Rudy Tutti, Fresh and Not that Fruity
After Praising McCain, Here's a Paen to America's Mayor
By Hunter Baker Posted in 2008 — Comments (117) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Rudy Giuliani may already be running away with the nomination, but the constant thought is that as conservatives become more aware of his socially liberal views, he'll lose ground and fall to a more conventional candidate.
On that point, I'm not sure I agree, particularly if the GOP electorate perceives his stance clearly. It is certainly the case that Rudy is clearly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-stem cell research, etc. No question. However, he has been equally clear in saying he will appoint justices in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mode. That position is perceived as an olive branch to social conservatives, but I think it is actually much more.
In the study of constitutional law, it is depressingly common to see students unable to make any distinction between what the constitution authorizes and what may simply be either good or bad public policy. Too often, citizens think that any public policy they think is good can be authorized by the constitution and then imposed via the Supreme Court without benefit of democracy. Rudy Giuliani's stance shows me that he thinks pro-choice and gay marriage are good public policies, but that they ARE NOT somehow commanded by the constitution merely because some may like the idea.
Read on . . .
Though I disagree with his view of good public policy when it comes to these cultural matters, I think conservatives seriously undervalue his absolutely correct view of constitutional law. He is willing to submit public policy to the democratic impulse and let me tell you, that would make a world of difference when it comes to Roe and its progeny.
As a side note, Jennifer Rubin has done some nice work on Rudy's cultural views at American Spectator. Here's a taste:
It must be news indeed to liberal New York elites -- the ACLU, the teachers' unions, the New York Times, the upper West Side art crowd -- to hear that the former mayor is a "social liberal." Whether inspired by his Catholic education or by his often-quoted parents, Giuliani never seemed "liberal" in any sense to them. This was the mayor who scrubbed Times Square of the porn shops, railed against the ACLU for challenging aggressive police tactics, and routinely insulted proponents of racial and special interest politics. Defending his crusade against petty crimes he took the side of ordinary people over "squeegee men shaking down the motorist waiting at a light." Certainly Chris Matthews has figured out his crusade for social order belied the term "liberal," going so far as to suggest (outrageously) the mayor might be "a little bit of a fascist." Far from accepting all family arrangements as equal, Giuliani enraged welfare advocates by requiring that deadbeat dads find a job or participate in the city's workfare program to help support their children. He succinctly described the best social program for ending poverty: "fatherhood."
Rudy deserves a long look. He's right on the constitution and he's more right about the culture than you might think. And you KNOW the guy could lead the war on terror.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A Little Unconventional Wisdom on McCain — Comments (60) »
Rudy Tutti, Fresh and Not that Fruity 117 Comments (0 topical, 117 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Rudy is clearly . . . pro-gay marriage
I'm not sure that's accurate. Rudy has been in favor of civil unions since long before it was cool, but his present position is opposed to same-sex marriage, and I believe that's relatively consistent with his past positions on the issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he's ever supported imposing same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. That may be hair-splitting to some people but it's not an insignificant distinction.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Rudy has been and is opposed to same-sex marriage. It does nobody any good to keep repeating anything otherwise. He supports extending legal rights to same-sex couples, but not redefining marriage.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
You people are deluding yourselves if you think Giuliani will appoint good judges. The man still insists that Roe is good law. That tells you all you need to know. His notion of good judges is "judges who will accept the precedental value of Roe."
Here I am, getting sucked into this again.
Anyway, I have a question: How is the statement that "Giuliani prefers judges who would respect the precedent set in Roe" contradicted by the statement that "Giuliani expects the Roberts court to restrict Roe?"
Did I miss a step here?
thanks,
Run like Reagan!
and I'm not a lawyer (my first line of defense at the Last Judgment, by the way)
But I think precedents can be overturned if their legal reasoning is faulty, as many believe about Roe, including pro-choice people.
one conjures the image of a nice, peaceful sound...the other...well... :)
"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching as the armored trucks deposited the latest legal fees at the $26 million manse.
The former is a statement of Giuliani's own views, the latter is Giuliani's expectation of the views of Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.
Run like Reagan!
The goal is to overturn Roe; not just restrict it by, for example, allowing increased regulation of abortion procedures.
And the president doesn't have a thing to say about it. The only thing he goes on is the judicial philosophy of the nominee. I have some small amount of trust in Rudy that he would pick candidates with acceptable judicial philosophies. He might be better on that than Romney and he is certainly better on that than McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The president nominates the judge who decides whether to overturn Roe or not, so it's fair to say the identity of the president is hugely important in getting Roe overturned.
When you say you trust Rudy would pick judges with "acceptable judicial philosophies," do you mean (1) a judge whose judical philosophy would be generally consistent with whatever you think is good/right/appropriate or (2) a judge who would vote to overturn Roe?
If it's the latter, then why do you trust Rudy to do so? Guiliani is a well educated and experienced lawyer, and he's taken a position on abortion, so I expect him to have given Roe at least a little thought. Given the fact that he supports a women's right to have an abortion, even going so far as to support partial birth abortions, and that's he's pointedly declined to criticize Roe, I think it's fair to infer that he believes Roe is good law and should not be overturned. If that inference is correct, why in the world would anyone expect him to nominate a judge who would disagree with him on such a fundamental issue? Especially since the Senate is likely to be Democratic controlled or naearly so. In those circumstances, pushing a judge who would overturn Roe would not only be contrary to Guiliani's own beliefs but also very politically expensive. It would be so much easier for Guiliani to nominate some other generally conservative judge who'd vote to keep Roe. The only people he'd anger would be social conservatives and, if elected, Guiliani will not care a bit what we think since we won't be the ones who elected him.
and only because - it is BAD law.
Practically, there isn't much difference between "overturning Roe" and "restricting Roe" when it comes to the availability of abortion in the US. Overturning Roe will simply return the matter to the states to legislate. Guess what will happen.
Most abortions are performed in just a handful of states - NY, CA, etc. Overwhelmingly blue states. They will not outlaw abortion, they may not even restrict it much. The states that would outlaw abortion don't do many now and are close enough to blue states that it won't make a whole lot of difference.
The only thing that will change is the availability of abortions to minors, and that would change in either case.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — President Abraham Lincoln
I think it's best to look at this from a short-term and long-term perspective.
In the short-term, you are undoubtedly correct that abortion would remain legal in many states. However, I think you underestimate the significant number of abortions performed every year in red states, where abortion would be substantially outlawed if Roe did not exist. I also believe that with the right president and a Republican Congress, abortion could be substantially curtailed throughout the entire country with federal legislation.
In the long-term, I am not as pessimistic as you are about pro-life's chances in blue states. Public opinion changes over time. Abortion is evil and in time I have faith that respect for life will prevail in the US. However, the first step in changing public opinion is to overturn Roe (not just restrict it) for two reasons: (1) to raise the profile of abortion issue and stimulate debate and thought about this issue and (2) to strip abortion of its current patina of respectibility that Roe gives it as a constitutional right.
1. Outlawing abortion in red states...
- I don't have the stats and don't have time today to do an in-depth analysis so this is off the top of my head. It will not be slowed by hair. In terms of outlawing abortion - with an exception for mother's life, not "health", and probably rape/incest - you're probably looking at no more that half dozen states. Most of those states aren't likely to have a widespread network of abortion clinics and based on a long view of groups like NARAL two things will happen. First, they will sic their lawyers on the states with a never ending rain of lawsuits. They will likely lose all of those but it will probably take 10 years. Second, they will set up "counseling" and transportation networks to take women seeking abortions to out-of-state providers.
Bottom line, some states will outlaw abortion, it will impact a very small number of abortions overall.
