you might be justified in not voting for him. The man is running for President. The world is not a perfect one. We make decisions each day where we compromise to achieve the greater good. I believe him when he says he will choose Supreme Court Justices from the mold of Roberts and Alito. That suits me just fine.
I’m told and believe the debacle of a Democratic Congress supported by Republican appeasers happened because too many high minded Conservatives stayed home with a “plague on both your houses” mentality. Very nice to allow yourselves that luxury. What you did in no way gained you one step closer to preserving the lives of the unborn, on the contrary what was done brings us all one step closer to the Caliphate which is sworn to destroy us all!
One thing real political professionals understand when confronted with hard decisions is that being right does not always insure it’s the correct decision. I’ve used this phrase many times: “You’re right! So what:.”
You are right my fellow conservatives….So right and self righteous in fact that you would have “I was right!” put on our collective tombstones.
There was an attack on September 11th. We are at war. Civilization as we know it is on the line. Truthfully, how long must we wake up each morning and check the morning news to be sure all our cities are still in one piece and not obliterated .
Political pros ask one question before they make a commitment. .can he win? Rudy can win. He has evolved into a terrific candidate. I rode the 24 hour bus with him throughout the five boroughs of New York preceding the election. I watched him with latinos, blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, and every other group. He brought stability to a city which was in chaos.
He is absolutely brilliant and articulate! He will make sense and he has the fortitude to stick to his convictions…even convictions we may not like. How refreshing in a world where every move is plotted by pollsters and focus groups. I am buoyed by his conviction to choose non activist judges. I was there when he threw Yassir Arafat out of a New York City function to the squeals of liberals and the U.N. I applaud that conviction.
I watched him tell the Prince of Saudi Arabia where he could stick his ten million dollar sympathy money after the murder of thousands of my city’s sons and daughters. I attended some of the funerals of the cops and fireman and emergency service workers , Rudy attended hundreds of them. God bless him for his conviction to comfort those families. He reformed the Welfare system in NY having the conviction that people could be trained to earn a living and achieve self respect.
This country needs a winner…The Republicans need a winner. By the accident of history, the winner is Rudy!
America, it may be our last chance!
why would rudy want to insult him now by paying him. after all he will work for free. kill them all, let god sort them out.
Are not hero's, those who mostly by choice separate themselves from the pack by their actions rather then by accident?
Like the marine that smothers a hand grenade with his body to save his fellows, yes you can argue that by accident of timing he was there but a heroic choice was made nonetheless.
Rudy, I believe is not an accident of history, but a man who had to courage to remain standing when the "stuff" hit the fan.
OK so I disagree with one tiny phrase you chose, but I'm with you on the rest.
Well said, Rudy is in need of more friends like you to come out and call it as you see it.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
in NYC. I am reading Prince of the City, and Rudy is no accident!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
mikeleader
thanks for your input..I guess the "accident" was the accident of timing that our enemies hit NY on his watch,. Had Bloomberg been Mayor..or anyone else the disaster would have been even worse for NY. There is no question he made heroic choices and catapaulted himself to national prominence...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
to volunteering for Rudy. I think he will succeed where the current president has failed. He will make the discussion of the war and its importance both personal and compelling. He will lead, and America will follow. We need that more than any other single thing right now.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
considered joining the camp formally. I would like though, some idea on a running mate that brings balance on some of the social issues to appease the part of the party that rejects him outright, due to them.
I disagree on Bush though, I know I sound like a broken record about this but I don't think he's failed at anything. Could he do things better? YES! On almost all the issues that people take exception to, those are issues that I believe he has spoken honestly to. Like the "compassionate conservatism" angle, he has not wandered from that.
Yes he's spent money, but it's on things that the feds were already spending money on and I do think he came up with better approaches to the expenditures, like NCLB. He brought accountability and measurability to educational spending. Yes, it's not a constitutional issue, I understand that but this is our future. The government had already written into law billions in spending that is just too popular for it to stop. This is the reality of it, so now schools get graded, teachers are measured. Now there is finally proof that the system is failing, how can this be a bad thing? OK well I'm not going to debate NCLB again, there are too many that reject it out of hand.
My point is I don't think he's failed, history will be the judge and my sense is that just like with Reagan, the world has pivoted and a new course charted.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
This is the reality of it, so now schools get graded, teachers are measured. Now there is finally proof that the system is failing, how can this be a bad thing?
We wouldnt have to measure anything if the federal government would stay out of areas where it has no business. The problem is not that he wanted accountability, its that he wasted more more money to do it.
He has talked as if we are in a new cold war, a life-and-death struggle which will go on covertly and overtly for decades.
But he has only now proposed any serious augmentation of the military; he has only now proposed a civil corps to supplement the military effort; he has failed to explain the war on a regular and frequent basis to the public (such as at least once a week); he has backed down at crucial moments in Iraq (e.g., Fallujah); etc. I could go on.
