65 Comments

1. Anthony (Los Angeles):

Rudy’s my leading choice as well. He’s too much of a social liberal for my tastes, but, as you wrote, the overriding issue is the struggle with fascist Islam. Almost everything else takes a back seat.

My other two choices are Romney and McCain, in that order. Romney may be too socially conservative for me (maybe — he’s done a few switches on the issues), but his recent speech at Herzliya told me that he, too, “gets it” when it comes to radical Islam.

McCain I’m sure would prosecute the war, but I worry about character issues on his part — and not just from his Keating Five days. He seems susceptible to flattery and wants too much to be the darling of the press.

The only Democrat I’ve considered, Richardson, took himself out of the running by advocating withdrawal from Iraq.

Ah, well. There are one-and-a-half years to go, and it’s going to be a long race.

Feb 5, 2007 - 12:26 pm 2. Manelso:

A bit over a year ago, I attended a small dinner party where one of the guests was the then managing editor of a certain New York-based national news weekly. While discussing the upcoming presidential race, I mentioned Rudy as a strong potential conservative candidate. The Editor seemed astounded by the sheer preposterousnous of my suggestion, as did several other New York cultural elites in attendence.

It is clear to me that many on the left are so wedded to the idea that social conservatives dominate the conservative conversation that few will pay much attention to Rudy. I am hoping Rudy is able to take advantage of this miscalculation, as he resembles none of the straw men the Dems continue to do battle against. Despite all the polling and punditry, Rudy just may be able to pull off the stealth candidate route.

Feb 5, 2007 - 12:36 pm 3. ennuipundit:

It is nice to be in the respected and good company of folks like Patrick Ruffini, Roger Simon, The Baseball Crank and Ace from Ace of Spades, and dozens of other prominents bloggers who are also supporting Rudy Giuliani.

I cannot agree more, Roger. Rudy’s leadership qqualities are the strongest in the field. And in a time when America truly needs a leader capable of interesting times, Giuliani is peerless in this field.

Feb 5, 2007 - 12:37 pm 4. Godzilla:

If Rudy can get the nomination, he can win both California AND New York. The leadership he showed during the aftermath of 9/11, his refusal to accept the Saudi prince’s 10 million dollar gift, PLUS his liberal social platform can make his run to the White House look like a juggernaut.

Feb 5, 2007 - 12:49 pm 5. Steven Mitchell:

I’ve got nothing against Romney, as I am at least as conservative as he is. However, Rudy is my #1 choice (at least until someone talks Condi Rice into running). I like where he is on the war, and I believe that he has the true conservative temperament when it comes to judicial appointments, which is to appoint people that will not legislate from the bench. If that leads to legislatures enacting more liberal social policies than I prefer, I can live with it.

Feb 5, 2007 - 12:54 pm 6. ricpic:

Will someone please explain to me how the Republican Party plans to win the next presidential election without the enthusiastic support of conservatives, religious and secular?
Giuliani is markedly a social liberal: pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-unrestricted immigration, pro-multiculti diversity. And he won’t be able to finesse his positions with the cover that he is a committed “Christian,” as Bush did.
Furthermore is anyone naive enough to believe that the Democratic candidate, Hillary or whoever, will represent herself as anything less than staunch on defense? “Iraq was a mistake but if they dare attack America at home blah, blah, blah.” No, Giuliani will be hard put to stake out a position on defense to the right of a Hillary (or whoever) in high dudgeon.
So, if genuine conservatives sit on their hands, in droves, and the uncommitted can’t see a dimesworth of difference between a socially liberal Republican and a socially liberal Democrat, how do the Republicans win? They don’t.
Fine with me if Republicans want to go down the withit, hip, socially approved road, again. But for Republicans it’s a suicidal road.

Feb 5, 2007 - 1:05 pm 7. Terrye:

ricpic:

I know conservatives who like Rudy because they think he is a strong leader. That means a lot. Just because someone is a social conservative that does not mean that they can only vote for someone else who is.

Feb 5, 2007 - 1:13 pm 8. Steven Mitchell:

ricpic:

Maybe. However, I’d venture that I know several hundred conservatives in north Alabama well enough to make an educated guess on how they will vote. The vast majority of them would at least consider voting for Rudy in the primary. Somewhere really close to 100% will pick Rudy over any of the leading Dem contenders in a heartbeat. They don’t stay home, either.

The idea that Rudy has no chance is borderline assuming that social conservatives are stupid. On the whole, I find them to be a bit more intelligent than average. They can all count to 9 (court justices) really well. McCain making noises about (pro)life while he undermines the 1st admendment and pretends that doesn’t undermine political minorities is *easily* trumped by someone they believe will honestly pursue federalism in the courts.