2. Curtailing abortion nationally through Federal law...
- In our dreams. I would be supportive of this - very supportive - but the reality is that it won't happen. The makeup of Democrats in Congress does not any way reflect the overall makeup of Democrats who vote for them. Your later comment about public opinion changing is absolutely correct, it has dramatically changed over time and is much more pro-life than 25 years ago. I doubt it will go back.
The problem, however, is not electing a Republican Congress. It's electing committed pro-life Democrats. Committed to the point that they would vote to actually outlaw abortion (with the exceptions noted above).
Overall, the country is pretty evenly divided in House elections due to gerrymandering districts at the State level. That won't likely favor Republicans more than it does now because it would take a large swing in many State legislatures across the country. There certainly will be changes on the margins, but nothing major. If there's one thing politicians are absolutely bipartisan about it's protecting their jobs.
There will always be a handful of Republicans in the House who will be pro-choice or who represent districts that will tolerate a pro-life Rep but not one who would be so "absolutist" as to actually outlaw abortion at the Federal level. The argument would look like this, it's one thing to allow the various States to decide about abortion in their own State. It's entirely another thing to deny the people of the States the right to do that. Same argument we make about imposing a pro-choice standard today. Bottom line, you've probably got 30 to 40 Republican CongressCritters™ who would vote against a Federal law banning abortion. Hell will freeze over when you find 15 Democrats who would offset their votes.
Then you've got the Senate. Same scenario as the House except worse. You've got to have 60 Senators willing to outlaw abortion. That sound you hear in the background is Hell freezing over.
The above argument goes double for a Constitutional Amendment.
3. Public opinion changing...
- On this we agree. It has changed and will continue to change and it will be more pro-life over time. What it won't be is pro-life "enough" to find enough people willing to make it their very top priority for the Federal government.
Where I disagree is your contention that Roe should be overturned to raise the profile of the debate. Roe should be overturned because it's bad law. Period. One of the defacto results will be to raise the issue at the State level and dramatically increase the dialog on the issue across the country in 50 places instead of just yapping in Washington. But abortion should not be the reason to overturn Roe. Roe should be overturned because it is an encroachment into legislation by the Courts. Just like Griswold before it and a hundred other cases like it that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
I think that abortion has already lost it's "patina of respectability". Other than very isolated places, it's pretty much not broadly defended on any basis other than "I don't approve of abortion but I think it should be a woman's choice". That's not a Constitutional argument, it's a moral argument even when they use Roe as a prop. Stopping abortion nationally - or even major restrictions nationally - will a moral argument that will go on until the trumpet sounds in the East.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — President Abraham Lincoln
I think we're very close philosophically, but may differ a little more in our assessment of the facts.
1. Substantially outlawing abortion in red states: I still think you're a little pessimistic about how many states would substantially outlaw abortion (e.g., exceptions for mother's life, rape, and incest). Like you, this is just my impression without any research, so I admit I may be off, but, I'd guess following states would substantially outlaw abortion within a few years if Roe were overturned: NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, KY, LA, TX, OK, AR, KS, UT, ND, SD, ID, MT, WY, AK. Just about every other state with the exception of the northeast and west coast would be in play. I'm also not sure how long pro-abortion groups could tie up laws in those states (which generally have conserative judiciaries) if the court overturns Roe (what's the legal argument?), but no way it would take anywhere near 10 years to resolve. If Roe were overturned, I don't think they could even get an injunction against enforcing the law while suit is pending. There may be some transportation networks set up, but that would certainly drive up the cost of abortions substantially and I am hopeful could be taken care of by state laws.
2. Curtailing abortion through federal law: I really wasn't referring to an outright ban on abortion at the federal level. I agree with you that that goal is an impossibility in the foreseeable future. I was referring to things like the PBA ban, regulating abortion clinics and providers to make it more difficult, cutting funding and laws designed to persuade states to cut funding, laws to prevent circumvention of state laws banning abortion, etc. An outright ban at the federal level is not feasible, but lots of little measures to make abortions more difficult and rarer is feasible with the right president and a Republican Congress.
3. Public opinion changing
As you note, we seem to be mostly in agreement. I also agree that Roe should be overturned because it is bad con law. You didn't make this point, but someone previously implied that if Guiliani appointed judges who "restricted" Roe that was good enough. For me, that's not nearly good enough--the goal is to overturn Roe.
I also agree that politicians don't generally defend Roe other than as you describe. But, I don't think there is nearly the social stigma attached to having an abortion as there should be. Whether you choose to call making it less respectible or more disreputable, we're not there yet.
at the edges. And given my limited writing ability, I couldn't possibly dissect those edges any finer. Not that I want to either.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — President Abraham Lincoln
I do think there are still a lot of people out there that aren't going to care for the details of Rudy's socially liberal positions, and may be turned off.
But I also think some people aren't that wedded to those socially conservative positions either-I know somebody who posts here said the other day they were pro life, but were more pro security at the moment, and would vote for Rudy on that (this is generally a paraphrase and I can't recall who said it). I think there are some who will have this response.
I do think the race will be difficult for him, and I do think he is going to have to make a case to social cons on why he is a better choice than a social con in the race, but I am not so sure his positions are entirely a death nell for him, but I think he is going to lose some votes on them-whether he keeps enough to win is the real question. I also think how he does depends a lot on the campaign itself, who is running against him, and how much money they have to advertise compared to his opponents.
tbaugh
I think this is a critical point. He's running for the presidency, the chief executive officer, not for state representative or senator. I might not vote for him for the latter offices becauses these social issues rightly belong to those legislative bodies, but so long as he understands the proper role of the judiciary--indeed, BECAUSE he understands the proper role of the judiciary on these issues---I can certainly support him for the presidency.
The last time I checked there are only two voter groups who have absolutely unquestioned single issue litmus tests: pro-life and pro-gun. If you don't support their positions, they will reliably not vote for you. Rudy offends both. The Republican congress has also been offending both for the last few years, offering occasional headline grabbing speeches or bills they know will not pass filibuster, but never making solid arguments to advance the core agenda. If Republicans want to lose again in 2008, Guiliani is a good choice.
I think that Rudy's problem is not in the general election, it's in the primary.
Obviously, he'd have to count on a different constituency calculus than GWB did. But nobody ever said that all Republican (or Democrat) candidates for president have to count on the same constitencies to get to the finish line first.
There is no question at all that fewer social conservatives would vote for Rudy Giuliani (I'm speaking about the general election) than voted for GWB in either 2000 or 2004. Fewer would register a vote for a major party candidate at all. They'd either stay home or vote 3rd party. And it would be millions of votes.
I imagine that, of the SoCon votes cast for a major party candidate, Rudy would still get roughly the same percentage that GWB got. After all, what are they going to do if they do vote for a major party candidate? Vote for HillBama?
So what Rudy would have to rely on is grabbing a larger percentage of moderates, independents, and Democrats than GWB got (or somebody like Brownback would get).
There's some good news for Rudy on this front, though. He's polling just as well in red SoCon states in the south as he is elsewhere. I saw a straw poll taken in Newt Gingrich's home county in Georgia. In it, Gingrich placed first...Giuliani second.
The CW on Giuliani is that he'd be tough to beat in the general election if he's able to figure out a way to win the primary. I generally agree with that.
I realize that social conservatives wouldn't like it much. But I do have to say that I'm both pro-life and pro-gun and, speaking for myself, I could vote for Rudy Giuliani without much reservation.
My reasoning? Well, for starters, he's said the right things on judges - which takes care of the abortion issue. Second, there's not much mood in federal politics these days for gun control. Dems have been burned on it and they know it. Third, the biggest issue out there is the WoT and I think Rudy's a perfect candidate for that. He's a competent, proven executive who would be tough as nails on that matter.
Finally, I think that he's one of only 3 GOP candidates who have a realistic chance of winning the presidency in '08 -- along with McCain and Romney.
I like Romney and would have no problem supporting him. McCain I don't care for as much.
