Why I'm With Rudy (Part I)
He Made It Here, He'll Make It Anywhere
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (88) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
No Mayor of New York City has been elected to statewide or national office in more than 130 years. There is a reason for that: it's an impossible job, running an ungovernable, bloated, corrupt and dysfunctional bureaucratic leviathan with an even more ungovernable and (despite its massive government) inherently lawless city attached to it. It eats the men who take the job alive.
At least, that is what everyone used to think, before 1993. One man changed that.
It's too early, of course, for any of us to be 100% certain of who we will support once the candidates have filled out their staffs and endorsements, fleshed out their policy platforms, and taken their show on the road. But if I had to vote today among the candidates who are actually running or likely to run, my vote for the 2008 GOP presidential nominee would without a doubt be former United States Attorney and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Here, in general outline, is why I - as a pro-life Reaganite conservative who voted for McCain in 2000 - currently support Rudy and hope to be able to support him a year from now.
1. We Need To Win The War.
There are many issues on the table in the next election, but far and away the most important remains the global battle against international terrorism and radical jihad, and in particular the regional struggle in the Arab and Muslim worlds to replace aggressive, terror-sponsoring tyrannies and weak, terror-harboring failed states with governments that provide some measure of popular self-determination and popular legitimacy to stand against the extremists. To win the war, we need four things from the presidential field: (1) a presidential candidate who is committed to prosecuting the war, (2) a presidential candidate who will make the right judgments about how to do so, (3) a presidential candidate with these characteristics who will actually get elected, and (4) a presidential candidate who, after getting elected, can continue to explain and sell his policies to the American people to ensure continued political support for the war.
Read On...
In terms of public leadership on these issues, Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain have a huge lead over the other candidates, most of whom (other than Newt Gingrich) are latecomers at best to the public debate. If there is one candidate we can depend on not to bend to Beltway pundit fatigue on this issue, it's Mayor Giuliani - he was there on the ground when this war came to our shores, he was almost killed himself that day, he went to the funerals of the firemen and cops he had bonded with over his prior 7 and a half years as mayor. It's personal. Rudy is a battler; he is not tempermentally suited to talking about "exit strategies" but rather about victory, and his background overcoming supposedly insurmountable obstacles as Mayor gives him the fortitude to pursue victory as Ronald Reagan did, even when conventional wisdom says it's time to coexist.
2. We Need To Win The Election.
As I said above, you can nominate the best candidate in the world, but to win the war he or she needs first to win the election. In terms of electability. . . yes, it can be a fool's errand for primary voters to vote with their Electoral College calculators instead of their hearts, but in a practical universe you do need to start by looking at who in the field has at least a chance of being viable in a national election. That means no Newt, who consistently polls with a disapproval rating over 50% and whose public image is long since cast in concrete. And it also means no Sam Brownback. I like Brownback, who is one of the GOP's very best Senators and who has shown a real willingness to follow his conscience even when it means standing nearly alone, sometimes against the White House (as in the Harriet Miers episode), or even when it means taking on issues that nearly nobody else cares about and that don't fit the stereotype of a right-wing hard-liner. But we simply are not going to hold all the states Bush won in 2004, let alone have the chance to seize more ground, behind the decidedly uncharismatic Brownback, who has made his name almost exclusively on social issues as - yes - the stereotypical right-wing hard-liner. The media would work overtime to put him in that box, and Brownback lacks the star power to go over their heads. He's not the hill I want to die on.
Also, remember: while it's true that the Democrats made a huge miscalculation in nominating John Kerry based on "electability" (not that Howard Dean would have been more electable), their real problem was in overvaluing his paper qualifications (war record, long tradition of existence in the Senate) and undervaluing how badly Kerry would perform on the trail. I believe Rudy will show himself to be the best campaigner in the GOP field - he's quick-witted, funny, and long accustomed to the hot lights of the national stage (when he was Mayor, Rudy was a fixture on national TV shows like Letterman and Conan, and he had to contend with both the local tabloids and big national papers like the NY Times breathing down his neck, as well as dealing with hostile critics retail at countless press conferences and radio call-in appearances). He's also tough enough to come out swinging at whatever the most likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, can throw at him. This is one of my big worries about Mitt Romney: to be frank, I don't want to end up in a knife fight with Hillary armed with nothing but Mitt Romney's hair.
Sure, Rudy's liberal record on social issues like abortion and gay rights will cost him some votes nationally, but mainly in states that are not going to break for an arch-liberal Democrat like Hillary or Obama. And Rudy will play well in Florida and put in play key Northeastern states the Democrats can't win without: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, possibly even Rhode Island (which has a huge Italian-American population), and make the GOP ticket at least competitive in the Empire State (though he would probably only win NY if the Dems nominate Edwards). This is, after all, a man who won two terms in a city that's 80% Democrat.
3. Leadership Matters.
There's more to Rudy's advantages in this regard than just electability - there's also governability. It's been 23 years since the GOP nominated a presidential candidate who speaks in complete sentences. That matters beyond the campaign trail - it matters quite a lot if the president can't sell his own policies and can't personally defend against attacks. Rudy's not the only highly articulate candidate in this field, but he does strike me as the best (Romney, who's a good salesman, has yet to demonstrate the ability to react quickly and speak specifically when pressed with tough questions).
But being articulate is only the beginning of leadership. A good leader has to set direction and inspire. But he also has to do two other things: (1) know his followers and (2) follow through.
