Rudy? Rudy?
"Who's The Big Man Now?!?!"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Featured Stories — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I got an e-mail today from Patrick Ruffini, who is the blogmaster for Rudy Giuliani's Presidential campaign. The e-mail references this story, discussing the decision by former Solicitor-General Theodore Olson to support Rudy Giuliani for President (read on):
Theodore Olson, the stalwart conservative lawyer and former solicitor general for the Bush administration, told the Spectator he will be supporting Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid.
"I admire his character, his capacity for leadership, his instincts, and his principles," Olson said over the phone this afternoon. He said he will help Giuliani raise money as well as offer advice on legal issues and domestic policy matters that involve constitutional questions.
Olson and Giuliani have been longtime friends since serving in the Reagan Justice Department from 1981-1983, when Olson was assistant attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel and Giuliani was associate attorney general. Olson said they met with Attorney General William French Smith every morning and worked closely on a number of issues.
The support of Olson should help Giuliani in his quest to win over social conservatives who remain skeptical of his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges.
"I've known him for 26 years and we've talked about this many times," Olson said. "He feels very strongly that people like Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, are the type of people that he would put on the court...I'm quite convinced that this is a genuine viewpoint that he has."
When asked about differences conservatives have with Giuliani on issues such as abortion and gay rights, Olson said: "Rudy's views on many, many issues are going to be very compatible with people in the conservative political community and the political legal community. Nobody's going to be able to find a candidate with whom they agree with 100 percent on every issue. Overall, Rudy's strength of character, his capacity for leadership in a time when a strong executive is important, his energy level, his ability to provide the kind of leadership that Ronald Reagan did -- I think that is going to be very persuasive with conservatives."
For someone who supposedly was going to have an immense amount of trouble reaching out to conservatives in his quest for the Republican nomination, Giuliani is doing rather well, isn't he?
The book on Rudy Giuliani is that he is too liberal on social issues to win the Republican presidential nomination. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, put it succinctly: "I don't see anyone getting the Republican nomination who is not pro-life and a staunch defender of traditional marriage."
But Mr. Giuliani is running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and leading most national surveys of Republicans. He's charming crowds of conservatives everywhere he goes. So it's worth wondering if Mr. Perkins is missing an undercurrent coursing through conservative politics.
Republicans have just experienced a bruising midterm election defeat. The president is suffering dismal approval ratings, and the party's erstwhile front-runner for the presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, made his national reputation as a "maverick." The Giuliani rise evident now may be more than name recognition and residual support from his stalwart leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Giuliani's support may also arise from his having successfully moved an entrenched political culture in New York City, something national Republicans have not been able to do in Washington.
Read it all. Now, no one should deny the fact that Giuliani still has something of a hill to climb before getting the base of the Republican Party acceptably on his side to be able to win the nomination and to have sufficient party enthusiasm to win the general election. As the article mentions, Giuliani's position on issues like abortion and the Second Amendment are going to pose challenges to him.
But as the Olson letter references--and as my RedState colleague Dan McLaughlin notes--Giuliani can surmount these challenges:
The biggest obstacle for Rudy Giuliani in the GOP primaries is his stance on social issues, which in many cases diverges from the views of most GOP primary voters and the party's platform. And for the most part, Mayor Giuliani is not backing off those positions, most notably his belief that abortion should be legal.
For me and other socially conservative, pro-life voters who are inclined to support Mayor Giuliani, however, there is one bridge he can build to make him acceptable - appoint judicial conservatives to the federal bench, judges who are likely to leave divisive social issues to voters in the states rather than attempt to settle them through extra-textual and ahistorical readings of the Constitution.
Whether he reads blogs or not, Giuliani is following the advice they dish out for his campaign. Note that whenever he is asked about his position on abortion, he is upfront about his views, gives no indication that he is going to change them, but stresses that if he is given the chance to appoint judges and Justices, they would be in the model of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This has been referred to by others as being "functionally" or "operationally" pro-life and the description is apt. I don't share Giuliani's position on abortion but I am a federalist and I want to see federalism triumph on this issue. If tomorrow, Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey were overruled, we would not have the end of abortion. We would, instead, have the issue relegated to the states so that the states can make the decision as to whether or not they want abortion legal within their borders. Even as conservative and pro-life a Justice as Antonin Scalia has said that if the states were to be the ultimate arbiters on the issue of abortion, there would be nothing that the Supreme Court could or should do. And right he is. For that matter, there is nothing that Congress could or should do in response either.
As for the Second Amendment, Giuliani is again upfront in stating his belief that gun control helped curb the crime problem in New York, but that he understands and respects the Second Amendment, and understands as well that different jurisdictions should be entitled to take different views on the issue of the Second Amendment. I take an individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Rudy Giuliani's reading may not reach mine, but if different jurisdictions want to take that reading, he appears to indicate that he will do nothing to stand in their way. Should he stick to that viewpoint, Republicans--wanting to get back on the winning track after the poor political performance of the Bush Administration and the losses suffered in last year's midterm elections--will likely be willing to live and let live on the issues of abortion and gun rights in return for an electoral victory that will get the GOP off of its back and put Democrats on their heels.
There is another issue as well that Giuliani will have to address in his effort to woo and win Republican voters during the primary and caucus process: the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. As one who--surprise!--believes in a federalist approach on the issue, I suspect that Giuliani will give me few reasons to disagree with him in the formulation of his policy stances. Others will not be so easily swayed but again, Giuliani's federalist compromises on abortion and gun rights and his likely federalist compromise on the issue of gay marriage will help engender a live-and-let-live attitude. His sterling executive experience and the heroism he displayed in responding to the 9/11 attacks may well do the rest in making him the candidate to beat for the Republican nomination.
We are early in the process. The candidates will have a lot to say. A great deal can change and be altered on the political chessboard and I have not made up my mind on the issue of supporting a particular candidate. But the kibitzer in me is forced to admit that right now, Rudy Giuliani is doing a very good job in being upfront about his views but at the same time, finding common ground with voters who disagree with him on those views.
It's masterful politics. And it just might lead to a residence of four--maybe eight--years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | 2008 Presidential Open Thread — Comments (18) »
Rudy? Rudy? 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
otherwise, presumably, Bush would have nominated him.
AG would be nice, though.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
While Rudy certainly has his strong points, I am amazed at the attempt to paint him as anything but a social liberal. It's bordering on willful blindness at this point. This is not a guy who was simply didn't push the conservative position on social issues. He heavily campaigned for the liberal position on abortion, guns, and gay rights! He dined with NARAL and NOW everytime they came to NYC and called them "champions of liberty"; he sued gun manufacturers, arguing that they were culpable for the actions of criminals; he supported changing all of the laws in NYC to give same sex partners the same rights and privileges as married couples. Now, he goes on Hannity & Colmes and says things that Bill Clinton and other smart democrats having been saying for years (e.g., I don't personally support abortion, but ...) and people act like its a move to the center. He promised to nominate judges "similar to Roberts and Alito, if not judges just like them," but what does that really mean? President Bush swore that Harriot Miers was just like Scalia and Thomas. Plus, as a lawyer I can tell you that there are a whole lot of lawyers and judges out there that are like Roberts and Alito on a whole lot of issues, but are nonetheless pro choice. Rudy HIMSELF is one of those lawyers. On H&C he said he didn't beleive that the government should come between a woman and her "right to choose" and said he didn't believe that "we should be putting women in jail." To add to that, he refused to say that Roe was bad law. Shouldn't that be the very test case for whether somebody is a strict constructionist? Does he really sound like a guy who's ready to nominate the swing vote on the issue (if say Stevens or Ginsburg were the next to retire)? PLEASE people, stop fooling yourselves. You don't go from accepting awards from NARAL and fighting to eliminate the GOP's pro-life plank to nominating the justice who would be the deciding vote to overturn Roe. Especially when you haven't even changed your position on abortion.
Wow, I thought people's denial of the looming disater of 2006 took the cake. But, people's willful blindness on this one tops even that.
You are spot on about Guiliani and abortion. It strikes me as wishful thinking to suppose Guiliani would ever nominate a justice who would vote to reverse Roe when he himself, a top-notch lawyer, thinks it is good law.
The fact that people can see some sort of conservative inside of Giuliani on any social issue boggles the mind.
People need to get their heads out of the sand on this one.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Liberals certainly don't question whether or not Rudy is a conservative. The NYC liberal elite thought he was the reincarnation of Hitler himself.
I look at Giuliani as a figure whose sum is greater than his parts. Yes he has shown he embraces key conservative values, as mayor he lowered taxes, cut spending, cut welfare, cracked down on crime, pushed school vouchers, etc. all in the headquarters of American liberalism, but he also displayed real leadership, both before and after 9/11.
What we are really missing in the White House right now is someone with leadership skills. I of course support President Bush because he is a conservative Republican, and the alternatives, Gore or Kerry, would have been catastrophic, but I really regret we as Republicans chose him as our nominee.
I'm willing to vote for a Republican nominee who may be less conservative than I am on certain issues, but has the advantage of being an effective and articulate leader.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Liberals certainly don't question whether or not Rudy is a conservative. The NYC liberal elite thought he was the reincarnation of Hitler himself.
Was that before or after he won the Liberal Party endorsement in New York City, over a Democrat challenger? Or before or after he attended all the NARAL luncheons and award ceremonies, and got awards from them?
Hmmmm...
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
In judging, I think I'll trust mostly what Giuliani's done in the past (both cutting crime in NYC, and endorsing Democrat Cuomo for Governor in 1994,) the good and the bad, and I'll trust a little less this new infatuation he has with traditional conservatism. It's amazing how much Rudy has grown to love the Republican Right in the past couple months or so. It's a Christmas miracle. :-)
Guiliani has lots of company in his new-found love for the Republican Right (I'm looking at you McCain and Romney). I can't understand why anyone who holds those views would actively support one of these Johnnys-come-lately in the primary when there are solid conservatives in the race. If we're stuck with a not so conservative candidate in the general, then by all means go with the lesser evil. But, there's no good reason to do so now and the belief that a good conservative can't win risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
does not work and it lessens Rudy to believe in something proven false. This issue can not be played away. He has to say he supports no new gun control and will veto any new legislation that attacks the Second Amendment. He also must say he will sign any pro second amendment bills passed by the US Congress.
Molon Labe!
On H&C, he said he doesn't support any more gun control. What he did support back then was great, apparently. And apparently it happened to be enough - right when he decided to run for President.
Convenient, eh?
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
But I really have to here, I think.
I believe Rudy's the best of both worlds: a tough leader who will govern conservatively AND keep Hillary and Barack out of the power seat.
Yes, he makes me queasy with some of the social positions he's taken over the years. However, he's a tax cutter who took a gigantic cesspool in NYC and turned it completely around.
He's not perfect. Looking at our current crop of contenders, however, and here's what I see:
McCain: The Senator representing the Media. He's never met a soundbite he didn't like and I just do not trust him.
Romney: His meltdown in the 1994 Senate race disqualifies him in my book, and his social positions or no more reliable than Rudy's.
Brownback: He's a Senator. A good one, but still a Senator. His stance against the troop surge makes me wonder if he's the type who'd be willing to take a tough stand when the MSM is bullying him.
Huckabee: too Pete Wilsonish on taxes. Next.
Newt: may not run, and his personality may be the type that turns off the mushy middle. I'd love it if he were elected, but I don't think it's possible. He would make an outstanding #2 for Rudy (if Rudy picks Condi, that's a powerhouse ticket but I fear social conservatives would stay home.)
Who else is there? Right now I have to say Rudy's the man.