The loss of support for the war is due to two things: (1) slanderous and cowardly attacks from the Left and its media, and (2) Bush's prosecution of the war, politically and militarily, with half-measures.
(I still support Bush over Kerry or Gore or any other Democratic candidate, but that doesn't mean he hasn't made immense mistakes which have seriously compromised our chances for success in this war.)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
The failure of the elected DC-GOP to defend the president and the war against unpatriotic attacks by the Dems and the MSM.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Bush has been to silent in the face of a torrent of lies cast against him. Bush has given too few constant reminders of the need for prosecution of the war.
And of greatest importance, GW has steadfastly refused to mobilize the nation behind the soldiers at war. For that reason, entropy was allowed to occur, and it overrode discipline. A mentally lazy, undisciplined, pacifist political party like the Democrats would, of course, eventually win in such an environment.
We should have had five additional divisions added to the order of battle shortly after 9/11, at least. We didn't. Now we are feeling the effects.
It should be no surprise that the GOP, lacking effective leadership from the WH, fell to its own devices of porkery, piggery, and feeding at the Trough To Nowhere.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
spouting Bushlied lies since early 2004. They have no excuse.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
There is still hope that Bush will rise to the occasion. But he better do it fast.
And he still isn't explaining the war more than once a month or so, and the GOP leaders aren't doing it, either.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
I think Rudy has a clear edge.
I have always felt Bush was a good man and has good intentions but has failed miserably as a leader - I truly believe that Rudy can turn that around.
"Rudy will not change his views on abortion or homosexuality. He won’t waffle, he won’t fudge with words, he won’t take a poll and then decide what he believes."
I'm strongly pro-Life and pro-gun rights. His positions on those issues make me queasy, and I'm not sure who I'm supporting yet in the primaries. But there is something deeply respectable about holding to your beliefs even in the face of what will be intense opposition.
It's too often that people -- in both parties -- just switch positions on these hot-button issues to curry favor. I'm not saying every position switch isn't genuine, like for instance Reagan's, and I'm not picking on specific politicians, but it just sometimes comes off as unseemly. For Giuliani to know the heat he'll face and hold to those positions, is admirable, even if wrong-headed. And him holding to those beliefs makes his statement that he'll appoint people like Roberts and Alito to the federal judiciary that much more believable.
gay marriage.
1. Does he believe that the government should recognize SSM?
2. Does he believe that taxpayers should pay for abortions for women who cannot afford to pay for them?
3. Does he believe that underage girls should be allowed to get abortions without notifying their parents?
4. If elected, would he appoint judges who would view gay marriage as a civil right?
5. If elected, would he appoint judges who would interpret the 4th, 9th, 10th, and/or 14th amendment as implying a right to abortion (in other words, using the concept of "substantive due process" as articulated in Roe, Terry, Casey, and Carhart)?
With regards to marriage, what I've heard so far from Rudy is basically that he claims to oppose gay marriage, but that he supports civil unions/domestic partnerships for homosexuals. I realize that this is a popular position with Americans (I personally don't understand it, but so be it), but it really does need to be examined more thoroughly.
If Giuliani is an absolutist with regards to states rights on this whole issue, and if he really would put Scalias and Alitos on the bench, then his personal opinions probably don't matter so much. But the question I want to hear put to him is whether or not he believes that the Constitution requires that homosexual unions be granted some form of state recognition. In other words, does he think that there is a right to his preferred domestic partnerships?
If so, then it is very problematic. For one thing, it is a constiutionally-indefensible position. A court imposition of civil unions is just as illegitimate as an imposition of gay marriage. One can only arrive at the view that the Constitution requires recognition of domestic partnerships through the 'living constitution.' For another, such a view would raise doubts about his judicial picks, because a Scalia would not try to find some ridiculous 'gay marriage-not a right, civil unions-are a right' compromise. I could see O'Connor or Kennedy doing that, but a Scalia would rule correctly that its a matter entirely for the states/people to decide.
So, is Giuliani okay with the fact that most states do not now, and will not in the future, recognize same-sex unions? I'd really like to see that question put to him.
It really bothers me that the media allows Democrats to get away with their absurd claim to support states rights, when everyone knows that they would put leftwing activist judges on the bench who would run roughshod all over the states and the people by imposing gay marriage/civil unions the first chance they get. Not once have I ever heard someone in the media, or a debate moderator, ask a Democrat candidate about this obvious contradiction and conflict between their stated position and the type of judges they would appoint. NOT ONCE! Its not surprising of course, but it is frustrating. And I don't want to see Republicans get away with it any more than Democrats.
and I will let it rest for a while after this. But the gun control issue will simply get larger, it will not go away, it will gain steam. I promise you guys that I am correct here.
