Achieving Socially Conservative Ideals Through Liberal Means: Making The Case for Rudy
By DMEaton Posted in 2008 — Comments (235) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.”
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Promoted from the blogs by Adam C because 1) this is quality writing and 2) we need more positive pieces on the 2008 candidates
UPDATED ON SEPTEMBER 13:
In order for me to become a conservative, the forces of good triumphed over the forces of evil through indirect methods. A product of a typical liberal Jewish family, I wanted Al Gore to win in 2000, though John McCain intrigued me at the time. My support for strong family values, low taxes, and a firm national defense did not come about overnight. It started by first volunteering for a moderate in the form of Governor Bob Ehrlich out of high school. Once immersed among conservatives I started to appreciate their logic on several subjects. I agreed with the Bush Doctrine immediately following September 11 but still clung to liberal social principles. Nevertheless, by listening to Conservatives more and reading more of the literature slowly over time I became a true believer. So I speak with experience when I say that converts to conservative ideology will come around surely (albeit slowly) if they are approached indirectly. If their beliefs structures are attacked head on they will most likely recoil and defend themselves like snakes. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers, “Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.”
For this reason, contrary to conventional wisdom, a victory by Rudy Giuliani would strengthen even the socially conservative agenda in the long run. As the recent Fox Dynamics Poll shows, 65 percent of Americans would be “comfortable” with a Rudy Giuliani administration. Being comfortable is a major step in the right direction. Americans might actually listen to him when gives the State of the Union (without a teleprompter no less, as he usually speaks with note cards or does so extemporaneously). A Giuliani administration that would focus on fighting the Islamic Extremists, reducing the size and scope of government, handling crisis, and putting strict constructionists on the bench who will interpret the law properly will draw more support from more people in the short term. This will translate to more understanding of conservative policies on other matters because individuals will have more patience to read the conservative ramblings of columnists and pundits. In the long run, as a result this will turn into more votes. As Winston Churchill is often quoted, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain".
John McCain and Mitt Romney also are fine candidates for this indirect long-term approach but I think John McCain is too interested in the editorial pages and Beltway politicking. Plus he is not as charismatic leader as Giuliani is. Mitt Romney seems like a brilliant man who can really shake things up. Unfortunately he himself seems too shaky at times. Newt Gingrich is the smartest one of the bunch but unfortunately he is not likely to beat Hillary in the current political environment. I like Huckabee a great as well and I believe would make a terrific president if he can get through Iowa. If not, he should be our vice president.
We can win the election because most Americans want to remain on offense against the Islamic Extremists and on defense against the rise of the nanny state. Despite any recent failings, voters still will trust Republicans on security and financial issues. On social values, however, we have a problem. Though wrong, voters in general see the fight to protect marriage and value the sanctity of life as an “unnecessary government intrusion” into their lives (remember the response to Terri Schiavo). Voters in 2008 will be much more interested in being gay (i.e. happy) than with the problem of gays wanting to enjoy all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals do. We can accept this or we can fight back with a positive agenda (All readers of this column should read a new book, “The Natural Family: A Manifesto.” This book provides a way to talk about family values from an optimistic and hopeful point of view). Where this election is concerned, it will be more about management and leadership, as voters are nervous about terrorism, education, trade, health care, and retirement.
Due to the challenges facing this country, this election cycle we Republicans need to nominate someone with an actual record of accomplishment of tackling seemingly intractable problems. Giuliani, more than any other candidate (Romney comes the closest) has the record of taking on major institutions and reforming them. Think about tourist magnet that is New York now. When Rudy Giuliani took office, 59% of New Yorkers said they would leave the city the next day if they could. Under Rudy Giuliani’s leadership as Mayor of the nation’s largest city, murders were cut from 1,946 in 1993 to 649 in 2001, while overall crime – including rapes, assaults, burglary and auto-thefts – fell by an average of 57%. Not only did he fight crime in Gotham like Batman, despite being constantly vilified by the New York Times, he took head on the multiculturalism and victimization perpetuated by Al Sharpton and his cohort of race baiters. He ended New York’s set-aside program for minority contractors and rejected the idea of lowering standards for minorities. As far as the economy goes, Rudy reduced or eliminated 23 city taxes. He faced a $2.3 billion budget deficit but cut spending instead hiking taxes.
But what about the crisis of marriage and of abortion?
I believe that life is sacred and should not be treated as a commodity. I believe that the institution of marriage needs to be preserved. For now at least, good judges are best way to protect the institution of marriage and move America closer to the day when a debate on the local level can begin again about the value of human life. In order for us to have this debate in state legislatures we must win the next fight over the next Supreme Court vacancy, and if we lose the next presidential election than we will have taken a major step backwards in our quest to replace the current liberal ideology on the highest bench. More than any potential Republican president, Rudy Giuliani will have the easiest time getting strict constructionists confirmed to the Supreme Court and the lower courts. Think of four scenarios: 1) A Hillary appointment 2) A court battle in which a thinly elected Republican administration that is led by someone who is avidly pro-life faces down a probably Democratic controlled Senate 3) A court battle in which the overwhelmingly elected Republican administration is led by the Bull Moose lover himself, Mr. McCain 4) A court battle in which pro-choice Giuliani, elected and respected by a huge majority of Americans, makes the argument that strict constructionist jurisprudence is needed in the 21st century. He did after all strongly support Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and he said that he would have made Justice Scalia Chief Justice. As important, Giuliani can actually make a personal case for a specific legal doctrine. The mayor is a former high ranking Justice department attorney who has argued before the Supreme Court.
To reclaim the Senate and Congress, to hold onto the White House, to build a sustainable Republican majority, and to advance conservative principles, we Republicans must unite together and support a candidate who can win the hearts of the vast majority of Americans.
Only when we win hearts can we then win minds.
Wow! I must seriously commend you. Well-written article. You made your points quite clearly and straightforwardly. Most importantly, they were quite convincing.
You are quite correct in your main point, that being a successful Republican in New York City, is a serious accomplishment; one that should not be overlooked by conservative Giuliani critics.
Good job!
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
If their beliefs structures are attacked head on they will most likely recoil and defend themselves like the liberal snakes they are.
Holding it like that isn't good. Say what you really mean! LOL!
Great piece. Well written and a perspective worth reading! Please contact me using the contact me form under user accoutn info.
At first glance, the sentence reads as if DMEaton is gratuitously insulting liberals. But I think he's making the point that if you just stick yourself in the face of an animal, it will recoil and defend itself rather than listen to what you're saying. And that goes for human beings as much as for snakes.
(This is not to say that there aren't a lot of liberals who resemble snakes, of course - such as all the ones who called for years for more troops in Iraq, and then opposed it as soon as the President actually agreed with them. Heh. We thought we slayed John Kerry in the 2004 election, but his spirit still roams.)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
He has an excellent track record on the executive side of government. A golden record as a crime busting prosecutor. And last but not least the leadership record in dealing with 9/11.
While you may not like some of his personal positions he hasn't flipped flopped.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
It's not often somebody is here less than two hours and produces something this good. Highly recommended.
A couple of more points to add about Rudy in NYC. He ran against David Dinkins in 1989 and Dinkins mopped the floor with him. The City viewed Dinkins as the "great Black hope" who could lead BECAUSE he was black. By 1993 Dinkins had taken NYC to about the same place Jimmy Carter took the US in his four years. Dinkins did have a solution to NYC's financial problems - he begged for money from Albany and from Washington.
I don't like making "Reagan" comparisons, because I believe that certain men are created for a specific time. Ronald Reagan was certainly created for the '80's. And Rudy was created for the NYC of the '90's. He didn't simply bring good executive management abilities to the City, there are a bazallion people who are probably better executives or managers than Rudy. He brought two things to the job that Reagan also brought to the US... he brought a vision of greatness for the City and he brought Hope.
Steve Malanga has a long article in City that is well worth the time if you really want to get an idea of Rudy's accomplishments in NYC, which in 1993 was the very center of "the dark side". The money quote for me from Steve's very well written piece is this...
...in a GOP presidential field in which cultural and religious conservatives may find something to object to in every candidate who could really get nominated (and, more important, elected), Giuliani may be the most conservative candidate on a wide range of issues. Far from being a liberal, he ran New York with a conservative’s priorities: government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets, he said, not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, he argued; government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way. He denied that cities and their citizens were victims of vast forces outside their control, and he urged New Yorkers to take personal responsibility for their lives.
Read the whole article. I thought I knew Rudy pretty well and Steve really opened my eyes.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
DeRoy Murdock's archive at www.race42008.com
http://race42008.com/category/deroy-murdock/
and the book Prince of the City.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
As the old adage goes, “A young conservative has no heart, an old one has no brain.”
I miswrote that. The proper arrangement is closer to, "If you are a conservative at twenty you have no heart. If you are a liberal at 50 you have no brain."
RS has an "Edit" function on blogs. You can fix it.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I wouldn't suppose they got it all exactly right. And because I'm at least partially brainless, I'm going to try letting him in on the real adage from my very old and failing memory.
A young conservative has no heart, an old liberal has no brain.
And you should have given him the real one, because you surely know it better than I, as you are both older and smarter. :)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
...I'd probably vote for Rudy. Strengths: Leadership. Crisis management. He's the anti-Hillary.
Weaknesses: Social policies. Gun policies. Personal issues.
For me, the strengths trump the weaknesses.
However, and it's a big however, the liability of his personal life should not be underestimated. I've been talking to Mrs. Vladimir, who has the best intuition of anyone I know when it comes to judging the sense of the female electorate. Right now, she's for "anybody but Guiliani".
Good post.
most specifically because Mrs. 908 said the same thing to me about three months ago - with additional adjective modifiers that Moe would zap me for - it is VERY early and right now, we don't know who "anybody" is.
I gave Mrs. 908 stuff to read about Rudy - like the Malanga article linked above - and she's starting to waiver. I don't think I'd be a happy dad if my daughter wanted to marry Rudy, but I'm pretty comfortable with him as POTUS.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Giuliani spelled out his position on judicial selection and it's solid.