But I'm certainly not interested in getting behind somebody who doesn't have a chance. Rudy's not perfect with me on the issues. Neither are any of the other candidates.
But he's got the big things covered as far as I'm concerned.
I think that Rudy's problem is not in the general election, it's in the primary.
I would agree with that.
If is comes down to two New Yorkers for Prez, the guy from GA won't like either, but will choose Rudy. And Rudy could take a NJ, Minn, PA. Probably not a deep blue state, though.
But he's got some serious, serious personal baggage. Look at the tabloid headlines from 2000, 2001. Personally I just don't care unless it affects his politics.
I am farther to the fringe as a "pro-lifer" than you have probably ever met. I am also an extreme gun guy. It irritates me to have to get a tax stamp for a fully auto and suppressed MP5, but I'm willing to. I'm pleased to life in a state that must issue me a CCW permit as long as I take a class and don't have a felony, and where I don't need a permit to carry a hand gun as long as it's not concealed. I have friends who, taken together, could do a pretty good job of arming a MEU infantry company.
All that said, I'm supporting Rudy unless somebody really comes out of the woodwork. I won't vote for McCain under any circumstance, Romney doesn't do much for me, and the rest of the perceived candidates are dwarfs.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — President Abraham Lincoln
C'mon people, if you want to vote for Rudy b/c you believe that he will be the best candidate to prosecute the war on terror then go ahead. But, PLEASE stop deluding yourselves into thinking that Rudy will help the conservative cause judicially. Rudy's own words (even recently on H&C) clearly reveal that he is NOT a strict constructionist. Most notably, he still refuses to say that Roe is bad law (after saying for years that it was a vital pillar of freedom). Have you ever heard of a strict constructionist who believes that Roe was good law? Second, look at his discussion of the Second Amendment (as well as his prior advocacy of lawsuits against gun manufacturers). Finally, while he has bever supported "gay marriage" as such, he does support civil unions and advocated that gay couples have a constitutional right to the same treatment as married couples. Does any of this give you any reason to believe that he would nominate the next Scalia? Look at his record on these issues and you will see that he is even to the left of Clinton.
Bottom line: if Stevens retires, the next justice will be the swing vote on abortion and a whole host of other issues. That being the case, you can bet that the left will adopt a scorched earth approach to defeat any conservative nominee (AND they will likely have control of the Senate to help them do it). Therefore, the ONLY way that we will see a conservative nonminee succeed is if the president is willing to fight like heck for it and expend all of his political capital. Can you honestly say that Rudy will do that? Can you honestly beleive that in the face of pressure from the left, the media, and most of his NYC friends, Rudy will stand strong and nominate a conservative justice?? Especially when that justice would end many of the rulings that Rudy personally supports??
If you answer yes, then you're in more denial than the GOP leadership during October 2006.
I can fully understand why a SoCon wouldn't want to support Giuliani in the primary. I don't consider myself a social conservative -- although I am reliably pro-life and virtually absolutist on the 2nd amendment.
However, if I were a social conservative, I'd probably be supporting somebody like Gingrich, Brownback, or Huckabee in the primary (although I might be persuaded to support Romney as the most socially conservative candidate in the "top tier").
But the question for you is this: what if Giuliani does win the primary? Then what? I can understand why you wouldn't be pleased with that. But, then, his opponents are no longer Brownback and Huckabee, but Hillary and Obama.
What do you do then? I have no idea what kind of judges Rudy would nominate to the court. But I have a very good idea what kind of judges Hillary Clinton would nominate. And either voting 3rd party or not voting at all would be the exact same as voting for Hillary.
I'm an ideologue at heart. So I know how anathema the "lesser of two evils" argument is to my fellow ideologues. But it is, after all, a reality of political life. In our political system, you sometimes don't get the candidate you'd most prefer nominated for your party.
The question is what you do next.
Many hard-lefters in 2000 couldn't stand the thought of another Clintonite president (ie, don't ask don't tell, cutting cap gains taxes, welfare reform, NAFTA). So many of them voted for Nader and ended up with Bush as a result.
I'll bet they regret that vote. And, if Hillary wins as a result of a Giuliani nomination for the GOP because so many SoCons couldn't bring themselves to vote for Giuliani, those SoCons will be regretting theirs as well.
I'm as staunchly pro life as anyone yet I'm supporting Rudy. I explain why here. If we don't defeat the jihadists, all other policy issues are irrelevant.
Rudy's priorities are in line: fight the terrorists, lower taxes, fight crime. He has superb credentials in these crucial areas. He is a real leader -- he gets things done -- he is effective -- and in the big view, he is by no means a "liberal" -- certainly not in the sense that any of the Dems are "liberal." He was the US Attorney who perfected the application of RICO to use it against the Mafia.
He did so much, so successfully, that it's almost easy to forget how much he did, because we now take it for granted that New York is the safest big city in America, for instance. (Bloomberg has done a good job at continuing Rudy's successes.)
Single-issue voting (e.g., abortion) can doom any ticket, and then what -- we get Hillary! Surely that's not a result to be desired.
I could go there to read it. Has there been some merger between that site and Red State?
Andrew McCarthy has endorsed Giuliani. That settles it for me, he is now in the "unacceptable" category.
What do you have against McCarthy, Jon?
_________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
But in an effort to tie it back to Giuliani, let me just observe that in the wake of Earle, Fitzgerald, and Nifong, the notion that prosecutors have some special fidelity to the law is rather a stretch.
Bit of a stretch to tie Giuliani to those guys, Jon. Plus, I offered some evidence of why Giuliani specifically would demonstrate fidelity.
You said:
Andrew McCarthy has endorsed Giuliani. That settles it for me, he is now in the "unacceptable" category.
Heck, that might push me out of it, too. Any word on who the other brat-packers are endorsing? Rob Lowe? Demi Moore? Emilio Estevez?
Don't tell me that Molly Ringwald is going for Rudy, too. That would be too much to handle.
;)
But he has a lot to overcome. He married his cousin (2nd. cousin, from same city ... hard to sell "we didn't know). That is creepy. He has trouble keeping his hands off the female help, alah Billyboy Clinton. He is a liberal.
That being said he is the best chance of holding the White House. 9/11 is still a powerful force in Americans politics. That much is plain to see.
If we have to run a liberal to win the white house in 2008, then what's the point?
My liberal is less offensive than your liberal?
Giuliani would be a good candidate...for the democrats.
to me that he will appoint the right judges. I do not know how he can do this between now and the election.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
NY Post 4/8/2001
LENO RIPPED FOR 'FASCIST' JAB AT RUDY
William Fugazy, who heads an anti-bias group, yesterday called on NBC and comedian Jay Leno to apologize for labeling Mayor Giuliani a "fascist" on The Tonight Show....Leno went on to compare Giuliani's actions with Adolph Hitler's campaign in the first years of the Third Reich to rid German museums of "degenerate art," much of it created by the world's most respected artists.
A Santorum employee/friend of mine tells me Rudy was great campaigning for the Senator in 2006. That should tell you something.
It simply tells us prefers Santorum to Casey (both pro-life) or it tells us that Rudy is smart and realizes that he needs to make nice with social conservatives. Santorum's biggest champion in his race was Spector, does that now mean that Spector is a social conservative??
And you KNOW the guy could lead the war on terror.
How do I know that? Didn't a lot of us say the same thing about Colin Powell, that he could be a tough President, before he sank into the quagmire at State?
How precisely do we know his foreign policy would not be co-opted by the lefty bureaucracy?
Run like Reagan!
I haven't been a fan of Powell's since Desert Storm. He is a nice guy and comes off as intelligent, but he's never been a tough guy that could lead. He fit in perfectly with State before he even ended up there, IMO.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
and how difficult they can make it to nail the bad guys.
Mr. Sandor, the idea of referencing another person's ideas in support of one's own is not exactly novel. Besides, you could do worse than to read a little AmSpec. That's a good mag.