I do not think this blog is big on the 2nd amendment. I do not say this to be critical, it is just something I have observed. I do know that many here care deeply about the issue and I am sure most would say they support gun rights. However, the issue does not come up nearly as much as gays and abortion.
Since this is a Republican blog, and we Republicans are trying to teach each other and learn from each other, I can not let post after post about how Rudy is electable pass by when I KNOW his pro gun-control ideas will hurt his chances greatly. I understand we are in a War On Terror. I think Rudy has many great attributes. But the fact remains that he either needs to explain his stance much more clearly or he is going to turn off and even turn on hundreds of thousands of voters to stop him.
I would say at this point the NRA would choose not to endorse Rudy under any circumstances. Yes, even if it were between Rudy and Hillary, the NRA would NOT endorse Rudy. Now we all know Rudy and a Republican Congress that would likely result, would be better for gun rights than Hillary. But the fact remains he will not be endorsed and that could trigger (no pun) many poor results. This would certainly mean millions in lost contributions, thousands of fewer votes, and even a third party candidate.
I like Rudy, I could vote for him. But this is still early in the process. I think that Newt is going to run if the only serious opponents are Giuliani and Mccain.
Molon Labe!
But hearing Rudy exempt Big Cities from the 2nd Amendment on H&C last week was grating on the ears, especially following the "right to Choose" and "life of the mother" blather on abortion.
I agree with Doc.
Blade-shod feet but still unarmed with firearms, but continuously armed with the WHOLE Constitution, no matter the size of the Henhouse, Gamecock aka
Mike DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"But there is something deeply respectable about holding to your beliefs even in the face of what will be intense opposition."
As someone who is staunchly fiscally conservative but less so on the social matters, I sincerely appreciate such open-mindedness on your part. I know it is difficult for pro-life voters to support Mayor Giuliani, much like it would be very difficult for me to support a staunchly pro-life candidate that was less than stellar on taxes or fiscal policy. I believe I speak for all Rudy fans that we sincerely appreciate the open-mindedness that many pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay marriage Republicans have shown.
It is my ultimate hope and belief that the controversial social issues of our time will essentially be boiled down to the states (which is where most of them should be). If this happens, I believe it is very important for Republican candidates to play well in the Northeast and Midwest -- areas where we have struggled mightily in recent elections. Mayor Giuliani's candidacy is out chance to regain a foothold in these regions, and develop a true nationwide Republican base. That's why I'm voting for him, and hope you will consider it, too.
-----
The truth is, the more you tax profits, the more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great.
It also makes me proud to be a Republican when I hear pro-lifers that are open to Giuliani's candidacy. Contrast that to the Democrats, which have had a far more stringent litmus test on the abortion issue than the Republicans ever had. Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, and many other Democrats suddenly flip-flopped on the issue in order to curry favor with the ultra-pro-abortion left. I don't know of many Republicans that made this compromise - instead, they take their position to the primary voters and let the issues be decided in the ballot box.
--
The truth is, the more you tax profits, the more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great.
"It also makes me proud to be a Republican when I hear pro-lifers that are open to Giuliani's candidacy. "
We understand that it was the judiciary which created the abortion mess in this nation, and it will be the judiciary which reins-in abortion for convenience. Rudy does a lot to mitigate his personal "pro-choice" position by pledging to appoint strict constructionists to the courts. That's where the battles on all social issues are being fought. Rudy's personal opinion on a variety of issues are irrelevant if he places strong originalists on the court.
had to change from pro-choice to pro-life in order to win the GOP primary.
They may have had a genuine change of heart or they may have switched for political reasons. We'll never know.
Glad to hear your insight as someone who knows the man personally...
appreciated.
Unless something drastic happens in the next year, Rudy will be the one I support in the primaries and most definitely the general, should he win the nomination. He just gets this terrorist stuff better than anyone.
As for a running mate, Duncan Hunter intrigues me and I will be looking at him closer.
My guess is that Rudy will pull a southerner or midwesterner to his ticket though.
______________________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
Greetings from Tikrit! (from the blogger former known as neodanite)
I hope that you and Mr. C17 are doing well.
Do you have a preference for 2008?
If so, please let me know.
I'm a Romney guy. But Rudy is my second choice.
"I was the elected head of the Democratic Party in a large Democratic district..."
"Many of my fellow conservatives at Red[S]tate are wondering if they can hold their collective noses and vote for someone with very different social views. I say they can, they should, and for the good of the America they must!"
I hate to quibble, but...I don't think that most RedState conservatives would really consider any northeastern Democrats elected in the past half century at least - especially those from New York City - to be fellow conservatives. I think when we say "conservative," we're talking about slightly (if not greatly) different things.