The big question he has not answered is what would he do if a liberal-oriented Congress sends him bills codifying Roe v. Wade or federal civil rights based on sexual orientation or large appropriations for embryonic stem cell research (which is truly unnecessary given recent technological advances unless it's a preliminary to harvesting human fetuses for organs, etc.).
If he takes a position that leaves these issues largely to the states that would be great. But the question of how he would use presidential power in respect of the big social issues remains unanswered.
Rudy would not do, that social conservatives like me will just have to accept, and fight for change at the state level only on the issues of marriage and abortion.
But, you raise an issue that I had neglected probably because I assume a conservative GOP congressional majority.
I dream. But even then, the stem cell issue is one that even scares many in the GOP. Based on what I have heard, Rudy would not sign such a Roe bill, but that is a great question.
- I was walking around in uptown Manhattan when someone approaches out of the blue and tries to deck me- hard. Probably a mental case, one of many running around the city unchecked. Fortunately, I ducked and he missed. But it did kind of ruin my shopping mood.
- in the early 1990's one of my elderly cousins gets mugged in broad daylight while walking home from grocery shopping
- a business contact is talking about his experiences after moving to the city. He has to step over homeless vagrants who are camped out at the entrance to his apartment- every time he enters or leaves the building. He eventually takes a lucrative job offer in Charkittem North Carolina, which was emerging as a major financial center - a concept unthinkable twenty years earlier.
Rudy is not perfect. But a confident Republican party can argue him around when we need to. And Rudy likes arguments!
I was about to go out of my mind trying to find out about the mysterious Charkittem, NC!
I lived in NYC for a couple of years during the late Koch years--it was a terrifying powderkeg. By comparison, post-Rudy NY feels like Sioux City, Iowa. His broken-windows policy merits a lot of credit for the change.
OTOH, his judgment (Bernie Kerik, anyone?) and self-control leave much to be desired.
was in December of 1993, in the David Dinkins lame-duck period, and it was pretty much the gritty city we remember from "Kojak." When I returned in October of 1998 there was a very stark difference all around. The streets didn't stink anymore, everything was spruced up, pedestrians were orderly and so was automotive traffic, at least by NYC standards.
It's quite refreshing to see someone take on the hackneyed idea that nominating a candidate who can win and nominating a candidate who furthers the conservative cause are mutually exclusive propositions.
There are some strong arguments here for why picking the moderately conservative Giuliani will lead the nation to other more conservative policies in the long run.
The crux of the question, I think, is whether Giuliani would merely refrain from pushing the conservative agenda in certain areas - such as gay marriage - or whether he would not only refrain but actively turn against that agenda.
There is a big difference - both in principle and in practical effect - in not acting because it would be imprudent at this point, and not acting because you have conceded the fight.
For example, not advocating the abolition of the Dept of Education because there isn't enough support for the idea right now is one thing. But accepting the validity of the Dept of Education by increasing its funding is quite another. Pres. Bush's position on this issue has injured the conservative cause, not merely suspended its progress.
Will Giuliani have the strength to avoid giving up ground on social issues such as gay marriage, even as he takes no action on the issue? Or will he fall back on his former positions and explicitly concede the fight on gay marriage (and other social issues)?
"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 on some issues, a President Rudy would avoid them and leave them alone or to the states: see gun control, much abortion policy, and same-sex marriage.
On other issues, I think a President Rudy would join a "bipartisan" majority and make changes that President Bush would not: see funding embryonic stem-cell research, don't ask don't tell, the Mexico City rule, applying discrimination statutes to cover gays and lesbians.
I am not sure (and no one really is) which issues would fall into which category but there will be some in each. The real question is whether it is acceptable to social conservatives to lose ground on some issues to stop a President Hillary from taking ground on all issues.
For example, I cannot think of an electable candidate who will not sign an embryonic stem cell funding bill after 2008. And I would be surprised if don't ask don't tell survives to 2012 as well. If those issues are already "lost" then a President Rudy is not a big loss on social issues.
However, a President Rudy will probably appoint originalist judges (generally) and cede a few issues to the states on federalist grounds including gun control and abortion policy (i.e. partial birth and parental notification). That would be a big improvement on Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or others.
Most importantly, no one (including the media) will think that Rudy speaks for social conservatives. If he does not support something, it is not as if social conservatives have abandoned the issue. In fact, I would say Sen. Brownback's unlikely campaign is more to cement his position as "Leader of the Social Conservatives" than to win the Presidency. And that is probably a good thing because he is a much more likeable personality than the self-appointed Falwell and/or Robertson.
No one thinks Rudy would be as socially conservative as President Bush, but he would still be far to the right of any of the Democrats running. Even if only due to political necessity (of avoiding a primary challenge in 2012).
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Falwell, etc? This assumes that he has any to sell after getting elected to the Senate. Kidding mostly.
From a political standpoint, as a pro-life evangelical, I am happy to have the abortion debate moved to the states via a Roe reversal. From a moral standpoint, I see the disdain the Left has for Evangelical preachers, and the Gospel itself, as a badge of honor. Maybe they won't crucify us.
I lean to Rudy now. But, not being the face of social conservatives is not an asset in winning elections.
see Reagan and even W
W is just a poor rhetorical communicator, but he wouldn't be President without the so-con vote, and neither will Rudy.
BB is a mystery to me, esp after his going wobbly on the war. I actually don't listen to him anymore due to that. No matter his reasons, and I won't assume they are totally cravenly political, for him to show such a weak face to the enemy, I wouldn't want him as CINC. The enemy would see another paper tiger.
No one thinks Rudy would be as socially conservative as President Bush
Gee, not that socially conservative? Because we all know that Bush has been an exceptionally socially conservative president, don't we?
Name someone who can win 51% of the vote and would 1) veto embryonic stem cell research funding, 2) support the FMA, 3) support the Mexico City rule, 4) encourage intervention in the Schiavo incident and sign legislation to take the case away from the judiciary, and 5) appoint disproportionately constructionist and federalist judges.
Sure President Bush is no Jerry Falwell. But he is the most socially conservative President the country will see for a couple election cycles.
So maybe from where you are sitting Bush is on the "left" of social issues. But if that is true, I suspect you will be very sad about whomever wins in 2008 regardless of party. SoCons will miss the Bush Administration a lot more after it leaves power than they expect.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
It would be nice if SoCons would realize that you eat an apple in bites not one gulp.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Name someone who can win 51% of the vote and would 1) support embryonic stem cell research funding, 2) support gay marriage, 3) oppose the Mexico City rule, 4) oppose intervention in the Schiavo incident and sign legislation to take the case away from the legislature, and 5) appoint disproportionately liberal and anti-federalist judges.
I think you have a higher hill to climb than I do.
SoCons will miss the Bush Administration a lot more after it leaves power than they expect.
Other than your empty assertion, is there any actual content here? Why do you imagine that "SoCons" (which seems to mean religious people in your parlance) will pine for the days of George Bush?
Hillary, Obama, Richardson. There are three. All have an above-50 shot at the WH right now. And if Rs nominate a Huckabee or Brownback, their odds go up.
If social conservatives want to throw Bush overboard now, that's their choice. But I don't think it helps their position. President Bush used his only veto on a social issue. His abandonment of all things fiscally conservative or even responsible has helped Democrats make inroads with the libertarian mountain west. But even in the "bad year" of 2006, the more socially conservative South stayed loyal to Republicans.
If social conservatives abandon the President and try to disclaim him now (after pushing him over McCain, Gore, and Kerry), the message to other Presidential hopefuls would be that it is not worth courting that vote. Because no President could have done more than the President did (especially w/r/t Schiavo and stem-cell research) without alienating a supermajority of the country.
So if you're goal is to move to the right of the President on social issues, good luck. But I doubt the success of that strategy in 2008 (or 2012 or 2016).
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
While Bush hasn't been the ideal social conservative, he has certainly done enough to have a record.
And the one thing he did, and that I am thankful for is he came through with two very good SCOTUS nominations. If I even think about regreting my vote, I just have to repeat Roberts and Alito-and my regrets all go away.
Because honestly, what kind of judges would we have gotten with Kerry? Who would have been chosen as Chief Justice under Kerry?
Nope, those two nominations make it worth it to me, and honestly much about Rudy does appeal to me, to the point that a strong commitment to appointing SCOTUS justices that are committed to originalist positions would be a good way to court my vote.
But I think the dumb thing Soc Cons could do is disavow Bush and seek to go harder Righ in the next election cycle-I think in the end you end up with a dem president and a dem controlled congress-and what kind of SCOTUS judges do we get then?
and will have no truck with Brownback. Also, I don't see how you go further to the right that Bush on social issues, from a practical standpoint. He holds the correct positions and has acted on them. Bush IS a social conservative. I think Romney is a bit further to the right rhetorically, as he has flopped in the right place.
But the GOP need not fear that evangelicals would abandon the GOP in 08.
The dems you see are
satan
A nominee doesn`t have to win 51% of the vote. Remember 2000?
Sen. Sam Brownback would be electable in a general election. Less than a quarter of the country votes on values issues, and that vote breaks heavily our way (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.h...). Brownback, unlike many of the other candidates, would hold the GOP coalition together and drive up turnout among values voters while at the same time being able to reach out to moderates, perhaps even liberals, on issues like the environment and human rights. What`s more, he`s talking about fixing the tax system rather than just the rates, which is certainly something that alone would get a number of people to take a look at him. Those who are voting based on their opposition to the issues you mention are voting Democrat even if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee. You might not like to acknowledge that, but it`s true. That`s a red herring for those who don`t have it in them to go to war for a true conservative.
landslide. The guy is a Senator. That SHOULD automatically disqualify anybody. He has no record on anything important like the war on terror, which he seems to be about as reliable as Hagel. His immigration stance is, soft. The ONLY thing Brownback has going for him is a conversion on Roe.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
The Democrat nominee will be a Senator too, most likely Clinton but possibly Obama.