It's on the first point where I have my major concern about John McCain. With the significant exception of his years in the POW camp, McCain has never been a leader. Yes (unlike, say, Kerry), he's been a strong public voice on specific issues. But a political leader needs to have followers and hold them together, like Moses crossing the Sinai. McCain, by contrast, is a triangulator, a "maverick" who glories in contrasting himself to the people he would need to lead. John Hinderaker said it best: "I might trust McCain with my life, but not with my party." One need look no further than Bill Clinton to see what damage a president who triangulates can do to his own party and, ultimately, his own ability to get things done. McCain has, too often, opened fire on his own troops.
With the exception of his ill-fated endorsement of Mario Cuomo over George Pataki, Rudy has not made a practice of attacking his own party, a fact that sets him quite apart from many other moderate/liberal Northeastern Republicans. Virtually all the major battles of his mayoralty were with people to his left. Conservatives may not like where Rudy's starting point is on every issue, but they know when they get behind him they will all be facing in the same direction.
McCain has also been something of a dilettante as a Senator, flitting among issues, sometimes on the sidelines on major issues while leading the charge on small, idiosyncratic campaigns. That's a highly effective habit for a legislator - you pick your spots for where you can make the biggest impact. But it's a decades-long habit he will have to break to become an executive (in 2000 he never did roll out the kind of detailed policy papers that came from the Bush campaign - you always got the impression that the John McCain policy shop began and ended with the Senator's mouth).
Then, there's the follow-through, something we need more of than we have sometimes seen from President Bush. In the Senate they talk of show-horses and work-horses; if Rudy is an impressive show horse he is an even more formidable work horse, a guy who through sheer force of will bent the New York City government to his way of doing things. And he got results. Other politicians can point to a record of accomplishment, but only Rudy really and definitely changed my life - if it weren't for his success in cleaning up New York I might have stayed in Boston after law school and surely would not now be a New York City homeowner.
Again: Rudy's not the only seasoned executive in the race (Romney, Huckabee and Tommy Thompson come to mind), but his record is the most impressive and it's one that McCain and Brownback can't match.
4. We Can Hold The Line In The Courts.
Rudy's record on fiscal, economic, law enforcement and education issues, his battles against racial preferences and the city's relentless race hucksters, and his outspoken stance on the war on terror, are all the stuff that should excite conservatives about his candidacy. But what concerns people the most is his stance on social/family/sexual issues in general, and abortion in particular.
Now, maybe I'm less of a purist than some pro-lifers. I've been voting in New York for 17 years, and in all that time and all the races for Governor, Senator, Attorney General, Congressman, Mayor, and electors for president, the only two pro-lifers I've been able to vote for who actually won their elections were Al D'Amato's re-election to the Senate in 1992 and Dennis Vacco for Attorney General in 1994. Where I come from, if you refuse on principle to vote for pro-legal-abortion candidates, you cede the field to Hillary, Schumer and Spitzer and their ilk.
That said, and while I recognize that there are other Life issues on the agenda, the core battlefield for abortion - the battle we need to win before we can fight any others - is in the composition of the Supreme Court. A pro-choicer who appoints good judges is as functionally pro-life as Harry Reid is functionally pro-choice. (I have discussed this issue in much more exhaustive detail before). And while we need to hear much more from him on this issue, there is, thus far, every indication that Rudy is both willing to appoint conservative judges and able to sell them against a hostile Senate - he's spoken favorably of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who he knows from their days in the Reagan Justice Department.
And while Mike Huckabee is a solid pro-lifer and Sam Brownback is a genuine hero on life issues, the other top-tier candidates are less obviously reliable on this issue. Romney, of course, declared himself a committed pro-choicer in 1994, though his repeated conversions on the issue lend a lot of credence to Ted Kennedy's description of him as "multiple choice" on abortion. McCain has a more consistent pro-life record and voted to confirm the likes of Alito, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but three things concern me about McCain on judges - first, his demonstrable willingness to sell out the base to win media plaudits, second, his statements in 2000 that he'd like Souter-backer Warren Rudman as his Attorney General and that he remained proud of all the GOP Justices he'd voted for (which implicitly included Souter and Kennedy), and third, the fact that McCain's political identity is so wrapped up in his campaign finance crusade, a crusade that may influence him to pick judges who take the written constitution with its pesky free-speech guarantees less than seriously. I'm not saying I'm sold that Rudy would be necessarily better at appointing judges than Romney or McCain, but (1) it's a close contest and (2) he'd obviously be better than any Democrat.
Life issues are, indeed, important. And if this were peacetime, they would preclude me from supporting Mayor Giuliani. But there's a war on, folks, and a lot of lives (born and unborn) depend on that, too. In this field, if Mayor Giuliani can make the sale that he will, in fact, appoint solid constitutionalists to the federal courts, that will tide us through.
Anyway, I haven't covered the entire waterfront on Rudy here, and surely will return to other points in his favor - and other criticisms of him - as we go along. But I do think conservative Republicans who want to win the election, win the war and get results should give the Mayor a long, hard look.
*In the spirit of full disclosure: I do have a variety of ties to Rudy that are not worth tedious rehashing here, having met the man in small gatherings on several occasions and received a fellowship in law school funded by an organization including Mayor Giuliani. Take that for what it's worth. I'm not affiliated with his exploratory committee, and the only money I've received from it is a $30 Blogad on my site the past month.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Dems' Secret Weapon: Chris Dodd — Comments (2) »
Why I'm With Rudy (Part I) 88 Comments (0 topical, 88 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...are enough for me. I'm leaning precariously in Rudy's direction.