And yes...as long as there is an incumbant Democrat who has a proven track record of being a completely incompetant leader who is letting the glue of the basic characteristics of a civil society come apart, enough Democrats will cross party lines to elect him by a razor-thin margin.
Somehow, I don't think that most of these Democrats will view Hillary, Barack, or the Brecht Girl in the same light as they viewed the dismal Mayor David Dinkins.
If there weren't another guy in this race who I believe has an exceedingly strong record of executive leadership who also seems to share my views on social policy, I may very well be forced to bite the bullet and support Giuliani in the primary. But as long as Mitt Romney is in the race, I don't think I'll have the taste of gunpowder in my mouth anytime soon.
mikeleader
"I was the elected head of the Democratic Party in a large Democratic district..."
I hate to quibble, but...I don't think that most RedState conservatives would really consider any northeastern Democrats elected in the past half century at least - especially those from New York City - to be fellow conservatives. I think when we say "conservative," we're talking about slightly (if not greatly) different things."
Maybe it's me but I detect a bit of pompous elitism in your words.
Peope change..ideas evolve..one of my Redstate heros, Gamecock was a party oficial Dem.. Reagan saw the light as did many many others including Zell Miller and many Redstaters..Small mindedness is the calling card of the Koz Kidz and doesn't wear well in the marketplace of ideas...
The sight of college students celebrating the acquittal of O.J...The wisdom of Rush...and the tragedy of 9-11 which took two good friends and a brother-in-law shaped my epiphany..
I'm glad to be here and for those fools who would discount me and my ilk because we come from the northeast..heavens.New York!..are losing sight of the goal line..
Careful there, Mike. The last time I was accused of being an elitist, Ed Gillespie was slandering me and everyone else trying to shoot down the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court and we all know how THAT turned out. :-)
mikeleader
ok...my bad!
I can't trust those over the counter tranquilizers to calm me down.Guess I've got to go to a shrink after all...
no hurtful intent meant...
Mike
I lived in the NYC metropolitan area during both the 1989 and 1993 elections. I remember Rudy tripping over himself to sign any pledge that NARAL and Planned Parenthood demanded that candidates sign.
I strongly suspect that Rudy has a record of praising the Roe decision and the Casey decision, decisions that Scalia et al either dissented from, or would not have participated in.
Other questions that will arise:
1. Is he so pro-choice that he favors forcing pro-life folks to pay for abortions? For how long has he held that position? (Not too long I suspect).
2. When he proudly and prominently participated in "Gay Pride" festivities, to what extent did he endorse the sentiments (e.g, the respectful disagreement with the tenets of the Catholic Church) so charmingly expressed by his fellow participants? If he did not agree, when did he bother communicating that disagreement?
3. Finally, when Rudy gives his "word" as to judges or any other issue, can we expect the same fidelity to that word that his first two wives came to expect? Do we have more reason to trust him? Why?
Incidentally, I don't support anybody. Just depressed with the whole field of Republican candidates.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I could not agree more with what you are saying. The damage done to the social conservative by the failures of the current admin in the areas of spending and foreign policy has put us behind the eight ball. Much like the dems appear to be going through a bit of an identity crisis, I think the GOP is as well, and I am not happy at all with the willingness of our party to shrug its shoulders with regards to the topic of abortion. I am not in a tax bracket where I will ever reap the benefit of the scaled tax cuts, but I have been a staunch, proud Republican because of the party's admirable stand for what is right. To be willing now to turn from this issue just because the going is tough is very disappointing. Yes, we are hurting for leadership in our party and desperately need a better candidate.
I'm sick and tired of being part of the group that's blamed for the Democratic Congress. There is only one group that's to blame for that, and that's the group of weasely Senators and Congressmen who decided to abandon the principles of the base.
Do you think I _wanted_ a Democratic Congress? Of course not. But when for at least 18 months the Congress had been told "stop this, we're not happy with you" and they refused to listen, the results were inevitable.
And you know what? The Northeastern Republican establishment _still_ isn't listening. They think they lost because they supported the war, and so now they're rushing to abandon it as fast as possible. And sure, there were a few independent voters who they probably lost because of that. But the real reason they lost was because they were no longer acting like Conservatives. They spent like drunken sailors every chance they got. The Senate threw a number of very good judges under the bus in the name of some mythical "comity" that never existed except in a few deranged Senator's minds.
The way to win elections is _not_ to pander to the hypothetical independent mushy middle. The way to win elections is to stick to your core principles, and then convince the mushy middle that your core principles are better than the other side's.
Now, I'm not saying this is happening yet, because I really don't have a feel. But if a large chunk of the base indicates it won't support one or more of these candidates, don't push him through to nomination and then expect him to win. And especially don't blame the loss on those people who let you know well in advance that they weren't voting for the guy.