Like his would-be opponents, he has a record on the war on terror that should please any Republican. Exactly which vote is it with which you have a problem? Unlike the rest who opposed the surge, he actually put forward an alternative plan after visiting Iraq, rather than offering arm chair opposition.
Yes he`s soft on immigration, but that pales in comparison to the problems with the flip-flopper, the media whore, and the New York liberal. Relative to losing a significant portion of religious conservatives, the Tancredoites, many of whom would have no place else to go, constitute a small portion of the Party.
If you want to call him unelectable, you`re going to have to do much better than that.
experience at all. He has no resume beyond the Senate. His latest position on the war is not quite as bad as Hagel, but he seems to be working on it. Right now, I'll take Rudy.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Sen. Brownback has been a conservative leader for almost a decade. Hell, he stopped Hariet Miers. I think what you meant to say is executive experience, and frankly I`d rather have someone who has proven reliable on national issues than someone who has gone out of his way to oppose conservatives when dealing with such issues wasn`t even part of his job description.
leadership. Brownback has so much exposure on national issues and his leadership on those issues, how come his biggest problem is lack of name recognition?
You're absolutely right about his absence of any executive experience. Heck, I've got more executive experience than he does and Lord knows I'm not ready for prime time.
Brownback may be a pretty good Senator. He's at best a backbencher in the Presidential sweeps.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
but I must quote Harry Truman: "It`s amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Rather than doing a Chuck Schumer and shoving his mug in front of every camera in Washington, Sen. Brownback has actually done the work behind the scenes in Washington for conservative causes, most notably the derailing of the Miers nomination. He has shown true leadership not by attracting attention for himself but by doing what has needed doing for the conservative agenda. That is true leadership.
a Senator.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
No matter which Republican gets the nomination, he`ll enter the general election an underdog because of the current situation. Is your suggestion that he is one of the few who could lose to a far lefty a "known fact", or do you have something to back it up?
election since 1980. My secret: gray haired old ladies at baptist churches. We have never elected a known appeaser during war. Carter was stealth and Clinton was between wars. '06 is no guide to a presidential election year, especially not a unique Year Six grievance election. Plus, the democrats are simply too liberal for the majority. They will turn out for president. I was an activist and an official in the Dem Party for over 15 years before my conversion in 2000, so i accurately picked a lot of my own party's losses and so am not shy about it. The national security issue is back, and if one thing defines the dem party it is weakness on defense. And the big 3 dems are racing to see who can be McGovern first. loserville
He is in the race.
Granted he isn't Obama or Hillary or Edwards, but I don't think he is a lightweight either, and he comes with executive experience.
So their nominee may be a senator, but senators aren't the only people running.
I think Richardson is running for VP. He's got the foreign policy experience that would make Hil look good, and the VP slot would not be a bad place to be in for a future run.
The Obama/Hillary fight will not end well as I expect it to turn ugly, and I doubt Hillary is the type to offer both a woman and a African American to the voters as a first ever ticket. She's a whack-job Leftie, but got good political advisers including "Slick".
Wonder when Rosie and her "wife" is going to come out for Hillary?
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
The Richardson candidacy is going nowhere. He`ll be blown out of the water by the Clinton/Obama cash advantage and, unlike Brownback, he doesn`t have a natural appeal in Iowa on farm issues to give him a fighting chance. The western states don`t come until it`s too late.
Should we read that to indicate Brownback isn't likely to try to cut the farm bill? Or eliminate agriculture subsdies?
Hey, supporting big pork is just what we need.
Brownback is also on record as saying, to the effect, that Bush's Compassionate Conservatism isn't really Compassionate enough.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
and exploding spending. W has failed to deliver on any of a host of key issues that socons care about,* while talking a great game. At a certain point, the reality of W's Not-So-Great Society spending spree trumps the lip service to social conservative goals. In the second term, there's hardly even lip service--anybody notice Condi introducing the "mother-in-law" of a gay State Dept appointee? Thus gay marriage is de facto smuggled into the administration without a debate--as is women in combat, which as far as I can tell has received no serious discussion. Get me started on that one--as well as sending both reservist parents of small children into action.
*Partial exception: SCOTUS picks; but that record is marred by Miers.
Re: W has failed to deliver on any of a host of key issues that socons care about
What did you expect him to do? The most important issue of all, abortion, is locked up tighter than a drum by Roe vs Wade. Appointing judges who will overturn that devision is all he can do. (And ditto for other Supreme Court usurped issues). Om other issues, like gay marriage, the president has no meaningful input. And there are still other issues, like school curricula, which are local by their very nature and where we should not want a president involving himself.
was a political distraction to take attention away from something else Bush needed some time to do. I don't know what, or if the mystery action succeeded in itself, but he did succeed in leaving everyone scratching their heads and not asking more questions about other matters.
At least, I hope that's what is was. I can't think of any other reason why it was a good idea.
why shouldn't I be? see roberts, alito, and stem cell position, and gay marriage position
Why shouldn't I be happy with w?
Caveat: so long as Alito and Roberts end up siding with Scalia and Thomas on the big social, federalism, and bill of rights questions...
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Adam C, thanks for your thoughtful response.
If I may attempt to describe the pith of your comments, I think it comes down to which conservative programs he chooses to stand behind. In other words, will he choose to stand on the most important ones, and turn aside from the lesser programs (if necessary), or will he waste his strength fighting the smaller battles and give ground in the war?
From everything I have seen of him, he knows when an issue is important enough to dig in his heels, and when it can be put aside. He has an incredible record of accomplishment of reducing government in a city hostile to the idea; he has repeatedly made the case for intelligently waging war against radical Islam using all methods available to us; and finally, he has started declaring that he will appoint conservative judges. These are the three most important conservative issues. If, as the campaign progresses, he shows that he can be trusted to stand firm on all of them, then the ground he gives up on other things will not cost conservatism that much in the end.
Thanks, and thanks again to DMEaton for posting this excellent diary. I for one won't be surprised if the Giuliani Team takes note of it!
"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 while Rudy isn't my ideal candidate, he is more palatable than other candidates whose names have been floated.
I think in some ways he could actually be better for conservatism, but I think the key is what he does with bills that come from a democratic congress, and a lot of those can easily be vetoed with a "this should be up to the state, not the feds" reasoning.
I can think of other possibles that would be far more disastrous than a president Rudy.
Before we win, we have to see ourselves winning
as in the congress in '08
optimism is infectious
how ya doin
senate flips, I don't see the house flipping for years-hopefully I am wrong, but I don't think we should hang our hats on the idea that somehow losing the presidency won't matter, because we are going to retake congress while doing it.
I think we can maybe retake part of congress, if our presidential candidate wins, but if our nominee loses, I don't see how we win either house of congress-I just don't see that kind of flip-has it even happened historically?
I will do my darndest to see the two new democratic upstarts that just won lose in '08 and I will support John Sununu completely.
But I am not convinced we will be flipping congress in '08, and I think we are insane if we think we can do it while losing the white house.
just that if we end up losing the white house, I don't see how we flip the congress-at least no in '08, which harkens back to my "democrat bills to a democrat president" point.
I do think it is going to be hard to win back the house, senate is very close, but '08 has a lot more of our guys at risk than theirs-depends a lot on who we run, who they run, and what is going on with Iraq and what the congress is doing.
I think it is imperative that the GOP win the White House, and a win there would/should come with some coattails for the congress.
We lose the White House, I think we lose the coattails-hence my comment about what things would look like in '08.
When Ds gained 8 seats and won a plurality of the popular vote (48.1% - 47.8%). I think it makes sense that after the 1994 election, a few of the seats that flipped went back to their "natural" party. I think that is also likely in 2008 unless the country goes 54-46 for the Ds again (which is possible). If the country swings back toward 50-50, then there are a large number of freshmen Ds in tough spots.
KS-02, NH-01, and CT-02 are all likely re-matches with relatively popular Rs who lost in the "sweep." There are others, I just haven't the time to find them all.
Furthermore, there are sleeper districts that 2008 fits well. Take ND-AL where Pomeroy (D) seems entrenched. But this is the cycle when neither of the popular D Seantors run and it is a Presidential year. In 2002 with no D Senator running, he only managed 52% in a non-Pres year. If a major name throws in their hat (and several statewide officers could), then Pomeroy has a real fight on his hands.
And in case no one had done the math, it takes 16 pickups to win a majority.
The Senate will actually be harder to win in 2008 than the House.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
especially if we lose the White House.
But you are right that some of the districts the R's lost this last time, may have been more "one offs" than a permanent takeover of the seat.
I still think it is going to take longer than 2 years to get either house back-and if we run a crappy candidate in '08 for the white house, we are going to have 2-4 years to regret the decision.
I think a good GOP candidate, even if he loses, may have coattails, but a crappy candidate is likely to keep people home, or give the coattails to whoever is running for the DNC.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Senate will be tougher to take back. And about Pomeroy.
It's not a rematch, but put OH-18 on the list of "should-win" seats. It's a very conservative area (south-central OH) that, without the bad year, the lightening rod Blackwell, the shadow of Ney and the disaster that was Joy Padgett, this should be a winnable seat. Zack Space had no chance before Ney happened.
However, I don't see us taking back CT-02. Simmons was popular, and he did well to do what he did for three terms, but I don't think he's coming back for a while. Outside of Jodi Rell, Don Carcieri, and the New Hampshire senators, there are no recognizably Republican politicians in the Northeast.
KS-02 and NH-01 should be pickups. So should NH-02, but I don't know if Charlie Bass will run again. Plus the Wisconsin seat...-08?
he desperately sought to abolish the NYC Board of Education for years, openly called for it, and eventually had to concede after the reality of a 90% dem city council set in
"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 one that seems to reflect a growing consensus that, yes, Rudy can win and keep conservative support. Good job.
For those values voters who might be put off by Rudy's "liberal" stance on some issues and his rocky personal past, recommend they read this article. Then, ask them to think through what DMEaton says here. This is an excellent case for how Rudy could easily be the best choice for values conservatives who want to advance their agenda in today's political environment.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I am not really a values conservative--I vote based on fiscal issues mostly. However, I am very concerned about the symbolism of having a pro-gay marriage Republican nominee/president. We are talking about crossing wires on an issue that is not only of great moral significance to the country but which also commands a consistent majority of the country.