And I'm not trying to bait anybody here or anything - I just seriously and honestly do not understand the appeal this guy has.
1) We spent a long time trying to, and eventually succeeding at, impeaching Bill Clinton for lesser moral failures than Rudy has succumbed to. Oh, you could argue the impeachment was more for lying to the grand jury than the actual acts themselves, but then you're left saying the ridiculous: "It's okay to do that, just don't lie about it." That and the fact that so many of us decried Bill's actions as not being a proper role model for our children. Well, I didn't have kids back then. I do now, or will in a few months anyhow. How is Rudy any better of a role model for them than Bill Clinton was? How are we not hypocrites of the highest degree for putting the full court press on Bill Clinton for this stuff, and then turning a blind eye to it when Rudy does it?
2) Will Rudy be an effective leader on the war on terror? How do you know? After 9/11, he showed he was an effective crisis management executive. His actions after 9/11 had nothing to do with the global war on terror. Look, I'm not trying to rip the guy here, I'm just saying.
3) Rudy supporters often, almost always, blast single-issue voters who reject Rudy because of his abortion or gay marriage or gun control stance, but then turn around and become single issue voters themselves by saying something like, "Terrorism trumps everything!" Can Rudy supporters either admit this is hypocrisy, or at least explain to me why it isn't?
4) The war on terror is but a small part of the President's job, when it all comes down to it. So what will Rudy do in the remaining 90-99% of his time as President? Will you be satisfied with his actions on a vast majority of issues if you simply support him for one small area of the job?
5) How does it make sense that a man who has not just agreed with, but has championed and fought for pro-choice causes his entire life, would suddenly work to expend every ounce of political capital he may have at the time to push an anti-Roe justice through the Senate? What makes him at all trustworthy on this issue? And don't tell me because he's a "law and order" kind of guy. There's plenty of judges out there that are law and order and pro-Roe, as evidenced by the dozens of judicial appointments Rudy made in NY.
6) Finally, building off of #5, how does it make him trustworthy on judges when he was willing and able to try and control the gun control debate through judicial action against gun manufacturers (and those in other states, nonetheless)? He couldn't go far enough with his own legislation that he attempted to further the cause through the courts. What has he done to evidence change to you since then that makes you believe he doesn't support activist judges?
Again, I'm not trying to bait anyone, and these aren't rhetorical questions. Right now my top choices for POTUS are Romney, Hunter, and Thompson, in that order. But part of me wants to like Giuliani since everyone else seems to. I just want to know what you guys see in him that I'm missing.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
I've made several posts here already and so won't repeat the points I've already made.
But one huge thing in Rudy's favor is that he can get Democrats to vote for him (this must be true of Gov. Romney also, obviously) and he can actually put New York's large bloc of electoral votes into play. Hillary has won by big margins in New York, but she has not had a serious opponent (remember, Rudy bowed out of that race, with health problems and marriage problems in 2000).
Rudy is correct on almost all of the big issues IMHO, he is very able, and he can get elected.
he can actually put New York's large bloc of electoral votes into play.
According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Rudy loses New York to Hillary by ten points. Even worse, he only manages to garner the same level of support in New York that Dubya did in 2004 - 40% of the vote.
I think Rudy's electability may be way overstated.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Gosh. Was the election held today? Was the poll of the population as a whole? Rgistered voters? Likely voters?
Being ten points behind in Feb 2007 certainly doesn't guarantee that in November 2008 Rudy will lose New York to Hillary. In the very worst case, the state becomes competitive and requires the Dems to expend lots and lots of money that they wouldn't have to otherwise. Surely Rudy will be more competitve in New York than Sen. McCain or Gov. Romney.
Remember, President Dukakis was WAY ahead of GHWB in the polls only a few months before that election.
I don't think NY will be contested to hotly. Although Rudy coattails could help Rs in some NY districts that flipped in 2006.
However, Rudy will put CT, NJ, and CA in play. All three were within 10 points with President Bush at the top of the ticket. Rudy would be at least competitive and likely ahead in NJ and CT. He would at least put CA within a competitive margin.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
that I ask, which Dem candidate do you think Giuliani would be most vulnerable against in those states (CT, NJ, and CA)?
Hillary would be the toughest against Rudy in those states, and in NY too.
She has a big network and has lined up many politicians and organizations already. She has tons of money and name recognition. A ticket of Hillary-Richardson would probably be strong in CA, esp, with Richardson's Hispanic theme.
But it's also hard to think of a Republican who could do better in these states than Rudy.
I saw a CNN article today that said that whereas a month ago Rudy and McCain were tied 27-27 among Republicans, Rudy has now moved something like 15 points ahead of McCain, and Rudy also has excellent figures nationally, among all voters.
I still think McCain doesn't look good physically -- time will tell.
that it's tough to find a Republican who'd do better in those states than Rudy.
I think McCain is pretty much over. Like I said in my previous post, I've spent enough time on conservative blogs to realize that he has far less support amongst the grassroots than Rudy (although please correct me if I'm wrong.)
As one who usually votes Dem, my personal preference for the 2008 nomination is actually Richardson, so I'm glad he's on the radar screen!
I think Rudy loses more social conservatives (many of whom are economic liberals) than the number of liberals he picks up. Once the press reminds people of the 9/10 Rudy, the left will remember what they hated about him.
These are excellent questions that I haven't seen answered to my satisfaction either. It makes little sense for conservatives to rail on the Republicans in Congress for holding the same positions as the man they are supporting for president.
1) "How are we not hypocrites of the highest degree for putting the full court press on Bill Clinton for this stuff, and then turning a blind eye to it when Rudy does it?"
I'm not sure who the "we" is. President Clinton lied under oath and that is what he was on trial for in the Senate. If being unfaithful to one's wife was disqualifying then Clinton would not be the only person in the hot seat. One can have problems with Rudy's personal life, but that has nothing to do with an impeachment trial about lying under oath.
2) I actually don't know. I think he gets too much of a pass here. However, he does have these positives. A) He believes there is a generational, global war going on. And B) he has executive and crisis management experience more than most candidates.
3) I haven't met many of those people. I have heard from many who say the importance of the War on Terror outweighs their differences with Rudy on other issues. I hear more problems with single-issue voters who may vote 3rd party over Rudy or Hillary as if there is no difference between the two even on their single issue.
4) I think most would say that it is more that 1-10% of the job right now. President Bush spends at least of half of his time, effort, speeches, and Presidential power on the different battles in the War on Terror. But I presume Rudy would use the rest of his time trying to fix SS, Medicare, limit government growth, appoint constructionist judges, push school choice, and a few other things.
5) He's never said he will appoint anti-Roe judges. From his first couple interviews, I'd say he wouldn't ask judges their view on Roe. He would find judges who put historical analysis of founders' intent above their personal biases. He has a hands-off approach to Roe that says "it's up to the judges."
6) Because I want to like him. I believe he actually does support judge's who look for founder's intent rather than their personal views. Or at least I believe him more at least as much as McCain or Romney. Finally, it would be re-election suicide for Rudy to appoint an activist Justice. It is the one issue where social conservatives would be expecting him to live up to his views.
Finally, what makes you think Romney supports judges more to your liking than Rudy? And more importantly, would you support Rudy in a general election?
______________________________________
Social Security
Choice - Club For Growth
I seem to recall attacks on President Clinton's character, and Republicans saying that character counts, long before his perjury and obstruction of justice re: Paula Jones.
But if you weren't among them, so be it.
Run like Reagan!
Had a busy afternoon/evening yesterday full of fun meetings.
Anyways, thanks for trying to answer my questions. I appreciate it.