And note, that's not aimed at Rudy specifically, all 3 of the "front-runners" have issues. Rudy very tentatively would get my vote if he were nominated, but a large chunk probably wouldn't. Romney's in the same boat, and I wouldn't vote for McCain for dog-catcher.
Rudy is a big time social liberal. He's pro choice, pro gun control, etc. He'd be a lousy President on the domestic agenda. The argument I've heard most often is that he sticks to his principals. This certainly is novel for a career politician. Unfortunately, his principals on the home front are liberal principals, not conservative ones.
Big +1. Lets also not forget that Rudy will never get tough at the border. I will never trust him on illegal immigration, the 2nd amendment, or appointing originalist judges. Ignore his rhetoric, he is saying what he needs to in order to get the nom. Look at his record.
tough on the border I mean...and please don't trot out Tancredo...
is a fine ex-mayor of New York. But that does not answer my question.
he can't win.
I believe that he is the only current candidate for president who shares the view of most Americans that our borders are dangerously open.
He is willing to make sacrifices for expressing that view.
But he can't win. Go ahead and vote for Tancredo in the primary if immigration is your highest priority.
But don't forget that Romney and many other conservatives will do a much better job on immigration than Hillary or B.O.
...that unfortunately being truly "tough on the border" is basically impossible. Here's what I mean. Unless you're willing to station the US Military all along the southern border and fence it in, that won't stop it. And sure, if you do, that will stop the illegal alien workers. But will that stop the terrorists?
No - because they'd simply enter via another route. Nobody's currently suggesting that we shut off the Canadian border, but potential terrorists could certainly use that as a point of ingress - it would just stop the undocumented workers from south of the border.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think we should be doing more on border control. A lot more. But I think we should be doing it more for fiscal reasons than the War on Terror. I just don't think that the level of border control required to truly keep terrorists out would be tenable to the American people, at least not before we've suffered a far more devastating attack than we currently have.
occasionally necessary revolutions.
The grey uniforms will be ready!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
and pro- Gay Marriage. Rudy would be a great Scoop Jackson type Democrat nominee, but he'd be a lousy Republican nominee. You can't elect a man solely due to his leadership capabilities, if his leadership is the anathema of your political outlook
He says he supports "civil unions," but strongly opposes redefining marriage. I'm sure he also says he opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, while only supporting a "path to citizenship", too.
Run like Reagan!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
But you do have to pick one of two, eventually. And, when you do, you have to pick the one who best matches your political outlook.
And doing such things as voting 3rd party or not voting at all is basically the same thing as picking the candidate who least matches your political outlook.
But, of course, you shouldn't just vote for somebody because they have good leadership qualities. FDR had great leadership qualities. And I can't imagine voting for him or somebody just like him.
I fully realize there are conservatives out there who simply could not vote for somebody who is pro-choice or pro-gay marriage, etc. But I think they'd do a huge, HUGE favor to their causes by taking a dose of reality.
The most impact a president has on most social issues is by way of their judicial nominations. And it's not even close. Their role as signer/vetoer of legislation pales in comparison to the role of nominator.
And Giuliani has said that he liked the picks of Alito and Roberts.
So, the dose of reality is this: would you rather have more Alitos and Robertses....or would you rather have more Ginsburgs and Breyers?
Because I think we stand a pretty good chance with a President Giuliani of getting another Sam Alito. But I know we stand a good chance with a President Hillary of getting another Ruth Ginsburg.
I realize that voting for the lesser of two evils isn't very exciting. But that's just the way it works. Because you're going to end up with Candidate D or Candidate R.
You said:
"I fully realize there are conservatives out there who simply could not vote for somebody who is pro-choice or pro-gay marriage, etc. But I think they'd do a huge, HUGE favor to their causes by taking a dose of reality."
And I think that people like you would be doing a huge, HUGE favor by realizing that when you push a candidate that's unacceptable to a non-trivial percentage of the party that you've for sure lost that percentage. And in the 50/50 world that we seem to be living in, that you've probably lost the election.
Now, of the three front runners, McCain is the only one I've ruled out voting for. But for example, my parents won't vote for any of the three, and I doubt they've voted for a Democrat for president since LBJ. And no sales job you guys push is going to fix that for enough of the people who are like that.
I'm a firm believer in the primary process. That's entirely the reason parties have primaries: to determine who their candidate will be.
I'm going to throw my support behind either Giuliani or Romney (or both, financially). But I'll never pimp for a candidate on a blog or elsewhere.
I think that candidates of any kind are entitled to run in the primary. Heck, if Lincoln Chafee wants to run for the Republican nomination for president....that's great.
What I'm talking about is once the primary is over and it's Rs vs. Ds. One of the two is going to win. Period. End of story. A third party candidate isn't going to win and they can't both lose.