I am reading a bio of Lincoln right now. Lincoln was nominated not because he was an abolitionist or anything near. He strongly advocated political pragmatism. HOWEVER, Lincoln also said that the party could not sacrifice the fundamental value that slavery was wrong. Whether or not to act on it using the federal government was one thing, but the fundamental principle remained. That was why he won the nomination over the "say no evil, here no evil" wing of the party. Lincoln rightly believed that tactics can and must be considered pragmatically, but principles cannot be.
I know this blog will not look on my promoting McCain for this position, but I think that, whatever his positions as a senator (and legislation is always messy), he remains personally committed to life and to traditional marriage, and he is a strong crusader against big spending.
At some point, the right is going to have to distinguish between those who are against same-sex marriage but support other gay rights issues and those who are against same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues.
Even though Rudy is "pro-gay" he has never supported same-sex marriage. This puts him right about smack dab in the middle of the debate on gay rights according to most polls. Most Americans do not want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but they are sympathetic to the idea that same-sex couples should have many of the legal rights that marriage confers. Rudy fits that quite well. Of course, the center of gravity nation-wide is not the center of gravity in the Republican primary. So his "pro-gay" views may still hurt him.
But it is very good of you to not let the rumor that he supports same-sex marriage spread to far.
(And this is coming from someone quite sympathetic to same-sex marriage)
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
Adam,
Point taken. But of course you could go the way of the Republican party in California, along with the Mauritius Dodo bird, by having a national version of the CA Republican plank on gays. In the golden state, the home of Reagan, it seems those in control of the party would rather be out of power than compromise or deal with Gay people and couples in anything approaching a realistic human manner.
From the current California Republican Party platform plank on the family.
"Recognizing the traditional model of monogamous heterosexual marriage as the only stable relationship upon which to build a society, we believe that homosexuality should not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in public education and policy. We oppose granting to homosexuals special privileges, including marriage, domestic partnership benefits, and child custody or adoption."
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
that grants individual rights, incl some kind of union, that is not conditioned on orientation or consummation.
Game
Are you under the weather or something? LOL
Snark ON
Compassionate Conservatism is dead, long live the power of being able to legislate morality in all matters near and dear to the social conservative wing of the Republican party. Darn to heck blowing out the budget, full legislative based morality ahead, hard to starboard.
You keep up with this moderation stuff, why you're going to get labeled a RINO or something.
Snark OFF
Is it too soon to pipe you aboard the CVN RINO?
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I'm not going to talk about the gaming bill. Not into it.
Now, as to gays. I am against gay marriage and any law that categorizes anyone based on race or orientation. I believe in individual rights, not group rights, and the practical problems with orientation based laws go well beyond morality. I am a baptist that believes that any sex outside marriage is sin but should not be cause for incarceration unless done in the road or with minors, etc..and neither do most evangelicals. All people are born oriented to sin, I have so sinned and am scheduled to again any day now. I have many gay friends and always have. I have represented them in discrimination claims. I have helped draft legislation as counsel for a gay legislator that were based on individual rights. Spinsters may apply.
Bring on the labels, but SteveLA (except for the gaming bill, the greatest issue of our time) we libertarian Christians are fighting to reverse judge made law that restricted our rights and yours to govern ourselves.
Game
I realize that your point of view is one that is a scripture based point of view on life, and I tend to respect and understand that point of view. But I also realize from reading your writings that you have avoided the temptation that befalls others who hold your life view to believe that their own personal beliefs must be imposed on the world, I'll call that leading by example of leading a moral life, not by legislation. As an aside, one of your fellow Carolina citizens, the Reverend Billy Graham is as close as it comes in my book to a protestant saint.
I grew up in the Piney woods of the 60's South and have seen the good side and bad side of the repression of personal liberty and civil rights in the name of beliefs, probably explaining my libertarian streak. Probably also why some of the social conservative politician positions raise my ire, I wonder what they were doing Saturday night as they are a preaching at me on how to live my life the rest of the week.
As to judges, I tend to agree with Chief Justice Roberts. Federal judges should be like umpires, not advocates for any position, LEFT OR RIGHT!. As President George H. Bush would say on the issue of judge shopping and recent over reaching by social conservatives in the Schiavo affair, "I'm not going to do it, wouldn't be prudent", but will observe that using the courts to achieve a social issue outcome is wrong from both a right and a left prospective in my view. I will grant you that Liberals in general have been much better at that ploy though.
Oh almost forgot, how are you on dancing ? Should we have a Republican party plank calling for outlawing it?....a very small SBC joke.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
other gamecocks shag ala Austin's british slang!
But I can compare on the dance floor and in cock fights, yikes
well, with my nickname these accidents are inevitable
I take it that you think that this is the view of some wacky group of extremists? The voting public is not quite as liberal as people in the online world. I get the impression that gay marriage would be approved by a significant humber of people here at RS, a "right wing" blog. In the real world the people of the very liberal state of California voted to restrict marrige to members of the opposite sex.
Moral of the story, don't mistake the views of people on the internet for the views of the people in the country.
But I am a numbers guy. I follow polls very closely and despite people's disdain for polls, they are good barometers if used correctly. For example, the polls got all the Senate races correct in 2006.
The country does not support same-sex marriage. But people under 30 years old do. And the younger, the higher the support. This support has not dropped as people get older. Unless something changes, a majority of the country will support same-sex marriage in a decade or two.
However, a majority of the public already supports forms of civil unions. A majority now believes that homosexuality is not immoral. A plurality believe that same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children. The public supports giving many or all of the legal rights of marriage to same-sex couples, but does not want to change the institution of marriage.
And all of those views are moving towards more tolerance of same-sex couples. In 10 years, I suspect same-sex adoption will be commonplace. And in 20 years, I would be rather surprised if same-sex marriage is not commonplace.
This has nothing to do with the "online community" and everything to do with the "younger generation."
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
He is opposed to banning gay marriage. For all practical purposes he is supporting it. There is no middle ground here, its a binary question. He's for gay marriage.
is even remotely comparable to the issue of slavery. The present-day issue that fits that profile is abortion-- since both issues are/were massive but popular violation of fudnamental human rights for the sake of covenience (economic, in the case of slavery, personal in the case of abortion.) So really the $64,000 question is what is the symbolism of having a GOP president (or candidate) who is pro-Choice (and may well be more electable as a result)? Can SoCons live with that in exchange for firm promises on jusdges?
But the reality is that I think abortion is one of those things that is more Federalist oriented. I think half the problem with Roe is that it took away the ability of each state to have its own opinion outside of a few little "chew around the edges of abortion on demand" but nothing they could do substantively.
Other than a bully pulpit I don't think the president has much ability to influence abortion law other than through the appointment of originalist type judges in the courts.
So while my absolute first choice for president wouldn't be a pro choice one, I would take one with a strong commitment to federalism over a wishy washy one on the issue.
I think some soc conservatives will definitely struggle-I don't see Dobson, Falwell or the like being okay, but the majority of even social cons aren't exactly of the Dobson/Falwell variety.
But then I am not sure how much I fall into the soc con camp-while I am very conservative, I do have some rather libertarianesque leanings. I don't have an easy label for my politics-but then I think it is the rare person who really does.
...the work of American politics is not invention--it's choice. And sometimes the only choice is between the partly flawed, and the totally flawed. That's our mechanism. We keep giving our government a little nudge, one of two ways, and over time it has an effect. So for conservatives, Rudy may not be good invention, but he may be the good choice.
as long as you are nudging in the right direction. If Republicans are upset with George W Bush as not being conservative enough, then moving to the left does not look like the solution.
Not everyone lies on the same particular vector decomposition of conservatism.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Maybe you mean that Republicanism is a multidimensional thing. A lot of people confuse the two.
That aside, the fact remains that there is a lot of discontent with Bush within the GOP, and a sense that he has done little to advance what the party has stood for in the past. In fact, many feel he has moved the party to the left. I see people complaining about this here at RS on a regular basis.
Start out by defining the problem. If Repulicans feel the party needs to move further to the left then Giuliani is a logical choice. If they feel it needs to move to the right then he does not make a lot of sense. The bizarre thing about the online debate I'm seeing is the disconnect between people's principles and practice. Republicans in the abstract are bashed for straying from the Old Time party principles which used to bring us success. But the people who best exemplify those principles are ignored in favor of candidates who are considered "electable" but whose principles are suspect.
It makes no sense for GOP voters to gnash their teeth and tear their hair about what the Republican party does, while continuing to elect and reelect people who do things they dislike.
is not that he has moved the GOP to the left, exactly; it's that he's moved it into the ocean of massive government spending and interference in citizens' lives. Statism, not leftism--although most leftists are statists, not all statists are leftists.
Is there any evidence that Rudy would support a return to the GOP principle of small government? I don't think that's what you look for in a former mayor of NYC.
He cut the growth of the city's budget and actually shrank it twice. Not bad for dealing with new york.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
that makes the current Congress look like Bush supporters.
He also tried to go after the NYC school system which was controlled by an independent elected board of education that he could appoint two member of. The year he left office, NYC schools were finally brought under the mayor's control, too late for Rudy, but he won.
Rudy, for all of his shortcomings, is a real live fighter. He's not interested in making friends, he interested in results.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
You would be very hard pressed to find two conservatives that agree on all the issues of the day.
Yes there is much discontent with bush, there has been considerable satisfaction as well. Most of the satisfaction seems forgotten in light of our current difficulties but so be it.
Here are things I can feel pretty confidant Giuliani will do.
1. Enforce the border
2. limit the size of the federal government
3. Veto actions from the congress
4. Attempt to get the fed out of education.
Do the above place him to the right or the left of the current administration ?