--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch
Not only do I agree with him on the issues, I think he has a real good chance of winning the general.
1) I have yet to see any indication that Giuliani has any particular plans for winning at war which are superior to anyones elses.
2) I agree that Giuliani is good public speaker, and has some qualities which I would like to see in the next president. I don't know if he is really all that electable.
3) McCain is not my first choice either. Or second or third choice. I'd vote for him in the general though.
4) I see no reason to believe Giuliani on the issue of courts. Lets face it, politicians lie all the time in order to get elected. Bush promised us people in the vein of Thomas and Scalia. Roberts and Alito are good, but not as good as we were led to believe. If Giuliani promises people like Roberts and Alito, we will get people a little to their left, if we are lucky.
You can tell a lot about candidates by the people they surround themselves with in earlier office. Reagan had Weingerger and Ed Meese with him in California, for example. If Rudy is a secret conservative, who are the conservatives in his inner circle? If that inner circle is liberal, it tells you a lot about Rudy as well.
When have they yet failed us?
I'd vote for McCain in the general as well, but I think we can do better.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
You cannot evaluate a SC justice for several years. They may turn out well, they may not.
Edith Jones is in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, as is, perhaps, Janice Brown. Bush did not give us those women.
If Rudy is willing to name specific lower court judges whom he is thinking of elevating to the SCOTUS then he could defuse this issue.
Jones would be great. I believe that presidential candidates are barred by law from naming individuals (other than the VP nominee, who is on the ballot) to whom they would promise jobs. Of course, they can work around that with hints and signals, but you can't just promise someone a job, least of all a judge.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
it would give Leahy, Schumer, Kenedy, and company at least a year's head start in tearing the nominees down, and would induce liberal judges to stay on longer if they find a nominee particularly other than what they would like their successor to be.
Edith Jones is more of a non-starter than Brown is, which is quite unfortunate. Edith Jones is a terrific judge who should have been nominated instead of Kennedy and instead of Souter. Jones has an opinion where she wrote the majority opinion that faithfully upheld Roe, and then she did an unusual thing where she filed a concurrance to her own majority opinion, casting doubt on the underpinnings of Roe. If you read the concurrance, it reads as being extremely rationale, but she's accused of using overheated rhetoric and throwing fire and brimstone at Roe.
Still, the Souter over Jones choice was every bit as dismal as the decision to nominate Stevens instead of Bork.
Just think of the Supreme Court that could we could have had today:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Robert Bork (over Stevens)
Antonin Scalia
Douglas Ginsberg (over Kennedy)
Edith Jones (over Souter)
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
Ginsburg
Breyer
A solid 7-2 majority fully staffed with conservative intellectual heavyweights. Makes me want to CRY!
I am not speaking melodramatically. It is no less than a grand tragedy. Almost all of the damage from the Warren and Burger Courts could have been reversed.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Let's face it, there's some wiggle room here. After all, Thomas and Scalia aren't in the same mold [insert discussion of originalism v textualism here].
And I'm not really sure JRB is that much of an originalist, or a textualist. Edith Jones would have been great. But the jury is still very much out on Roberts and Alito -- remember, it wasn't really clear that Thomas would be what Thomas is (eg my favorite Justice) in the year after his confirmation hearings.
Roberts and Alito are good, but not as good as we were led to believe.
Followed by:
You cannot evaluate a SC justice for several years. They may turn out well, they may not.
I don't think that I have anything to add, except: "Would you like more rope, sir?"
That reminds me of this comment. I'm sensing a trend here.
Absent Fred Thompson, Rudy is the only one who can win. He is also the only politician in my life time, besides Reagan, that actually left the place he was elected to govern, in way better shape then when he started. Huckabee, McCain, even Romney don't make the northeast competitive. We can't win with just the south,God bless them. Florida, the mountain states, Ohio are all moving purple. Rudy can bring them back to red.
Rudy/Thompson '08!
Those would both be winning teams.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
And he isn't any more qualified for the office of Vice President than he is for POTUS.
I think somebody like Steele would be a good choice for VP and he would probably take the job. That combination could really put parts some states in play.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
(I agree that McCain would probably never take VP, but you never know - and after all, his hero TR started out as VP...)
I would love to see Steele on the ticket. I am very sorry that Steele doesn't currently head the RNC. There would be significant movement among black voters toward the GOP.
"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 greatest current threat, or, more accurately, attack, on the republic is coming from an out of control federal judiciary. Several of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee said nice things about now-Justices Roberts and Alito before voting against their confirmation. It was incredibly easy for anyone on either side of the aisle to speak highly of them. We even know that the Democrats who voted for the confirmation of Roberts would never have nominated him themselves.
As much as I fear a Clinton presidency, I cannot support Giuliani until he does far more to convince me that he would nominate the kind of judges who would reign in the federal judiciary. I can`t say what he`d have to do to convince me of that, but he needs to meet a very high burden of proof given his far left history on such issues. Republicans have already done plenty of damage through Supreme Court nominations, and there are few things that could be worse than Republican Presidents exacerbating the problem.