1) "We" is the Republican Party who cried about Clinton not being a good role model for our children, who said "Great, now I have to explain this to my kids" after the Starr Report came out, and who campaigned heavily in 2000 on "returning integrity to the White House". The GOP, including myself, was complaining loud and hard about Clinton long before he lied to a grand jury about what he had done. That's why it concerns me with Rudy. Are we so power hungry and driven to keep the White House that we sacrifice our principles of "family values" (we are still the 'family values' party, right?) and become de facto hypocrites?
2) I think your point A is stronger than your point B, and it makes a lot of sense. This just proves what I have been saying on the war on terror, though - what you believe about it is the greatest indicator on how you will wage it. Romney and Giuliani are both strong in that area.
3) Isn't the definition of a single-issue voter one who believes their issue outweighs all the others? Whether it's the war or abortion, if that's your only reason for voting for/against someone, you are effectively a single issue voter. For me personally, I am a three-issue voter, and those issues are abortion, smaller government, and homeland security. If a candidate does not want to fight for those three things, I will not vote for them in a primary.
4) Good points. What I was trying to highlight was that people who just go around saying "I'm voting for Rudy because of the WAR!" are ignoring the majority of what the President's job is. IF that is what Rudy spends his time doing, then I would be happy.
5 and 6) I can understand wanting to like the guy. I really do, too. But for some reason I just can't force myself to do it... if he was "just" pro-choice, I could make the stretch to believe he'd appoint a judge that might overturn it. But when the guy clearly believes in the core of his being that abortion is a right that should never be denied to any woman, and when he fights for that and is best friends with organizations like NARAL and NOW, how am I supposed to feel about him? How am I supposed to believe he'd go against his entire history and everything he has fought and worked for, just to overturn it all now? And not only that, but to spend every ounce of political capital he would have to do it?
Those are valid questions at the end of your post as well. First, on Romney. I think Mitt and Rudy both made some tough choices on judicial appointments in MA and NY, facing overwhelmingly Democratic legislatures, City Councils, etc. However, I trust Romney because even in 2002, when he ran as being "effectively pro-choice" for governor and tabled the issue of abortion, he said even then that abortion should be left up to the states to decide. Then when he converted to the pro-life cause in 2003, he continued to talk about the need for states to define the abortion question for themselves. Romney, even while pro-choice, thought Roe was bad law and that the issue should be left to the states. Rudy, up until his interview on H&C, has embraced Roe as good law and embraced groups like NARAL and NOW who defend it.
And as to whether or not I'd vote for Rudy in the general election... if I was being completely and openly honest with you, I would have to tell you I don't know. I really don't. Before he started campaigning, I think on a scale of 1 to 10 I was at about a 5. After his H&C interview, and thinking more about the parallels with a Clinton presidency as far as ethical standards are concerned, that has dropped to about a 1 or a 2. I don't know if I could pull the lever for Rudy or not.
I want a leader who can be a role model for my child. I want a leader I can be proud of. No, being divorced twice and having four or five mistresses probably doesn't affect his ability to prosecute the war on terror. But it does affect his ability to earn people's respect and to lead them effectively. The way he treated his own children was utterly despicable, as was the way he treated his second wife. I don't know if I can give my vote to a man like that.
And added to that is the whole abortion issue. I have never voted for someone who is pro-choice and never intended to vote for someone who is pro-choice. To me, abortion is the only significantly moral issue the government ought to be involved in. I don't really care that much about gay marriage, to be quite honest. I'd rather not see it legal than see it legal, but I'm not convinced the government should step in and say one way or the other. But abortion, to me, is murder, and needs to be stopped. And I don't know if I could vote for Rudy because of that. Because abortion is a whole lot more than judges. A whole lot more. And even on judges, I can't force myself to trust the guy.
Am I scared of a Hillary! White House with a Democrat-controlled Congress? Absolutely. Do I think it would last for more than 4 years or destroy this country? Not at all.
There are some times when losing forces you to re-examine your principles and get back to the roots of being true to yourself. I can't vote for a Republican just to keep the Democrats from winning the White House. I just can't do it.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
is well to the left of a Texas Democrat.
All the spinning justifications for supporting Giuliani seem silly -- just accept that he's a liberal who is tough on crime. Giuliani appears to be to the left of just about every Republican Senator and Representative. Maybe he's the lesser of the available evils, but he's no libertarian, and certainly not a conservative.
Here's a quick scorecard:
Security? Hawk
Personal morality issues? Bottom of the barrel
Abortion? Pro-choice
Guns? Anti-gun
Gay rights? Supports full rights for gay couples.
Smaller government? Seems very unlikely
Judges? Recent convert to strict constructionist (coincidentally timed to his presidential ambitions)
etc.
Why don't you think Giuliani would be in favor smaller government? The oftcited City Journal article speaks to Rudy's conservative actions on trimming the welfare rolls and cutting taxes to spur growth.
Additionally, there are a number of other areas, school choice comes to mind, where Giuliani is on the right side of things.
Cutting taxes doesn't shrink government except indirectly, if deficits encourage later cuts of programs.
Run like Reagan!
...in 1996. A candidate's personal life is always a factor, but not an overriding one. I'd much rather have Bill Clinton in the WH than Jimmah Carter, for instance. There isn't much question about who has the more sleazy personal life between those two, but the policy and competency advantages of WJC more than make up for it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Even if Roe got overturned by a 100% conservative court. Abortion would still be legal in at least 30 states. By the way 90% of abortions occur in these states now. So, Roe being overturned only would reduce abortions by 10-30% at most. Then, its a states-rights issue.
As President, Rudy can use his experience with the abortion issue to reduce abortions. I believe he will uphold banning partial birth abortions and embroyonic stem cell research. I believe he will serriously try to expand the option of adoption for "unwanted" children. Rudy also helped expand the ranks of Pregnancy Crisis Centers in NYC as mayor, providing an alternative to Planned Parenthood. As mayor he oversaw the only urban reduction of abortion in the USA and the exact opposite direction of abortion numbers in LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Houston.
Rudy is a religious Roman Catholic despite he's false liberal rep. He will work to reduce this genocide through the proper channels. Almost all Americans do not like abortion but, only a minority want it outright outlawed nationally. Rudy will prvide the oppurtunity for the minority whom want it outlawed to get their way in the states in which they are the majority. I believe its in Rudy's nature to run to the center and rule to the right. So, he will try to impress social conservatives while enthralling fiscal conservatives.
I believe he is our Generation's Barry Goldwater. He is not Ronald Reagan but, he will lead the way for our Generation's Ronald Reagan.
As the chairman of a crisis pregnancy center, I can tell you with absolute certianty that Rudy was no friend of CPC in NYC. People can try to reinvent his record all they want, but history and the facts speak for themselves. (While the abortion rates went down in NYC during Rudy's time in office, the same thing can be said for the national rates, does that mean that Bill Clinton was good on abortion too? The rates went down in NYC for the same economic reasons that they went down throughout the nation.) But, for his part Rudy was not just a mildly pro-choice guy. He actively advocated for abortion, including some government funding of abortion. He said things and did things that even Clinton (being the savy politician that he was) would not dare to do. Like headlining pro-choice fundraisers and praising the legacy of Margaret Sanger. (It's all on the website of the official NYC mayoral achives.)
sure, overturning Roe and PP v. Casey would leave the people of the 50 states free to restrict abortion to the degree they choose. (This is the best that pro-lifers can realistically hope for in the near future anyway.)
Even so, many lives could be saved. Assume that (1) almost all the largest states, such as CA-NY-PA-IL-NJ, keep abortion legal throughout most or all of pregnancy, and (2) the other states' abortion restrictions reduce the national abortion total by only 20%.
That still represents at least TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT LIVES saved every year. See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm (1 million to 1.2 million legal abortions performed in the US annually in past few years).
------------------------
As for Guiliani, I don't blame pro-lifers for not trusting him.
Apparently, he hasn't even been consistent on PARTIAL-BIRTH abortion, which is tantamount to infanticide. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200702140004.