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
On your point #1, I'm not so sure that Giuliani would enforce the border, but maybe he'll stake out a clear position in favor of that. (Or maybe he already has and I missed it.) My recollection is that as NYC mayor his policy was to studiously ignore anybody's illegal immigration status. It's possible that he really is in favor of upholding American sovereignty, but as a mayor figured he just had to accomodate local policy to the federal government's dereliction of that responsibility.
I'm still disposed to support Giuliani for president, but this is my biggest misgiving about him. Of course now that Bush has achieved a Democratic majority in congress that supports his amnesty-plus-cheap-green-card policy for illegal aliens, that issue might be already settled by January 2009, so it wouldn't matter what Giuliani's position is.
the border issue and the war, combining liberal and conservative isolationists.
I am for the wall and winning wars. Rudy needs to be for the wall.
New York City was a "sanctuary city" under Mayor Giuliani. I see reason to expect he'd try to turn the whole country into one.
Run like Reagan!
I do trust him to do what he has promised. That is why I consider him unacceptable. His positions on immigration, guns, abortion, gays, and so many other things are a matter of record. He clearly believes these things and is not even pretending to have changed his mind.
You may want to read this. If he is our nominee you can be sure that the MSM will shove it in your face 24/7.
6. FIGHT LIKE HELL for the priorities at the top of his agenda.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Republican Presidents have done more damage to the Supreme Court than Democrat Presidents, only because they have had more opportunity to do so, and could have done a lot more had a group of principled Senators not stood up against the nomination of Hariet Miers. President Bush said the right things in 2000 and went two for three, which again would have been one for two but for the Senate. Nobody can question Giuliani`s leadership capabilities, but leadership is not the only factor. Hariet Miers happened because the President did not bother to ensure that his nominees lived up to the standard that he had set for himself. Any Republican Presidential candidate saying anything other than what Giuliani is saying now on judicial nominations would be committing political suicide. There is nothing that he has done that could lead one to believe that he would be any more reliable than the President who nominated Hariet Miers. Other candidates, albeit not those in the top tier, have shown through their actions that they are committed to having a constrained judiciary. In your scenarios for the next Supreme Court nomination above, you fail to consider another possibility: a President Giuliani making the case for strict constructionist judges during the confirmation of someone who in fact is not a strict constructionist. It is extremely risky to elect a Republican President who could well do even more damage to the Court, rather than roll the dice with someone who could be trusted on the issue. Those who say that the culture war is over and we lost would be proven right if another Republican President nominated another dictator in a robe to the Supreme Court.
Re: a President Giuliani making the case for strict constructionist judges during the confirmation of someone who in fact is not a strict constructionist.
This risk exists with any GOP president: they may simply be mistaken about the judge (as Bush 41 was about Souter) or the judge may "grow" in office (as Kennedy did). If even so committed a conservative as Ronald Reagan could make such a mistake then I don't see that can ever be a 100% guarantee with anyone.
Mistrakes can be made :-)
Something terrible happens once a man or woman drinks the water in Washington. It often changes them from a human being into a Big Government Monster.
But there is a spectrum of likelihood of such appointments, and it is ludicrous to suggest that some candidates would not be more careful than others. For example, a Brownback administration would not have had the haphazard vetting process, if it can accurately be called that, that the Bush White House had with Hariet Miers. A Brownback or Huckabee administration would likely be much more careful about the judicial philosophy than a Giuliani administration, as judicial nominations would receive a higher priority. I`d like to be able to support Rudy, but I can`t simply accept words that conflict with his actions, which support the policy results of horrendous judicial decisions. Yes, it is possible to be pro-choice without supporting Roe, but to my knowledge he has not taken a position on whether Roe constituted strict constructionist judicial philosophy, nor has he spoken about the type of views on precedent he would seek in a judicial nominee. Instead, he has repeatedly supported the pro-abortion agenda, as well as, to a large extent, the gay agenda and anti-Second Amendment agenda, all of which, in the ways in which they have been enacted, fly in the face of the Constitution, without qualification. I, for one, find that terribly disconcerting.
You can't get elected in NYC as a pro-lifer and NRA member. It's simply impossible.
The fact is that Giuliani has shown himself to be a trusworthy person. If he gives his word, he can relied upon to stick to it. If he says he will nominate judges like Scalia, I have no reason to think he won't. Of course, I would like to hear him talk about it about 20 or 30 more times before the election, so I can be sure he's firm on the point. But that's about all we can ask for. He's trustworthy, and he has made his position clear. It's unfair to him and to ourselves to tie him absolutely to his past. NYC politics limits leaders in ways that national politics does not.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
On the one hand, you`re saying he`s trustworthy. On the other, you`re essentially saying that he may well have lied through his teeth to get elected in New York. I`m not of either opinion. I think he was a great Mayor who wants to be President, and that would not place a high priority on ensuring that his SCOTUS nominees are strict constructionists. Not incidentally, what makes you so sure that he was just saying what it took to get elected then as opposed to doing so now?
I'm saying that Giuliani couldn't have been mayor if he had been pro-life and pro-NRA. I'm NOT saying that he assumed false positions. It looks like his pro-choice position, for instance, was sincere. But we should not expect that Giuliani be any other way. A pro-life version of Giuliani, if he existed in NYC, could not have been elected. In other words, Giuliani would never have been Giuliani without being liberal in certain ways.
As far as I know, he hasn't disavowed his previous pro-choice position. He has, however, expressed sincere support for strict constructionist judges. Strict constructionist judges aren't necessarily pro-life, but they certainly don't read a pro-choice right into the Constitution. One can be pro-choice but support strict constructionist judges. As President, I'm guessing that Giuliani would refrain from making any pro-choice move, knowing that that would upset the party, and at the same time would appoint strict constructionist judges.
There is no inconsistency or lie here. On the contrary, there is only consistency. This is all the more reason he is trustworthy.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
He is known to be a liar having divorced two different women, and having had an affair. An important thing to consider is that, what is done on a small scale will also be done on a large scale.
is that by definition you do not know you are being decieved. Perhaps he has managed to not lie to the people of NYC, but that does not negate the fact that he is apperently a person comfortable telling lies.
which is why the president's world view is crucial as well as character. Bill Clinton sold us out behind the scenes with N Kor and China given his lack or seriousness on foreign threats. Rudy takes foreign threats seriously. But this is the area where character really matters. You are right that character matters.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
If he can't keep a promise to his wife, why should we believe his promises to us?
Isn't that a fair question? Didn't Republicans spend the better part of the 90s saying that character counts?
Run like Reagan!
And we didn't bother to discuss the things that really mattered about Clinton. His totally bankrupt policies, his sell out of the US military (downsizing, etc), and his abdication of national security policy to the wolves.
We spent so much time whining about who was doing what under his desk that there wasn't the time or the political capital to take on the important issues. The fact that the only thing we chose to attack with any fervor in the 90's was Clinton's "character" is, in large measure, why we're where we are today, viewed as a party who just wants to meddle in your personal life.
It's about time we got over it and recognized that the job of the President is to provide real leadership (which we haven't had since January 20, 1989) with a real vision for what America can be. I really don't care how long Mitt's been married to one wife or who got a divorce from who because of whatever. I want somebody who's going to provide real leadership on issues of national security and privatizing the government. I don't know if Rudy's the guy, but right now he's closer than anybody else.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
" He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much" Luke 16:10
Or I'll be forced to agree with you:
The fact that the only thing we chose to attack with any fervor in the 90's was Clinton's "character" is, in large measure, why we're where we are today, viewed as a party who just wants to meddle in your personal life.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
I need a vacation. :>)
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
a lot, and mbecks post alludes to it even as he claims its not relevant. Bill Clinton sold us out to China with missiles for campaign funds and to N Kor for getting it off his desk. I loved Bill Clinton at first, until I came to see that he couldn't speak 5 words without lying.
But all this has to be weighed. Clinton's character problem was manifest in office, and not just as relates to his marriage which allows for affairs. This goes to his judgment of carrying on with a near minor in the White House, sexual harassment, etc. The man is sick.
Rudy was just a regular horny guy.
Why Trent Lott refused to let everything out on the Senate floor I don't know. Could be the Clinton mafia has something on everybody in Washington but W.
Marriages go bad. Some even start that way.
In Clinton's case the character flaws constituted a target rich environment.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
If he was having an affair before he divorced her, that'd be a fair point and not just a joke.
Run like Reagan!
with those for a bishop's office, then we are going to have an awfully hard time finding qualified people. Saints and nice guys do not propser in politics and if, by chance, they do take office they usually make a botch of it. And today's voyeuristic character tests would exclude quite a few of our presidents past: Jefferson's slave mistress, Jackson's irregular marriage, Lincoln's depressive illness, Washington's land deals, Grant's drinking, Cleveland's illegitimate son, etc. (Yes, some of these things were made an issue of it their time too). Of course if you want a Christian gentleman with no history of questionable business deals or cheating on his wife Jimmy Carter is still eligible for another term.
Couldn't resist.
Careful at the rate we are attacking republicans for petty peccadilloes it may be a reality.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
"Strict constructionist judges aren't necessarily pro-life, but they certainly don't read a pro-choice right into the Constitution." This is not nesscarilly true if being a strict-constructionist means bowing down at the altar of Precedence which it what I think it oftens means these days.
Re: For example, a Brownback administration would not have had the haphazard vetting process, if it can accurately be called that, that the Bush White House had with Hariet Miers.
How can you be sure of that? Even saints have blind spots when it comes to friends and close associates, seeing in them that which really isn't there, which is what I think happened with Mr. Bush and Ms. Meirs. Indeed, Bush 43's greatest failing is his tendency to trust people who impress him in the right way, hence his erstwhile affection for Mr Putin.
But I do agree with you that Giuliani has some 'splaining to do on abortion and he needs to answer some serious questions without waffling or platitudinous replies. Still, if he can answer them correctly (and to appearances sincerely) weould you consider him then?
For starters, I would be confident that what happened with Miers would not happen in a Brownback administration because the Senator cares about the issue. Could he make a mistake, as President Reagan did? Of course. But what happened with Miers was pure carelessness. The President did not care, and that is why the White House dispensed with the base vetting process for a nominee in favor of someone with whom the President felt personally comfortable. Sen. Brownback has demonstrated throughout his career a commitment to a restrained judiciary not only by stopping that nomination but by discussing things like defunding out of control courts. While an error could be made, it would be far less likely with a President for whom judicial nominations would be a top priority, rather than just something that could potentially obstruct the rest of his agenda.
As to the question on Giuliani, he would have to move an incredible distance to gain my support. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion, which is about as extreme as anyone can get. In my view, that`s far beyond a political judgement and is about as inhumane as anyone can get. I don`t think that I could vote for anyone who, at the time of the election, holds that position. If he were to publicly change his position on that and demonstrate a commitment to a restrained judiciary rather than simply stating what any Republican hoping to win the nomination must say to get it, I would take another look at his candidacy. I am generally not one to even consider sitting out elections, but as much as I fear the possibility of another Clinton administraiton, I could not in good conscience vote for someone holding Giuliani`s extreme views on the issue.
an unknown strawman that one is allowed to attribute derogatory character and intellectual assassination upon.
Dubya is the expert on picking good judges he vetted for less than 3 months, in Texas and DC. See the appeals court judges and roberts-alito. He vetted Miers for 10 years. he learned the souter lesson from his dad's flop.
And Dubya cares.
She cited the Pledge of Allegiance as a controling legal document. I think that lends itself to intellectual assassination.
"We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance."
-- Harriet Miers, 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas
the deliberate liberal leaning judge a dem president would set out to nominate.
Did anyone doubt Ginsberg's liberal credentials?
I think you always run the risk of having a Kennedy or O'Conner grow in office, but Souter was the real mistake-I think the one thing I learned from Souter is that no matter what opting for the stealth candidate to avoid a Borking is dumb. Better to nominate the known, or mostly known, and risk the Borking-at least then you can say you tried.
But intentions do mean a lot, and the intention with the mistakes wasn't to put a liberal on the courts.
Intentions mean nothing. You need five votes to win, and the only thing that matters is whether the nominees of the next President will be one of the five. So the question really becomes, "How sure are you that Giuliani would do everything he could to ensure that his nominees were one of the five?" I`m not sure at all, and, while I have my doubts about some of the other Republican running, I would at the very least be considerably more confident that any and all of them would take more pains to ensure that his nominee was one of the five.
kind of justices I would like to see appointed than Romney, McCain (who is pro life, but doesn't seem to be too keen on that first amendment) or some others.
I would probably trust a Newt type president on judges, but I don't think Newt can win the primary or the general.
But essentially nominating judges is a crap shoot-you never know for sure what you are getting, although you can often get a good feel for it, but there isn't a guarantee that what you think you are nominating is what you are nominating.
That was a tottally gratuitous comment for self gratification.
I mean she was vetted for 10 years. But this Bork bench we have now that Kristol and Co tout that we have built up for the last 15 years is pretty solid.
Obviously the White House missed quite a bit on Miers, unless you think they actually nominated her knowing about the basic background information that quickly sunk her nomination.
I only pray that we don't end up like fools in electing the wrong President...
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
And btw, I concur with all the platitudes and the elevation to page one...now
Rudy achieved conservative results in NYC via conservative policies not his liberal policies.
Now, if you mean that Rudy is the means, and that since he is liberal on social issues, then the means is liberal, then, ok, but, I just think that the title is misleading.
I don't usually throw cold water like this (That's Becker's job), but I was just jealous!
welcome man
As a fresh faced 23 year old I am still open minded. Let me know if you have any better ideas for the title. Next time I write I will try to make it more clear.
And GC, go take a cold shower.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I don't want to hear anyone say we can trust McCain on judges after the Gang of 14.
(Now that was just too hard to resist....)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
AFTER THE GANG OF 14!!!!
Always happy to help.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
became a McCain supporter.... Gee, thanks, mbecker! :)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Sure wish Gen. Sanchez, Gen. Odierno of the 4th ID, and Don Rumsfeld had read your headnote...
I gotta say, deriding McCain for being part of the Gang of 14 is not giving the guy the respect he deserves. That was a very momentous time in the history of the Senate. G14 got a lot of judges appointed while preserving an essential part of the institution. Whether one likes or dislikes the filibuster, it's hard to call McCain spineless or suspect for helping broker that deal.
Regarding the 1st Amendment, that's a legit question regarding judges, though one can see why someone would see CFR as necessary.
G14 got a lot of judges appointed ...
You mean we would have appointed fewer judges if the Constitutional Option has been invoked. I'd like to see you argue that one.
Whether one likes or dislikes the filibuster, it's hard to call McCain spineless or suspect for helping broker that deal.
You may not call undermining the president's/GOP platform and pandering to the MSM spineless, but I would certainly call it backstabbing.
more perfect hogwash, I just can't remember when.
So far, McCain's exercise in ego has cost us at least seven very well qualified judges. And it's gained us absolutely nothing. Certainly neither Alito or Roberts could have been successfully filibustered so they're off the table. Name one judge, just one, who was confirmed because of G14.
McCain was certainly not spineless for helping to broker the Gang. He showed great courage and really went out on a limb to make sure he got great publicity from the MSM and reinforced his "maverick" role. What it showed is that his JUDGEMENT is fatally flawed.
Please explain any rationale why legislatively gutting the First Amendment is a good idea. The 1st was put into the Bill of Rights, not so you can holler the "F" word to your heart's content, but so citizens can freely criticize the government and elected officials. All McCain-Feingold (appropriately MF) did was provide cover for incumbents.
McCain is easily the most dangerous man in Washington DC. The only vision he has for this country is a nine amendment bill of rights - or maybe eight if he has time to gut the second - and him sitting in the Oval Office.
When looking at the legislation McCain has crafted and really worked for in his terms as a US Senator, he deserves all the respect that John Kerry gets. He's crafted exactly nothing that advances any interest but his.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Rudy is the only one in the current crop of presidential hopefuls on both sides of the aisle that really "gets" this islamofacist stuff. With the exception of McCain, sorta, but McCain is not an option for me.
I am a woman, from the south, consider myself an evangelical christian, and a mom.
Rudy.Is.My.Man. Despite his shortcomings. Like becker, I'd never let him near my daughter, but I trust him to keep our country safe.
And...I think he is the only one that beats Billary in the general.
_____________________________________________________________
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
the dark side and get behind Rudy 100%.
We just don't have time for any foolishness with this one.
Billary.Must.Not.Win. Period!
______________________________________________________________
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
after only 3 weeks. I like Mitt and Hunter too. Its early. Let's see how well the skeletons fare outside the closet!
and not because he is Morman.
Plus, I just don't see him winning the general.
I like Duncan Hunter, but I don't see him as having enough name recognition to beat any of the dem frontrunners, much less get the nomination.
I'll tell you so later on, but it has to be Rudy.
You know I'm right. :)
___________________________________________________________
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
was in 1992 when a fellow dem (I was a dem then) said Bill Clinton made her skin crawl. This was right after I had fallen in love with the presumed moderate Bill in a debate in which he bragged on frying murderers. I have not heeded women's advice too often in my life.
We must have a Black man on the ticket.
Although he gives me the willies, Mitt is no Bubba. That's for sure. I'd take Mitt over Bubba or Billary any day.
_____________________________________________________________
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
there's a chance he could win New York. New Yorkers felt he was qualified to lead their city, so might they not think he is qualified to lead their country? If he could win NY, then even if he lost some social conservatives across the country it would probably not have a huge impact. Winning NY's electoral votes would easily balance out losing KS and GA.
Is it possible for Rudy to take New York, or is this just a fantasy?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
These states could only go blue if a large percentage of the Republican voters could not bring themselves to vote for Rudy and therefore stayed home. I don't think this is likely, especially if he were running against Hill and Bill.
The key is the electoral college. If Rudy could win NY, and run competitively in most red states, he wins. The big question is: does he have a realistic chance in NY or am I just wishful thinking?
Our party won't need a GOTV machine, a 72 hour program or registration drives.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Achieving Socially Conservative Ideals Through Liberal Means: Making The Case for Rudy"
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Why not just elect Hillary Clinton to advance Conservatism?
If you want Conservatism, you are going to have to run a real Conservative. Liberals like McCain and Giuliani or a suddenly reborn conservative like Romney won't get it done.
in order to make the point that liberals cannot further conservative causes?
Ooops. Try again.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
we don't have the luxury of having a Ronald Reagan available right now: conservative, charismatic, and a strong contrast to the current system in DC. Perhaps if the Dems screw things up so bad in the next year that people can look at Washington, see the Democrat congress and want a change, then maybe a strong across-the-board conservative can get elected.
Right now, the most important thing is to win in Iraq and in the war on terrror. We can't take the chance on losing the presidency just because we are worried that our candidate might not defend against gay marriage strongly enough!
Rudy is truly electable (much, much more so than Kerry ever was), which is probably more than can be said for Hunter, Brownback, or Gingrich. I know that a lot can change in 12 months, but right now, I'm behind Giuliani...
I'm not so sure that a liberal Republican is electable. How could one be? Any Republican nominee has to hold just about every state President Bush carried in 2004. Who says a liberal can do that, particularly in more right-wing states?
Run like Reagan!
Elections do not take place in a vacuum. There is not just one candidate on the ballot. There are rarely just two - though voters often behave as though they are.
I'm not sure what you mean by the 'more right-wing states', but I will take a guess that in general you are talking about the states with larger Republican majorities. It is, plainly, the case, that the Republican vote can slip further in those states without being threatened than it could in, say, Ohio or Missouri. The GOP performance in Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama or Mississippi would have to be disastrous for their electoral votes to be threatened.
Of course, in a state that was deeply divided within itself - Virginia seems a possibility - it may be the case that the Republican is particularly conservative despite the state as a whole being fairly evenly balanced between Republicans and Democrats, but generally that is not so. In swing states both parties tend to be more moderate.