But you really have to take it all on faith. I don't think any of the Big 3 are anywhere close to a sure thing when it comes to appointing decent judges, but I don't see how Rudy is any worse than the other two, at this point, either. McCain is the only one that has a strike against him on this count so far, thanks to his devotion to gutting the 1st Amendment.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
very cogently argued-my real concern is a President Giuliani signing liberal social legislation on abortion and other issues sent to him by Pelosi and company.
won't get through the Senate.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
that the entire GOP Senate is socially conservative. That is clearly not the case. I'd guess that no more than 25 or so Senators would vote to block socially liberal legislation, especially if it was being backed by a Republican president.
Even assuming a Giuliani presidency with a Democratic congress, what major pieces of socially-liberal legislation would come forth? A measure requiring states to recognize gay marriage? Probably wouldn't get one vote of support from southern Dems and most Blue Dogs. Same with a sweeping pro-abortion bill. The most they might get is a gays in the military bill, which might happen anyway.
The current Democratic congress is there due to (1) Iraq, (2) to a lesser extent, health care and some economic issues, and (3) in the case of the new Blue Dogs, a lack of conservative conviction on the part of Republicans. I don't think electing Giuliani president with Pelosi and Reid at the helm of Congress would turn the US into Scandinavia on the social scene -- the mainstream of both parties knows that the American public isn't that liberal.
And that means I will have to overlook some serious disagreements in some areas, but they pale beside the first and third ones you listed. On both, there have been many times in recent months I have wished Rudy or a Rudy clone were president.
is a seductive one, but one to be resisted. Especially if the strong leader in question has made it clear that he's not interested in leading where you want to go.
But - except on some hot-button social issues - Giuliani is exactly where I want to go. And if he nominates strict constructionist judges, I don't think there is anything to worry about.
I'd like to see Gingrich as his Vice President and maybe Scalia-clerk and Dubya Chief of Staff Josh Bolton installed as the Attorney General in order to keep him honest on judicial nominations.
If he nominates strict constructionist judges, he will be a very unusual president, and even more unusual for a liberal Republican president. That does not mean it won't happen. It means that the odds are stacked against it.
There is a difference between being a judicial conservative and being a social conservative. Judicial conservatives can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. but still strictly apply the law that is written instead of how they would write the law. Judicial liberals are by definition activist jurists who don't care as much what the law says as to what a preferred outcome is.
Now, a political liberal and a political conservative can belong to either camp - judicial liberal or judicial conservative. If a political liberal and a political conservative are both judicial conservatives, then they should come up with relatively the same answer on the law. I'm not saying that the prism they see the law through won't be different at all, but it will probably be very similar.
On the other hand, a political liberal and a political conservative who are both judicial liberals will have polar opposite views on any particular case.
I think that Rudy is the type of law-and-order fiscal conservative, social liberal who sees the importance of strict interpretations of the law, and he has said as much.
Reading Greenburg's book, Supreme Conflict, I was impressed by the operation that Dubya has to screen and nominate great justices. If Rudy followed the same model - which he would know quickly after the election was over based on who he makes his attorney general - then we will be in good shape. Too bad we dont' know who the attorney general will be BEFORE the election, though. LOL
In practice, it's hard to point to that many examples of social liberals who have been conservative on fiscal and judicial issues. (Can you name some?) I'm not sure I want to gamble on Rudy going against the trend.
I also think that Rudy as fiscal conservative is a bit overblown. The NCY economy is driven in large part by Wall Street. The ninties boom in the stock market played a bigger role in balancing the NYC economy than anything Rudy did.
One thing about Rudy and judges that goes unmentioned is that he is the only candidate, from either party, that was actually part of the DOJ(Reagan's #3 man, BTW), that has Federal prosecutorial experience(#1 in the SDNY, the top Attorney's office in the country), that worked for a Federal Judge(McMahon of the SDNY), and that has argued a case at the SCOTUS.
I don't think any candidate in the past 50 years has as much hands-on/personal experience with the Judicial branch and the legal system.
Based on his career and his views, his litmus test is Judges who are tough on crime and more to the point, tough on terror. Rudy would never appoint a Judge who would have joined the Hamdan or Rasul majorities, or who would give terrorists habeas rights and geneva rights.
Now, if you look at the majorities from those cases and also from appeals courts on terror cases, you'll find that Judges who tend to support the govt on terror cases and in criminal cases, also tend to be those who would reverse Roe and other liberal monstrosities. So, Rudy may not even consider it. But if he insists in appointing tough on terror and pro law enforcement judges(which he 100% will, imho)he will end up appointing anti Roe judges anyway.
Also, if Stevens dies or retires, we'd get our 5th conservative, and all this would be moot. I think that would help Rudy tremendously.
You make an excellent observation about Rudy's experience with the judiciary being much more intimate than any of the other candidates. I think that he, more than Romney or McCain, would be able to get a much better feel for exactly how a potential justice would rule. The Reagan DOJ has given us quite a few steller legal professionals, too.
That said, I think that you are correct in noting that probably no candidate would benefit more greatly from Dubya getting a 5th conservative on the court before he leaves office than Rudy. If Dubya got Diane Sykes or Miguel Estrada on the court in place of Stevens, the Republican electorate has a little bit more breathing room to be able to trust Rudy on the judiciary.
Alex Kozinski, who is on the 9th Circuit (granted, a Regean appointee,) is technically a libertarian, but he's been known to travel with the court's ultra-liberal Judge Reinhardt and decry that, basically, "we've got to do something about these social conservatives before they screw the country up." But his judicial decisions show an incredible fidelity to the law. He's exactly the kind of judge that we need more of on the 9th Circuit. Even when he laments what the law says or the facts in the case, he nearly always applies the law faithfully.
And, actually, I think that it's quite possible that liberal icon and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz might be marginally of this flavor if he had ever been put on the court. I think that he might have even said that Roe should be overturned because it is such a terrible opinion. Perhaps, though, this is why a Democrat never put Mr. Dershowitz on the court.
Democrats tend to like to put judges on the court who espouse Breyer's "active liberty" philosophy.
I'm torn between Romney and Giuliani. I must say, though, that a Giuliani/Gingrich ticket would be mighty attractive in the general and a formidable force for sure. You'd have Giuliani out there rounding up all the independents and Gingrich shoring up the conservative base. And, in the White House, I hope that Gingrich would be keeping Giuliani consistant on judicial pledges to nominate more Robertses and Alitos if not Scalias and Thomases. I'll take Roberts and Alito clones all day long.
He is going to have to harp on federalism a LOT, though. He needs to say that while he is personally pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, he supports the right of the people of Alabama to govern themselves as a pro-life, traditional marriage state. It's got to be all about protecting Texas from San Francisco values, and protecting San Francisco from Texas values - no matter how much they need them! :-)
Newt, so far, has the best ideas out there. And they are backed up by plans that would work.
You need Guiliani's leadership with Newt's ideas.
Somehow, Newt has to stay in the forefront of the Presidential debates after the primaries. The Democrats can not compete with him in the arena of ideas.
And, Guiliani and Newt have already co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial, so maybe it's not so far-fetched.
Push it up!
You don't think 6 wives is too much for a ticket? :)
Seriously, though, I think Newt as VP would hurt the ticket in that he'd be a heartbeat away from the Presidency and his high negatives could hurt the ticket with swing voters and independents/moderates. Given Rudy's health history, it's not impossible that the VP won't be getting a 2nd look as possible President.
I think a much better choice would be someone like Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Condi Rice(if Iraq gets better), maybe Jon Kyl
But I don't really think that a Vice President is either a huge positive or negative with most voters. I think that Gingrich on the ticket could be a way for Rudy to signal to conservatives that he's on board, though. Gingrich would be a big asset to the campaign - especially on a new health policy, which would contrast starkly with Hillary's universal healthcare intiative. Besides, Newt would spend most of his days basically toiling the Red States and red districts in purples states - making sure that the base turns out on election day - while Rudy spent most of his campaign in the swing and purple states.
If Rudy wants a diversity pick, there's always Ken Blackwell. Blackwell is a staunch conservative who could also possibly shore up Ohio as a favorite son candidate, even though he lost the governorship just 2 years prior.
Vice Presidential candidates are a funny thing. Dan Quayle was a drag on Bush I, but mostly because he was seen as stupid and incompetant. That was in the days before the new media balanced the scales, though. And even those who vehemently disagree with Newt could never level those charges at him. On the other hand, I kind of wished that Jack Kemp were the Republican nominee over Dole in 1996. Heck, I wish Cheney were president today!
and doesn't just harp on it, my misgivings about him would be greatly diminished. Again, though, the national security and leadership issues really do dwarf the social and fiscal ones for the foreseeable future.
A scenario where Rudy could win NY State is one where Hillary, Rudy and Mayor Michael Bloomberg are all running for president, which still a possibility.
I'm a big Giuliani fan, but I'm curious to see how he finesses the issues that he does have a direct say on, eg the so-called "gag order," stem cell research, UN family planning, etc.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm on the Rudy bandwagon as well.
Here's a poll from last week illustrating Giuliani putting New Jersey in play:
New Jersey Presidential Poll
Rudy might actually put New Hampshire and even Connecticut in play as well. Not huge electoral pickups, but every bit helps.
Giuliani will be good for the country in the short term, and good for the party in the long term.
While people often talk about the Republican rise and Democratic fall in the South, the Republican presence in the Northeast and Midwest is often overlooked. A person like Giuliani, in my view, would go a long way to end the Northeastern stereotype of the Republican as a redneck southerner. We all know that stereotype is incorrect, but it is deeply ingrained in many blue states. Will Rudy win Massachusetts or Vermont? Probably not, but he would put states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and maybe even New York back into play. If Rudy were to win the GOP nomination, I think he'd beat Hillary or Obama relatively easily. Ironically, he'd probably have the biggest problem with Edwards, primarily due to geographic ties. However, I think his strong leadership ability would overcome this.
I have been agonizing over my presidential preference for months. Last weekend it crystallized for me - in explaining to a fellow movement conservative why I am in Rudy's camp.
We condensed it down to a single idea. Of the realistic candidates on the Republican side, he has the best chance to become "Reagan-like" in office.
I love the fact that he speaks extemporaneously, without notes or teleprompter. I feel the "character questions", which will come up for sure, are not disqualifying to the electorate. I feel his best character reference is that image I, and so many Americans have, of his unshakeable character and leadership in the days, weeks and months after 9/11.
And his stewardship of NYC was an amazing feat of ability and tenacity. I hope he makes a pledge on judicial nominations that will please me, but I feel less insecure with that decision in his hands than McCain. I think he would be a potentially great general election candidate. His speech at the 2004 Nominating Convention was fantastic.
He is the first American War Hero of the 21st Century. Rudy for President.
I hope he makes a pledge on judicial nominations that will please me, but I feel less insecure with that decision in his hands than McCain.
Hmmm. Of course no one should trust McCain to nominate any Supreme Court Justices who'd be likely to overturn that disgusting outrage, McCain-Feingold.
as long as Ron Paul somehow becomes a viable candidate. Even then though, I may vote for Rudy over Paul just because of Paul's dismal position on the war in Iraq.
[http://cigarrepublican.blogspot.com]
should read: unless Ron Paul somehow
The 2nd amendment. A clear "F" in that regard.
Given the effectiveness of the NRA over the past five years (when has gun control been a serious issue debated in a campaign since 2000?), I doubt you'll see Rudy raise this issue. While Rudy's record may not be the best, the Democrats will be too afraid to call him out on it, lest their party's historic position be exposed.
And if he wins, he will be too indebted to gun-owning conservatives to take any sort of action from the White House.
You are exactly right that the NRA has effectively taken the gun control issue off the table, and I don't think you'll see Rudy raising it. It would be too politically problematic if he did, and there's no real problem crying out for a fix that gun control promoters usually tout to try to advance their agenda.
Have we already forgotten the AWB? Or all the draconian state and city restrictions that get piled on every year? The reason the NRA has been effective over the past 5 years is because we had a Republican congress with a Republican president. If we flip that to a Democrat congress and a gun grabbing President from either party, we are in serious trouble.
This is compounded by the fact that we don't have a 2nd Amendment that is worth the paper it is written on, so we can't count on the judiciary to act as a check. The Feds could pass a law requiring the surrender of all firearms tomorrow and you wouldn't hear a peep from the judiciary.
2nd amendment rights are a big deal and still very much on the table and require vigilant defense if we want them to be ongoing. We haven't won the battle on that front, much less the war.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
right on, he needs to face this issue or stand aside.
makes me almost want Giulliani/McCain for a slam dunk. But you are right about gun control. You simply can NOT finesse this issue. If Rudy does not come out and say he supports the Second Amendment and will not try to enact any further gun control, including a new "assault weapons ban" then he is going to be in a world of hurt. The power of the NRA can not be overstated. When they endorse a candidate, it funnels a ton of money and votes to them. They can, and have, decided to not endorse anyone when a gun grabbing Republican gets the nod.
And in any case, gun owners will surely trust any Republican to let them keep their guns over Hillary, Obama, or any of the rest of the crew.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
And I do think he will, if he wants to be the president. btw, great sig.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
And too bad the Brits have a habit of punishing their best people, ie. Churchill, Thatcher, and even Blair in some ways. Molon Labe!
I'm sure the Democrat nominee will have fond memories of crawling around in a cornfield on his (or her) belly hunting deer with a 12 gauge, so I'm sure we'll be OK. :)
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But we simply are not going to hold all the states Bush won in 2004, let alone have the chance to seize more ground, behind the decidedly uncharismatic Brownback, who has made his name almost exclusively on social issues as - yes - the stereotypical right-wing hard-liner. The media would work overtime to put him in that box, and Brownback lacks the star power to go over their heads. He's not the hill I want to die on.
Good point. Of all the contenders, ONLY the well-known Rudy can outlast the MSM smear machine and the intensity of its relentless maliciousness.
While I have immense respect for Pres. Bush and his ideas, I believe he has failed to be the "inspirer" that I thought he'd be. Whether it be misplaced rhetoric regarding education or health care, or a lack of a spine when it comes to vetoes, or merely his speaking style, President Bush has not been as persuasive as he could have been in defending conservative positions.
I'll be the first to admit that Giuliani, on paper, isn't the best conservative candidate. But given his ability to lead, he is the candidate that is most likely to produce conservative results. Bush, on paper, was a great conservative -- but he gave us a huge expansion in government, from NCLB to Medicare Part D. Would Giuliani be any worse? IMHO, he'd be much better.
Ok, not cash, but...
The race will be Hillary vs Rudy.
Rudy wins, by several points.
He wouldn't win New York, but he'd force Hillary to spend money there. He'd also be competitive in California and the midwest. He wouldn't lose any states that Bush won.
I really think (or maybe I'm hopeful that Republican voters are savvy enough) that Hillary's success in the early primaries could determine the Republican nominee. If it remains clear that she is the front-runner for the nomination, Republicans will know that they can count on conservative support for a Giuliani- or Romney-esque candidate -- the strong leader whose conservative credentials may be in question. With Hillary on the ticket, they'll know that virtually any Republican will run well in the South, and will support the candidate with broad, nationwide appeal.
If Edwards becomes the clear front-runner, however, the GOP will be in a more difficult position. While he didn't do anything for the Democrats in the south in '04, I believe most of that performance was due to Kerry's incompetence. If Edwards brought his trial-lawyer drawl to the top of the ticket, some southern states (Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, maybe Tennessee, North Carolina) could come into play -- would voters in these states support a divorced New Yorker or a Mormon from Massachusetts over a southern boy? I may be a bit paranoid, but I don't know if I want the answer to that question.
Rudy was beating Hillary in New York before he dropped out of the Senate race.
That was a long time ago.
To her credit, Hillary has won over many New Yorkers. I'm not convinced that Rudy would have won the Senate seat had he stayed in, but I think the NY landscape has changed since then. Unlike the GOP candidates of the past 20 years, however, he would definitely make a splash in the Empire State.
If Michael Bloomberg ended up running as an Independent, I think that it is very possible that Rudy would take New York state.
Bush has had good moments on leadership, and not so good.
We need more consistency in leadership and communications ability.
That's my problem with John McCain, who was my first choice in 2000 (my relatively apolitical days) until he did such a lousy job in communicating with Republican voters.
Rudy can communicate. Also, he's not afraid to kick, well you know, and not afraid of the media reaction to it.
You lay out the case well. I have not decided on my candidate yet, but you lay out the case for Giuliani very well indeed.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
But first he has to actually run for the office, I want to here the right things out of his mouth (indeed that goes for all the candidates) and I want to here some republican debates.
There is a lot to like, but a lot to be wary of. Let us here him make concrete promises about spending, judges, and federalism.
If he says the right things, his views on a few social issues will not mean that much to me, Hell you will never get someone you agree with 100%.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I've posted before that I like Rudy.
For me, as a New Yorker...
He has personally seen the results of what the Jihadi's wish for us all...
He saw the bodies, he saw the people jumping from the windows. Need I go on?
There is nothing without security, I believe Rudy will fight this fight where it needs to be fought and how it needs to be fought.
One thing is true about OUR party and that is that it's a big tent, many complain that he's not enough this, too much that but, Rudy can bring us back together, Rudy can win, that's huge.
As a father with kids in the fight, I thank God that GWB is our president and commander/decider in chief, I would also be very happy to have Rudy serve in that capacity as well. I can think of no higher endorsement.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I believe that Rudy will pick a VP that makes up for his weaknesses on social issues but, is on the same page on most everything else. The only Republican that matches this profile is Rick Santorum.
Why Rick?
1)He's availible and would have nothing to lose and everything to gain as Vice-President.
2)He's a terror warrior like Rudy and he can help Rudy get things done in Congress.
3)Rick will continue to fight the culture war as Vice-President and Rudy will be forced to keep his opinions to himself.
4)Rick would ensure Rudy picks Justices and Judges that will be strict constructionists in the tradition of Scalia, Thomas,& Rehnquist.
5)God Forbid something happens to Rudy, Rick appears to be the best back-up.
6)Rick will get social conservatives to vote for Rudy and garantee a super majority of the Catholic vote.
7)He is a loyal supporter of President Bush on the War on Terrorism and in the War in Iraq unlike Brownback which seems soft on Iraq policy.
8)Rick is a garanteed Reaganite for 2016.
Well, its seems like Rudy & Rick in 2008, at least for now.
I'd prefer to see Rick Santorum as Attorney General - vetting great justices for the Supreme Court, judges for the federal bench, and prosecuting the War on Terror full time. :-)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
That's bordering on crazy talk IMHO. VP choices should address issues with and plug holes in a candidacy, create good press, and help electorally -- Santorum does none of those things. If you're going to go for a flamethrower, then Gingrich is the better pick.
(In a purely political sense!)
Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.
The most Bush family can expect in the next 20 years are Governors or Senators.
I suspect that Jeb will run for against Ben Nelson in 2012 and beat him.
Jeb's son George will likely run for Governor of Texas after Perry's current term is up.
President Bush 43's daughter Barbara seems like somebody whom may be interested in running for the Senate in the distant future perhaps in Texas or Florida or even somewhere else. She is definiately one of the smartest in the Bush clan.
I would vote for Barbie for President down the road. We'll see if she's a serious about politics first. Meanwhile, she is certainly the best looking girl in politics, if she's reading this my # is 908-555-5309,lol.
Dan Patrick will probably be governor of Texas from 2010-2018. Then who knows what he'll do. He may run for president - and that would be very, very interesting. Still a lot to do before that happens, though.
I hear that our esteemed Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz may be eschewing the judicial route in favor of elective politics. If so, this is a very good thing for the GOP and a great loss for our possible Supreme Court roster. I could see R. Ted Cruz being Attorney General during the first 4 years of Dan Patrick and then possibly running for Lt. Governor in 2014 on his way to Governor from 2018-2026 then quite possibly to becoming our first Hispanic president of the United States from 2028-2036.
Jeb Bush's son, George Prescott Bush, could possibly run for Attorney General or we may have a senate seat open that he'd be prime for before making a bid to succeed R. Ted Cruz as Governor of Texas. Then who knows...the U.S. might be ready for another George Bush with yet a different middle initial in 2036. But, would it be ready for back-to-back (possible another -to back) Texas presidents? Now THAT is the question. :-)
One can only hope that they'd be better on domestic spending than the first three Texas presidents were (especially No. 1 and No. 3)!!!
If I were advising George P Bush, I would say move to California.
By the next census or the one after the three largest states will be California, Texas and Florida. All have big Hispanic votes. A bilingual half-Mexican Republican with a base in all three states would make a formidable candidate in the 2020s.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I know Newt has been promoting ideas and is a solid conservative even on life issues but, his questionable private life be a liability to an already risky candidate Rudy.
...as a vice presidential candidate.
will desert a ticket they would otherwise support because of the VPOTUS candidate. It can be a way, however, of reassuring people about perceived weaknesses in the POTUS candidate.
Classically, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43 all appointed old DC hands as their running mates. People might have worried that as governors they would struggle to hit the ground running without such guidance.
Newt could provide such reassurance to a Giuliani or Romney ticket, as well as helping reassure southern/conservative Republicans that their interests were represented.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Take it from someone who grew up and lives in NJ right outside of, and absolutely loves, NYC that Guiliani is a PRINCIPLED LEADER and I could not emphasize that enough. I grew up in the '80's and saw and experienced what bad shape New York really was in. For those who only gained positive feelings of him because of his "courage" and leadership during 9/11 and it's aftermath or those who absolutely knew nothing about his tenure as mayor or believed the liberal mumbo-jumbo said about him over that 8-year span. Rudy Guiliani was that same mayor for 8 years that we all saw on and after 9/11. This was a mayor who:
1. Cut the murder rate at least by 50% throughout every borough of the city regardless of racial or class makeup and not "just rich white areas" as some ignorant dems/libs are likely to say.
2. Refused to cater to the typical racial bomb-throwers demanding a "share and say in policy".
3. Cut taxes on businesses thereby providing for economic growth and jobs.
4. Cut taxes on hotels thereby generating much more tourism and therefore even more revenue and jobs.
5. Continued to cut down the mob as mayor, as he had done as D.A., by immediately going after their control and influence at the Javits Center and Fulton Fish Market.
6. Actually focused not just on cutting down on major crime, but also going after criminals committing smaller crimes and thereby helping to GREATLY increase the QUALITY of life in ALL of the city. Many people do not realize how most New Yorkers had come to ACCEPT "the fact" that NYC was always going to have such high rates of violent and lesser violent crime as well as a deteriating quality of life. I could not stress enough that sensibility that had existed in New York for so long. In hingsight, Guiliani should have given a "Morning in New York" speech at his first inauguration because he wound up having the SAME impact on New York that Reagan had on America all the while having to be cruelly and unfairly lambasted by the libs like Reagan and "W" have been.
7. For all the hardcore conservatives out there, he actually tried to have the Brooklyn Museum of Art defunded because they exhibited "Piss Christ" -- something that liberals call "art". While I totally disagree with such art, I still disagreed with his threat to defund the museum and believe that picketing by priviate citizens was the real democratic and American way to get it pulled, he still did threaten to defund the museum.
9. Regardless of how badly the liberals trashed the man and constantly called him a Nazi, he cruised to his first election and won reelection by over 10 points in a 4-1 (at least) Democratic town. It got so bad for the libs / Dems that the best they could come up when "the Nazi" easily won reelection in the Capital of Liberalism was for the NY Times headline the morning after his reelection blaring something to the effect of "Guiliani Only Wins by 10 Points" because he was expected to win by 15 - 20 points.
10. KICKED Yasser Arafat out of Linclon Center because of Arafat's support for terrorism (in 1995 - 6 years before 9/11) which infuriated the liberal establishment including Pres. Clinton and the NY Times. For a great re-cap, go to:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19980
11. Returned a check for at least $10 million (I believe that that was the amount) to some Saudi soon after 9/11 because that same Saudi made some remark about how America was too "one-sided" in it's Middle East policies (re: too supportive of Israel). Let's face it: Most politicians (even many Republicans) would have just ignored the comment and taken the money for their city.
My point is that when the party has spoken and if Guiliani (my guy) wins, do not be ridiculous and stay at home on Election Day 2008 or withhold money for his support because you would be withholding support from a very strong and principled leader that rarely comes along. Honestly, when I think of Guiliani, I think of a "slightly less Conservative" (he's NOT liberal) Reagan. I'm somewhat of a pro-choice Republican (not that I agree at all with all pro-choice arguments) and I do agree with some gun control (but not an actual refutation of the 2nd Amendment), but if Brownback (I'm not crazy for), McCain (abortionist of Free Speech), Romney (don't know much about him), or Gingrich (my # 1A choice right after Rudy) come out as the nominee, then they will be getting my vote because I'm not a one-issue voter and any of them are likely to be better than Clinton or Obama. Give Rudy a chance and listen to him -- I almost guarantee that you'll greatly respect the man, his intelligence, and his strength of character, even if you strongly disagree with him on some very important issues. My fellow Republicans and other fellow Americans, based on my 11 points listed above, Rudy Guiliani would make an excellent President.
12. Guiliani is still very popular up here in the north east. If the south and most of the mid-west stay in Red, he has a good chance of picking up New Jersey and Pennsylvania and POSSIBLY New York (but I wouldn't bet on that one), thereby sealing victory in 2008 against the Democratic nominee.
13. If you get a chance to talk to him at a convention, ask him about his preference on judicial nominees. He's most likely to pleasantly suprise you. I do not at all see him nominating liberal or even moderate nominees for the Supreme Court becase he is, and always be, a law-and-order leader who does not have patience for liberal legal mumbo-jumbo.
I still want to hear him promise a few things like:
1)appointing strict constructionist judges
2)using the veto early and often to control spending
3)doing something about the illegal alien problem
He is one of the few politicians, whom I will believe if he makes a promise.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
and so far the 2 announced candidates who appeal the most to me are Rudy and Duncan. Recently I ran across this article which encourages me to believe that Rudy will be a fiscal conservative
president.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html?s=sm
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Your link to where you discussed the issue of "functionally pro-life" and "functionally pro-choice" leads to a page that says "Access Denied".
too minor to mention. At this point, I too am on the Rudy wagon...
Senior Writer
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...