So, as a person armed with a vote in a general election, you have to ask yourself which candidate best reflects your worldview and vote accordingly.
I can fully undertand being frustrated by not having somebody who more closely matches your worldview on the ballot from either of the major parties. But that doesn't change the fact that either the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee is going to win the election.
Making a "statement" by being childish and not voting for McCain (if he's the GOP nominee) is just plainly stupid for any conservative. Some statement: help elect Hillary or Obama. Well done.
The left learned this lesson the painful way: by actually having it matter. If Ralph Nader's not on the ballot in 2000, Gore would have won that election. So all these lefties who voted for Nader rather than that "sellout" Al Gore did nothing but help them both lose.
Count me as somebody who will almost certainly vote for the Republican nominee no matter who he is. Not because I'm a blind partisan -- but because I'm almost entirely sure that whoever the Republicans nominate will be better than whoever the Democrats nominate.
As for choosing the nominee, that's a different matter entirely.
George Galloway has leadership skills, too. Unfortunately, he hates America.
Leadership alone is not enough. Must be conservative.
Neil,
Exactly Right. Rudy cannot "Run Like Reagan." Too much nuance.
And, like many here, I have different views on a number of issues than he does. But, then, the same can be said for...well...everybody I vote for.
I haven't decided yet who I will support in the primary. It's likely between Giuliani and Romney. I'll probably give some money to both of them. But there isn't a Republican candidate out there who I couldn't vote for in the general election.
I think Rudy would make a tremendous president. He's got executive leadership written all over him.
- during a press conference on the night of 9/11, he was asked about the possibility of violence directed at Muslims in NYC. He said he would increase police protection in Muslim communities in order to prevent that possibility.
- people forget that besides the destroyed WTC, many buildings in lower Manhattan were standing but not habitable, and there was an economic depression zone developing around the WTC crater. Nonetheless, in the face of pressing financial needs, Rudy told the Arab prince to take that $10 million check and shove it.
This guy has nerves of steel. Or as it is properly pronounced in NYC, noives.
about Rudy is the gun laws.
I'm strongly pro-life and strongly pro-marriage as well, but I believe Guiliani, as a former US Attorney, appreciates the necessity of judges who will decide cases instead of making law.
All of these issues are secondary to the War on Terror, though. If we fail to pursue it aggressively, to whatever end and at whatever cost, we are doomed to suffer catastrophic losses in the future.
I don't hold Romney's conversions against him, but they did seem to occur at a most fortuitous time as he contemplated seeking national office. McCain's apostasies are less easily justified. Gingrich was politically inept as Speaker. That pretty much leaves Rudy, and I have no problem supporting him.
the argument is over after the primaries. In todays political climate I will support the Republican nominee, whoever it is, over anyone capable of winning the Democrat nomination. That includes Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Gingrich, Brownback, or anyone else.
I don't expect some third party like the Reform Party of the 1990's to siphon off much of the Conservative vote. I hope that we've learned our lesson there. Perot got Clinton elected not once, but twice. In the same manner, Nader assured Bush's election in 2000. Thank God. Imagine IT Gore as President on September 11th 2001. Let the Greens and Socialists steal votes from the Dems for not being totalitarian enough. We've all got to fall in behind whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be.
---"I don't expect some third party like the Reform Party of the 1990's to siphon off much of the Conservative vote."---
Look, I don't post here often recently, as the site is blocked by my firewall at work. But there are already grumblings about running a Third Party candidate going on in the grassroots organizations I am involved in. Believe me, Rudy would get flanked on the right - and I'd be one of those zealots working hard to ensure it happens. I'll be one of those folks who "don't understand the stakes."
Simple and undeniable truths:
Rudy will not appoint a judge who might be the fifth Justice to overturn laws he holds sacrosanct, like Roe vs. Wade. His record of appointments is dimsal, as are his views on law. Remember, the man calls himself a Strict Constructionist and he believes that the "well-regulated militia" Amendment compels the federal government to enact strict gun control measures. He stated to Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts on This Week (2000) that he though Roe vs. Wade was good law; when asked again just last week by Hannity if Roe was good law, he said "that's for the courts to decide." It is clear he still thinks Roe is good law.
Rudy also believes that the Constitution allows for Campaign Finance Reform and Hate Crimes Legislation. Aside from that, he believes that you can sue gun manufacturers (remember?) and be well within the bounds of good legal thought.
Rudy Giuliani's idea of a "Strict Constructionist" is very diferrent from the idea we SoCon and Gun Conservatives have. This is a man who praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's legal tenure on the Supreme Court, for crying out loud!
It is very clear the Rudy Giuliani will not appoint judges who would overturn what he believes to be good law. I believe that I can definitively declare with CERTAINTY that a Supreme Court nomination under Rudy Giuliani will be Pro-Roe, and Pro-limitations on Free Speech. To believe otherwise is foolishness.
As much as the Rudy backers want SoCons and Gun Conservatives reduced to a three word cue card every election henceforth and forevermore ("Roberts and Alito"), many of us will die of exhaustion on the campaign trial working our fingers to the bone to see to his defeat.
Give us anybody but Rudy, and that effort goes to the GOP - give us Rudy, and we'll consider the GOP having pulled a "Jim Jeffords" on SoCon and Gun Conservatives.
We are not fools, and we are not servants. We are issues voters who mean what we say. No Rudy - not in the primary, not in the General. Nominating Rudy Giuliani to be the standard-bearer for the GOP means that the GOP stands with the domestic enemy on key issues we hold dear; he/they will be treated no differently that any other domestic enemy.
A third party vote will effectively be a vote for Hillary or Obama or whoever the Democrats nominate. I'd rather have Rudy nominating the next Supreme Court Justice than Clinton or Barrack Hussein Obama. Period.
Fight for your candidate in the primaries, not the general election. The last tantrum that we Conservatives threw gave both houses to the Democrats. If one of the Supremes retires or dies in the next two years, Bush'll never get an originalist appointed to the court. Any nominee to the right of Souter is screwed.
mikeleader
titans thank you for a well researched post....
please check out
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html
for some additional thoughts that may give you a different perspective..
I respect and understand your discomfort..although when you say give us anyone but Rudy..does that include Clinton and obama?
Is it worth voting for a candidate who has some views you dislike, but will appoint four or eight more years of conservative judges?
The alternative is the possibility of 8 years of hillary followed by 8 years of her running mate Obama...
How will the judiciary look then?
I'll take the Rudy option...
Even assuming that Giuliani would appoint good judges (which I don't believe), judges are not the most pressing issue; immigration is. Unless somebody does something about this pretty quickly all the other issues become moot. The resulting Democratic majority will have no problem appointing a Supreme Court which will resemble the Ninth Circuit.
I'm terrified of a Rudy Giuliani Presidency, and what it means for the SoCon/Gun Conservative movement.
Make no mistake about it, if the Social Conservative and Gun Conservative movement is willing to bend this far, the party will not be asking them to bend any less in the future. This will not be the last time the base is given an abortion rights/gun control/gay rights activist and told he's the "next Reagan." On the contrary, these new stances will be the standard for future "Conservative" candidates, having proven that they can not only fail to address Social and Gun Conservative issues and still win elections, but that they can run candidates who have been activists on the wrong side of every issue and still win.
We'll survive four years of Hitlery; but I do not think the issues I care about would survive a Rudy Presidency. Rudy puts us in a desperation mode that actually has us favoring a Democrat victory.
Your judges argument does not sell here, as I have explained why Rudy will clearly pick poor justices. Rockefeller types, being of the mold that only taxes and defense matter, see a difference in the judges because the Democrats will appoint judges who are both Liberal Social/Gun issues judges and Anti-business judges. We who are SoCon/Gun Conservatoves know that we're gonna get Liberal Social/Gun issue judges from Rudy, though they will probably be Pro-Corporate judges.
So we're no more scared by Hitlery's judges than we are Rudy's judges. The "fear of Hillary" argument works in every case except for Rudy - in which case it is adequately nullified.
What, again, was Rudy's "strict constructionist" record of appointing judges in NYC? Quite the opposite, let the record show. He can't even credibly sell us the "I promise to appoint judges who'll protect you from me" argument.
People all expect us to fall in line if Rudy wins the nod, when we are making it well known LONG ahead of time we won't. We've drawn a line in the sand and pointed out the Rudy is about three miles beyond that line. You speak as if it's unreasonable for us not to suck it up and accpet Rudy if he gets shoved down our throats. But really, is it so unreasonable to ask for any other candidate but Rudy - and give fair warning ahead of time, rather than spring it on everybody at the last minute.
It's is better to lose with Rudy than win - for many of us. We do not need two parties diametrically opposed to our issues. We are more than tax cuts and defense Republicans.
Would you support - say - a GOP candidate who pushed for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing Free Trade, was completely open to the idea of very, very, very large tax increases, thought it was basic human decency to sign the Kyoto Accord, and openly supported windfall profits taxation - just because said candidate was an NRA member who was unapologetically Pro-Life? I doubt it - even though I could use the "What percent of issues you agree with him on" argument.
Rudy is just too far on the wrong side for us. We're not being unreasonable - we're saying give us ANYONE else and we'll get on board, if only reluctantly.
Conservative is not a big-tent word, despite what Rudy supporters want to say. Think of Conservatism as a plane with two wings - one fiscal and one Social. The body is American strength and defense. Without one wing, the plane doesn't fly, because it's not Conservative. In Rudy's case, one wing is missing entirely, and a small engine on the other wing is missing (non-fiscal Conservative funding of Liberal Social programs like Abortion).