------------------
For my part, I want a candidate who will credibly pledge to nominate Justices to overturn Roe and its progeny. I'm not convinced Guiliani would do that, despite his recent statements.
I do NOT need Guiliani or any other candidate to support federal restrictions on abortion. I am content to let the people of each State decide. I lean more toward the pro-life side and will work to influence my own State's laws accordingly if the Supreme Court "lets" us.
Why do some conservatives continue to claim that Giuliani supports gay marriage? Is it because you are ignorant of his positions and policies- or because you wish to deny him the nomination through a disinformation campaign?
Rudy is NOT for gay marriage- he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and would support a constitutional ban if states like Massachusetts continued to change the laws regarding marriage.
Please get your facts straight for us to take you seriously.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Rudy has said he's against gay marriage, you are correct. BUT, as mayor he fought hard to extend all rights given to married couples to gay couples. I for one don't care if you call it "marriage" or a "civil union" its the same thing. Moreover, the worst part of Rudy's actions is that he argued that the Constitution requires such treatment. How can a person who beleives that gay rights are embodied in the Constitution claim now to be a strict constructionist??
sex that can create kids, and thus a whole set of social obligations.
Civil unions are meant to handle other things as defined by the law - inheritance rights, tax status, medical powers-of-attorney, etc. Depending on how they're defined, they don't presume that there will be kids.
But what it does do is put civil unions on the same status as marriage. And thus, that homosexual "unions" are on the same level as the marriage of a man to a woman.
Thats the problem. They are not equal and they should not be given this status. Civil unions, by their nature, announce social approval of such relationships. Such relationships might happen, but we have no duty to recognize them though "civil unions".
should we permit children to be placed into homosexual "families," whether or not the homosexual couple has a civil union or "marriage."
About Roe v. Wade seemed to suggest that he just thinks we should sit back and watch what the Supreme Court does on Roe V. Wade. It also seemed to show that strict constructionism in his mind means paying close attention to precedent. Strict Contrustionism does not necessarily mean the same thing as originalism. I think to Rudy it means someone like Kennedy who would always keep precedents upper-most in their minds.
We can't do anything *but* sit back and watch SCOTUS. They have taken the issue away from the people. Until they decide to return it to the people, where it belongs, there's not much we can do about it. There's also a big difference between speculating what SCOTUS might do and advocating for them to do something. He spent a lot of time doing the former on H&C.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If we had the will and a conservative President we could do a lot check a runaway court. Recent events in South Dakota tell me that will is sadly lacking though.
Run like Reagan!
I think our only realistic option is to replace as many of the bad guys as we can with good guys. Maybe Rudy will do that. It is always going to be a crap shoot. I put the odds at Rudy picking the right kind of judges at about the same level as Romney and far above McCain.
If anything kills Rudy for me, it will be gun control. There is effectively no judicial review on gun control because the 2nd amendment has been buried under penumbras and emanations. It really matters what his personal views are on gun control.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Onwhat the the court would do he was speculating on what Roberts and Alito would do. This should tell us what he means when he says he is going to nominate judges like Roberts and Alito.
shoved down our throats. He is anti Constitution, period. He supports gun control, that is absurd. Even most lib Repubs do not support gun control. Either way, this guy has problems. I know he is smart, so he seems to be choosing to be ignorant on certain subjects.
So many here seem to be running scared. The main argument for Rudy is he is the only one who can win. We are almost two years away from the election, yet we only have one guy that can win?
Many of us argue that the the Repubs got their butts kicked BECAUSE they abandoned Reagan conservatism. So two years from the election we think going further left is the answer? And why do so many think only Rudy is willing to fight the War on Terror? I think virtually all Republicans support winning this war.
I like Rudy, but at some point you have to stop being so pragmatic that you toss away your core beliefs. I know many pro lifers can never vote for him. And I know many pro Constitution (Second Amendment) people can never vote for him. I am mostly disgusted by his belief in gun control, but I can vote for him. Yet I do not get the early coronation, just like "we" (not me) did with Bush in 1999.
Molon Labe!
There are two other major candidates, McCain and Romney. All three have to win the primaries. (Although the early primaries ARE being shoved down our throats).
And there are some interesting minor candidates, especially Hunter, who could catch fire. Who knows?
I can easily vote for anyone likely to win the Republican nod. And if it's Rudy over Hillary, the Bathing Suit Beau or Lord Edwards of the $26MM manse, it's Rudy for me. (If you wanna see stuff shoved down throats, wait until you see Hillary. Or Bill come to think of it.)
I like Rudy, but at some point you have to stop being so pragmatic that you toss away your core beliefs.
You have to take into account just who is running and who has a chance to get anywhere in the primary. Reagan isn't running. The options, as I see it right now, are the big three. They all have major strikes against them.
Now, the 2nd amendment is certainly a big deal, but the 1st amendment is an even bigger deal. You really got nothing at all if you don't have the 1st. And it's not like Mr. "so-called freedom of speech" is that great on the 2nd amendment either.
Then you got Romney who is an enigma. He may or may not be what he claims to be. I got no idea what a President Romney would be like. He might be great. He might be worse than Bill Clinton. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to know that with any amount of certainty before the primary.
The options aren't great, but they are what they are. At some point I'll have to hold my nose and support the one that is least objectionable and can actually win.
I know many pro lifers can never vote for him. And I know many pro Constitution (Second Amendment) people can never vote for him.
At the end of the day you have to vote for the guy you want to see in the WH... and I think most of those people know that. For me, if the nominee is Romney or Rudy I will vote for them. If the nominee is McCain, it would depend on how scary the Democrat nominee is.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Now, the 2nd amendment is certainly a big deal, but the 1st amendment is an even bigger deal. You really got nothing at all if you don't have the 1st.
This statement shows complete ignorance. The second amendment is the ONLY other amendment that can literally protect the others. The entire bill of rights is equally important, and to "sacrifice" one (which a Rudy candidacy would do) is rediculous.
You cannot be truly pro-Constitution without being pro-2A.
Without free political speech, we lose our 2nd amendment rights tomorrow. Political activism by gun owners is the only reason we have the right to own firearms today.
Furthermore, the 2nd amendment has lost most of its original meaning. It was supposed to be the ultimate check on government power. It really doesn't perform that function any more. Technology improvements and gun control have greatly watered it down since it was written.
It also is the invisible and unenforced amendment. The one that SCOTUS won't touch. You know who else has a constitutional right to bare arms? The Mexicans. It's worked out pretty well for them. Some of them might even be able to get permission to buy a .22LR rifle so long as they apply for a license, register it, and show proof of registration whenever they want to buy cartridges for it. Anything over .38 there is considered a "military weapon."
So that all leaves it up to our political representation, which leads us back to the 1st. Without the 1st we have nothing.
As far as Rudy "sacrificing" the 2nd goes, that is pure hyperbole. Yes, he is no friend of gun owners. No, he has no plans to start confiscating firearms. Even the Democrats wouldn't go for that at this stage.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
the poster that said the Second Amendment assures all others. Of course not in the sense that citizens can defeat our military, but in the sense that our citizens are given the power to defend themselves. And let's not forget, our rights are not given by government, but by our Creator.
If people have arms, if people have will, they will ALWAYS have the freedom of speech.
Either way, I don't think any candidate is arguing against the 1st Amendment. But the Second Amendment issue will not go away. Rudy could lose this bid on the Second Amendment alone. And those that are not "big on" the 2a are the last to deny this fact. They simply do not realize the importance it has for millions of Americans. You can not deny a negative. You can not say to someone it is not important or will not matter. It IS important and DOES matter to millions of Republicans and even many Dems. I think a lot of people are declaring for Rudy very early and will be in for a fall.
Again, I like Rudy. If he comes out forcefully and continously for the 2A he may just get the nod. But to this date, he has not done such a thing. When he says he "understands" the Second Amendment, and is not "against hunting", he mine as well be a Million Mom Marcher to us.
Molon Labe! (btw, if you do not know what this sig means, do a google search and you will see why we think 2a means something)
Either way, I don't think any candidate is arguing against the 1st Amendment.
Except for McCain, anyway.
If people have arms, if people have will, they will ALWAYS have the freedom of speech.
And why is that? There are a lot of ways a tyrannical regime can silence with those who oppose it, armed or not. And the most basic requirement to build a tyrannical regime is to stifle political speech. As you admit, we are not much of a threat to the state at this point. The calculus has changed considerably since the 16th century. They didn't envision a state that could simply crush its citizens (armed or not) with tanks if they got in the way.
You can not say to someone it is not important or will not matter.
Which I never did. I just said it is LESS important than the 1st, which is the MOST important amendment, by a long shot. I think the 2nd is plenty important, but these things all have priorities. If I have a choice between a guy who sucks on the 1st amendment (and sort of sucks on the 2nd amendment) and one who sucks on the 2nd amendment, I know which one I'm going to support.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Hogwash.
McCain is busy gutting the first amendment and most people - I would even say the majority - don't care or support his efforts. After all, all he's doing is "taking the money out of politics". Maybe if he gets elected President he can take the bitterness out of politics by having everything printed relating to political issues checked by a government minder.
And sadly, people wouldn't much object to that either.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — President Abraham Lincoln
I can say what I want and so can you. Our debate here proves this so. I am amazed by the lack of knowledge/respect for the Second Amendment by many on this site. You would give up your guns, your right to defend your own life and that of your family before your right to run a political ad without saying "you approve this message"? wow, if so, then debating me is the least of your problems.
Look, you guys can cry about the first amendment, but most PAC's found ways past Mccain-Feingold long before it even went to a vote. But since we are not debating the first amendment here, the reality is you and your ilk are trying to play down the Second Amendment. Fine with me, you can ignore reality, for a while I guess.
Your comment that my opinion is "hogwash" is beneath a fellow Republican. There is a reason there is a famous quote "the second amendment insures all others". If you think I just caim up with it, well, hmm, that would not surprise me actually.
I am amazed by the lack of knowledge/respect for the Second Amendment by many on this site. You would give up your guns, your right to defend your own life
Funny, I haven't heard anybody say any such thing.
before your right to run a political ad without saying "you approve this message"?
Maybe you should read up on CFR, because the outrage isn't over some disclaimer in the ad about who paid for or coordinated the ad. It's about the blackout period where it is illegal for groups like NRA and GOA to buy ads that talk about the candidates, for starters. So you can say what you want, so long as you do it at the permitted times and only say the permitted things. And McCain isn't done. CFR didn't work, it never works, so they will keep chipping away at our most important rights until there's nothing left. I can't wait until the day I have to apply for a tax stamp from the Federal government to criticize supreme commander McCain. Maybe that will finally be enough to "clean up DC."
But since we are not debating the first amendment here, the reality is you and your ilk are trying to play down the Second Amendment.
Again, I really don't know what you are smoking here. I'm a pretty big second amendment guy myself... I am just a bigger first amendment guy, because that is what it all begins with.
Fine with me, you can ignore reality, for a while I guess.
Reality, eh? You're the one who simultaneously admits we pose no serious threat to the government, even if we are have our 9mms and 45s, yet somehow, in a mystical sort of way, that is supposed to act as a check on the government.
The primary characteristic of any tyranny is that there is no free political speech, not that there are no firearms. There's a very long list of places with very abundant firearms that are don't have free speech or free exercise of religion. Then there are some places with very harsh firearms restrictions that are not dictatorships. That right there seems to disprove your "truism."
There is a reason there is a famous quote "the second amendment insures all others"
Well, if you got anything other than a slogan, go ahead and lay it out, but so far you have failed. I think I adequately explained why it would be a lot more accurate to say "the first amendment ensures all others."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You're the one who simultaneously admits we pose no serious threat to the government, even if we are have our 9mms and 45s, yet somehow, in a mystical sort of way, that is supposed to act as a check on the government.
Both of you are wrong about this. As we see in Iraq, an armed insurgency CAN be effective against a standing army. Our revolution didn't exactly start on a flat, open battlefield either. This is why the 2A is so important. McCains attack on the 1A is just as severe, but I think we're a lot closer to losing the 2A than the 1A. In fact, loss of 2A rights will only hasten the loss of other rights.
As we see in Iraq, an armed insurgency CAN be effective against a standing army.
The way we are using our military in Iraq has absolutely nothing in common with how some tyrannical government that wanted to crush the opposition would use it. We've seen plenty of the later in places like Stalin's USSR or Mao's China. They aren't concerned about making friends, collateral damage or treating anyone humanely. The way we use our military in this kind of situation has a lot more in common with the NYPD or LAPD than some 3rd world revolutionary guard.
McCains attack on the 1A is just as severe, but I think we're a lot closer to losing the 2A than the 1A.
It is certainly in more danger. But the nice thing about 1A is that we can do something about it if someone tries to take away 2A. And if they somehow succeed we can do something to get it back. You take away 1A and we are simply powerless subjects that have to live with the dictates of an government that answers to no one.
In fact, loss of 2A rights will only hasten the loss of other rights.
There's no logical reason to believe that. Armed rebellion is no threat. A government like ours could always vastly exceed the force wielded by the people, with the help of modern technology, if they are so inclined.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I can promise you I was referring to comments in this thread. I was not quoting, but extrapolating from comments saying the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment. Either way, even after a few zingers, I think we are all on the same side here and support the 1A and 2A.
Molon Labe!
Why do so many politicians listen to the NRA? Why has the NRA had so much success protecting our 2A rights? What is the sword that the NRA has hanging over these guy's heads? It not the threat of armed rebellion (2A). It's the promise of political action (1A).
Obviously I am not willing to give up either, but if somebody held a gun to my head and said I could either give up 1A and live in a clone of Saudi Arabia, or give up 2A and live in a clone of the UK, I wouldn't have to think very long about the choice.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
on the Bill thing :) But I think Rudy is being pushed very hard on this site. It seems to me he gets about 4 "Red Hot" diaries a day, all pro Rudy.
I agree about Hunter, he was impressive on the House floor today. I have a few questions about him as well, but I doubt he will try to take our guns away.
I think people are too laid back on the Second Amendment issue, it is not "old news". There are many hot issues right now that the Dems want to push. They certainly want to reinstate the so called "assault weapons ban". They certainly want to prevent a Republican bill to allow self defense in Washington DC. And several Republicans, and even Jim Webb, want to allow concealed carry in National Parks. Now how would Rudy vote on these if he were President? Hmmm.
Molon Labe!
The blogosphere can push their favorites until the cows come home, and it won't mean a thing. The voters will decide based on how the candidates perform.
A question for any Democratic posters here. We've seen Obama in his bathing suit. In the interest of full disclosure, isn't it time to see Hillary and Edwards in theirs? (We'll give Edwards extra time to dry his hair.)
Unfortunately, my vote here in NY state isn't much of a bargaining chip - not exactly a swing state!
and have no power to, er, bare the inner candidate.
And we are a family values party, reluctant to fan the flames of desire.
But if Mitt's the guy, and the polls are close, who knows? :>)
No republican candidate can win a national election without solid support from the south. The south is still very traditional America where hunting, fishing and gun ownership are taken for granted. ANYONE running with any sort of gun control in the past will NEVER get support in the south. It doesn't matter what else they may have done that was good or what else they may say they will do such as appoint conservative judges, if you are for or have practiced gun control, even a little bit, you are TOAST in the south and if there ever was political toast, it's Rudi.
At the present time, the republicans do not have a declared candidate that can win a national election over some of the candidates on the democrat side. If they are serious about winning in 2008, they had better understand that those of us who held our noses and voted for Bush thinking he was the best we could get are NOT GOING TO DO IT ANYMORE. If the republicans do not run a solid conservative candidate in 2008, they are TOAST.
I can't say I know at this point whether the Republican candidate will win in '08 or not. If there's any momentum left over from '06, probably not.
But...what in the world do you think the southern states are going to do if the GOP nominee is somebody like Giuliani? Vote for Hillary Clinton?
I imagine that states like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc are about the last things concerning candidates of either party -- right there along with Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
As it was in 2000 and as it was in 2004, the '08 election will be won or lost in about 8 or 10 states, tops. And none of those states I listed above are one of them.
You may not like the choices -- but let's not overestimate your power to punish the Republicans.
and just to be upfront, Al Franken is more "libertarian" than Rudy. being pro choice does NOT make you libertarian. Check out how he used the executive power as a prosecutor (the most powerful executive in the US) to go after guys like Michael Milken for making money.
If you think the Republican base of libertarians and conservatives are going to vote for a pro gun, pro gay, pro abortion, true believer in global warming, simply because he agrees we have to fight terrorists, you are in for a rude awakening.
I think at BEST, at this juncture, Rudy gets the nod and then causes a major split and a Perot like third party candidate. Of course Hillary will not win Mississippi. But you don't seem to get electoral politics. Professional pollsters can tell you who will win the election simply by seeing how many Republicans go to the polls to vote for the candidate. If the turnout is low, the Repub is doomed in those 10 states you mention. Remember 2006? We lost the Congress because enough Republicans stayed home.
The reality is if Repubs do not start electing conservatives, particulary libertarian conservatives in the mold of Goldwater and Reagan, we will be singing Hail to the Cheif-ess.
Molon Labe!
Al Franken is more "libertarian" than Rudy
I don't think either is a libertarian, but Franken isn't even close. What exactly is Franken "libertarian" on that Rudy is not? Anyway, he's not running for President. He's running for the Senate (and he will lose... the Dems would be better off with a noname for their candidate than that loser). Rudy or HRC? That choice is pretty easy to make. You can't overestimate the hate for HRC.
The reality is if Repubs do not start electing conservatives, particulary libertarian conservatives in the mold of Goldwater and Reagan, we will be singing Hail to the Cheif-ess.
Well, if you can summon someone like that out of the ether, go for it. In the mean time I'll remain focused on the few guys who are in it and have a shot at pulling it off.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We got our clocks cleaned because we lost independents by an embarrassing margin. GOP turnout wasn't what it was in 2004, to be sure, but it wasn't the largest contributing factor to our electoral defeats.
You are right that Rudi wouldn't lose Mississippi, but he very might well lose semi-red states like Virginia, Missouri, and some others. People can claim he'll put blue states in play, but his candidacy will also put border red states in play for the Dems. Here in Virginia, if rural conservatives stay home, the Dems win. PERIOD. There's just too much blue around the metro areas to counter if large chunks of our vote are displeased with the candidate.
I'm new to this site, and this is my first post. I, like most, am closely following all of the candidates positions on the issues. I am leaning toward Rudy. I am very frustrated by Bush's unwillingness/inability to confront the media and the democrats. He lets them define every issue, from the no WMD or Iraq-al Qaeda connection myth, to the false notion that Iraq is a total hellhole with no positives today. Rudy, I believe, is the only candidate with the balls to take these guys on, and the ability to make them look like the fools they are,(Bush is just to sickeningly nice!) using factual and logical arguements.
I also believe that Rudy has the best chance of winning. Lets face it, this is not a good climate, and the times are critical. A Clinton, Obama, or Edwards presidency would be a disaster.
I am basically ok with his libertarian views. He needs to make a firm commitment to appointing constructionist judges, to upholding the partial birth abortion bad, and leaving the issue of gun control to individual states.
I really don't care what he believes on these issues, I am concerned about what he does. If he personally believes in gun control, but is willing to let that be decided at the state level, fine. Surely he realizes that if he does not keep his word, he will probably face a strong challenge for the nomination in 2012.
You say "if he does not keep his word, he will probably face a strong challenge for the nomination" but by that time it could be two late. With Stevens age, it is very unlikely that the will still be no the court by 2012. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that we get a good justice to replace him. I challenge you to find ANYTHING in Rudy's record that indicates that he would nominate a good conservative jurist to the court. You don't go from being a zealous advocate from abortion (even partial-birth and public funding), from suing gun manufacturers, from supporting giving "civil unions" the same status as married couples (and arguiung that its a constitutional right) to appointing strict constructionists on the court. I am truly amazed at how many people are fooling themselves on this.
Rudy's talk on Hannity & Comes about his "personal opposition" to abortion (but still believing it is a woman's right to choose), his newfound respect for "hunters" (but still believing that we need "common sense" gun control like banning semi-automatic weapons) and his mincing of words at opposing the term "gay marriage," (but still believing that "civil unions" should be afforded the same rights as married couples) is no different than anything Bill Clinton said in the past. But, because it comes out of Rudy's mouth somehow it means something different. Conservatives, please wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.
I am truly amazed at how many people are fooling themselves into thinking anyone else has a decent shot of winning.
McCain is to old, and I trust him less than Rudy.
Romney, well Gingrich still beats him in the primary polls, and he isn't even running. If he manages to pick up more mometum, my support probably will shift to him. But as has been pointed out, his social views are in question as well.
As for the others, believing that any of them could beat Hillary is dangerous. The press, already a dem lapdog, will turn into an attack dog, and they will not be able to deal with it, or the constant stream of leaks and unfounded allegations that will mysteriously come to the medias attention.
And conservatives not voting for him? Yeah right. If he chooses a solid VP with well known socially conservative positions, and the alternative is Hillary, they will consider him the lesser of two evils and vote for him.
Anybody with the bright idea to run a third party candidate should remember TR and the Bull Moose Party.
They seem to stay true to their convictions. If they did care about electability, I might have a real choice in this election. Giuliani is not a choice, as pro-choice as he is.
The "One Issue" Republicans are the reason we lost the last election. The GOP tent does not include only 100% conservative voters. Much less the entire country as a whole.
You should have learned that lesson already. I for one have respected your views- but you evidently don't respect others who disagree with your mythical conservatism which exists only in your own minds. Feel free to rejoin the REAL world in which we live, where it is either going to be Hillary or Giuliani/McCain. I know you would rather fall on your own swords so that you can feel superior to the "unwashed masses"- but I would rather control the government.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
LibertarianHawk
Quote: " . . . I imagine that states like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc are about the last things concerning candidates of either party -- right there along with Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
. . . You may not like the choices -- but let's not overestimate your power to punish the Republicans.” End quote.
Sir or Madam, I can not believe that you would make such a statement or ask such a question here. Where have you been? When Bush 41 slammed the NRA and resigned from it and then raised taxes after he said he would not, he then asked,“where are the conservatives going to go?” He and you should know the answer to that by now. You say we “over estimate” our power to punish republicans? Ask Bush 41 about that.
The republican congress of the last several years has been going against the conservative mandate that elected them. Ask the republican MINORITY left in congress if we have “over estimated” our ability to punish them. If only one of the southern states you named had gone for the democrat in 2004, Bush 43 would never have been president again. So I say with absolute confidence, the republicans CAN NOT WIN without the pro Second Amendment south and the election results CLEARLY show that.
You let the republicans run Gun Control Rudi then hide and watch. The anger you saw in the last congressional elections is STILL HERE and I don’t know what it will take to get the attention of the republicans, but if anyone thinks the conservatives are going to go along with another “almost” conservative of the Bush type, you had better become accustomed to being OUT of political power.
I think Rudy and Huckabee are the Republicans' best chance in 2008.
http://www.demosmedia.com