"I just disproved my own argument. Where's my degree from Paul Maguire University??" -- Bill Simmons
about Rudy - "However, he's a tax cutter who took a gigantic cesspool in NYC and turned it completely around."
Yes, he cut taxes. And he left a budget deficit of billions of dollars when he left office. And yes, he cleaned up the cesspool of NYC. But really - how does that translate into federal policy? What, are we going to get federal "no squeegee" laws now? Is he going to try and shut down porn shops across the country?
And I would urge you to rethink your position that a man's views 13 years ago disqualifies him for office in present day. Romney ran as a solid conservative (as evidenced by his campaign flyers from the time) on every issue except abortion.
Which would you rather have: someone who once was pro-choice but now says they are pro-life, or someone who once was a champion of the pro-choice movement and still is?
--------
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'd drive 900 miles in a diaper to vote for Rudy
Rudy appeals to me on some levels-I do think he is a fiscal conservative, a hard hitting crime fighter, would prosecute the WOT, and I think he would be good on judges.
His social liberal policies bother me. More so on life issues than gay issues.
One thing I would like to hear from Guliani is his view of Roe-does he think it was sound law, and rightly decided, or does he believe Roe was a poor decision.
I would like to hear more about immigration from him.
In some ways the fact that he hasn't flip flopped at a convienient time makes me trust him a bit more than a Romney whose position changes seemed to have come more at moments when the change would help him win an election-not sure that I won't somebody governed by that kind of sway in the WH.
At this point nobody has my solid vote, but Guliani is one candidate I haven't stuck into my "no way" list, and the fact that he seems to be the GOP candidate liberals fear the most helps his case with me.
The one thing you can say about Rudy is that he has a record as a chief executive he can run on. Kind of like a sampling of what he would do. Unlike McCain who is all over the map and Romney who flips like the wind. Not to mention all the democrats running who have no record to run on, who just cite platitudes of hope and taking profits. The biggest reason Rudy is the man is that he would be a breath of fresh air when it comes to handling the media. Anyone who has seen a Rudy press conference knows that he has no problem putting reporters in thier place. Similarly when he shut out Castro and Arafat from UN 50th anniversary festivities. Just as the way he told The Saudi Prince to take his check and shove it where the sun don't shine after he took a shot at the Jews.
Rudy's got balls, so much of what is missing in today's political leadership.
and I, for one, will choke down the bile for any candidate that refuses to entertain the prospect of our enemies defeating us anywhere on the planet. I will vote for strength and fortitude in this global war over anything else. I believe we are in mortal danger. The primary job of President is Commander in Chief of our armed forces, and his duty is to confront dangers to our people with every resource he can muster for the safety and security of the American people. Our Constitution demands it.
It’s not that I don’t care about the character of our society, or don’t believe that that we must wage a domestic political battle to protect that character. It is simply that the war we are engaged in dwarfs those concerns, and though the President sets the tone for that political battle, he only has limited powers to affect it.
I will trade Gay marriage, social libertarianism, and a whole slew of domestic concerns for a leader who is stalwart, and refuses to give quarter to the insanely violent cult that this enemy is. They offer us no quarter, and we should give them none in return. Any President who promises to appease and embolden this enemy is not fit to hold the office.
Single issue voter? Never before, but I am one now.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
Would you also sacrifice parts of the Bill of Rights? Like the second amendment? Rudy actively attacked gun rights!!!
"I will trade Gay marriage, social libertarianism, and a whole slew of domestic concerns for a leader who is stalwart, and refuses to give quarter to the insanely violent cult that this enemy is."
Yes, Giuliani will be great when it comes to the War on Terror. But what will he do with the other 99% of his responsibilities in office?
This is why one-issue voting is such a silly thing. Make a strong stance in the war on terror a pre-requisite for your Presidential choice, but don't make it your only issue.
--------
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 have a very hard time believing that Rudy will really appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas when he is ambivalent at best (and possibly downright hostile) about many of the underlying issues that the justice will vote on (yes, the current Supreme Court is the equivalent of a super legislative body). Getting a strong conservative Supreme Court justice through the Senate, especially if it is controlled by democraps, is not going to be an easy task. If Rudy's core principles aren't what is driving him to do something so difficult, what is? The most likely scenario in the event of an SC vacancy is that the democraps start negotiating with Rudy to have him pick someone they will support. Rudy is likely to deal with them by appointing someone like Mahoney or Kozinski (sp?) since Rudy personally does not care about abortion, gun control, etc. However, Rudy is likely to believe he lived up to his promise because Mahoney is like Scalia or Thomas on many of the other issues.
How can we believe that Rudy will fight for someone like Janice Rogers Brown when he personally doesn't care about the same principles that so many of us care about. To think that Rudy will appoint anyone better than Mahoney is pure fantasy.
Rudy is a law and order man. He was a federal prosecutor in the Reagan Justice department. Although his social opinions may differ from conservatives, when it comes to judges what he does have in common with conservatives is that he doesn't believe the constitution is a "living" document. What it says in black and white is not to be interpreted to what a specific judge thinks. He'd appoint constructionist judges based on the law. Just look at his appointments in his cabinet and in the judiciuary in NYC. He and Ted Olson are cut from the same judicial cloth, they worked together in the justice department in the 80's. If you are curious about what kind of chief executive Rudy would be, go to the library and check out his book called "Leadership".
Just look at his appointments in his cabinet and in the judiciuary in NYC.
Can you name them? I'm interested in checking them out.
Off the top of my head
Bill Bratton 1st police comissioner for Rudy. Implemted new procedures for a police force of 40,000 initiated the large crime reduction under Rudy's watch.
Bill Simon was hired by Rudy as assistant US attorney. He later went to win the republican nomination for governor of Calif. Solid conservative.
Jason Turner from the welfare reform movement under Reagan, became commissioner of NYC's human Resouces administration, oversaw the most successful welfare to work initiatives in the history of urban America.
Bernie Kerick. The libs hate him, which is a gold star in my book. He was one tough comsissioner and extremely effcetive. Was originally considered by GWB as homeland security chief but got tainted for accepting gifts.
Cardinal O'Connor had a strong voice in Guilianni's administation. Obviously not a staff member, Rudy always had an open door for him.
Just to name a few
I'd like to repeat what Bratton said about Giuliani, but Red State posting rules prohibit it.
I can give you a link though.
What was in the article that was really bad? So Bratton called him a lower orafice. But he called him a successful lower orafice. Did you ever call a tough boss disouraging epiphets? Has anyone in the in the Bush, Clinton, or Bush 41 staffs never call their boss something discouarging. I respect the National Review but it seems like more of a reporter with an issue. Rudy was not sinking in popularity on Sept.10, 2001. He would have easily sailed to re-election if he wasn't term limited.
The bottom line is, the artcile just justifies that the fact Rudy won't take crap from his detractors. When he released Patrick Dorismond's record it was because the liberal press was always trying to make the case of police brutality. They portrayed Dorismiond as an innocent person never mentioning his many run ins with the law and a victim of a out of control police force.
By releasing his record it showed that his rap sheet was nothing short of extensive. What do we want in a president? Someone is going to bend over backwards to America's sworn enemies. The world is a dangerous place, and the United States doesn't need any pansy leaders to be pushed around by the Jaques Chiracs, The Assad's, the Momood's and the UN.
You are obviously projecting what you want to see on Rudy and not looking at his record and hiw own statements. He has supported pleanty of pro-choice judicial nominees. In fact, the only social conservatives that I have ever heard or read about him supporting are those, like Simon, who worked for him or with him when he was in the Justice Department.
Rudy is a clear law and order guy, but that is not the same as being a strict constructionist. Read his record as mayor and you will surely discover that he played just as fast and loose with the rule of law as Brennan or Stevens ever did, except that he did it to advance the power of the mayoral office and to justify his various actions. You may agree more with his objectives, but that doesn't make it a conservative judicial philosphy.
Moreover, just read the mans own words on H&C. He still refuses to say that Roe was bad law (you can't believe in strict constructionism and not think that Roe was about the worst decision ever), and he says he says that he doesn't want gun control to go too far because he supports the right to hunt (well, any strict constructionist can tell you that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting).
If you want support Rudy becasue you think he is the best candidate to fight terrorism, then fine. But, don't delude yourself into thinking that he will nominate the next Scalia.
You're correct that he was sometimes reckless when it came to advancing his policies and securing his power. If he did a 180 on H&C he would be in the same camp as Romney. Would I like someone who was more of Wayne La Pierre regarding the 2nd amendment, and Ralph Reed when it come to life? Absolutely.
Unfortunately there is no-one in the top tier running that comes anywhere close that has the decisive leadership Guilliani can offer. What good is a candidate with stellar social qualifications if NY, DC, and LA are radioactive?
Yourre admitting that he was "reckless when it came to advancing his policies and securing his power," but, yet, you want to elevate him to the presidency?? That makes no sense. What happens if he caries those same traits with him to the White House?
Reckless in the sense of not letting his adversaries pin him down with unsubstantiated charges, delay tactics, red tape beaurocracy, slander, half-truth's, and anything else that would muddy up the conversation. He simply bypassed them, not respond to them, or just simply circumvented them, so he can continue with his agenda in which the people voted for. If your concern is an out of control executive, our forefathers were smart enough to create a system with check and balances.
I'd describe it more as, he was reckless in the sense that, he would sue gun manufacturers under a liberal theory of strict liability if it thought that it would help him acheive his goal of removing guns from NYC.
Rudy’s opposition to the Second Amendment is very bothersome.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Agree completely with this post. While Rudy is more liberal than I am- the biggest issue we face is the war against Islamofascism.
So for starters- he is the best man we have to lead this war. Secondly, as a Federalist, I have no problem allowing the individual states to determine social policy. Let Massachusetts do what they want, and Georgia can decide what they want. This is real Constitutional government envisioned by the Founders.
Go Giuliani!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
"I have no problem allowing the individual states to determine social policy. Let Massachusetts do what they want, and Georgia can decide what they want."
That only works after Roe is overturned, which ain't happening on Rudy's watch.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Hmmm....
Pro-Choice (yes even partial-birth), Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Gay Rights.
Hey! What's not to like.
If by some miracle Rudy ever did win the Republican primary, you can be sure that we'd see another conservative run as an Independent. And voila!!! Who would we have as president?
Mrs. Clinton.
That's right. Sound familiar? Same thing happened happened in '92, remember?
Either way though; no way Rudy wins.
Rudy is a lot of good things...being a conservative is not one of them unfortunately. If you choose to support Giuliani, fine; but don't fool yourself into believing he's something he's not.
Rudy's best quality is that he is not Hillary. Personally, that's not good enough for me.
I just read some of his comments on the judiciary in the Hannity and Colmes interview. I read how he thought that we should just leave Roe v. Wade up to the courts. This seems to show that he is not the type of persons that sees that his role is to Make an effect on what comes out of the court by nominees. This is too passive of view for me.
He not only shows a lack of interest in changing Roe V. Wade. He references Roe's great precedence value as a reason why he thinks Roberts and Alito will not overturn it. This shows that when he talks about liking Roberts and Alito he is talking about a Judicial Philosophy which involves defering to precedent and letting precedent be a deciding factor in your decisions. The question I then have is why would Rudy not pick someone who believed that the precedent for Roe was so strong that it should not be overturned after all this would agree with what he wants on the policy; also he seems to be open to saying that Roe is settled law, and therefore should not be overturned. It seems to me that this statement shows that he is for judges who look first to precedent. It looks like the Scotus Nominee that we can be expecting at best would be a Kennedy type Justice
Attorney General Theodore Olsen?
Justice Theodore Olsen?
If Rudy wins.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason