Robert Novak … that font of the most conventional of conventional wisdom … tells us today what almost everybody has known for a year or three – Rudy Giuliani is running for President. [Hey, wasn't Novak the first to write that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent?-ed. That was even more conventional wisdom.] As almost everybody also knows, Giuliani has been leading the polls for the Republican nomination virtually since they started. But continuing in his preferred mode of CW, Novak goes on to write: Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.
But suppose he doesn’t. Suppose Giuliani actually stands by his views and the Republican Party – enough of it anyway – moves toward him and he actually gets the nomination without altering those positions. [I just saw Novak reaching for his beta blockers.-ed. Make sure he gets proper attention.] It would certainly make things easier for the Republicans in the general election with a candidate (the hero of 9/11) outflanking the Dems in almost every important direction. And the public would get what it seems to want – someone socially liberal but strong on defense. That would constitute a sea change in American politics. Of course, I could be a dreamer, as someone once said. But I’m not the only one. (via Glenn)
Got my vote in a heartbeat.
The big problem with the CW is that no one has named anyone who is closer to the Repblican base on social issues that can beat Rudy – Allen? Frist? Romney? McCain is closer to the base on most social issues, but being the press’s favorite Republican has never won anyone the nomination yet. The base likes Rudy even if they disagree with him. I think they will go for him if none of the others step up. That’s what I’m hoping at least. (A conversion on gun rights wouldn’t hurt, of course. He could blame his prevous bad judgement on not getting out of NYC enough.)
Roger; I’m dreaming the dream with you. Two’s company.
Do we have a crowd?
What Gerard said.
Also, two predictions (I’ve got my SWAG mojo on this morning):
1. Incredible amounts of blather about HRC vs Rudy from the MSM (and the blogosphere.)
2. It’ll never happen – this time we’ll see Rudy, but no Hillary – let’s see what those “netroots” cook up for the party to which I am still registered – this may be one of those “unknown unknowns” that will work to the detriment of most sane Democrats and leave what’s left of the party to what’s left of the moonbats. The Lieberman fiasco we see unfolding right now is a harbinger of things to come.
Are there any “electoarally wise” Republicans here, who can tell me why Condoleezza Rice can’t win without saying, “She doesn’t want to run” (unless you have something to say about why she couldn’t or wouldn’t respond to a draft)?
Your comment could end up posted at CondiPundit
It’s odd, but no Republican (the values party) can win running primariy on social issues.
Republicans Presidential candidates may hold certain values, but they dare not do too much to impose them. For example, Rudy might be pro choice, but he’ll have to live with the court he’s dealt. Would he nominate left leaning pro choice jurists. Not likely. He’d be better off nominating more originalists who might overturn Roe. But he can be pro choice and still favor states rights on abortion.
He can’t touch the Second Amendment–that would be political suicide.
Gay marriage will work it’s way through the courts. That one is fairly easy for him to tap dance around.
Evangelicals, of course, will be leary, but would pull Rudy’s lever anyway, especially if the option were HRC.
Rudy could win with national security, immigration, and the economy. Not the social stuff.
I’d vote for him, even though I do think gun control is a very bad idea in a world where terrorists can get nukes and level a city.
I love Rudy. I lived in Manhattan while he was Mayor and it was great.
But I will not vote for him for president if he is against the 2nd amendment in any way.
I also will not vote for him if he is soft on illegal immigration.
I’m talking about the primary here. If he’s the nominee I will vote for him over any democrat I’ve so far seen running.
And re: Condi, she has said many times that she doesn’t want to run. I think she’s made it clear she’s absolutely not going to run. I think we should take her at her word.
I’d vote for Rudy even though I, too, think gun control is a bad idea. After all, I’m voting for President, not dictator. He gets my vote on national security and because I think he has personal convictions that he stands by, rather than finding out through polls what he ‘ought’ to stand for.
At various stages of my life I’ve been “a bit psychic,” as they say.
Way back in the eighties, when Rudy was still a federal prosecutor, I saw him give a TV news conference (on a big crime bust, I think.)
I was in my early twenties, and politically naive, but something in my brain clicked and said “you’re looking at a future President of the US” (queue the “Twilight Zone” music …)
Yes, I know, it’s a silly memory, but I’ve kept it all these years.
Aside from all that, I think Rudy would make an excellent Republican candidate, and President. Dream ticket for me would be Rudy & Condi!
And agree with previous posts that the 3 issues Novak points out are not as important as some think to a Guliani victory.
(And if he does win, this will prove my psychic ability once and for all!)
Sign me up.
I don’t agree with Rudi on everything, but I agree with him on the most important things.
Besides, it would be fun to see him take on the Federal bureaucracy.
Im all for the Rudy/Rice ticket as well, with either at the head.
Secretary Rice has always stated that the only job she really wants is NFL commissioner, and that job is going to be filled within the next few months. Now that her next chance for that position is probably 10-15 years in the future, does anyone think that she would now be more willing to consider a run?
I live in Manhattan and remember the moonbats proclaimed Guiliani “Hitler” before Bush ever ran for President.
If Rudy wins he will become the first next original Hilter after the last Hilter has left office.
If Americans think the Left/Liberal/Dems will temper their insanity just because Rudy supports same-sex union between a man and a woman or legalized extermination with a hi-tech vacumn cleaner they still don’t understand the depths to which Collectivists will go to regain power.
The Democrat Party is lost forever because they could not purge themselves of the enemy within themselves.
I am an unapologetic social conservative. And here is our problem:
Right now, there is no legitimate socially conservative candidate. GW Bush did not emerge until after the 1998 elections, so there is hope that a viable candidate will emerge. The best we have right now is George Allen (and as a Dallas Cowboy fan, it would just kill me to support the son of the former Redskins coach.) Is he really nationally viable? Are Senators historically attractive as potential executives?
John McCain is a non-starter. He has backstabbed too many conservatives to get enough votes. He might win in the liberal Northeast state of New Hampshire, or even in Michigan, but where else will he win. His campaign finance history assures that he will NEVER get my vote. I’d sooner vote for Hillary Clinton. Better the enemy you can count on than the supposed friend that you cannot trust.
So right now, Guiliani has a good shot at getting my vote if he simply promises to do one thing – appoint conservative judges. As a conservative, I am not particularly afraid of losing legislative battles that can be fought and refought every year. What concerns me is the imperial judiciary. If Guiliani can somehow convince me that he wants the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and gun control to be decided in the legislature rather than the courts, and that he will appoint judges who respect the limits on there lawful Consitutional power, then he can win my vote – without having to change his personal views.
He would have my vote in a New York second. He has demonstrated again and again the courage of his convictions and the gonads to carry them out. Remember when he walked out of a UN speech by Yasser Arafat, the terrorist? He cleaned up New York, showed amazing leadership after 9/11 (please contrast with Ray Nagin) and continues to be a voice of reason. I’m not whipped up about his views on choice and gay marraige. As one commentator adroitly pointed out, he should and likely will, leave that to the respective legislative bodies. I agree, though, that conservative judges are a must.
Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.
I agree that Rudy would have to spin some of his social positions, as would Condi, and I don’t think that he can spin them enough. He’s similar to Colin Powell in that regard. IMHO, Powell could have had the nomination in 1996 and probably have been elected president if he had only lied about his pro-choice views. Remember, his politics were unknown at the time. However, he had too much integrity to lie and saw the handwriting on the wall, electing not to even try. The Republicans are a pro-life party, I don’t believe that a pro-choice candidate can get the nomination even if they have an excellent chance to win the general. And so, we’ll get John McCain as our nominee, God help us.
Tob
I would vote for him. I think immigration will give him a problem because he is not of the Tancredo school..but hopefully some kind of compromise will be met and that won’t be an issue in 2008.
I own a gun and i am not worried that Rudy is giong to take it away from me.
The biggest problem each party faces right now is their repsective bases.
The cruel irony is that the very things that might HURT a Rudy or a Condi (or a Colin) in a Republican primary are the same things that would HELP them in the general election — with the more centrist voters (or “mushy middle” or Libertarians or whatever you want to call that segment of voters that tend to swing elections one way or the other.)
In this respect, Republicans have a problem similar to the Democrats, i.e. not letting the party be too extreme to turn off the swing voters.
Not saying anything here that hasn’t been said before. But the trick would be to get primary voters to focus on a sure-fire electable candidate over one that matches their hard-line idealism but can’t win in the general.
Maybe the prior comment about getting Rudy to commit to appointing non-activist (conservative in a judicial sense) judges is a strategy that would be palatable to mainstream Repubs. Just sayin’.
Right now I am registered as an independent. If Guiliani is really running for president I would switch to being a registered Republican just to help push him through the primary, I feel that strongly about him being the best candidate, Republican or Democrat or Green or Libertarian.
In fact if he is running I will seek to be a campaign worker.
I disagree with his stance on gun control but in general I think he is such a strong leader that I am OK with him despite issues like that, he doesn’t need to apologize for what he believes in – just explain his reasoning behind what he believes to the best of his ability. I can respect someone who has well-reasoned thought behind their beliefs.
Rudy will win because he is an proven leader. I am hopeful that the Republican base will have enough sense, in a post-9/11 world, to be more taken with someone who is an articulate, unabashed patriot, not because he is more electable, but because he is the best person for the job. If there’s one person in this country less-likely than President Bush to cut and run from the GWOT, it is Rudy G. In fact, I think he is likely to be more aggressive in its prosecution than GWB and that will appeal to the base more than the social issues will alienate.
And besides, he had enough sense to lose the comb-over.
Arhtur,
I have a real problem with your formulation. In theory, we elect people to represent us, and to accomplish things we deem important. Electability is and should be a secondary consideration, i.e. first select a slate of candidates that most closely represent you and your views, and only then pare down the list on the basis of his/her broader appeal.
I’ve often said that both religion and politics are primarily about core belief systems, the difference being that in religion, compromise is heresy, whereas in politics, compromise is necessary and desirable, lest tyrants gain power. The problem with some citizens is that they have difficulty distinguishing religion from politics. And on the left, those who have abandoned religion entirely see politics as their only outlet for dogmatic belief. Hence, they have abandoned both compromise and political viability.
However, being firmly entrenched in the religious right, I can assure you that we (mostly) can still distinguish between our heartfelt and unapologetic religiosity, and the necessities of political compromise. But it is wrong to expect us to compromise as our first impulse.
Would you, in making an offer to purchase a home, preemptively raise your offer to a seller without first seeing the reaction to your first offer? Of course not. Neither should the party base preemptively abandon the very principles that made them the base to begin with. There is some wisdom in selecting a candidate that can be effective in marshalling the majority of the electorate. But if that candidate does so to achieve ends that directly violate your principles, have you gained anything but an empty victory?
Finally, if the greatly lauded political middle of America were really so intent on seeing there own political goals being accomplished, wouldn’t they be more politically active and assure that the “base” more closely reflected their views? Their very apathy assures that will not happen. And why should anyone strive to satisfy the desires of those who really don’t care all that much one way or another?
There must be a reason that Guiliani is a Republican, not a Democrat. And it follows that he must agree more than disagree with much of what Republicans believe in. It is encumbant upon any candidate to win my vote. Guiliani is not immune to this requirement. The very fact that I am open to his candidacy should be encouraging to him, but it is NOT right that a candidate should get a free pass on satisfying the desires of his supporters. He has to give me something, and follow through on his promises to me. That is the American way.
The pursuit of victory at any cost is empty and meaningless. My core beliefs are more important than my party affiliation. And I have a right to try to influence one or both parties to sway them to my viewpoints. It is the very essence of democracy. Those who seek victory without regard to values are the worst sort of mercenary, and are undeserving of any support whatsoever. It is easy to label the desire to follow the wishes of supporters as pandering. But we are the client, not the candidate. Why should he not honor our desires and views – except that they might disagree with yours?
“I am hopeful that the Republican base will … be more taken with someone who is an articulate, unabashed patriot, not because he is more electable, but because he is the best person for the job.”
Now that is a helluva lot better reason to vote for Guiliani than electablity.
Arthur denigrating my values and chastising me for not being more pragmatic is a political cul de sac.
There was a very good column on this the other day, noting that Giuliani has praised Alito and Roberts, and would leave gun control and gay marriage to the states.
GOP reps are going to continue to represent their constituents, many of whom are socially conservative, but it seems likely those people aren’t going to shun Giuliani at a Presidential level.
One more comment and then I’ll leave it to the rest of you.
An election is like courtship. A candidate woos the electorate into supporting his candidacy. A candidate who disdains the very people upon whom he is dependent is doomed for failure.
One has to wonder about supporters of a candidate who denigrate the very base that candidate must appeal to in order to get elected. One has to wonder even more at candidates who despise their potential supporters.
Can you imagine dating someone for 10-11 months when they do nothing but tell you how ugly you are, how bad you smell, how much weight you need to lose, how you need to where different clothes, develop different interests and hobbies, etc., etc. And then this wanna be Casanova pops the question, “will you marry me.” Anyone who wouldn’t tell this joker to take a hike is a masochist.
Likewise, candidates and their supporters who attempt to woo the electorate with insults and innuendo are fools.
So a word to the wise for Guiliani supporters. Guiliani still has to win the Republican primary. He cannot do so by constantly and repeatedly insulting the Republican base. And you likewise, do his cause no good by engaging in such foolish tactics.
Nuff said.
Scott,
The RNC knows how to weigh the value of any particular group rather precisely. Rudy supporters don’t weigh very much at all at this point. Until they do, speculation about his viability is as entertaining as that concerning Condi.
The muddled middle is certainly a significant factor in electoral politics, it’s just not a group from which advice is generally solicited except as a matter of civility.
Wow, Scott!
Didn’t really know my last comments would rub anyone the wrong way. (They weren’t meant to.)
At this point I see myself as a realist who would rather see just about ANY president win with an (R) beside is name over the current crop of (D) candidates. (Never thought it would get to the point where I’d ever hear myself saying that.)
Focusing mainly (and passionately) on the GWOT and seeing social issues as still important, but secondary, to not letting the sacrifice of 2,500+ be in vain. My biggest fear is that a cut-and-run Dem gets elected, and wins only because the Republicans picked a boring, no-name, un-electable candidate who passed a purity test on conservative social issues, but wasn’t appealing to the broader electorate.
I do not apologize for taking the long view, and considering electablility. While I agree with you and respect that people should be true to their beliefs and positions, we should also have an eye to what the consequences are of the potential nominee. Politics is full of compromise.
I can think of plenty of candidates in our party who would make good presidents. But IMHO there aren’t that many who would be winning candidates in the general election. Not in a world where a substantial set of our population gets their political news from Leno & Letterman. I don’t have to like the world we live in, but I do have to live in it. Hope that’s not being too cynical.
Sorry for being long-winded.
Arthur,
I kind of worked myself up a little there, in disproportion to your comments. Sorry.
Nevertheless, I think it is still a little early to determine who is and who is not electable. Guiliani has a shot at getting my vote for the very reasons you cite. But it is foolish to think that he can win that vote by ignoring and/or denigrating the Republican base. Personally, I think he is smarter than that.
But it remains to be seen whether he is willing to compromise enough to win my vote. It is not only the voter who must be prepared to compromise, but also the candidate. There is and should be a public policy and personnel price for gaining a nomination. In order to win, Guiliani must be willing to pay that price.
My price is conservative judges.
Yeah, Scott, I suppose I’m fancying myself as Carl Rove, Jr. here (aren’t we all at some point) and acting as if my hand is on the pulse of the voting public. I realize I’m engaging in wild speculation.
But one other point that I think addresses your later comments:
It tends to be really transparent when any candidate changes his or her position on a core belief to try to become more electable. It has the potential to hurt more than helps by making the candidate seem insincere.
I guess I’m not aware of Rudy denigrating the Republican base, unless you mean just by having those 3 positions that Novak cites.
But I think a lot of commenters here seem to be in agreement that judicial appointments seems to be the hottest of the three. Add my name to the list. He (Rudy) would really need to come out strong against judicial activism, and get on board with that.
(But to an earlier poster – Rudy’s popularity in the polls is not something the GOP should ignore.)
I’d settle for “originalist” judges, Scott, who would read the Constitution rather than waft penumbras at us.
Due deference to Congress’ Constitutionally mandated power to limit jurisdiction wouldn’t hurt either.
Good enough where you sit?
Scott:
If you can not get elected what does it matter?
This is a two party system. That is why the middle puts up with a lot they don’t like, it is necessary.
If a party can not govern as a majority party, but only as a party beholden to one small faction, does it deserve to win?
In other words, the Greens are a very dedicated group, but they don’t pretend to speak for the majority. The Republicans do.
I know that on issues like immigration I support a guest worker program and I have been savaged for it too. For that matter so has Bush in spite of the fact that his views on this subject have been largely consistent for years.
Sometimes people have to be willing to compromise in politics, that is why I will still vote for Republicans even if they do attack me on this issue.{At least until the Democrats grow the hell up}
The problem with the base in both parties is they just keep expecting everyone else to compromise oblvious to the fact that without those of us in the middle, neither party can win.
Arthur,
I also am not aware of Guiliani denigrating the Republican base. Honestly disagreeing is not denigration.
But I have encountered putative Guiliani supporters who have no compunction against railing against the Republican base.
Terrye,
I didn’t say I wasn’t willing to compromise – only that it shouldn’t be the first consideration. To consider Guiliani, given his stances on the social issues, and his personal history, is already quite a compromise. But a one-sided compromise is not really a compromise. It is a surrender. Guiliani must also compromise. And the price is conservative judges. He gets to keep his personal convictions, and his personal baggage. But he has to give me a solemn promise to appoint conservative judges. If he won’t compromise on this point, then he is not a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.
Uh-Oh.
I kind of forgot about the personal baggage …
I see my dream ticket fading away into the clouds!
Great discussion, Scott, Terrye and everyone! I have to leave it with you all, but thanks for the stimulus. Doesn’t get me out of the house, but does get me away from my sometimes isolated thinking.
It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold in the next couple of years.
Add me to the (lengthy) list. I’d vote for Rudy in a heartbeat too.
I want a war-time leader. My belief is that Rudy has various social beliefs that I don’t share but that he will be sensitive about imposing them. McCain, in my view, would be quicker to infringe on the people’s rights and run a top-down authoritarian administration.
WHAT MIDDLE?
Just looking at the politics of the situation, the Democrats appear ready to tear themselves apart as the far-left anti-war “netroots” battle with the more moderate Democratic voters and the establishment Democratic politicians. We’re seeing a major preview in Connecticut with Lieberman being demonized by the Kos wing of the party.
The Democratic primaries will be a vicious struggle between those who are looking for an attractive winner regardless of ideology (a la Kerry in 2003-2004) and those who think purifying the party of wishy-washy Democrats is more important (a la Dean). Of course each side will claim their approach is the only path to victory. But the far-left netroots will be stronger and better organized in 2007-2008 and will certainly have a much higher public profile.
To win the nomination, a Democrat will have to get the support of, or at least a pass from, the moonbats (which is why Warner hired Armstrong). But to the general public, it will be hard to simultaneously avoid the taint of the crazy left.
Republicans have a similar but much less severe problem. I don’t expect the ideological infighting to be anywhere near as vicious during the primaries. McCain will have a hard time winning the nomination because he has caused serious heartburn to many Republicans on major issues which he has pushed through in Congress, and because of doubts about his emotional stability for the office of Presidency. Rudy, on the other hand, is liked and respected by many Republicans even when they may disagree with him on a few issues.
I don’t see Rudy being demonized, even by his opponents on the far-right conservative end of the party. He stands a good chance of winning enough primaries and delegates to get the nomination, in which case Republicans will close ranks behind him. The general public will not see him as having been captured by far-right crazies, whereas they are likely to see the Democratic nominee as being hopelessly tainted by the far-left crazies.
This means that Rudy will gain far more independent and moderate Democrat votes in the general election than he’ll lose from the far-right conservatives. He’d be a heavy favorite to win the election.
And if Rudy appoints competent, principled, conservative-to-libertarian oriented judges to the lower courts and the Supreme Court, that will be a quite sufficient reward for almost all of his Republican base.
John:
I think I am in the middle. Although I have been called a fascist, a leftist, a Senate bill pimp, dishonest, stupid, war monger, baby killer, Bushbot, a member of the Miers Bush bootlick brigade, moron, traitor, Zionist, right wing nut, left wing idiot, stupid slut, and so on and so forth.
I am not far enough right for the right and not far enough left for the left and whenever possible I prefer consensus to confrontation on most domestic issues. I have no problem at all with destroying terrorists and I do believe they exist and are not just some clever creation of Karl Rove’s Machiavellian mind.
It seems this makes me a proud member of the mushy middle. As opposed to the Michael Moore/Ann Coulter extremes who both drive me batty.
Terrye: I’m with you.
But I do recommend Ann’s new Book, if only for the entertainment value. I got at least a 20 good laughs out of it (but I did buy it at a great cheap price). The “evolution” chapters were also fairly informative.
I moved to New York City in the last years of Dinkins, and moved out two years nito Bloomberg. Rudy became “my mayor”, fully and completely, because of 9-11 and his leadership. But prior to that, while clearly an effective mayoir, he was a bit harsh in his style and too willing to pick fights with those who had the least power to fight back (i.e. street food vendors). He just didn’t seem like or act like a mensch when doing so would only have benefitted him, which seemed shortsighted and small. Perhaps (and I hope) he has profoundly and permanently changed since 9-11 and is now more of an inclusive, large hearted but tough statesman. I will be watching him closely during the campaign (if he runs). And unless he reverts to Old Rudy, he’ll have my vote.
P.S. Who here isn’t looking forward to Gore v HRC in the dem primary? Oh, the blood sport of it! (If only they could go heqad to head for the Oval Office itself. Ouch!).
Bruce,
I’d rather watch a Clinton-Kerry cage match. You’d need a Cray with ten terabytes of memory to keep track of the lies. You have Rudy pegged – he looks good from a distance and he performed well on 9/11 and after. Now, where did he find his police chief again? There are too many lumps under the carpet.
Terrye,
There’s nothing wrong with compromise and finding workable solutions. Running on a promise to compromise just hasn’t proven particularly effective.
This is the stuff of legends; another where were you when the presidential debate btwg a revered NY hero and hang on hag Hillary, breath life to our moribund body politic.
It should be held outdoors. Wait a minute, they usually agree to more than one.
I’m about to wet my pants.
The tale of the tape has them both as law hands, but Rudy’s experience has the advantage for decimating the mob and as the most successful NYC mayor.
Unglamorous and inexpensive seat belts are said to have saved thousands of lives, I wonder how many thousands Rudy saved by changing the way cities fight crime.
If Rudy could manage to coax out the real Hillary; “not some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette”, his honor would surely score with the hard right.
Not fighting her for the senate seat, but postponing it for the bigger purse, did not only serve to add the weight of a record, Hillary would now have to defend, but it kept a once overexposed Rudy out of the easily distracted public eye.
I look forward to the match.
I don’t really believe that people vote primarily based on issues – not most people, anyway. They vote based on whom they like and trust more, and yes, issues play into that, but there’s a lot more to it. Look at the landslide elections in recent history: Ike 1952 and 1956, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Bush I in 1988. Were the national stances on issues really whipsawing back and forth, or were these simply cases where there was a clear gap in likeability and or trustworthiness between the two major candidates?
I think Giuliani would win in a landslide against the next best candidate of any political stripe – he’s a far better candidate than Bush, Gore, Kerry, HRC, or anyone else, simply because he has the most likeable public persona in the room.
A few years ago, Colin Powell could have won for the same reason. Working for State killed him. It might kill Condi, too. But Rudy is out of office, and therefore immune.
Ah, but the religious right might stay home…something that might make a difference in the South…
Of course, the ethnic Catholics (aka Reagan Democrats) would vote for Guilliani despite his many marriages and his pro abortion stand, because he is a fellow ethnic…this was not true for Kerry, who was not ethnic but from an upper class family culturally…
Yes, the Bishops would hit Rudy for his liberal social stance, but given the choice between Hillary, given Bill’s aggressive promotion of abortion overseas, they would not make a fuss…
I think that Rudy can get pretty far with the Republican right by making clear that he will appoint solid originalist judges. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s awful Hamdan decision, I have little doubt that Rudy will in fact want to appoint originalist judges.
Rudy only looks like a conservative in NYC. He’s a liberal anywhere else.
He did a great job on 911, but gunnies and the religious right wouldn’t vote for him…no matter who he runs against. They would stay home.
As mentioned in previous comments…he doesn’t look that good close up.
While it may be true that GOP can’t win elections without its conservative base, I think conservatives are seriously in need of reminding that they can’t win with out their moderates either. I belong to the constituency that has been most taken for granted of all; it’s not the “mushy middle,” it’s the Republican wing of the Republican party.
I like Giuliani’s position on abortion and gay rights! Frankly, I’m sick and tired of compromising with social conservatives on such issues in order to support the Republican nominee; indeed, Bush turned out to be considerably more conservative than I expected from his original campaign, where I believe he pulled off something of a high wire act — which continues to this day. If the Democrats had mustered up a decent, pro-Iraq candidate in ’04, Bush would probably have lost.
If Giuliani reverses course on any of his well-known positions, he’ll be painting a target on his back. I suspect that’s a big part of why Joe Lieberman finds himself in political limbo, notwithstanding the conventional wisdom about his pro-war candidate Achilles’ heel. Hillary & Joe Biden don’t seem to suffer the same measure of disaffection, even though their distance from Lieberman is largely rhetorical. I sincerely hope, as suggested in comments above, that a strong stance on judicially conservative appointments to the bench will suffice. Otherwise, the GOP will finally need to start calculating just how many folks like me they can afford to lose.
Very interesting discussion. I was out all day at the Orange County Fair and just came back to read it.
My view is much more simple than some here. WE ARE AT WAR – and likely to be so for quite some time to come. That issue trumps everything else to an extraordinary degree. We lose this war, we lose Western Civilization, we lose democracy. All our debates are irrelevant. We’re living under Sharia – liberals, conservatives, evangelicals, atheists, libertarians, everybody. The rest, as they say, is commentary.
What I am looking for in a Presidential candidate is the person most capable of leading us in that struggle. I don’t care if that person is a man or a woman, Democrat or Republican or Independent. So far that person seems to be Rudy Giuliani. The polls are showing America agrees with my opinion. A few on here have caveats about Giuilani for various reasons. But what I have found most interesting is that no one has come up with a viable alternative.
Actually, one of the things that interests me here is the casual nature of what amounts to the “announcement” of Giuliani’s candidacy. I’m sure the press conference version will follow somehwere down the road, but in the meantime, they’re using Novak to let folks know that the Giuliani campaign is open for business (let the organizing & $$raising commence!).
Giuliani’s low profile proselytizing strikes me as distinctive and inspired. At the moment he and McCain may essentially be running neck & neck (per Novak), but I suspect that will change with the first debate, if not sooner. In contrast to a fresh, poised, articulate Giuliani, how can McCain not end up looking like old shoe, old news, old old? I’ve never thought the SC shennanigans did in McCain’s first run; he was already losing it on his own.
This time around Giuliani will have the center in his pocket, as well as plenty of conservatives holding major grudges on campaign financing and the controversial end run around Frist’s judicial “nuclear option.” McCain doesn’t exactly have the base sewn up himself.
If the Democrats had mustered up a decent, pro-Iraq candidate in ’04, Bush would probably have lost.
The center of the Republican Party would require such a candidate, for the Democrats the above statement is an oxy-moron. A nuanced Kerry was their War candidate! Isn’t it obvious to most that Hillary is more being politically pragmatic or nuanced with her positions on the WOT then just about any Republican put forward? The public is witnessing the one true decent pro-Iraq Democrat (Joe Lieberman) being all but exiled.
I am about with Terrye in the political middle, but I agree with Giuliani on just about EVERYTHING so who am I to advise Republicans? As a Virginia resident, reality tells me that George Allen sits in the center of the Republican Party more then anyone else (outside Jeb Bush) and would be the toughest to beat if he ran relatively error free in the primaries. I would much prefer Rudy, but would take either over any Democrat I see on the Horizon (I didn’t even vote for George Allen last time but a inclined to this time).
I think people should listen to Rick Ballard to get a pulse on where the Republican base is. People should listen to Terrye to sense where a disgusted anti-idiotarian Democrat ends up.
I agree Roger that we are at war but it will not be enough just to ‘send out the band of brothers’ to wage against the enemy when some of our domestic policies will hinder future success. For example, the progressive idea imposed three decades ago to abort our replacements for self-indulgent satisifaction is going to be problematic in fighting the enemy when the enemy is breeding three times as many of us. Or, destablizing the foundations of familial stucture while undermining words and their meaning will make it difficult to fend off barbarism when we have lost all meaning to moral relativism ie when illegal is advocated as legal or same-sex union between a man and a woman is advocated as rational.
I once considered myself ‘liberal’ and ‘moderate’ but when I awoke from my ‘middle-of-the-road’ slumber after 9/11 I recognized that the unacknowledged legislator of American culture (the poet, the filmmaker, the musician…I was one who blindly followed my fellow blind poets) had moved so far to the progressive Left that a black-hole has sucked us into a vacumn of self-destruction.
To win this war is isn’t going to be enough to have a President who will wage this war while we citizens continue to follow the status-quo of self-destruction and cultural suicide we have held these past three decades.
One more thing, as a matter of survival for our civilization you can now consider me a Conservative since they are the only ones I have seen thus far who are capable of surviving Liberalism’s cultural suicide.
As I was reading down the comments I noticed Roger had mentioned his perspective on the one key political issue I most agree with… WE ARE AT WAR! For me this also trumps everything by miles.
I have been called all the names Terrye has been called and then some, but the thing that most gnaws me to the bone is the following: What subject matter attracts who in a WOT discussion? Why are some of the supposed most dangerous and evil “Right Wing” blogs not even Right Wing but rather simply run by anti-idiotarian Democrats? (LGF, Instapundit, Winds Of Change, Roger, Neo-neon, etc.) Because of the audience they attract! The spectrum from which their audience, posters, and supporters start by and large at a similar political position on that spectrum (evil Neo-con Jews like myself or other WOT liberals), from there the spectrum moves strongly to the right. Those to the left tend to be non-supporting, or resentful hacks and trolls that see the WOT as something much less serious, at best a police action of vengeance, worse a political positioning game, even worse a War they hope we lose because to them America is a plague on the world (all while many sip cappuccino at their neighborhood Starbucks).
I bring the above up because I FEAR THE LEFT. It is the left who inspired Democrats to defund the Vietnam War (the real tragic outcome of Watergate as the left took rule of Capital Hill) and they will do it again if they can yet in this War their is even more at stake. As we talk about our next President (whoever) it makes me think I of what I most fear… a Congress controlled by Democrats. The most Hawkish President will have a hard time dealing with that. I never thought in a million years I would be pulling a lever for George Allen, hell I never campaigned harder then I did against him but I would vote for him as President. As we talk of Giuliani I would submit to my fellow WOT liberals that while he would make the decision easier for many who post here, he or someone like him is unlikely to be the GOP candidate. I think it would be wise to more prepare for a George Allen, Jeb Bush or the like because they will most please the GOP base and have much more pleasant personalities then McCain or even Giuliani.
To the above I will add; Heaven help us all if 2008 is something like a Tom Tancredo vs. Hillary Clinton, That’s a decision that would make me very ill.
Syn, of course I agree with you that the President is not enough without the people. Ideally, we would want a President who is good at rallying the people.
Joseph, great to have you back posting. Of course your caveats are sensible, but my reason for strongly supporting Giuliani is actually buried in my response to Syn. I think he may be the man who can rally a substantial number of the American people – not just Republicans – to the cause of the WOT. We need someone like that. Bush was unable to do it. I don’t blame Bush particularly for that. It takes exceptional force of personality to override the hostility/stupidity of the mainstream media.
The thing that makes Giuliani so compelling a candidate is that the public has seen how well he can rise to handle a crisis. His handling of the post 9/11 situation was masterful and clear. It was one of the finest displays of leadership the public has seen in recent years. It touched just the correct emotional note. Can you imagine the power of the footage his ad campaign will have? Nothing the Dems throw at it will be able to dent it. Any candidate they pit against him will look pale in comparison.
I don’t have to agree on all points with the guy. I want someone who knows we’re at war and has the stones to deal with it. The man is a true leader.
“Are there any “electoarally wise” Republicans here, who can tell me why Condoleezza Rice can’t win without saying, “She doesn’t want to run”"
Can’t win? That’s going too far.
But I think it would be very difficult for her to win at this point. A late entry is always possible but is hard to pull off successfully. She would be trailing the other candidates in infrastructure, and would have to deal with fundraising commitments already having been made.
If she is to have any chance, she would need to start organizing (even without announcing) almost immediately. And it would still be likely too late.
Joseph,
Thanks but I’m not sure that I would presume to speak for the base. I do know that part of Ken Mehlman’s job over the next two years is to provide fairly precise information concerning the interests of registered and donating party members. Those interests will shape (in part) the ’08 platform. I am also certain that the platform will then be tuned in a manner that about half of the magnificent middle will find appealing. Giuliani may then be considered to be sufficiently malleable to be a viable candidate – based upon his willingness to adhere to the platform. I wouldn’t put any money on it unless President Bush makes a couple more appointments to the Supreme Court. I also woudn’t put any money on Giuliani’s malleability nor upon the base to believe him should he prove malleable.
As to the utility of rhetorical skills in “bringing us together”, the most polished speaker to be president in the past 30 years was Ronald Reagan. I have some small doubt that very many of those posting here consider President Reagan to have been a great unifying force.
There is no practical way, short of implementation of a police state, to disarm those willing to break the law to have weapons. Gun control is therefore far more effective at disarming the law-abiding citizen than those who prey on him, giving an advantage to terrorists and criminals.
As long as Rudy is for gun control, he’s weak on defending the American people.
In a time of war it would be wonderful to have any leader who can rally the American people however, whomever is the next president it will be as difficult as what Bush has had to endure throughout his term.
We have a cultural influence in America which is determined to criminalize a major political party and when this cultural influence commands and controls the microphone, the printed page, the celluloid venues so, no matter who is president if they are not part of the progressive collective then they are the enemy. This cultural influence will continue to create the image of the Conservative
The Democrat Party unfortunately has embraced such cultural influence as progressive Marxism, all for political cash, so far to the point that The Democrat Party is purging the last representitive of true Liberal ideals, ie Sen Lieberman.
If Guiliani is elected president what makes you believe that the NY Times or Miramax, to name a few progressive corporate Marxists who influence cultural establishment are not going to portray Guiliani as a jack-boot Reich-winger who eats babies for breakfast while hating black/brown skinned people and forcing women back into the oppressive patriarchal kitchen?
Do you believe George Clooney will not be standing up on stage come Oscar night to rally his ‘liberalism’ preaching the purity of his cause while cremating someone like Rudy? Like Susan Sarandon or Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand or Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Al Gore and the others actors, writers, musicians galore ‘speaking truth to power’ are really going to give up their far too long 15 minutes of fame?
Do you believe that Bush is the problem and that once he leaves everything will be a-okay?
The primary reason why I left NY theater was because I saw what I was apart of and it wasn’t pretty poetry crafted with pretty images of peace, love and understanding man.
Unless those who are part of the cultural establishment do not recognize what it is that they are creating, the active criminalization of those who do not obey progressive Marxism will continue in movie, after concert, after news article ad nauseum.
I think the Republican candidate will be the one most willing to prosecute not just the War on Terror, but the traitorous sins committed by the most pathologically anti-Bush elements, like the NY Times and the leakers at CIA and State. The Rovian core of Republican power knows that the current adminsitration can’t retaliate without fueling the flames of the Left’s Loons, but a future administration can, as long as it’s not a (Jeb) Bush administration. And I see Guiliani as that type of individual: Punishment not just for the sake of retribution, but as a critical element in the defense of our systems, our beliefs, our ideals. The other single-issue opponents of Rudy will be marginalized. National security will carry Election Day ’08 in a landslide of historical proportions, because Bush Derangement Syndrome will not easily be transferrable to the next slate of Republican candidates.
Republicans will make a great mistake if they go with a current Senator to lead the way; let the Dems continue to make that kind of blunder. I don’t think Uncle Karl will let that mistake happen.
Once again, speaking as an unashamed member of the religious right, I partially agree with Roger. The WOT is the most important issue at hand. It is for this reason, and this reason only that we would even consider Guiliani.
But the other issues are also important. I am not yet convinced that Guiliani can overcome his personal history, or that his sometimes caustic personality will be broadly appealing to middle America. In a different time, he would be a conservative Democrat – which is a long way from being a conservative. I am also not convinced that he would do any better with a hostile press/Hollywood than George Bush has done.
Ideally, one of our own will emerge that has both the charisma and the credibility to win and govern effectively. But as syn said above, it will take more than just a President. The Democrats have made it necessary that a supermajority of 60 Republican Senators be elected to get anything accomplished, and with some RINO Senators, it may take 63 or 64 Republican Senators to be effective.
It is still a long way to go until Super Tuesday, 2008. There is still plenty of time for a legitimate conservative candidate to emerge that will gain national recognition in Republican circles. Such a candidate must be committed to continuing the WOT for as long as it takes to win; else, his other conservative stances will not matter. But if such a candidate is perceived to be strong on the WOT, then the other important conservative issues will kick in, as well as personality and likeability considerations.
The interesting question is that if such a candidate does emerge, will Guiliani be a graceful loser? Or will he seek to savage his opponent like McCain did with Bush in 2000? I don’t know Guiliani well enough to know how he would react to losing. Others commenting here might. Guiliani as a replacement for Rumsfeld seems somewhat attractive. Or even as a VP candidate. His performance in the wake of 9/11 and at the 2004 RNC has earned him consideration – but consideration is not necessarily support.
Grover Norquist had an interesting insight into the Republican Party at the American Prospect breakfast last week.
Rudy has topped Republican polls since 2005, among all demographics. They know his positions on gay marriage et al. They would vote for him anyway. This has been consistent for a year and a half.
Joseph (formerly Samuel), nice to see you back. I haven’t been a regular in Roger’s comments lately, so you may have been back for awhile, but there was a long time when you weren’t posting, so you’re recently returned to me.
I look forward to your comments on GOTV ’06 and ’08 – you always had thoughtprovoking comments during the ’04 race.
Roger,
As I said in an different post, I agree with Rudy on just about everything and would be ecstatic with him as the GOP nominee, and while I do share your enthusiasm for Rudy, we do not represent the Republican mainstream especially primary voters.
As far as Bush not being able to unite, I’ll add that from my perspective he did for quite a while but politics, the close division of power in Congress along with so much at stake for the MSM, made for tough political times. The belief that political power is still up for grabs intensifies this. I feel sometimes Bush didn’t unite because he tried too hard to do so when he really should have gotten more in the oppositions face, especially the MSM. On these areas I do feel a Giuliani would fight back harder.
I often post what I sense reality to be and not just my personal position which is to the left, or more liberal then most Republicans. While I agree that a clear majority of people are consistently into free trade and law and order, I also believe the public to not be as socially liberal as you sometimes imply, I believe syn’s above post displays this sentiment.
On much I have grown to take the Reagan position of not speaking ill of those with whom you share allegiance with on issues most important.
Yehudit,
I have rarely posted of late, you happened to log on when I did, I appreciate the encouragement and if time permits I will. I always enjoy your posts and certainly identify you as one I most often politically agree with.
Rick Ballard
As someone who had spent much time and resource helping Democrats read political tea leaves I appreciate your rational explanations. It is one thing to spout the party line making predictions based on biased hope, hype (or whatever) something for which I have no desire. Getting a sense of the Republican Party outside my own natural boundary is something I have sought to understand ever since I became the dreaded “Neo-con” I am accused of being. (I’ll call it the Joe Lieberman syndrome). I think your posts often speak to realities as much if not more then personal sentiment, something I appreciate.
syn: I definitely agree with you, but I would take it a step farther. All things being equal, if a Republican wins the presidency in 2008, all hell will break loose. The far left is a powder keg. GDS would make BDS look like PMS.
Joseph,
Watching professionals build an organization capable of taking and holding the majority of state houses lends to a different perspective than that held by people focused on the horse race at the top. Real politics is about 70% demographics, 10% actuarial science and 20% emotion. That might be overstating emotion a bit but it can be important from time to time – primarily fear.
Contemplating the meaning of a 4M increase in the number of owner occupied houses versus a 500K increase in the number of rental units occupied between ’00 and ’04 just isn’t terribly exciting. It’s terribly important though, and it hasn’t slowed down since ’04, so I’m not going to spend much time worrying about a Deam takeover this fall.
’08 is still too far away for this beauty contest stuff. The WoT might still be the most important issue in ’08 but what if there is a recession in ’07? What in Rudy’s experience is going to make him seem the right person to alleviate economic concerns? It’s just too early and I don’t believe that he’s terribly serious to begin with. If he were, then why didn’t he try and knock Clinton out in the NY Senate race? Everybody knows she’s running in ’08, so Rudy couldn’t have been accused of a stepping stone campaign.
Joseph
Actually, I don’t believe socially liberal believers (for lack of a better label) are aware of how oppressively-Marxist has Liberalism become and just how far removed from conservative values has our culture moved.
This is what happens when words lose all meaning to morally relative thought.
Rick Ballard
I agree with your general take and much of what you say is why I believe Rudy would not be the nominee. I view the WOT as an issue of decreased importance (with the general electorate not with me, an example of my speaking to reality and not my personal position). Unless we are attacked it will continue to decrease in political importance, Rudy’s fortunes as a candidate ride such a trend.
The one possible “window” for Rudy would be if some other law and order type issue comes forward or continues to persist (like immigration) as most important and he convinces the electorate he is aligned with their sentiments and will be a man of action, but I do believe if it is economics or social issues then as they say “that dog won’t hunt“. In the general election regardless of the issues he would handily defeat any Democrat, but unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger he will not have the fortune of leap frogging the primary process, his true hurdle.
syn
I agree with you, I do consider myself socially liberal but have less of a problem with the fight social conservatives are making because I do understand the difference between liberalism and leftism. A true liberal welcomes the discussion and hopes to win the debate on Gay Marriage or whatever and understands the problems a top down decision like Roe vs. Wade has on society.
To further clarify the point I was making to Roger is I believe the public is not as much liberal as they are apathetic with a libertarian streak on many social issues, this does not equate to socially liberal. When push comes to shove and/or the public feels cornered they sometimes become not just conservative but very conservative, Some people get upset that even in perceived liberal corners referendums against Gay Marriage pass with such clear majorities. In Ohio moral issues determined the outcome and doubled Bush’s African American vote percentage.
Your characterization of the leftist ruling class is quite accurate and the exact reason why I not only went “Neo-con” but re-registered as a Republican. The later shows my lack of hope with the Democratic Party being able to shake the leftist ruling class. My Grandparents on both sides where Marxist, my parents Socialist, believe me I get it.
Good points Joseph.
Perhaps when the public feels cornered to accept irrational concepts like ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ or ‘same-sex parents’ or ‘illegal immigration’ or ‘just a clump of cells’ as truth and reason I would imagine they are reacting to this base emotionalism as a means to maintaining sanity.
If someone, anyone, could rationally explain what ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ means then I would support it however, thus far the only response I receive from this question is to be damned as ‘a homophobe’. Personally, I am reacting to this type of emotional blackmail which is forcing me to believe in something which has no rational meaning.
The illiberal approach aside (not one American was allowed to voice their individual vote on a law of the land) this is what happened with Roe vs. Wade, our culture was forced to accept through judical fiat a word that was never defined, that being, fetus.
I find it quite funny that the risk to Giuliani’s conservative voters, are positions that he maintains a conservative view on. Giuliani may personally consider himself pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control etc… but he has yet to make any noise that sounds like he’d try to make Federal rules about these things. Most, but not all, traditional conservatives, you see, tends to prefers to have social issues decided by individuals when possible, Cities, Counties or States when necessary (through the legislature or ballot) and the Federal only when there’s no other option and the issue has constitutional implications.
Abortion, Gay Marriage etc simply don’t seem to rise to the need for federal rules either for or against. At best, the Federal government should simply ensure that all states have the right to decide for themsleves on this issue. (There may be some argumnet for “the health of the mother” bveing protected by the constitutions “right to life”, but that’s about it).
Gun Control, on the other hand, absolutely has a Federal position. It’s called the second amendment and it appears quite clear to me.
I like McCain better than Giuliani, but I’d vote for Giuliani over anyone I’ve seen yet on the Democratic ticket (and yes, I voted for Kerry against Bush).
I’m late to the party, but I’ll provide my anecdotal evidence for those keeping a tally:
I don’t agree with Rudy on gay rights, abortion, or gun control. With a few caveats not worth detailing, I’m close enough to a “social conservative” to count as one. His personal baggage matters to me, because I think character matters in high office.
*Despite* all that, he would get my vote, today, in a heartbeat. War on Terror is big. I think Rudy has already said enough about appointing judges that won’t legislate from the bench, that I’m covered there. (I’ve got the same price as Scott Harris, but I’m satisfied today that it will be paid.) For better or worse, Rudy is someone that comes across as, “what you see is what you get.”
Almost *all* of the conservatives I know here in the Heart of Dixie substantially agree with me. There are some that will break away from Rudy on the social issues in the primary, but if you want a rough and ready idea of how it falls, consider how Bob Riley trounced Roy Moore in the governor’s primary last month. Rudy would probably lose 5 to 10% over those margins because Riley is more conservative and Moore more a flake than a likely social conservative primary presidential candidate. That still has Rudy picking up Alabama during the primary, by a hefty margin.
Like a lot of red states, Alabama has open primaries. That means that even true believers cross party lines if all the interest is on the other side. If Hillary and and Kerry are fighting it out on the Dem side, for example, then conservative Dems will cross over in droves to vote in the GOP primary, for a close Rudy and someone else race.
Finally, I’m entirely convinced on nothing more than a hunch and knowing the culture down here that the Bush/Gore 2000 race “DUI 5 days before the election” has innoculated some GOP candidates on some of the personal issues. It’s not that those issues don’t matter. They do. Look at the Bush margin of victory in AL in 2000. However, if the candidate has demonstrated enough personal character in other ways, they can overcome those issues. After all, character is a proxy for believing that the candidate will do the right thing under pressure. Rudy’s behavior on 911 gives him that out. (And check how the Alabama margin for Bush in 2004 was his 3rd best improvement, out of 50 states.) Reagan was divorced, back when that still mattered somewhat. It wasn’t telling in the race.
That’s my analysis of the Rudy prospects down South. Now, I’ll engage in a bit of wishful thinking. Rice will not run for pres, but she could be drafted for veep, with the right pres candidate, and enough pressure, similar to how Eisenhower got talked into running for pres. A Rudy/Condi ticket would absolutely destroy the idiot faction in the Democrats. I don’t think that the Dems will reform (or be replaced) until they are taken to the woodshed. Until we get a second serious party, the GOP will continue to drift to the center, in the worst mushy sense of the concept. (Center compromise of strong liberal and conservative position gives us things like the Bill of Rights. Mushy drift to the center gives us things like the 20 years of dithering over slavery that led to the Civil War. Not all center positions are created equal.)
Therefore, I see a Rudy/Condi ticket as the best hope to move the country in a conservative direction, in a productive manner.