Granted, a lot of Alabama conservatives–especially the social conservatives–are former Democrats with a strong streak of classical liberalism. But I bet you’ll be hard pressed to find an area outside of Mississippi or some parts of Arkansas with a stronger social conservative streak–even if somewhat leavened.

All this talk about social conservatives misses the point that Rudy appeals to classical liberals (in the American tradition sense of the term). Since classical liberals are increasingly alienated in the Democratic party, such people have nowhere else to go.

Feb 5, 2007 - 1:38 pm 9. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

I’m favorably inclined to Giuliani. I worry about McCain because he strikes me as (1) extremely arrogant, (2) unsufficiently supportive of free speech, and (3) not all that smart. Romney I don’t know a whole lot about yet.

In general, people–specifically conservatives–had better get used to the idea of coalition-building. It is unlikely that you are going to get someone who agrees with you on every issue and also has a possibility of winning.

Feb 5, 2007 - 2:24 pm 10. OregonGuy:

Coming from the state with the greatest number of Presidential Hopefuls, my opinion is worth more than the rest of you.

We have currently running as Republicans:

Frederick E. “Fred Ogin;
William N. “Doc” Raven;
Michael Charles Smith.

Without having given any of these gentlemen a look, I don’t quite know how you can make a serious choice.

That being said, I’ve entertained the notion of a Giuliani candidacy. As well, that of Speaker Gingrich. I’m not real sure that Gingrich is ready for the big time. Take a look at his website. http://www.newt.org/default.asp. This is a guy that irons his socks.

Guiliani needs to remember that he doesn’t have to pick up 100 percent of the primary vote to win. Quit worrying about the fundo-rightists and get on with leading. That’s what this republican wants.

Feb 5, 2007 - 3:06 pm 11. syn:

Does anyone here seriously believe that the Liberal Left is going to allow one of their accused Hilters to ever be nominated President?

Feb 5, 2007 - 3:57 pm 12. syn:

The question I have, is Rudy going to turn a Bloomberg on me by becoming a fat nanny Statist who will in the custom according to today’s Liberal philosophy, ban in addition to smoking and trans-fats stuff like driving, drinking, eating marriage between a man and a woman, the right to bare children and free speech?

I trusted Bloomie and ended up with the fat police and the smoker police why would I put my trust in one who dominately holds like-minded Liberal views?

Feb 5, 2007 - 4:08 pm 13. ricpic:

Most children are barely bearable but little bare children are cute.

Feb 5, 2007 - 4:24 pm 14. ShoreMark:

“I know conservatives who like Rudy because they think he is a strong leader. That means a lot. Just because someone is a social conservative that does not mean that they can only vote for someone else who is.”

Terrye, one could look at that from another angle too.

Wouldn’t that strong leadership make it more likely he’d get his agenda on more liberal areas pushed through?

There really is a strong possibility of his pulling a “Bloomberg” as Syn notes. That said, I’m not knocking him out in my mind at this early date.

Feb 5, 2007 - 5:39 pm 15. SMGalbraith:

There are no social issues or much of anything else until we defeat the rise of Islamism. efeat the rise of Islamism.

But does he have the “skills” to convince sceptics about that danger? It seems to me that his history illustrates that he – for lots of reasons that weren’t his fault, admittedly – was not able to convince liberals of the soundness of his policies.

As has been noted elsewhere, like Nixon going to China or Reagan negotiating with Gorbacheve or Clinton signing onto welfare reform, I’m afraid that until we get a Democratic president in office, the larger more mainstream liberal side will not be convinced of the need for this battle.

Feb 5, 2007 - 7:23 pm 16. JK Ribera:

Am I seeing things? There’s a war on against Islamic terrorism and two commenters on this site are worried whether the candidates for president support smoking bans???

Excuse me while I go have a drink.

Feb 5, 2007 - 8:09 pm 17. David Thomson:

I’m thrilled that Rudy Giuliani will probably be running in 2008. He has, for whatever it’s worth, my complete support. Nobody else even comes close. As matter of fact, Giuliani may be the only Republican who can soundly beat Hillary. I also want him to persuade Joe Lieberman to join him on the ticket! What a one-two punch that would be. It would tell the world that America will continue to vigorously fight the Islamic nihilists.

Feb 5, 2007 - 8:59 pm 18. TomTom:

I agree Rudy has the great gift of being a superb motivator. But I fear that our social issues will prevent our dealing with Islamism in the necessary way, so to that extent I see social issues and Islamism linked. As a nation, we are stuck on stupid, and cannot recover the strengths to quell Islamism while mired in a morass of conflicted social issues.
We can’t quell Islamism in one or two Presidential terms, but can ruin ourselves and our posterity in that same period with decisions and actions on our social issues.

