I Have Seen The Future: It Is Giuliani

I Am Still Not Willing To Vote For Him, Though . . . Yet

By Erick Posted in | Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

ImageToday I have seen the future and that future is President Rudy.

It's not that I'm voting for Rudy, but the vacuum to be filled has been filled.

Consider this:

Rudy Giuliani and Tony Snow are the only guys who have had to have fire marshals bar people from entering due to overcapacity in a very big room. In the green room, Giuliani's speech was the only one to cause everyone to sit down, shut up and watch.

More and more, the conservatives at CPAC are realigning. You have the Brownback folks, the Mitt folks, and the people who are headed quickly to Rudy. And you know what? They are more or less cheerful in doing it. They've found the guy who knows he needs them to get in the door. They know the calculus Rudy has made -- the conservatives aren't selling out their principles; Rudy is telling them he won't impose his social view on them, but he'll keep them safe. After all, abortion is not an issue when a terrorist has killed you.

Look for all guns to turn on Rudy now. He's been the frontrunner all along and now the rest of the pack realizes it. The reception he got at CPAC should worry them.


« Three Quarters of a Loaf -- Better than nothing, better than half.Comments (146) | It's Giuliani Time...Comments (18) »
I Have Seen The Future: It Is Giuliani 89 Comments (0 topical, 89 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Rudy has successfully wowed the CPAC crowd. Absolute unreality, because everything Giuliani has ever believed in in terms of social issues is diametrically opposite (and he's on the RECORD as saying they're diametrically opposite) to everything movement conservatives believe in.

I'm glad I'm taking a couple of months off while you guys figure out whether you want to elect a socially-liberal big-city mayor with name recognition but a documented history that goes against everything Movement Conservatives purport to believe in, out of sheer terror and convenience.

What a bunch of sissies some of those people are.

Is that Giuliani is playing the fall guy for Gingrich. And Gingrich can't win.

why do people keep saying that. I am starting to think many are buying the MSM meme and know little of Gingrich. He is conservative, consistent, has real ideas, and is smarter than the others in the room.

People keep talking about his "baggage", as opposed to whom? Actually, if you know politics, Gingrich is in the best shape regarding baggage, his is all out there, he has been vetted for years.

btw, I think Brownback came off very well at CPAC.

Molon Labe!

...except to the extent that it's discussed on talk radio or the blogs.

And, beyond that, I don't know of any of them who have said that Gingrich can't win. I just believe that on my own.

And, to be perfectly blunt, I'd be wary of anybody who said that he could win. He just doesn't possess the natural gifts necessary to win the presidency, for one. But he also has the added baggage of his troubled speakership -- where he became something of a lightning rod in a political battle that he ultimately lost...crafting for himself in the process a dismal approval rating.

I can't say enough how much I admire Newt. He's definitely one of the 5 or 6 smartest men to be in high ranking politics in the last couple decades. And we have him to thank as much as anybody for the ascendancy of the conservative movement into the political mainstream.

But he is not the kind of guy who wins presidential elections.

There comes a time when we have to ask ourselves what are we spending so much time here for? Gingrich has ideas to improve this country and revitalize our place as the leaders of Western Civilization. Western Civilization is so underappreciated in this country. Of course it is despised on the left, but I think it gets short shrift on the so called Right as well. How many have died for these beliefs? Millions?

I am not going to support some guy simply because I think "he can be elected". We complain about the defeatism of the left, but we show our own defeatism. Who here can rationally, knowledgeably, say that Gingrich would not be a better president than Rudy?

If conservative partisans do not even believe in their leaders, how can anyone else? The fact of the matter is Gingrich CAN be elected, but considering some of his so called friends, maybe he can't.

Also, I stand by my previous statement that many who say Gingrich can not win know nothing of Gingrich. This man was the leader of the movement that put Repubs in control of Congress, something that had not occured for decades. And you think because he had a bad divorce he is unelectable? I guess since Rudy has been the standard of marital bliss you are correct.

Molon Labe!

until then it's Rudy. Every so often I find myself liking McCain for a minute or two but he inevitably destroys it. As for Mitt why not a Romney, Edwards ticket or vice versa.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that is cool, i respect your opinion. there is a lot about Rudy to like. But i just don't understand why so many support him because they honestly believe "he is our only chance to beat hillary". That is a cowardly position in my mind. We ask our troops to put it all on the line in Iraq, a place where victory is far from assured, but we will not vote our own convictions in a freaking political race?

If you support Rudy, if you believe in his views, then I will never call you out. I am talking about the people who would normally align with another but are so afraid, so petrified, that they will only support a "winner" regardless of what he stands for.

Molon Labe!

I think Rudy will do a very competent job. I am also certain we will get conservative judicial picks out of him. Overall that will go a long ways toward raising the stature of the party.

Newt would do the above and more. But he isn't running.

Romney I just have no idea. McCain is all too willing to prove he doesn't support the things I do. (Constitution and Immigration enforcement)

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

First of all, it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to early to annointing anybody. We have no clue how any of these guys are going to hold up, and frankly, we don't even have a real clue what the issues are going to look like in six to nine months. For instance, if the surge works and Baghdad/Ramadi are "peaceful", the whole equation is different than if the surge fails.

Second, no matter who ends up being the candidate, there is only so much a POTUS can do. Acutally, there's really very little one can do. At best, POTUS will do two things. Nominate judges and set an agenda.

If our candidate will nominate "good" judges and will define his agenda (and it better be short), we have a shot at actually accomplishing something.

I'll pick on a couple of "Rudy" points because he's the hot topic today. He's said he would nominate "Scalia/Roberts/Alito" types. A good thing. He's also said that he would push school choice and push responsibility for education down to the states. A good thing. Now, let me be the first to note that the devil is in the details. I would like to see details. Personally, I can live with that type of agenda (obviously I'm cherrypicking for brevity because this is already too long).

The question should come down to a list for each candidate, who (type not name) would he nominate as judges, and what would his priorities be legislatively and how would he go about accomplishing them. Then it comes down to whether you believe the particular candidate.

We're months away from that. We need to take a deep breath. Many of the posts sound like we're getting ready to cast votes at the Republican convention tomorrow. We're not.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

5 by tcgeol

I still want to know why Thomas is rarely if ever mentioned in the ideal judges. He is my pick as the top justice in years, even though I highly admire Scalia, too.

If conservative partisans do not even believe in their leaders, how can anyone else? The fact of the matter is Gingrich CAN be elected, but considering some of his so called friends, maybe he can't.

If the general election was between Gingrich and any of the likely Democratic candidates, I'd vote for Gingrich without hesitation. And a few hours later I'd be very depressed listening to Gingrich's concession speech to Hillary.

What some true believers fail to grasp, is that while you can win elections in Kansas with just the votes of the kind of people who hang out here (including myself), and also in some congressional districts gerrymandered for Republicans, that doesn't work in national elections.

I don't think Gingrich is too conservative to win an election. He's just too incompetent at the media game. He'll never convince enough swing voters he's not just an egotistical blowhard who can't be trusted with power. That's not fair, but that's reality.

Gingrich was a very effective legislative leader, and a very good electoral strategist who deserves the most credit for Republicans winning the Congress in 1994. Gingrich did most of his effective work off camera.

However when he did become the focus of TV cameras, and Gingrich had to make his case to the American public through the filter of a hostile media, he made a fool of himself. Clinton shook Gingrich around like a rag doll and mopped the floor with his face. Gingrich's bungling of the budget fight and government shutdown in 1995 was the salvation of Clinton's then collapsing presidency.