Let's put the whole plane together and fly to freedom. Don't ask us to board a jet missing a wing, because we won't.
I heard him give a speech in Miami three weeks ago- he was phenomonal. It was a nonpolitical speech, so it was nominally about "leadership" but it was really an ode to Ronald Reagan, and Rudy's view on how Reagan was so successful achieving to key objectives of conservatism- making America strong/defeating the USSR and making America prosperous by deregulating the private sector, cutting taxes and promoting free-market, capitalist economic policies.
If anyone doubts that Rudy is a solid conservative, just wait until you hear his stump speech. I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican clearly and proudly articulate and defend core conservative values like that.
By the way, on abortion, he has specifically said he would not accept any state funding of abortions. Even if Rudy will not champion a pro-life position, I don't see how a President Guiliani would be any worse for the pro-life movement than Frist, Lott and Hastert ever were. Republican party leadership is basically all a bunch of hypocrites on the issue, at least Rudy is relatively honest about his position.
That is fundamentally untrue. I heard the man with my own ears say that he would not deny a poor woman an Abortion because she couldn't afford it, and the man has dodged the Mexico City policy question every time it's been asked, even on questionaires.
This is a man who stood before NARAL and praised Margaret Sanger, for crying out loud!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
It denies foreign aid to organizations that perform or promote abortions. It was issued as an executive order by Reagan, was rescinded on Clinton's first day in office, and then was reinstated on George W. Bush's first day in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy
The earth, that is sufficient,
I do not want the constellations any nearer
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I heard him with my own ears say that he supports banning late term abortions, and that he opposes any taxpayer funded abortions.
Maybe he's a recent convert to these positons, but assuming he's sincere when he now makes those statements, I don't see how there would have been any more abortions the last eight years under a President Guiliani than there were under President Bush.
Maybe say a President Brownback would actually push legal action to restrict abortion beyond just late term, but don't hold your breath waiting on that.
Supposed pro-life Republican heroes Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy, and Bush tried to appoint Miers and conviently manages to be out of town every year in January when the big pro-life rally happens. Keep in mind that it was because of folks like REDSTATERS that Alito was appointed, against Bush's desire. As long as Guiliani does what he says- support the late term ban, opposed taxpayer funding, and appoint judges like Roberts and Alito, we won't be any worse off then under any other Republican president or any other current candidate for that matter.
I'm pro-life but I can't get worked up about Rudy's position on the issue, the reality is that even supposedly pro-life Republicans pay little more than lip service to the issue.
abortion moron.
waiting...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Not going to refight the Miers battle, only mentioned her name wrt the point that Repub presidents Reagan and Bush 43 who are generally held in good regard by pro-lifers nominated SC judges who were not rock solid on abortion.
Here's a link to a story going over her quotes from 1990's speeches- is it possible to "prove" what's in someone's mind? No, but I'd say where theres smoke theres fire.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR200510...
And by the way I never said she was a moron. Just suspect relative to abortion.
and vetted Miers for 10 years. Bush also gave us Owen, rogers-brown and the bama AG.
Of course, my argument and your blows up in both our faces if Roberts and/or Alito don't vote with Thomas and Scalia to reverse Roe.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Rudy can win the primary total by wining just a few states
California, NY, NY, NH, Vermont, Conn, probably Maryland, possibly Michigan, Wash State, Oregon...
after he debates McCain - Any one will realize we are dealing with a man, Rudy, who is the most articulate and forthright politican in America...able to carry in the main election the majority of Republicans (the 20% of very conservative Republicans can stay home - I don't they are voting for H Clinton...but any Republican loss will be made up by carrying over 60% of the Independents and probably up to 20% of the Democrates (alot of Democrates will not trust another Clinton).
New York State Presidential Poll:
02-04-2007
http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/...
Hillary: 53%
Rudy: 32%
Oh yeah. He's only down 21 points.
Is Hillary running in the Republican primary?
No?
Ok then. How Rudy is doing against her in a trial heat poll in the general election in New York has little bearing on whether or not he'd win delegates from the New York primary.
Again this man is out sounding like a democrat on gun control. The more I read, the more I don't like.
in the past century.
There's Coolidge, who was always conservative. There was Reagan (who was formerly a Democrat).
(I don't know much about Taft nor about Harding, I'm afraid.)
TR was largely "progressive", Hoover rather liked new government programs, Eisenhower could have run for the Dems or the Republicans, Nixon was liberal on many issues, Ford was, too, and then we have the Bushes, both of whom have disappointed conservatives.
The point is that a history of liberal positions on certain issues is not a disqualification for becoming a good president.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson