January 31, 2007

"If I had to vote today... without a doubt... former United States Attorney and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani."

So says Baseball Crank, who calls himself "a pro-life Reaganite conservative." His reasons:
1. We Need To Win The War....

2. We Need To Win The Election....

3. Leadership Matters....

4. We Can Hold The Line In The Courts....
Read the whole thing. If I had to vote today, I'd pick Giuliani too, but it's much easier for me, because I support abortion rights and the other liberal causes that make conservatives worry about Giuliani.

39 comments:

Alan said...

Giuliani is the only Republican I'll vote for. My hope is his nomination will prove, once and for all, a candidate doesn't have to be a pro-life, social-conservative to win the GOP nomination. If he doesn't win I'll leave the party and either sit out or vote for Hillary.

Revenant said...

I'm certainly voting for him in the California primaries, but I'm not too hopeful. It is probably too much to ask the pro-lifers to shut the hell up and go away until the war's over.

Simon said...

That answers my question from last week, Ann. For obvious reasons, I'm delighted to read that.

I've said this before, but as long as Rudy indicates that he shares my view of who the Constitution says gets to make the decisions about whether abortion is legal or not, and I think he's indicated that pretty clearly, I have no beef with him being pro choice on a political level.

Simon said...

Revenant - I'm perhaps more optimistic than you are. Or, perhaps, more cynical: I think that McCain and Giuuliani are the only two Republicans who can win the general election in 2008, and the people who would usually be inclined to oppose Giulliani (a) really understand the stakes of winning in 2008 and (b) hate McCain so much that they'll table their concerns about Giulliani to stop McCain.

Giulliani isn't my first choice for President, but he's a great candidate, I think he'd be a great President, and since none of the people I'd prefer are electable, I think I'm basically hitching my wagon to Rudy for the time being. I like Newt a lot, I just can't see him winning if he's the top of ticket guy. Rudy can win and will excel when he does. Everyone should check out the speech he gave on CSPAN last week.

Beth said...

I don't see any reason to believe that Giuliani will continue to support abortion rights, gay rights, and other liberal causes if he wants to run on the GOP ticket. Call me cynical. I'd love to see the GOP morph, but I don't believe it will happen. I also can't see my way past the pre-9/11 Giuliani who was no treasure.

MadisonMan said...

Who would he be running against? I guess I'd have to know that before casting my vote for him today. Certainly he trumps most Republican candidates, and most Democratic as well.

But I won't definitely vote for him over, say, Vilsack or Tommy. Midwestern Common Sense. Now more than ever.

Simon said...

Beth - the issue isn't whether the party will change. The issue is whether it will accept a candidate who is a centrist on social issues, even though he's conservative on the issues that are within the ambit of the Presidency. Moreover, it's precisely Giulliani's record pre-9/11 that makes him so attractive as a candidate - see the conservative case for Giulliani. His record of leadership on and after 9/11 gives him extra credibility, though, sure. 9/11 didn't create Rudy Giulliani, it just made people aware of who he already was.

MadisonMan - I think the announced candidates on the GOP side so far are Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Newt might jump in, and so might Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson. On the Dem side - c'mon. ;) It's Hillary vs. Obama, with possible despoiling actions by Edwards and the usual suspects (Kucinich, Sharpton and so forth). If you like Midwesterners, here's Jim Nussle on Rudy. ;)

Gahrie said...

Draft Fred Thompson

Beth said...

Simon, the party would have to change to accept a centrist candidate. Good luck with that. The past few presidential races have shown the GOP to be committed to social conservatism. Check out the platform. If you're wanting to play semantics with the word "change," fine, call it what you want.

Your appreciation of his pre-9/11 record is appropriate, and you link to the conservative case for Giuliani. My rejection of that same record comes from being on the other side of the spectrum. "Attractive" is a relative term in all aspects of life, and certainly in politics.

Simon said...

Beth,
The Republican mission in 2008, our challenge IMO, is to rebuild the Reagan coalition without an actual Ronald Reagan. And the challenge for the Democrats is to stay out of the way and let us blow it. ;) I mean, if Hillary wins, it won't be because there's enthusiasm for her agenda, it'll be because the GOP has failed to disaggregate itself from George Bush in the public mind, despite there being a lot of people in this country, in both parties, who are sick of George Bush, and want to move away from him. Still, my view is that if we get a candidate who clearly is different to Bush, who can hold the party together (which McCain can't), and who can appeal to the middle enough to win the general election.

And I don't think the party has to change to accept Giulliani. Partly because I don't think he's a centrist candidate, I think he's a candidate who's towards the center on some issues, towards the right on most, and appeals to the center. But mainly because when you look back to Barry Goldwater, it's clear that Barry Goldwater didn't transform the Republican party before he got the nomination. The party changed after he got the nomination. And y'know, Bill Clinton didn't have to change the Democratic party to get their nomination, he just had to be the most credible candidate that they could put forward at a time when they really, really wanted to win. If you mean change in the sense of a change of emphasis in the campaign strategy, I agree with you, but if you mean wholesale change in the party, I don't think there's any reason to think that's a precondition to his winning the nomination. The Democrats of today are basically the same party as they were before they nominated Clinton, so if they didn't have to change to accept a candidate who was liberal on some issues and more centrist on others, why would the GOP have to do so?

TMink said...

Rev wrote: "It is probably too much to ask the pro-lifers to shut the hell up and go away until the war's over."

Well, if you asked nicely I might! Seriously, if he got the nomination I could vote for him. But why should I shut up? Why is it so offensive when we Conservative Christians exercise our Constitutional rights? I mean, don't you push for your political agenda? Why shouldn't I?

Fred Thompson is more my style, and I might vote Tancredo for the primary as he would hit two of my non-offensive to you issues: the war and the border.

Trey

Beth said...

Simon, I'm more inclined to believe that Giuliani will have to change to get the GOP nod. I don't believe the platform will change substantially in terms of social issues, so he's going to have to jetison his moderate or centrist social positions. In that case, I hope moderates, like Ann, will see through it and not think oh, he's just triangulating and doesn't really intend to bend towards the social conservatives. Look at Romney. He's suddenly much more at home with anti-gay or anti-abortion rights positions than he was when he was running for governor of a large, Eastern state.

I realize I'm being cynical, and I actually think that what you're wishing for is worthwhile. I just don't believe that the GOP is ready to break its deal with the devil that is the religious right. Will a Reagan realignment make that happen? It was Reagan who opened the door to the Moral Majority--Nancy's astrologer must have told him it'd be a good move. Sorry! Being cynical again.

I do agree with you that the Dems basically need to just stay out of the way and let the GOP continue to bungle a way out of the Bush wilderness.

And on that note, may I say, Goodnight, Molly Ivins, and rest in peace.

Simon said...

Beth,
Well, lookit - I'm pro life, and I'm not exactly proud, but somewhat amused to have authored a comment that our hostess dubbed the most illiberal thing she'd ever seen on this blog. The point is, apart from the odd feminist deviation and my general lack of interest in the whole gay marriage issue, I'm one of the more conservative commenters here. And I'm willing to back Giulliani, even if he doesn't "jetison his moderate or centrist social positions." And I know plenty of people who are far more socially conservative than am I who are willing to back Giulliani. So all I'd say is, keep an open mind on him. :)

Beth said...

Simon, I'm not going to vote for him, if that's what you mean by an open mind, but I'll keep an open mind about his chances of being the GOP candidate. After all, we're just speculating and navel gazing here.

Beth said...

And Simon, "lookit" is one of my favorite words. The best response is "I'm lookiting!"

The partisan moderate said...

Simon, you are incorrect. The Republicans will only win if Bush is popular by 2008 not by running away from the President. Modern political history dictates that the party of the incumbent two-term President typically does not win. However, they can win if the public wants to give that President a third term. In essence, if the Republican candidate wins it is because of President Bush’s popularity not in spite of. Please stop bashing on the President anyway. History, I am betting will judge him as a good President who has restored the economy, kept us safe from another attack, and did what most politicians would have done based on the evidence against Saddam Hussein.

However, you are correct about Giuliani. While I am personally pro-choice, his position on abortion is not relevant. What is important is what type of justices he will appoint to the court. However, while I am an avid Giuliani supporter, I still am unsure he is actually going to run. There has been conflicting evidence.

chuck b. said...

California's trying to move it's presidential primary to January. If California Republicans vote for Rudy, and we will, who'll gives a frack who the Republicans in Iowa or New Hampshire vote for?

hdhouse said...

I happily opine "Please God make it Rudy".

1. His fiscal management and outright irresponsibility left New York with pass forward debt that nearly buried the city. Bloomberg had to deal with both the aftermath of 911 AND the mountain of red ink that Rudy so conveniently left - red ink that occured during one of the great boom times in NYC history by the way.

2. The crossover votes from democrats will be nearly non-existent when we re-examine his social welfare policies and politics....particulary his mean sprited attacks on the working poor and food stamp single mothers.

3. Bernard Kerik. Bernard the trusted business partner and close friend. A goldmine.

4. and for the rabid right wing of the republican party - the TRO to keep him from bringing his mistress - yes his mistress HOME to Gracie Mansion while his child was in the house..not to mention his Gingrich-like announcement of his separation from his 2nd wife at a news conference without the decency to tell her first...that was lovely and so telling.

did he do well post 9-11? yes. otherwise....Oh God, let it be Rudy.

DBrooks said...

I think Simon makes some great points. I am a genetic conservative, by which I mean that my innate character has always been a desire to preserve things that work well, a reluctance to change such things without demonstrable proof that such a change would be for the better, an independence that prefers the government stay out of people's personal business, and an awareness that evil exists in the world which we must be prepared to confront. I am pro-life in that I believe the fact that there has been something like 43 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade is a national embarrassment, no matter which side of that argument one takes. I would vote for Giuliani enthusiastically. I think he is the right person at the right time. We face serious adversaries, and we need a President who recognizes that fact, and who is capable of communicating that reality in a consistent and persuasive manner. I also think Giuliani has the correct stance on the Constitution and federal judges, crime, taxes, American exceptionalism, etc.

And the crowning recommendation is that someone like hdhouse, who isn't just wrong on most things, but hysterically wrong, seems hellbent to convince Republicans not to vote for Giuliani, and why we shouldn't. I have said it before, but it bears repeating--the Left fears Giuliani like no other potential Republican candidate. He can't be branded as a "right-wing fanatic," he has proven and inarguable governing successes and leadership qualities, he is a very adept politician and communicator, and he puts California, New York, and, possibly other parts of New England in play for the Republicans. I ask people like hdhouse to imagine a debate between Giuliani and Hillary Clinton--if that doesn't make a Progressive's blood run cold, I don't know what would.

Sorry for the long comment.

MathMom said...

Giuliani won my vote when he was offered the check for $10 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, who stated at the time it was offered that America had to acknowledge our fault in the 9/11 attacks. He didn't even consider taking it for one second. It was like a knee-jerk reflex, to refuse it. That told me that he knows who he is, knows what he believes, and cannot be swayed even by millions of dollars offered at a time of great need.

He knows who is the enemy. He'd be a great Commander-in-Chief, and a serious wartime President.

It's all very well stated here.

David Thomson said...

I am pro-life---and I'm not even slightly worried about Rudy Giuliani's abortion record. The real question is whether he believes in judicial restraint. The late leagal scholar Raoul Berger, for instance, was pro-abortion, but also thought that Roe vs. Wade was an outrageously awful decision. I'm convinced that a President Giuliani would pick judges who belive that such matters like abortion and gay marriage are best left to the voters.

Mister Snitch! said...

I'd vote for Giuliani, too. But my gut says Milt Romney will take the nomination. He seems like something of a dark horse now, but this is now and the nomination is later. Guiliani is going to be the GOP's answer to Mario Cuomo.

Mister Snitch! said...

Oh, just noticed this from some clownboy:

1. His fiscal management and outright irresponsibility left New York with pass forward debt that nearly buried the city.

Hilarious. Yeah, Giuliani DIDN'T inherit a fiscal mess from DInkins (who's probably a God to this Bozo) and leave the city on a sound footing. See if that plays.

2. ...mean sprited attacks on the working poor and food stamp single mothers.

Guiliani confronted the welfare state that was crippling NYC, and won. BTW, were Clinton's "attacks" on same as above "mean spirited"? Naw. Clowboy will assure us that his were "nice" attacks.

3. Bernard Kerik.

The mayor of a huge urban area appoints a guy who gets in trouble. Stop the press. No one on the Dem side will have any such baggage, of course.

Clownboy can't link what Kerik did with any benefit to Rudy, nor can he dig up another name or two (for all the years Rudy was in office). What a joke.

4. bringing his mistress - yes his mistress HOME to Gracie Mansion while his child was in the house.. that was lovely and so telling.

Lewinsky. Next?

MadisonMan said...

On the Dem side - c'mon. ;) It's Hillary vs. Obama

Yes, I know I have to Get With The Program. :) However, I retain the possibly forlorn hope that Democrats will come to their senses and scrape these Senators who would be king off their shoes. Otherwise the Democratic Party really will have stepped in it and missed an opportunity. It'll be any Republican in a walk.

Simon said...

David - not only Berger, but John Hart Ely, even. There are many, many people who are political liberals and who are pro-choice, but who see Roe as invalid as a matter of law. Roe-Casey are no more about abortion than Furman was about capital punishment - they are about who gets to decide.

MadisonMan - I wouldn't go that far. I think there are people running for the GOP nomination who Hillary or Obama could beat easily (e.g. Brownback), and others who they'd put into a very close race (e.g. Newt). The GOP has an uphill battle to fight to win in 2008.

Milhouse said...

Are you people nuts?

"I support abortion rights and the other liberal causes that make conservatives worry about Giuliani"

What about civil liberties? Do you people have any idea of his record on civil liberties, both as mayor and before that as US Attorney? Let's just say the man is no libertarian. He has shown utter contempt for the first amendment, the second amendment, the fourth and fifth amendments, and if he had the opportunity to flout the rest of the BOR he has shown no sign that he wouldn't. Think Janet Reno in an XY.

People rant now about the USA PATRIOT Act, but they are generally foaming at the mouth, convinced that Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and everyone else involved are literally the spawn of Satan. Since it's obvious that they're not, the concerns can be put on the back burner. But if Guiliani gets his hands on these powers, God help America.

I never thought I'd say it, but I would vote for the Wicked Witch from Westchester before I would vote for this man.

John Clifford said...

I like Guiliani as a person and as a politician, but his views on abortion and gun control are the dealbreakers, at least in the primaries. I'd vote for him over any Democrat.

What I don't understand are the people who say they'll vote for Hillary if Guiliani isn't the GOP candidate. Hillary and Guiliani are about as opposite as you can get; she's a big government nanny state proponent, he's a free market law-and-order type.

Re "ask[ing] the pro-lifers to shut the hell up and go away until the war's over," what you're asking is for people who believe that abortion is murder to acquiesce to murder for the "greater good" as you see it. How about you taking abortion off the table, and agreeing to support a strong-on-the-war candidate even if they are pro-life?

I really don't have a favorite candiate now. Mitt Romney is interesting, but I'm concerned about his morphing on positions of principle (abortion, gun control). I respect McCain as a very courageous individual, but I don't agree with his politics. And I couldn't vote for any of the Democrats currently running with a clear conscience; they're idiotic, incompetent, and dangerous -- even Hillary.

I wish Newt Gingrich would run. I'd vote for him... but because he has been so effectively, and unfairly, pilloried in the press, I don't think he stands a chance of winning the nomination much less the election.

That's the problem with America: the idiots who voted for Clinton deserved all 8 years of him, but I didn't!

LonewackoDotCom said...

Giuliani will certainly continue President Bush's strong defence of our borders and will continue President Bush's indefatigable campaign to end illegal immigration. As for those millions and millions of illegal aliens who happen to be here (through no fault of President Bush), Giuliani will only give them one of the most valuable things in the world (U.S. citizenship) after they pass an English proficiency test. This fiendishly clever Giuliani plan will certainly deter all future illegal immigrants, who'll cower at the mere thought of having to undergo a test. Up with Rudy!

Revenant said...

What about civil liberties? Do you people have any idea of his record on civil liberties, both as mayor and before that as US Attorney?

Yes, and it isn't even remotely as bad as you're making it sound.

Mike said...

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

He's my pick of everyone running in either party. I don't agree with him on gun control, but the only way to have a President who agrees with me on everything is if I were President. And I'd win, too, what with my Midwestern Common Sense, and all.

Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

Simon said...

Giulliani's website has posted some polling numbers here.

hdhouse said...

Ohhh Please...please please.....

let it be Rudy...please!!!! If there is a God and He/She is a democart, please pull some strings and get Rudy the nomination.....

hdhouse said...

Simon said...
" 9/11 didn't create Rudy Giulliani, it just made people aware of who he already was."

NY'ers knew who he was prior to 9/11 and if you remember the senate race, he was not fairly well. You will also remember him hauling his girlfriend back to Gracie Mansion and his now x-wife having to get a restraining order against him bringing her there...and 9/11 wasn't a triumph for Rudy..quite the contrary...There will be PAC money by the truckload waiting for him, believe me.

hannah said...

A month ago I was exactly feeling how you are feeling now, in pain, crying, heart broken, and then I found this site saveabreakup.com and I followed their instructions, I had my girlfriend come back to me in no time so fast !! I was so so happy and I'm still very happy, don't give up! I suggest you view the free videos that tell you what to do on saveabreakup.com

SEO said...

Sofa set
"I really like your site. Been very informational. I really hope you’ll sustain the good work and observe after the normal."

SEO said...

sherwani
Thanks for sharing this information with us. I am very impressed with this article. Your blog is very interesting. I appreciate your work.

SEO said...

Wow, that was pretty interesting. Inspiring, as well. Thanks for sharing such inspiring experience with us. Great blog, congrats!
chennai silks online

SEO said...

I really think you will do much better in the future I appreciate every thing you've added to my information base.
Contemporary Furniture Online

SEO said...

I really think you will do much better in the future I appreciate every thing you've added to my information base.
Contemporary Furniture Online