Gingrich whined that the media treated him unfairly. Of course he was right, but duh, that's the field that Republicans have to know how to play on. Both Giuliani and Romney have shown they can get their message past a media that hates their guts, and successfully appeal to swing voters. McCain can also appeal to swing voters, but so far has only shown he can do that with his adoring media; whether he could still do it with a hostile media in the general election is open to question. With Gingrich, the question is settled, he doesn't know how to persuade anyone outside the choir.

unlike you think, Gingrich is not a "loser" or a "fool" you are fooled by the MSM meme. I bet i know more about Gingrich than you will ever know. Do you care at all about beliefs or is this simply a popularity contest. I am being tough here, but you are trashing the leading conservative of this day, on a conservative blog. If this is a "republican" blog and not a conservative blog, what is the freaking point? Would we vote for Anna Nichole Smith (when she was alive) because she was "Republican" and "could win"?

Molon Labe!

unlike you think, Gingrich is not a "loser" or a "fool" you are fooled by the MSM meme. I bet i know more about Gingrich than you will ever know.

Whether or not the 2nd sentence is true, I'm pretty sure you know more about Gingrich than most swing voters. And it's those swing voters that Gingrich needs to convince not to buy the "MSM meme" about him. Unfortunately Gingrich has demonstrated, all his other talents notwithstanding, that he is utterly incompetent at the essential task of persuading swing voters not to believe the inevitably hostile media's unfair spin about him.

Do you really dispute the fact that Bill Clinton mopped the floor with Gingrich's face in the public relations battle? Do you really think someone can get elected who is that incompetent at public relations?

Do you care at all about beliefs or is this simply a popularity contest.

I want someone in the White House who will advance at least some of my more important beliefs. He can't do that for any of my beliefs if he doesn't get elected.

It's a fact of life that that winning an election is to some degree winning a "popularity contest" among the general electorate. Nominating Gingrich because he wins a popularity contest in some faction of the Republican party is a prescription for the next Clinton administration.

I really enjoy listening to Newt as a commentator, and am wiser for it, but that or a think tank is where he can make a valuable contribution. As a Presidential candidate his only value is to the Democrats.

I know I will not change it. But the fact remains that many want to "declare defeat" before the battle begins. And to those who say "gingrich is not running, come on, how many bridges do you want to buy"?

Rudy is a liberal, he has never been anything other than a liberal. If he does not believe in the most basic freedoms of this country such as the Second Amendment, if he wants increased statist control, then then he should not expect our support. I will be clear here, as a life long Repub who has NEVER voted for a third party or Demo in a national election, if Rudy gets the nod there will be a major third party candidate. So you can consider that reality when you say who can and can not beat Hitlerry.

Molon Labe!

I can't speak for anybody else, but I can honestly say that I've never voted for a presidential candidate with whom I didn't share some profound differences. Of course, I'm a bit of an ideological odd duck. But, still, why is this such sacrilege to some people?

I suppose it's a question of values as much as anything. Some differences are forgivable, others just aren't. And some others are only forgivable with some caveats.

I think Giuliani's counting on a lot of that last category. He's not only at odds with a lot of Republicans on some issues -- he's at odds with them on some really big issues....ones that are either unforgivable or forgivable only with caveats.

And that's as true for me as anybody else. I don't agree with him about abortion or gun control. I'm basically an absolutist on the latter and a nuanced adversary on the former. So, are these differences forgivable for me?

Well, they must be: because I'm perfectly willing to vote for him if he's the GOP candidate. And I may even vote for him in the primary. Not because of convenience -- but because I'm keenly interested in some things Giuliani can deliver, despite my differences with him.

Others are free to disagree with my reasoning, kowalski. But that really ought to cut both ways. I support your right to oppose him and support somebody else and I won't be condescending about your reasoning for do so.

Any way I might get the same courtesy from you?

With movement conservatives?

They know the calculus Rudy has made -- the conservatives aren't selling out their principles; Rudy is telling them he won't impose his social view on them, but he'll keep them safe.

Wow. Just wow.

Reminds me of Yalta. Conservatives supporting Rudy to defeat Hillary is equivalent to FDR creating an alliance with Stalin to defeat Hitler. We may defeat the Hill, but Conservatives we'll have a fifty year cold war with the ACLU Republican party and they'll be the ones on the outside looking in with no home in either party.

Let Hillary beat a candidate that completely agrees with your issues but can't win?

How does help?

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

You can call Rudy many things (comparing him to Stalin being one of the sillier ones), but I suggest that the ACLU label is an uncommonly poor fit. Hardly any public official has fought more public battles against the ACLU than Giuliani.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I'm personally reaching a point with "Movement Conservatives" where they know they're getting pushed very hard and very fast into the background in terms of national Presidential elections. The "movement" is turning out to be a fart in the wind if they're really interested in supporting Giuliani. Maybe they have made the calculus that their strictures are unappealing and marginal in terms of the broad electorate, and so they're willing to make a "protection" deal with Giuliani.

Ugh.

would you call a "movement conservative" who is even remotely qualified to run for POTUS? Jeb Bush does not count for obvious reasons...

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just think maybe you see something I don't...
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

Brownback, perhaps, is the only real "movement Conservative" who has declared. Gingrich is a true Conservative but he hasn't. Out of everyone else, we have the Playboy, the Flipflopper, and the Mafiosi. That's what we're faced with.

There is still time left for another candidate to emerge before the primaries.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

RS for last couple of weeks, Newt hanging out until the fall to make a decision (or to declare) is looking more and more like a good strategy. The ThreeStooges™ are looking like they are going to immolate one another. Come September/October Newt may be the only one standing.

Although I will note that in really nasty hand-to-hand, my money is on Rudy. McCain will implode with the first real hits and Romney (IMO) just tries to be too nice.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

with your insights/humor you really need to get kicked up to the front page. One of these days I'm going to ruin a computer blowing coffee or water out my nose and I just hope it's not my newest laptop.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Mrs.908 handles that task, thank you very much. :>)
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

I'm not for the maverick or Mr. Undecided but Mafiosi ?? Dick Tracy would be closer to the mark.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that there's no "Mr. Conservative". Pick any other set of names you like. What "isn't" is more important than what "is".
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

If RedState's senior editor decides to endorse Giuliani, then really I don't want to see another big tirade against abortion, gay marriage, gun-control, immigration, or anything else here promulgated as an official policy again. If you want to make the sellout electability calculation, fine, but do it without me.

Who says I am going to vote for someone who going to lose. I think people are over-estimating Hillary. Rudy has national name recognition right now and 9/11 favorabilities. Romney or McCain would beat Hillary. In fact, once people see Rudy for his fence straddling and his ridiculous personal baggage, he is a liability.

Obviously the reference to Stalin was a joke. It was an anology about making a deal with a devil. Think about this - If Rudy wins, who do you think he'll empower, which wing of the Republican party will hold the keys to access. Yeah, he may ignore social issues in the short term, but all the Linc Chafees, Daivid Gergens and Andrew Sullivans of the world will be vaulted into power and relevancy. In case you didn't get the memo, Rudy and these people DO NOT LIKE YOU. They think social and hard line conservatism is the problem. It's a dangerous temporary marriage of convenience to engage in this courtship with Rudy.

I meant ACLU on social and cultural issues. I know he is a police state guy on law enforcement, but it will be those Arnold Schwarzenegger/Susan Collins types of Republicans who will be become the spokespeople and gatekeepers of the party and I do consider them ACLU Republicans.

Although I haven't watched anything Rudy said yet this year at CPAC, I hope they're going to webcast it, because if they're really serious about supporting Giuliani, the Movement Conservatives have made a deal with a liberal mayor in order to become a part of his protection racket, so to speak. Isn't anybody asking him to change his mind on the issues that for the last two years in my experience on RedState so many people here have drilled into everyone's head that they care so much about?

Or is it just a pure electability calculation, all that other stuff that people here write be damned?

"Violently anti-communist, and much more militaristic than the norm."

Or worked, anyway; it's a shadow of its former self these days in NY ever since DOJ's effort (spearheaded by US Atty Giuliani, natch) to break the Five Families. The Mafia promises to protect you from itself. A significant difference.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Rudy in drag kissing Trump. Rudy walking in the St. Pats day parade with his mistress. Thats not gonna play in the heartland.

The vid of Rudy in drag smooching Trump:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

Newt, McCain, Hunter, anyone is better.

This is your third offense. Oh, I banned your sockpuppet also.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Banned for what? for posting that YouTube video?

____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I thought Rudy was actually pretty underwhelming in his CPAC address...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM

It's hard to say that Rudy's dedication to fighting terrorism would be stronger than either McCain's or Romney's, quite frankly. It's not like McCain or Romney are less resolute on this issue, so I don't know why Rudy is perceived to have a comparative strength on this issue.

If he's the nominee and screws up everything that we've worked for, don't say that the voices of reason weren't screaming at you when you did it.

I've given money and time to RedState in support of their aims and my own. If RedState is going to come out in support of Rudolph Giuliani as a CONSERVATIVE blog, then they're going to have to fess up to the fact that they're basically selling out all of their principles in favor of Rudy's name recognition and 'charisma' and 'electability'.

And if they decide to sell themselves out like that, it tells you something about how much Movement Conservatism has been basically a willful fraud.

The Giuliani bandwagon is about Movement Republicanism. Movement conservatives need to stick to their ideals. If we don't, no one will.

I agree.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Just understand that this is Erick talking. We all have our personal leanings on candidates here, but I highly doubt RedState will officially endorse any of these guys. There's too much disagreement - as you know, Dan McLaughlin and Leon Wolf have been here almost as long as each other, but Dan is a firm Rudy supporter while Leon is now an official blogger for Brownback. We respect that, as a community site, and believe they should get their chance to debate.

I think it's safe to say we'll certainly support the current Republican candidates over Hillary or Obama, but don't read articles from individuals as an official RS endorsement in the primary. I really doubt that will happen.

although I didn't read it(the initial post) as an endorsement of Rudy but more as an assessment of what happened at CPAC.

Please understand that I respect your idealism, ideals are what make us conservatives!

If we have to chose between all or nothing though I for one am not willing to give up to Hillary and the left.

All that mighty oak breaking and the willow bending stuff is worth consideration.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Now watch Mitt!!!

terrorism is not an issue if an abortionist has killed you.

It's true that if we lose the war on terror, the culture war doesn't matter. But is the war on terror worth winning if the cost is losing the culture war?

I'm not saying Rudy would necessarily lose the culture war (or rather win it for the other side), but unless he makes an explicit promise to take an extremely federalist, minimalist line, and to appoint great judges - and, here's the big thing, keeps it - there are major concerns. It is not likely after 4 or 8 years of Rudy (and thus 12 or 16 consecutive years of Republicans in the WH) that we'll get another Republican straightaway, at least not a conservative one (the only way I see a conservative following Rudy is if there's a major realignment and a socially consevrative, economic populist Democrat somehow can win the party primary). So if Rudy doesn't make AND KEEP that promise, its game over, IMO. At best its an extremely risky gamble. The Supreme Court will be lost for another generation or likely more when we were once again on the cusp of saving it, embryonic stem cell research, the cult of global warming, and many other pernicious evils will creepingly (at best) advance, and a liberal Democrat president will slam the door, possibly forever.

The culture war takes a backseat to the real War. Anybody who doesn’t think America is worth fighting for because abortion is legal, government schools are secular, or some States may allow two men or two women to have a “marriage” has misplaced their priorities big time.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

I think we're saying, why can't we fight both at the same time?

which you failed to give to what I wrote, that's not at all what I said.

I give them both priority. I don't think we have to settle. I did not say we should throw up our hands because America has faults. I simply propose that we ought consider at what point the America we are fighting for ceases to be that America we hold dear. There is more than one way to lose "America."

To paraphrase Walker Percy says, there is death and there is living death. I am not ready to surrender to either. BECAUSE America is worth fighting for.

I disagree with most conservatives on the issue of gay marriage. I tend to think that, not only should it be legal, but bans on it should be declared unconstitutional.

I don't want to debate the issue itself here. But I do want to say that I think a tipping point is either pretty close or has already been passed on the question. I think that some form of official recognition of same sex unions is on its way. It's already a reality in a couple states and I think it's inevitable in most or all of the others, eventually.

One big driver of this is that generational attitudes about homosexuality are polar opposites. You just won't find too many people who are, say, 30 or younger who are wholly intolerant of homosexuality. It's becoming more and more an accepted thing and less and less a taboo.

As such, if you see this as a crucial part of the culture war, then it's pretty much already lost....and it doesn't make a lick of difference who we elect president.

Of course, there are other aspects of the culture war that aren't decided. But if your fear is that a President Giuliani will mean victory for the campaign to foist gay marriage on society, then worry not....because it's going to happen anyway.

I am not sure if anything is inevitable, but I agree that Conservatives are way behind the ball on the marriage issue. Those forces opposed to marriage have been using the public schools for at least the last 20 years to advance their agenda. Additionally GLAD and other organizations have used “slap” lawsuits to intimidate a lot of individuals and organizations from supporting marriage.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

And, what's more, I'm not sure that a different or more aggressive strategy at any point in time would've changed what I think the outcome is going to be.

There will come a time when gay marriage will be a settled issue. And, unlike abortion, I don't think it will continue to be fought. I'd like to try to convince my fellow Republicans to be careful about being on the losing end of the argument. But it's a very passionate issue and passion sometimes trumps reason.

Again, I'm not saying this to get into the issue and debate it but, rather, to plant the seed of a question: just how much impact will the next president have on gay marriage, anyway?

I don't think he'll have any. The issue has gained a lot of ground with a relatively reliable social conservative in office for the last 6 years. And I just don't envision any scenario where it will lose ground.

I suspect that you are right about the marriage issue (at least for the next few generations). Ironically the only chance that I see for winning the marriage issue for the next few generations is through legal and illegal immigration from Latin America. I admit that I am not an expert on this subject, but from what I have heard homosexuality is very very “taboo” to all Latin American cultures. If that is true then it is reasonable to expect that new immigrants from Latin America will strengthen us on the marriage issue

. ...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

At least from the way it looks now?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)

it appears Rudy Giuliani is moving to give (enough) social conservatives an arrangement they can tolerate: agree to disagree on certain issues, the right judges, and a willingness to avoid fights at the federal level (eg. Simon's comments about the Hyde Amendment).

The reasons why some (though not all) social conservatives are willing to take the deal are twofold:

1. Rudy is one of a kind. Contrary to Mr Kowalski, Giuliani could not deliver the GOP to some reconstructed liberal faction even if wanted to. After Giuliani comes a wave of conservatives: Jeb Bush, Pawlenty, Thune, Sanford, Coburn, Pence, Hensarling, Cornyn etc. If Giuliani is promising to avoid culture battles, the GOP's conservative base can expect to inherit the party while fighting the culture wars at the state level.

2. If Giuliani wins, he probably gets two or three SCOTUS picks. With Ted Olson by his side, Rudy is going to cement a constitutionalist majority for a generation. And he'll do it after winning blue states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

It's not a bad deal.

Never thought of it that way before.

I still want my answers to specific questions, though. Will no one answer them?

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

Could you please explain to me why someone with no record of supporting Constitutionalism would nominate justices that take the Constitution seriously.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Unfortunately a lot of social conservatives think that if they marry him, he’ll change into the person they really want to marry.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

the only assurance we have from any of the candidates is their word.

When one looks at McCain, he is notable for his history of running roughshod over the Constitution. Romney has taken more positions, all sincerely held I'm sure, than one can count.

So I don't see where the hopes of one group that Rudy will be the candidate they dream of is any more ridiculous than the hopes of McCain or Romney supporters.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

What does a strict constructionist MEAN to Rudy? Most would say that Roe was an abomination to the constitution. But Rudy thinks that it's good constitutional law. That's not the brand of strict constructionist I'm looking for.

but I don't know who of the others gives you a better choice. McCain's support of CFR is more egregious constitutionally than Roe. At least Roe was created out of whole cloth where CFR gutted political speech. What Romney believes is anyone's guess because he's said whatever you want to hear regardless of your position.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Rudy thinks Roe is good constituional law, he supported McCain-Feingold, and he has been hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

I mean, I fully realize that none of us can be completely sure of what kind of justice a president will nominate (I mean Bush I have us Souter AND Thomas...crazy.)

But in Rudy and McCain, you have two guys who - while yes, consistant - have been consistantly hostile to strict interpretations of the constitution.

Romney may have taken hostile positions before, but guess what? He doesn't now. He grew in the right direction, and I'd rather have a president who is with me now who wasn't with me a decade ago than a president who wasn't with me a decade ago and IS STILL NOT with me now.

when a man's core values are as malleable as Romney's you've got to hope he doesn't grow in the other direction.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Or that the left doesn't give him a subscription to the WaPo after he takes office.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

That assumes there is no record to back up that talk. Rudy may not have a record and must ask for people to trust him. Romney is running to the right of how he governed, but he still had a record in deep blue mass. Don't listen to what he said twelve years ago. Look at what he did in the last four years.

picks although it's possible, but the thing I see with Rudy is COATTAILS... the opportunity for the under-ticket, running to the right, to make the case that "with us there" as guardians of the future having learned out lesson> With Gingrich perhaps having laid out an "America, the Next Generation", plan and then being a spokesperson.

I don't know, it doesn't really take that much imagination to see this as a possible avalanche taking back both houses of congress and who knows lots of seats locally for republicans as well.

OK well I can dream...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

That is probably the best case I have ever heard for Rudy.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

but this has been pretty much my thought of a Rudy at the top of the ticket even before he had come out. People seem to listen to him, this is a huge thing. To listen indicates respect, not agree, but respect. So IMO he has respect, and I think he's earned it by doing the work not by doing lip service.

All along there's been something cooking between him and Newt, Newt is out there selling an agenda, not himself, a good plan. Does he be part of the ticket? I don't see it, I'd love it but don't see it help, I see him as spokesman, the statesman. But I do think Rudy has reach and nationally BIG coattails.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

we are not likely to get another Republican immediately following Rudy. If the Dems were able to play to Fatigue in 2006 after only a decade of Republican rule (after having had the reins of power for FIFTY years beforehand), they will do so in 2012 or 2016.

it is POSSIBLE that Rudy will keep his promise (which I don't consider to have been made convincingly enough yet, to start with). but it is an all-in roll of the dice. even if he INTENDS to keep the as-yet-unmade promises, it is possible he will fail to do, and is more likely to do so than others because he doesn't personally believe like we do on fundamental issues.

its a very risky proposition. its possible we won't get better odds. but we better think carefully before we shove our chips in.

The fatigue “card” only works when a majority of voters are dissatisfied with a party’s actions. I do not think that the fatigue “card” would have worked on 2006 if the Republican Party held true to Conservatism.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

It might be nominee Rudy (though I doubt it). It won't be President Rudy.

Now that he is the frontrunner, a lot of people are going to learn things about Mr. Giuliani that they never knew before.

Giuliani is a fine candidate, but he isn't perfect. The electability meme is a cancer on democracy, remaking the process such that only 'rock stars' need apply.

If you would vote a certain way, but fail to do so because you think no one else will, you have prophesied and fulfilled in the same act. Your ideas deserve the cell to which you sentence them.

...sometimes there's some strategic sense to be had by accepting something less than perfect in order to avoid something nearly perfectly bad.

If I were 100% true to my belief system, I'd be a member of the Libertarian Party....because there's no question that this party represents my beliefs better than the Republican Party does.

But, guess what? The Libertarian Party isn't in it to win anything, despite their insistence to the contrary. Rather, this party exists to be absolutely true to a narrowly tailored set of beliefs -- at the expense of political viability.

Now, guess how much success they've had advancing their ideas? Zero.

Why would I want to be a part of something so futile? Just for the sake of ideological purity?

I've had libertarian friends ask me at libertarian-type gatherings why I'd want to support a party that is largely run by moralists who believe that we need laws protecting us from ourselves (gambling, prostitution, etc.), among other things.

And the reason is because I believe that belonging to a coalition that has a shot at governing is a better way to advance a particular agenda than by maintaining strict adherence to the agenda, without the interest of compromise and coalition, etc.

Who ever advanced an agenda by losing, anyway?

People want to compare this to the Democrats nominating Kerry in '04 over Dean because Kerry was "electable." Well, he wasn't electable. And neither was Dean. In fact, I'm not sure they had an electable candidate in the bunch.

The people that will be voting in the PRIMARY are NOT going to be voting for Rudy or McCain. No way. Pick a different candidate. If Rudy gets the nomination I won't be voing for Pres in 08. I'll vote for every other office. My conscience will not let me do it. I realize that means Rodham-Clinton gets in. I won't vote for a man who has been married 3 times. HE must not know his own mind. I can give somone 1 divorce because wierd stuff happens..but 2? Come now.....No way. I will support McPain before I support Rudy. Luckily for me though Mitt will still be in the race. I hope and Pray that Mitt gets our nomination...he will WIP Rodham-Clinton in a general election.

and chances are I'm as conservative as you. It's not a contest mind you but a matter of perspective.

It's so early for this conversation and the silly polls but we are havig the conversation and the polls are out there and they say otherwise.

I love what Mitt had to say today mind you, but as of today he's got a lot of work to do.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I don't know your age or where you live, but there ain't a lot of Donna Reeds out there. Most of the women who are high up in government or who hang around men who are high up in government are hard to even stand to be around, not to speak of live for any length of time with. In urban areas and especially in powerful positions, the only reason you'd only have two divorces is that for the sake of your own morality or, more likely, image, you married them rather than just keep them around as long as you were mutually useful.

I think there might still be places where people would look askance at a third marriage, and I know there are some demographics and interest groups that would, but I don't see this as any make or break issue except with the very devoutly religious - all six of them - and they'll put it in their pocket before they'll vote for a full bore liberal.

In Vino Veritas

two or three divorces, whose personal life is a trainwreck, but who has a real resume of accomplishment as an executive working in a hostile environment and who has a stated vision for the country, OR I can vote for a guy who is still with his first wife.

Wow. I never realized it so easy.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
J. Michael Waller

because they had a nice, sweet home life. Then FDR, Ike Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill would not have been around to win WW2.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Is the text of his speech anywhere? I see where Romney's was posted, but don't see Rudy's. I would like to read Rudy's.

------------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

Rudy, the great hero of 9/11? More like the Great Exploiter of 9/11! Make sure those camera stay on me while I walk around looking concerned, are they getting my good side, does my hair look good, want to make sure everyone knows how good looking of a hero I am! How can one man suck so much political gain from that tragic day? What did he actually do that day to become such a hero? What did he do that any media savvy mayor with half a brain wouldn't have done that day? Can somebody explain this? Well, at least he still looks good in drag, but that's just one man's opinion.

... that pkguy is better than that? pkguy is just another of the trolls who's been telling us we're doomed to defeat in Iraq.

On the bright side, clowns like him make me more inclined to support Giuliani for the nomination. If a bunch of leftist loonies feel compelled to sign up for Red State accounts to try to convince us what a big mistake it would be to nominate Giuliani ...

Well if the prospect that Giuliani would be the Republican nominee is making Democrats soil their pants, that's a plus in my book.

PKGuy, were you there on 9/11?

I was. I saw with my own eyes the second tower get hit. I saw a tower fall. I was one of the millions in the traumatized city, and let me tell you, Rudy WAS A HERO.

He was inspiring, he was visible on the ground, and he made a huge positive difference.

Rudy turned New York City around. He is a proven leader, he reduced crime, he threw Yasser Arafat out of Lincoln Center, he busted the Mafia, he lowered taxes, he fought the ACLU, and he rescued the NYC economy.

He will be the nominee and he will be a fine president.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service