Feb 5, 2007 - 9:02 pm 19. David Thomson:

“Am I seeing things? There’s a war on against Islamic terrorism and two commenters on this site are worried whether the candidates for president support smoking bans???”

Yup, these folks simply do not have their priorities straight. Moreover, Rudy Giuliani will pick judges who believe that their role is to interpret the law and not act as legislators from the bench.

Feb 5, 2007 - 9:03 pm 20. syn:

It isn’t about the smoking ban it’s about the means to which every time social Liberals get into power they regulate our lives to death with speech-coded laws which hold no meaning.

Do you know Giuliani’s stance on illegal immigration (undocumented workers in Rudy’s world)? Arnold out in California ran as a fiscal conservative/social Liberal and look at what he has morphed into, a collectivist nanny Statist. Californians were better off keeping the Dems in power.

Oh yeah, Bloomberg was ran on Rudy’s “tough on terror” only to govern as dodo doughboy.

I do have my priorities straight which is why I am not going to jump into the Rudy bandwagon (which most people have been riding since Sept 12, 2001) without knowing if I can trust him to govern with meaningful policies and not eventually cave to the social Liberal collectivists restricting our rights.

Could any social Liberal answer the question, why is it that women have the right to choose to abort yet people cannot choose what they consume?

Feb 6, 2007 - 3:37 am 21. syn:

No matter how tough a President is, we will never defeat Islamic Fascism until social Liberals end their speech-coded, multi-cultural mind-set which restricts our ability to even speak the enemy’s name.

Santorium was one of the toughest fighters against radical Islam, he spoke honestly, often and loudest yet what did the social Liberals do in his state, they voted him out of office. Apparently for social Liberals ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ is more important than fighting against radical Islam.

If social Liberals are really serious about winning against radical Islam maybe they should revisit their own policies and make some changes instead of simply blaming the Christers for all the worlds ills.

Feb 6, 2007 - 3:55 am 22. Roger:

“If social Liberals are really serious about winning against radical Islam maybe they should revisit their own policies and make some changes instead of simply blaming the Christers for all the worlds ills.”

Huh? I’m a social liberal and I don’t blame Christers for anything. I also happen to be a personal friend of Rick Santorum’s, believe it or not? Maybe you’re being a tad defensive here, Syn. We’re talking about winning a war, a serious one.

Feb 6, 2007 - 5:52 am 23. syn:

If social Liberals are serious about winning this war why then do they throw up barriers having nothing to do with winning this war like ’same-sex union between a man and a woman”, socialist univeral health care, environmental restrictionism?

Liberals are more freaked by “Global Warming” than they are “radical Islamic Fascism” and the proof is in the vote and in the language. ‘Changing the light bulbs or we’re all going to die’ is a stupid issue in comparison to the fact that there exists a movement which has no problem hacking off people’s heads.

That said, you may have missed the last five years of “Bush is Hilter and his evil BushCo neo-cons have established a reichwing Christian theocracy” so devoutly believed by social Liberals.

Social Liberals are only serious when they get all the goodies they demand otherwise they criminalize the opposition. Defensive no, I’m just tired of the groupthink doublespeak.

Feb 6, 2007 - 6:26 am 24. syn:

Since you are a social Liberal perhaps you could explain the reasoning behind why a woman has the right to choose to abort but people do not have the right to choose what they consume?

Feb 6, 2007 - 6:31 am 25. jedrury:

After just finishing “The Prince of the City” by Edward Siegel, a well written engrossing history about Rudi and other recent New York mayors, it is clear that America will soon be scrutinizing one of the most successful, savvy and gutzy politicians on this age.

The Rudi most Americans know and admire comes from his actions post 9/11, but this book tells the story pre 9/11 which is as instructive and informative of this courageous man fighting against the teachers unions, the governmental and social apparachiks and politicos like Al Sharpton of the Big Apple.

A winner.

Feb 6, 2007 - 7:09 am 26. Lem:

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” JFK.

We can fight terror and do the other things. The fact that we are paying more attention to the other things says volumes about the success we seem to take for granted.

Does anybody here watch 24?

Someone should ask these candidates what they would do should a terror nuke be detonated in one of our cities.

I know in my gut damayor would know what to do.

Feb 6, 2007 - 7:10 am 27. Lem:

jedrury

What about when he took on organized crime? When Rudy was the DA he went after the mob in a mayor way. Small businesses in the city owe Rudy big time.

Feb 6, 2007 - 7:20 am 28. jedrury:

Lem:

This book focuses on Rudi’s time as mayor. There is a significant reference to his time as a prosecutor and his warnings about the continuing threat emanating from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. As you may recall, the blind sheik – Rahman – was eventually prosecuted and jailed for his involvement but I think this was post Rudi as the Federal prosecutor and during the Clinton years. Rudi was successfully able to navigate the shark infested racially polarized waters of New York despite the opposition of those racial hucksters Al Sharpton and Charles Rangel neither of whom come off well in the bad light of exposure.

Feb 6, 2007 - 9:19 am 29. Terrye:

syn:

Ease up…I for one am disgusted by the fact that in the middle of a war there are people on the right who far more worried about fruipickers than they are head hackers. So it is not just the social liberals who need to get their priorities straight.

Go ahead, run Pat Buchanan, see where that gets you.

Feb 6, 2007 - 11:21 am 30. tim maguire:

Rudy has a lot to recommend him–he is tough and honest–but let’s not go overboard.

As mayor he had political opponents arrested (yes, he did).

Part of the reason Bloomberg was so unpopular in his first two years was because of the tough choices he had to make to clean up the fiscal disaster Guliani left him. Think Bush is irresponsible on budget issues? Wait till you see Rudy in action.

As you may remember, NYC was in the middle of an election during 9/11 (9/11 was primary day) and Rudy was term-limited out. Afterward, he tried to delay the transition arguing that he was too important to be replaced.

He lost that arguement but there it is–Guliani is too important to obey democratic rules. Do you really want a leader like that in a democratic country?

Feb 6, 2007 - 11:29 am 31. jedrury:

Tim:

A little fact checking, please.

Could you please identify the political opponents he arrested? I am not sure that this is correct.

Secondly, he was term limited. The primary went in early October 2001. Mark Green [Dem] won and then lost in the general election to Bloomberg. Both Green and Bloomberg agreed to a three month extension of office for Rudi. Maybe he was “just too important” to leave office when it came to organization, raising money for the City and the devastated lower Manhattan area and going to funerals for the brave martyred cops and firemen. Maybe, just maybe he was just important enough to touch the heart and soul of the people and what is wrong with that?

Now could we have those political opponents he tossed in jail?

Feb 6, 2007 - 12:10 pm 32. Godzilla:

As you may remember, NYC was in the middle of an election during 9/11 (9/11 was primary day) and Rudy was term-limited out. Afterward, he tried to delay the transition arguing that he was too important to be replaced.

He lost that arguement but there it is–Guliani is too important to obey democratic rules. Do you really want a leader like that in a democratic country?

To add more to that episode, the delay was for an extension of 3 months, to which Bloomberg immediately agreed (Rudy and Bloomberg are friends).

transition delay

Rudy had a 91 percent approval rating at the time, and term limits do have their antagonists as well as their proponents. They’re great when there’s a nitwit at the helm, pretty sucky when a real leader is behind the helm. And this was in the months immediately following 9/11. Guliani will no doubt face those questions, apparently from Republicans as well as the Dems, and he will chew that question up and grind it to bits. That was a grass-roots effort that wanted to repeal the term limits, not Rudy by himself acting like a Caesar.

Feb 6, 2007 - 12:14 pm 33. Michael Smith:

Here is another reason to like Rudy:

Link

Tim, can you tell us more about the financial mess you say Guliani left for Bloomberg?

Feb 6, 2007 - 12:30 pm 34. RogerA:

One of the commenters on Althouse’s blog mentioned an excellent point about Rudy: He has a speaking style that is absolutely charming–it’s conversational; you feel like you are not being lectured; contrast his style with almost any other candidate’s save, possibly, Obama and in that match up, Rudy has actually done things.

I think Rudy may be the best communicator since Saint Ronald.

Feb 6, 2007 - 12:35 pm 35. Lem:

Rudi saved hundreds of lives in the city by pursuing something he called

Feb 6, 2007 - 1:31 pm 36. Lem:

Ooop’s, That Eason story has cobwebs

sorry about that.

Feb 6, 2007 - 1:44 pm 37. ricpic:

Presidential elections are conducted and won between the 40 yard line markers. That is to say, both parties go after the uncommitted voter after having secured their own base.

Rudy Giuliani is a big spending big government social liberal. Most, not all but most, of the Republican base believes in limited government and is socially conservative. Many of these people, having been burned by Bush on both scores, big government and social conservatism, are not about to be burned again. They’ll sit this one out. Even in the face of a Hillary presidency. These are very angry people who have been crapped on by the Republican establishment and are not about to be crapped on again.

The Republicans, having failed to secure their base, will lose.

Feb 6, 2007 - 1:49 pm 38. jedrury:

RogerA writes:

“I think Rudy may be the best communicator since Saint Ronald.”

One comment: is instead of may.

Lem and Michael: spot on

Recall how he gave Alaweed’s big whopper of a check back. No thanks.

Recall how he walked down the aisle as a stand in for a dead police officer’s daughter at her marriage. Amazing guy.

Feb 6, 2007 - 2:02 pm 39. sparrow:

I like Rudy, but if the Republicans nominate him I foresee a significant candidate to the right of him appearing on one of the independant party lines for the general election. The big issue they could use would be lack of enforcement of immigration laws.

Feb 6, 2007 - 3:06 pm 40. Terrye:

ricpic:

In other words if they don’t get what they want they will take their football and go home. Maybe it is time that the Republicans stopped trying to please these people. They can not win if they cater to them anyway.

Feb 6, 2007 - 3:11 pm 41. dougf:

“The Republicans, having failed to secure their base, will lose.”

Frankly apart from the fact that their opposition is largely composed of a collection of ‘progressive’ demagogues, I could not care less if the Republicans as you define them ,lose.

There are quite a few people like Roger who find themselves voting for Republicans ONLY because of the International Situation.

However in 2006 that group was beginning to show definite signs of disenchantment. It will be worse in 2008. The tide is well and truly receding. The Republican ‘base’ is just deluding itself if it thinks otherwise.

There are many many many people who are ,at the least ,’tired’ of the Republican base,with its dogmatic approach to society. You should be grateful for the Democratic Party you have. Otherwise the Republicans would be in the same sitiuation as they were for much of the 20th century. Out of power and out of luck. The Democrats are losing; The Reoublicans are not winning. Have not been for almost a decade now.

Don’t vote for Rudy. He will survive and Hillary will clean everyone else’s clock. The country wants a change. In this I agree with Dick Morris who purely on the basis of ‘averages’ is due to be correct on the big one. Either the Republicans provide ‘change’ or Hillary will.

There is not 1 other Republican who can defeat her in 2008. Not 1(well maybe McCain but the ‘base’ hates him with a passion I do believe). Astute members of the ‘base’ understand that and are reacting accordingly. Others — well they are simply part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The cut off your nose to spite your face crowd. The obverse of the Move-On crowd. True believers.

I would almost like to see Hillary as President just to witness the angst.

Almost.

Feb 6, 2007 - 3:37 pm 42. TedM:

dougf,
You wrote the comment I was about to make.

Rudy is the only candidate among those who
are now running who can win the moderate middle.
remember George McGovern. The base of the Democrats pushed for and got the candidate they
wanted and it was a total disaster for the Dems.
Will the Republicans repeat that mistake? Yes,
if you listen to the far right. They are more
interested in their narrow issues than in winning. Appeal to the far right and lose the
middle. run Rudy and win a good percentage of the
middle and only lose the far right fringe. And even then, given the choice of Hillary or Rudy,I don’t think the far right vote will either
not vote or vote for Hillary

Feb 6, 2007 - 4:03 pm 43. Steven Mitchell:

I really don’t know many people more conservative than me. You have to get into the Paleo-con, Pat Buchanan areas to get much “more conservative” than me–and I’d argue that their isolationist streak is not all that conservative, in most reasonable senses of the word.

I think most of the base disgust is vented more against Congress than Bush. To the extent that it is vented against Bush, it’s because of not pushing hard enough on Iraq (and Iran) and border issues. Same with the courts–the base is angry with the Senate, not Bush.

Some of you guys are throwing around “far right” and the like as if it were a monolithic vote, all focused on single issues. There are some single-issue voters on that end of the band, same as anywhere else, but if you think they will not turn out in droves to defeat Hillary, you are smoking something.

Feb 6, 2007 - 4:22 pm 44. Luther McLeod:

A lot of ’sense’ there Steven. But then I am a single issue voter.

I would prefer to see a more defined choice. Hillary and Giuliani almost do it. Especially with Hillary, seemingly, and recently, sliding to the “out now, at any cost, tirades. Compared too Rudie’s apparently honest take on the war that we are involved in.

But yet, they almost seem the same, other than their takes on the war. Though I would never vote for Hillary, I may not be entirely happy voting for Rudy. Must it always be the greater of only two…choices? In our system, yes. In the end, we, as individual voter’s, have little discretion.

Feb 6, 2007 - 6:10 pm 45. Capt. Craig:

Roger, Roger, Roger!
I am a simple man, a retired old warhorse and I can’t help thinking you must have been a classmate of my ex wife who went to URI.
You said “….but that is besides the point.” Aaarrrrggghh! I’ll buy “beside,” tisk tisk!

The Capt.

Feb 6, 2007 - 6:47 pm 46. Henry Bowman:

I saw a brief interview of Mr. Rudy Giuliani today. He was asked about his support of the 2nd Amendment, with the interviewer pointedly noting that New York City had some of the most draconian gun laws in the U.S. Giuliani replied that he wholeheartedly supported the 2nd Amendment and the right of all citizens to bear arms, except of course in densely-populated areas such as New York, where it “wasn’t practical”. He blithely referred to this sort of “local option” as a type of Federalism, or States rights issue.

I was struck by the parallel between Giuliani and Strom Thurmond in Strom’s Dixiecrat days. After all, Strom argued that the pesky 14th Amendment just wasn’t right for the good [white] folks in South Carolina, so they could [and did!] just disregard it! Rudy is basically saying the same thing, but he is substituting the ‘good folks’ of New York City [good folks being the police and a few well-placed citizens] for the white folks of South Carolina. The other folks of New York City, well, Rudy figures that they are pretty much in the same boat as the blacks folks of South Carolina were back in the Jim Crow days.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

Feb 6, 2007 - 7:00 pm 47. michael:

Bowman, The Sullivam law re: guns was passed before you or Rudy were born. IMHO, it is excesively demanding that Rudy ‘enforce the laws that are on the books re: immigration’ and then turn around and say, in his public career in NY, he should ‘do your own thing’ over a settled gun law. Personally, I think John Edwards has a better position on the danger of being captured by female astronauts. He sees there are ‘2 Americas,’ one which he is in where conceivably one might be kidnapped by an astronaut and the rest of us who he is going to be nice enough to recommend for kidnapping when he is elected.

Feb 6, 2007 - 7:56 pm 48. Henry Bowman:

Well, Michael, the Jim Crow laws were passed not only before Rudy or I were born, but EVEN before Strom was born, not to mentioned ELECTED. That does not mean that Strom did not support such laws wholeheartedly, as Rudy quite obviously supports the Sullivan (not Sullivam, my maternal grandmother and great-grandmother would not like the spelling) laws. Rudy made it clear that he supports all such laws wholeheartedly, just as Strom did. So, you say, Rudy should enforce laws that many folks regard as plainly unconstitutional, just because they were on the books before he took office? Seriously, this is just as stupid as George Bush looked when he signed the McCain-Feingold Act.

Feb 6, 2007 - 9:05 pm 49. PC14:

I do think Rudy could take both NY and CA.

It’s about time for some geopgraphic departure in the Presidency, that is, a dude from back east.

Rudy has shown, during his Mafia battles, that he can go. He’ll throw down and continue Dubya’s fight against evil, asshole ( evil-asshole) Islamics.

I’ll feel good about a New Yorker having my back.

And if I’m gonna have me cake and eat it too, then I want the Rudy vs. Hillary matchup, just to see Hillary scheech out when NY is called for RG.

Feb 6, 2007 - 10:54 pm 50. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

I read often, rarely post, but on this one I would like to add my 2 cents. First let me say that I agree with Rudy on just about everything, social issues included. That being said I would suggest to those concerned (or enamored) with his social positions that there is a big difference between social tolerance on a personal level and what public policy one might pursue. Also I would suggest there is a big difference between idealism and pragmatism. Rudy is pragmatic enough and I doubt he would endeavor to govern on social issues nationally the same way he would locally.

Rudy has promised to appoint conservative Justices which will be enough for a clear majority of Republicans who aren’t just the one trick social conservative nutjobs liberals and the MSM paint them to be (liberals who assume such simple minded characterizations and project such thinking upon Republicans are caught up in prejudice and/or wishful thinking).

I would remind people of two important points made by Tip O’Neil that I believe Rudy Giuliani fully understands. First, all politics is local (social politics on a national level is different then local). Second, when Americans vote for a President, leadership is the quality of first importance. This last quality is why Rudy will have little problem in the South, only challenged if people perceive someone else to equal his leadership ability.

I would add that Rudy’s disadvantages are no greater in the Republican Party then McCain’s or Romney’s, in fact Rudy has the greater advantage. Most Republicans have felt betrayed by McCain on some level, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians. Almost all question his temperament. Romney being a Mormon will cause him more grief then he should have to deal with, which is a shame, because he is by far of the most mainstream to Republican ideology. My preference is Rudy or Romney, in that order. Most other choices would probably leave me to vote without much enthusiasm.

The bottom line is Rudy chances are strong and in my opinion stronger now then ever before.