The bottom line is that - the election being state by state - a GOP could easily slip a bit in the Bible Belt while picking up votes in the NE and upper MidWest and emerge with five extra states, perhaps despite having a slightly lower overall vote.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I rather veered away from my own title there.
The question is, who is it, do you think, that could carry these more right wing states against Rudy?
I am not saying it is impossible. Edwards has a populist streak and his protectionist message and southern accent might carry some weight in a few southern states. There is always the chance of a mass defection to the Constitution Party or to an independent candidate. If the CP runs a Tancredo-Hunter ticket, it could get some traction, but I see no evidence that either of those would defect.
McCain might very well run as an independent, but I doubt he would have much southern appeal. He would be more likely to put solidly Democrat states like NY, CT and NJ into play - especially if Lieberman was his running mate.
On the whole, while selecting Rudy would pose some risks of conservative defection - show me the risk-free option! - I doubt that an Edwards-Warner ticket could take enough southern states to make up for Rudy picking up NH, PA, MI, WI, MN, WA, and OR while putting NJ, HI, IL and even CA into play and securing IA, OH and MO.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If the party nominee disgusts the base, then any old Democrat could beat the party's candidate thanks to a split on the right. Between single-issue immigration, abortion, and marriage preservation voters, let alone more balanced voters who reject him as a whole, there's probably a lot of Republicans in there who wouldn't vote for Giuliani.
Run like Reagan!
So your idea of the Republican base is a bunch of social conservative cry babies who would knowingly choose to elect Hillary Clinton in their tantrum about Republicans nominating Giuliani? Social conservatives supposedly would choose to lose the war in Iraq and beyond, increasingly risk the lives of thousands of Americans to emboldened Islamic radicals, and have Ginsberg clones appointed to the Supreme Court, etc., because that's better than allowing a Republican candidate who's wrong on gays and abortion to defeat a Democrat who's wrong on gays and abortion.
I respect the intelligence and maturity of social conservatives more than you do. Of course they include a few narcissists who believe America losing a war is an acceptable price for enforcing Republican party discipline, just as social liberals include some narcissists who would vote Democratic on gays and abortion even if they believe that would lead to an America's defeat in war. What I don't buy is your silly theory that there are millions of social conservatives who will stay home or vote third party to switch red states to elect Hillary, when they know they are voting for an American defeat in war (not to mention same or worse on gays & abortion).
If voting your principles is infantile, then wrap a diaper on me and stick a pacifier in my mouth. Because I won't vote for John "Our troops are torturers" McCain OR Rudy "Abortion on demand: A-OK" Giuliani, sorry.
Run like Reagan!
If voting your principles is infantile, then wrap a diaper on me and stick a pacifier in my mouth.
For people who think the narcissistic gratification of voting their supposed principles (to elect Hillary or the like) is more important than whether their country wins or loses a war, infantile is the most generous interpretation.
Hillary Clinton doesn't scare me, no matter how much you wave her cardboard cutout in my face. She's head and shoulders above any of the radical pacifists in her party, in terms of being non-scary.
Run like Reagan!
Right, when America is at war, you can be really comfortable entrusting the lives of our soldiers to Hillary as Commander in Chief. McCain or Giuliani would be worse wartime leaders than Hillary?
If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice
If its a match between the republican nominee and Hillary not voting republican is the same as a vote for Hillary.
I suspect though you already know and understand that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When did I say I'd vote for HRC?
When did I ever say you would?
I addressed my comments to your silly claim that there were many social conservatives who normally vote Republican, who would help Hillary (or whatever Democratic nominee) become Commander in Chief, by not voting Republican:
If the party nominee disgusts the base, then any old Democrat could beat the party's candidate thanks to a split on the right. ... there's probably a lot of Republicans in there who wouldn't vote for Giuliani.
While that could involve explicity voting for Hillary, my comments were about the usual cry baby threat to reduce the Republican vote, thus helping Hillary become President, by staying home or voting third party.
Throwing a snit to help Hillary get elected and lead America to wartime defeat is infantile at best. The fact that some would bring about this disaster for their country by voting third party, as opposed to voting for Hillary, doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their idiocy.
Would you vote for Paul or Tancredo, Gilmore or Hunter, if the alternative was Hillary?
I don't care for the false choice of HRC or Giuliani. For one thing, I doubt either one gets the nod. I expect the Dems will go with Richardson, and the GOP nomination is still a mystery.
Or the ham sandwich before Hillary.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Would you vote for Paul or Tancredo, Gilmore or Hunter, if the alternative was Hillary?
I don't know if Paul shares the isolationist bent of some of his capital-L Libertarian former comrades, but I would vote for just about any candidate if I thought he/she was significantly more likely to lead to American victory in the war than his opponent. Compared to Hillary Clinton, almost any conceivable Repbublican would be a better Commander in Chief, though defeatist comments from some like Hagel or Brownback make me wonder.
I despise John McCain, but even with his torture grandstanding for the media, he's more serious about winning the war than anybody the Democrats are likely to nominate. In the sad event McCain's the Republican nominee, there's no doubt I'll vote for him.
What's the difficulty of some people understanding the idea that when your country is at war, that has to take priority over other issues that we can fight over in future elections?
Our founding fathers were right to kick the slavery can down the road, despite how loathsome slavery was and even with a bloody reckoning that had to be paid later, because making a viable country was the immediate priority. In America's current situation, the issues of gays or abortion can take second place at least for a while.
What's the difficulty of some people understanding the idea that when your country is at war, that has to take priority over other issues that we can fight over in future elections?
What is the difficulty? Given the importance of the war, why can't the liberal wing of the party suck it up for once and vote for a conservative?
I suspect the answer is that they see the war as just a ruse to distract the conservatives with. At least, that seems to have been the pattern for the last few years.
What is the difficulty? Given the importance of the war, why can't the liberal wing of the party suck it up for once and vote for a conservative?
I'll vote for any pro-victory Republican against the inevitably pro-defeat Democratic nominee, whether the Republican is for or against gay rights or abortion. I care about our soldiers and winning the war that much. Can you say the same?
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Which states do you think Clinton, Obama, or Edwards could take in an election against Giuliani?
You mentioned the more "right-wing" ones. I don't see it. I don't see any of the above taking Alabama or Mississippi. They would have less appeal in Ohio and Florida than Kerry did against Bush, so which extra states would they win?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
that it is a state by state election.
Forty percent of the Bush-Cheney voters in Alabama could stay at home and the Republicans would still carry the state. That is assuming no switching of moderate Dems and independents to the GOP ticket at all.
By contrast, two percent of the electorate (ie 4% of the Kerry vote) could shift from Dem to Rep in Michigan and the state switches hands.
There is no getting round the fact that votes in swing states count for more than votes in solidly red or blue states.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Yes, in Alabama Bush can afford to lose 40%. In 2004 he'd have then won 705836 to 693933. But that state is an exception. Take away Ohio and Florida and he loses badly.
Run like Reagan!
But you were saying Rudy would lose ground in the more right-wing states, and I agree that is where there is potential for slippage.
In general, the swing states like Florida and Ohio have a larger number of independent and more moderate GOP electorates where Rudy would be likely to gain ground.
Virginia may be an exception that pattern.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
To add to what you said, if we have to elect a liberal to elect a republican, then really what's the use? (I don't buy that premise but you know what I mean)
That is where the "I don't care about the base" Republicans blow it. You aren't going to win in the republican party running a liberal (and why would you want to???). The base will not support such a candidate, and "independents" who are liberal will vote for the real thing (democrat).
Nominate a Giuliani and you will see the biggest third party movement in years.
I don't think he is electable. If I'm running the show for the Democrats, Rudy is the guy I most hope the Republicans nominate.
Consider the job the MSM did on Bush, based on nothing. TANG? Katrina? Bush Lied? If they have nothing an a GOP candidate they are quite capable of fabricating stuff out of thin air.
The amount of dirt out there on Giuliani is staggering. I can write Dem attack ads against Rudy based on my own casual research online that will drive his popularity with conservatives and moderates into the gutter. In an actual election campaign, where the Dems and the media are scouring his past for dammning incidents and pictures and quotes, Giuliani is the weakest candidate we can field. For some reason he has been treated with kid gloves on the right. McCain and Romney have been subjected to a thousand times the scrutiny that Giuliani has had to deal with. That is not a practice which will help us in a general election.
even by Pravda (the New York Times).
This is not to say that the press won't try to slander Giuliani by misconstruing his record, but his record is too bright and clear for such an attack to have an effect.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
was arguably the best Police Commissioner ever in NYC.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I suspect you don't know much about his record. The press does not need to misconstrue it, all they have to do is report it 24/7. And they will, although they may hold off in the hope that we nominate him first.
but "liberal" is not one of them. And while Giuliani holds a liberal position or two, overall I would put him slightly right of center.
and the best you can do is find a YouTube video from a Press Roast. You can leave now. You obviously have nothing to contribute.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
If he enters the race you'll see it in the primary. If he wins the nomination you'll see it played on a loop on the MSM.
And read this.
According to The London Times, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gives kisses before he leaves every morning, but to neither his estranged wife, nor his girlfriend. Instead, says The Times, “Sir Rudy” gives a peck on the cheek to the two homosexual men he’s living with.
“We always get a little kiss, it’s cute,” says wealthy car dealer Howard Koeppel, with whom Giuliani has been sharing an apartment since June. When Giuliani was recently knighted, Koeppel tells The Times that he told “Sir Rudy” to call him “Queen Howard.” Koeppel (63) and his homosexual lover Mark Hsiao (41) have been comforting Giuliani, and trying to make him laugh, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
The Dem attack ads write themselves. There is no way Guiliani can win in the general.
to vote to ensure the security of our country, even if that means backing someone who is not the perfect candidate. Meaningless protest votes are for kooks (see Nader), not rational, thinking conservatives. And it is hard to imagine that patriotic conservative Americans would stay home and hand the election to Hillary rather than vote for someone who put on a dress as a gag. No matter how many attack ads they run about his divorces, etc., conservative voters know the most important issue, the war on terror, and will not turn this country over to appeasers.
Maybe I'm wrong because while I agree with the social conservatives on nearly everything, I'm not willing to lose in order to stay 100% true to my values. I'd rather win and get 80% of what I want than try for %100, lose and get nothing. But perhaps that's just me.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
With Giuliani, social cons would be thrown under the bus. National security is important to protect the republic, not a tyranny of nine. If a Republican nominee damages the courts while keeping us safe from foreign enemies, he´ll have done more damage than good. Some of the threats from within are just as dangerous, if not moreso, than the threats from the outside. Abandoning everything else in favor of national security is not a viable option for conservatives.
conservative voters know the most important issue [is] the war on terror
Republican support for the war is fading. By 2008 it will be almost gone. And independent support for the war is almost non-existent. That will leave us with a presidential nominee who is out of touch with his parties voters on virtually every issue, and who has some absolutely horrendous personal baggage.
If Rudy is our nominee the GOP will get blown out in 08, with significant damage down-ticket.
I'd rather win and get 80% of what I want than try for %100, lose and get nothing.
With Rudy you get a lot less than 80% if you win, and you are unlikely to win in any case.
looking than Her Thighness...
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Also, note that:
-John Edwards has better hair
-The Donald didn't score for once Family Values win again!
-Rudy offers proof of a gracious Providence to the religious right, in that he was given the gift of the Y chromosome. The other alternative is too terrible to contemplate!
9/11.
More specifically, his actions and accomplishments on and immediately after that day.
He is my favourite of the current list of available candidates.
I dont care how liberal he is, he is on the correct side of the War. And if Lieberman can be convinced to be his running mate, I'll find a way to vote Twice...
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Well, that's not all, as a President Giuliani should also refrain from using his Executive powers to advance socially liberal policies in other ways.
But if he could convince the base that he'd put Scalias, Thomases, and Alitos on the bench, then I think he has a shot at the nomination. I left Roberts off the list intentionally, not because I think he is going to turn left, but rather because he is not as big a boogeyman to the far left as the others I mentioned, and when trying to win the base, its best to embrace and emphasize those the Left hates the most.
I could support him if I thought he would stay true to such promises, and if he'd also make clear that he would not pursue an anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment agenda.
If he is genuine in such pledges, then I hope the social conservative base gives him a chance if for no other reason than his alleged popularity with independents and his general election electability. In the end, it is much more important to reign in the Courts and return power over social policy to the proper and legitimate authorities (i.e. the states, and Congress for federal purposes) than it is to have a President who wears his faith on his sleeve and fails to deliver, or a candidate who loses the general election.
VERY depressing for me. Hannity asked better questions and follow ups than Hewitt. I could see that Hannity was depressed by the answers. Rudy was honest. The war trumps all in the general but in the primaries most all of the GOP are war hawks. Rudy's philosophy on abortion was just terrible as was his attitude on the border.
GC is back to Mitt, Hunter, Newt or Fred Thompson and other wild cards.
depressing
I doubt Rudy can win the nomination
McCain can't
Mitt can
a wild card could
Yes, I temporarily forgot that Giuliani is bad on immigration/border security too. I find myself going back and forth on Giuliani. One day I think he's totally unacceptable, and the next I think he'd be okay (especially if its a choice between him and any Democrat running).
Whatever happened to Fred Thompson's political ambitions? Is he not tired of being a lonely and often token conservative voice on "Law & Order"? Why didn't he run for governor of Tennessee back in 2002? If he had run and won (and he was a very popular Senator), and then won again last year, he'd be in a great position to run for President. I don't remember how conservative he was, but like Reagan, he is a commanding and articulate public speaker and it would be great to have someone with his skills out there on our side again.
Oh well. With McCain and Giuliani as our frontrunners, things certainly don't look to good for conservatism. Both of these guys are terrible on immigration, with the former cosponsoring that awful amnesty/giant-increase-in-permanent-legal-immigration bill, while the latters seems to be one of those whose family story renders him incapable of rational thought on the subject. Who knows what Romney stands for? Duncan Hunter is probably the best on the issues, but the conventional wisdom says he has no chance, and if he did, then you can be sure that his own party leadership would try to vilify him as some awful Tancredoite.
I hope things look better next year.
Tommy Thompson as a possibility. I'm sure that whispers of scandal are gonna come out no matter who wins the nomination. At least Tommy Thompson has been more consistent in his philosophy on abortion than Mitt. He also did work fiscal wonders with the state of Wisconsin with welfare reform and school choice.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Part of my depression is just that I don't like politicians. They usually insult my intelligence with their equivocations, denials of the obvious lest they offend and general cowardice.
Rudy is none that and i still admire him immensely, would vote for him in the general and still think he would be a good president on the war and given his accomplishments in NYC, on many other issues and overall.
But the liberal talk on abortion and the border just hit me hard, and what he did and didn't say about judges really disappointed me.
I am praying that God will raise up a leader we don't deserve!, ie another Reagan.
I understand you're reservations; I wasn't entirely thrilled by the H&C interview, but Rudy is still my first choice. He also showed his awareness that laws in NYC would be different than laws in more rural or suburban communities. His view on abortion is exactly what I thought it would be, and I am glad he supports the partial birth abortion ban and parental notification (w/ judicial review).
I used to like Mitt, but unfortunately have lost favor with him over the past month or so. If Duncan Hunter had a chance, he'd have my support. McCain is a last choice. So, for me anyway, there really is no one else aside from Rudy. And I still think he's an excellent candidate.
applies in every inch of it. Rudy can't have it both ways. There is no big city exception to the US Constitution.
I agree with you in principle. I just think that some issues today have to be addressed in proportion to the area of the country in which they are being raised. I personally am not against certain registration requirements if large cities need to enact them due to the fact that there are so many guns within a densely populated area. That, in itself, does not restrict anyone's second amendment rights - as long as law-abiding people are still able to own firearms, then they are not being denied their constitutional rights just because they may have to wait a few days to get their firearms. I don't mean to oversimplify and I certainly in no way am impugning your knowledge of the issue. I may not be explaining this very well - I'm really tired and am heading to bed. Just please know that as a long time lurker, I respect you and admire your writings, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way.
and thanks for the compliment. I need to study this more, but from my understanding, it is very hard to get a permit to own or carry a gun in NYC, and beliveing that coupled with his, "its up to the states" statement, I did not like the message. It is not up to the states. Its a constitutional right. One of the real ones!
Gc tired too. We'll pick this up later brother.
If you disagree with Giuliani's position on abortion and/or immigration, that's a good reason to support another candidate for the nomination that you think has a reasonable chance of becoming President. I'll have to catch the H&C interview on the later rerun, and maybe his immigration position could turn me against him for the nomination. (Or even though I'm pro-choice early term, if he's extreme on late term abortion that could sway me too.)
More importantly, you're right on "The war trumps all in the general." I have a big problem with the claim there are millions of social conservatives willing to give American soldiers the shaft by electing Hillary Commander in Chief, in a tantrum over the Republican party nominating somebody wrong on gays and/or abortion. I think that claim is an unfair smear of most social conservatives, and I'd have an even bigger problem if it was true.
By all means let's have it out in the primaries, and I know more often than not my side on social issues is going to lose in the Republican party. But whoever ends up the Republican nominee against a defeatist Democrat in the general election, we should keep in mind that most issues can wait until another election, but what happens with the war and American soldiers is not such an issue.
The main thing Rudy is running on is he's the hero of September 11. My question is, what did he actually do on September 11? All I saw him do was walk around, look concerned, and making sure the TV cameras were on him so everybody would call him the hero of September 11. Can anybody tell me what he did that day that any media savvy mayor with half a brain wouldn't have done?
I respect Rudy for what he accomplished in New York. Eighteen months from now we all may have a better idea what it will take for a republican president to accomplish anything with a democratic controlled congress. We might not be able to count on regaining control of both houses of the legislature and the White House.
Rudy achieved admirable results in a political landscape dominated by liberals. He may be uniquely qualified to lead a country also dominated by liberals.
I am a ardent Bush supported, but the truth is, that while his stand on abortion and gay marriage are more consistant with my ideals, his ability to drive a conservative social agenda forward has been ineffective at best. Rudy has made some choices about the battles he will fight, but has proven that he can come out on top of those battles in exactly the kind of political landscape that we could be dealing with in 2009.
I would rather have a leader in the White House who is at least willing to accomodate my concerns and has some desired outcomes in common with me, then to have someone contolling the White House who thinks of me as the enemy and the Islamist are people she can trust.
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
I was disappointed that Hannity let Rudy off on the gay marriage question the way he did. Giuliani basically says the word 'marriage' should be retained for men and women, but that gay couples should be granted domestic partnerships/civil unions. This is the basic stand taken by most Democrats; gay marriage-no, gay marriage in all but name-yes...and let the states decide.
I'm used to the media and debate moderators letting this go w/o followup, and have resigned myself to never seeing a candidate forced to go deeper. But it was disappointing that Hannity let it go w/o exploring the obvious follow-up questions.
First of all, Hannity should have asked Giuliani if he thinks the states that choose not to offer any recognition to same-sex unions should be allowed to do so? This includes the vast majority of states today, and if left to their own devices, it will remain so for as far as the eye can see. So would Giuliani support a federal court imposition of civil unions on those states? What about the federal govt which also does not recognize civil unions? In other words, does Giuliani think that the Constitution requires that homosexual unions be granted state recognition?
Of course, if a President Giuliani were to actually put Scalias on the bench, then it wouldn't matter what he thinks since such judges would correctly rule that the Constitution requires no such thing, unless of course Congress tried to pass a national civil unions law. Still, if conservatives like Hannity don't see fit to delve a little deeper, then it should come as no surprise when Jim Leher refuses to call out the Democratic candidate on his or her bogus, inconsistent, and contradictory position.
produced conservative results. This evangelical pro-lifer can support him esp given his position favoring conservative judges that would leave social issues to the states. I think he would be a great president.
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report