Feb 7, 2007 - 5:18 am 51. michael:

Taking a little Irish pride in unconstitutional gun laws are we Bowman? Where are the Know Nothings when we need them? Strom Thurmond’s lines to rouse the crowds were, ‘Segregation now and forever!’ and ‘They shall never mix..’ just the obverse of those of Martin Luther King. When Rudy’s cheer line becomes ‘Gun control across the country!’ or, in response to a question, he says, ‘I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might upset Bowman etc.’ then I will agree with you on the coded message you are picking up.

Feb 7, 2007 - 6:52 am 52. Henry Bowman:

Michael, I have no idea what coded message you are talking about.

Joseph (formerly Samuel), I agree that the fact that Romney is a Mormon is a problem for him. I have spoken to a number of supposedly liberal-minded folks who have flat-out told me that they would not vote for him because he is Mormon. I admit I was astonished at their views, but I assume that there are plenty of others with similar views.

Feb 7, 2007 - 7:06 am 53. michael:

HB, The ‘coded message’ that he is going to overturn the Second Amendment.

Feb 7, 2007 - 9:50 am 54. stumbley:

Giuliani will respect the Second Amendment. Henry, a mayor who enforces laws already on the books is the kind of mayor you want, isn’t it? It’s up to city government or a strict constructionist SCOTUS to judge whether the law is unconstitutional, not to executives. Don’t we want the judiciary to make those decsions…not legislators or executives?

I like Rudy precisely because his public pronouncements lately indicate a pragmatic approach to politics; he’s saying that he is a “pro-choice” individual, but that Roe v. Wade is “settled precedent”…meaning that the SCOTUS will have to change it (if it ever does get changed). And, since the majority of Americans favors abortion rights, it’s political suicide to be a right-to-lifer. Foes of abortion need to understand that…the best they can hope for is Rudy’s “federal” approach to lawmaking. Too many in both parties have wound up being single-issue voters. Have we forgotten that compromise is the name of the game?

You don’t dig a ditch with just a shovel; you don’t dig a ditch with just a pick. You need both.

Feb 7, 2007 - 11:58 am 55. Coisty:

What exactly did he do in the aftermath of 9/11 that was so great? OK he didn’t break down in tears like Kathleen Blanco but other than that it’s never been explained how he was so heroic. Before 9/11 didn’t he run his administration as if terrorism was no concern at all despite the first WTC bombing? Why wasn’t he held accountable for the communication problems on 9/11 that cost so many firemen their lives? He was also the one who insisted that the emergency management center be placed in the World Trade Center despite it being an obvious target for terrorists.

Giuliani’s response to immigrant Colin Ferguson’s Long Island train massacre and the Empire State Building shooting by some Arab sums him up. Rather than talk about immigration or law and order Rudy responded by calling for more gun control. In other words less freedom for Americans because of crimes committed by foreigners and continued support for open borders.

Those who say “forget domestic politics the WOT is all that matters” sound like the old Cold Warriors. They were so busy fighting the Cold War they allowed the Left to take control of virtually everything else. And yet it is that Left ensconced in most of the country’s media, universities, and government institutions due to Cold Warrior neglect that is making the WOT impossible to fight.

Feb 7, 2007 - 12:12 pm 56. michael:

Coisty, Now you’re talking. Let’s look at the record. And it’s true many of us have no knowledge of these incidents. We do know that NY was considered hopeless and that crime has gone down with his ‘broken window policy.’

Feb 7, 2007 - 12:33 pm 57. Lem:

Just discovered video of a very young and frustrated Rudy

http://tinyurl.com/2uaffw

Feb 7, 2007 - 12:48 pm 58. Terrye:

michael:

Wyatt Earp took the guns away from cowboys when they entered the city limits, that did not mean he wanted to overturn the second amendment.

Feb 7, 2007 - 3:29 pm 59. Terrye:

Coisty:

As was mentioned Gulliani had a 91% approval rating in NYC after the attack there on 9/11. So it seems the people who actually live in the city were under the impression that he did plenty. He may not be far enough to the right for you, but no one who is can win anyway. That is not meant to be unkind, it is just true.

Feb 7, 2007 - 3:31 pm 60. The Friendly Grizzly:

Rudy? I dunno. He comes across to me as just another eastern-seaboard elitist gun-grabber with a desire for open borders. Besides, he’s a lawyer. No thanks.

My dream candidate would be one who would protect and defend the entire Constitution, be willing to let our military fight the war without all the second guessing from the caviar-and-champaign set at the State Department, and control the border.

At the same time my dream candidate would not make wedge issues out of whom I choose to have as my life partner, or whether I subscribe to the candidate’s particular belief set.

Feb 7, 2007 - 6:59 pm 61. Henry Bowman:

terrye writes:

Wyatt Earp took the guns away from cowboys when they entered the city limits, that did not mean he wanted to overturn the second amendment.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that Tombstone was not in one of the states of the U.S. at the time; it was merely a territory.

Feb 7, 2007 - 8:46 pm 62. Roger:

Henry Bowman and everyone else,

I rarely make political predictions on this site but I think I can safely say that the chances of Rudy Giuliani, if elected, trying to repeal the Second Amendment are about as great as my spending next Christmas on Alpha Centauri.

Feb 7, 2007 - 9:26 pm 63. syn:

And CA social liberal/fiscal conservative Arnold promised to stand up to special interests only to end up effectively calling for every child in the world under the age of 5 to receive free health care insurance. Roger, if enacted all the parents, legal or otherwise, have to is show up to your state and you will be forced to pay the bill; let’s hope Hollywood pays you enough to foot the bill. Liberal place a great deal of faith in an ideology which does exactly the oppose action to the words spoken. There is no such thing as Liberalism in America, your ideology has been consumed by progressive Leftist collectivism.

My hesitation isn’t about right-winger concerns it is about electing politicans who will not lead America down the road to serfdom and so far any social liberal elected ends up enacting laws and regulations designed to restrict our freedoms. All for the good of the masses of course.

Now some NY State Liberal is calling for a law banning the use of ‘listening to Ipods while crossing the street’.

Terrye,
Your assumption about Pat Buchanan is absurd. You may be surpirsed to learn that if we would just allow our Republic function as it was designed, that being each State be allowed to legislate their laws, people will vote accordingly. Like the recent case in NC regarding abortion, contrary to the scare tactics by Planned Parenthood and NOW the people voted NOT to ban abortion.

Just because I believe in a funtioning Republic based upon Constitutional law and not Collectivist Statist totalitarianism doesn’t make me a far-rightwing extremist it make me an ordinary American.

Feb 8, 2007 - 6:20 am 64. dclydew:

Just because I believe in a funtioning Republic based upon Constitutional law and not Collectivist Statist totalitarianism doesn’t make me a far-rightwing extremist it make me an ordinary American.

Well, at least Syn and I can agree on that.

In my view, I think that there are far too many ideas, opinions and beliefs among Americans to believe that a single legislative body can provide a consensus that would appeal to the majority. I’m personally not too happy with at least half of the Democrats agenda, but I wasn’t happy with at least half of the Republicans agenda. In all, its simply seems that what works in New York, probably doesn’t work in Mississippi and what works in Texas probably won’t work in Maine. We unfortunately seem to have this false idea that simply because we are all in a national border that we all have the same values, beliefs and world views (or at least “close enough”). However, this simply doesn’t seem to be the case. Local government, whenever possible, seems far more likely to provide solutions that local citizens will agree with.

I think that our government (particularly since the early 20th century) has moved away from the original design for this nation and toward a more monolithic government. We have allowed the Federal government to simply absorb more and more control over the whole Republic. If we don’t curtail this then eventually, it won’t matter which party is in government because no matter the party, the effect will be Big Government, no States rights and full control of our lives from Washington.

This isn’t just a problem for the “Left”. When the Republicans held power they too administered over a Federal mess that constantly and consistently took more and more power. Consider, for example, the invasion of personal privacy and State jurisdiction in the situation with Terri Schaivo (which stunk of a political ploy), or the fact that the federal government refused to accept that the People of several states have voted to legalize medical marijuana. Hell, under this current administration, the GAO actually said that the Drug Czar (why do we have a ‘czar’ anyway?) was allowed to lie in order to prosecute the War on Drugs! Consider the creation of Homeland Security, another example of bigger, not smaller government (and NOLA provided a great example of why well trained local government should be used, rather than a monolithic federal one).

At one time, Conservatives were the people I trusted not to stick their nose in my life… or to stick their federal policies in my State. Yet, now, both parties and the federal government as a whole seem bent on screwing us out of our rights.

I plan to vote based on the individual running and screw the party, as of yet I haven’t seen a sensible statement about international policy from any of the contenders, I haven’t seen a policy I like for social issues yet either. The Dems seem pretty secularly Statist (and anti-war… with no useful options) currently and the Republicans running seem either Statist or religiously Statist (and only spout platitudes or useless “We embolden the enemy if we debate…” bullshit). No one seems to have any actual ideas on how to fix the mess we’re in, either at home or abroad.

Maybe Jesse Ventura will come out as a Dark Horse

Feb 8, 2007 - 1:07 pm 65. Steven Mitchell:

dclydew,

So you agree with me that education should be far more privatized than it is now? If not, please explain how that is consistent with your stated principles.

Feb 9, 2007 - 10:48 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: