From four political consultants. His biggest problem seems to be dealing with the social conservatives well enough to get through the primaries.
Mary Matalin: "[C]arefully evolve, but don’t be a phony. Social conservatives are conviction voters. And social moderates will reject political opportunism. Indicate your respect for conservative convictions and try to 'refine' your own. A late-life reversal on late-term abortion is entirely plausible and mandatory. Try to keep focus on constitutionalist judges."
Paul Begala: "You can’t switch on everything. So surrender to the far right on one issue: abortion. But the only way to do it is whole hog. Use your trump card: 9/11. Tell them the death you saw that day gave you a greater appreciation for the sanctity of life. You’re Saul on the road to Damascus. Praise the Lord and pass the delegates."
Mark Halperin: "Giuliani would seem to have two choices — try to back off of his previously held liberal positions on social issues, or confront the party by arguing that his conservative record on crime, taxes and national security should be sufficient for a party serious about being a big enough tent to win national elections. Giuliani watchers say they have no doubt that if he runs, he would pursue the latter course."
Rich Galen: "As to Rudy’s positions on social issues, I would interview the staff who ran Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s re-election campaign. California Republicans are decidedly conservative. Notwithstanding Arnold’s very moderate stance on most social and environmental issues, he got (according to one exit poll) 91 percent of the G.O.P. vote. That tells me Republicans want to win much more than they want to lose on the point of an ideological sword."
I'm very interested in this strategic problem, because I want more social liberals to succeed within the Republican Party -- just as I want more national security hawks to make it in the Democratic Party.
१९ नोव्हेंबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
I'm very interested in this strategic problem, because I want more social liberals to succeed within the Republican Party -- just as I want more national security hawks to make it in the Democratic Party.
Me too! FWIW, I think Begala's suggestion would be political suicide and Matalin death by a 1,000 cuts (or million questions raised). No one will believe him. Halperin probably gives the best advice.
The problem using the Arnold model is that he was elected under extraordinary circumstances that allowed him to bypass a GOP primary he would never have won, and the running for re-election against one of the most inept candidates in modern California political history. (BTW, early reports I read indicated that the GOP turnout in California was below normal. Don't know if that ended up being the case. Turnout in GOP hotbed Orange County, for example, was 10% below the state average.)
I was struck by how Paul Begala's hypocritical advice so typified the way Bill Clinton campaigned and governed, with of course Paul Begala's advice.
deadly advice for any GOP candidate IMHO. GOP voters want to win, but they won't accept the blatant pandering and flip flopping for interest groups that KOS types would in the Dim party.
Character, courage, and tested leadership under pressure is Rudi's brand (and McCain's as well). Neither can risk damage to the trademark strengths
I don't see why this is supposed to be a problem. As far as I can tell, the Republican base loves Rudy, liberal positions or no liberal positions. They see in him a person of inner strength (very important perception), he has national security credibility, they still like what he said to that Saudi price (so do I), and they like the way he cleaned up NYC during his tenure as mayor.
(Also, as a practical matter, who else is there? McCain has a little First Amendment problem with the base. Plus it's irritating that he's become the token conservative politician that the MSM likes.)
The straw polls I've seen have Giuliani riding high among conservatives. Is there any actual data that indicates the Republican base won't vote for him? Or is all this "Rudy has a problem" discussion based on sheer speculation? It sounds like a set of solutions panting after a nonexistent problem to me.
I'd like to hear what Dick Morris thinks on this.
Plus it's irritating that he's become the token conservative politician that the MSM likes.
Don't forget, as soon as it looked like he was doing great in the primary for the '00 election, the media turned on him, and all you heard was stories about how he was "unbalanced" because of his POW experience. They'll cut him off at the knees when necessary.
BTW, John McCain will be 72 in 2008.
I'd vote for either over the rest of the field, GOP or Dims
72, three years older than Reagan's 69.
I agree with Halperin--run on what you believe, but it might be convenient for Rudy to believe in originalist judges. There's no way that Rudy or anyone else is going to run on actually doing anything about hot button values issues--FMA, etc. He can personally favor a socially liberal position while deferring to the will of the people.
He might also favor a strong national defense, border security, tax cuts, and fiscal responsibility.
Late shifts in ideology take a lot of explaining.
He might be better off with "I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage but would leave it up to the states."
Then just keep repeating like a mantra, "I can beat her."
We have debated this previously on the blog and although he was an excellent Mayor and would probably make an excellent President, Giuliani can't win.
He has way too much personal baggage and too many prominent enemies to do so.
The African-American community in New York disliked him, including many if not most of its prominent leaders. Former Mayor Koch and Dinkins hate him with the former writing a book about it. His first wife was his cousin, which is a little weird and his second wife wouldn't say if she voted for him. One of his deputy mayors was the Liberal party's son who he appointed in order to get their endorsement. His father was allegedly in the mafia. Bernie Kerik and all his scandals was his former driver and the one he appointed head of the Police Department. While he was quite good, his qualifications probably didn't warrant the job.
More research would probably demonstrate more personal problems. He could win the nomination with his positions if voters were willing to forgo his personal baggage which they would not be willing to do.
Zeb -
The election is over. There's no need to refer to "the Democrat nomination" anymore other than to sound like the president, which no one really wants to do.
Say it: Democratic. It sounds better and is the actual name of the party.
As for Giuliani, I agree he has no chance. Lieberman has a better shot at the Republican nomination than he does.
Okay, Gerry. We'll see.
The mind of the Republican primary voter is one of nature's own mysteries, but I think "frontrunner" is a little strong for the former mayor of Sin City. 9/11 is going to be a little harder to play up in 2008, too.
I hope you're right. He'd get demolished.
Most social conservatives know that it is the judges appointed that really matters in the end.
Giuliani should say 1) I believe that there sould be rights to abortion with many restrictions. However, I do not believe that the federal government should be involved in this and that I will not move to change any of the policies currently held in the federal government over abortion.(GWB said essentially the same thing except he said he was pro life)
2) Giuliani should say he will appoint judges on the same order as ScAlito and Roberts and Thomas.
I think this would satisfy social conservatives. Also, many pro-choice republicans may be pro choice but would still rather have Scalito THomas etc... THey would prefer to let the states decide abortion.
Doyle,
"The mind of the Republican primary voter is one of nature's own mysteries." Good one.
I might add that this Svengali-like primary voter has successfully nominated the eventual President of the Unites States of America in seven of the last ten elections.
Numbers like that would put a slugger in the hall of fame, let alone an election handicapper.
I'm more-or-less aboard the Giulliani Express at this point. And for someone who'd rather be electing Newt Gingrich, that ain't nothing. In an ideal world, would Rudy my first choice? No. Is he who I expected to be backing? No way. Am I worried about just how liberal he is? You bet your ass. But there's a bottom line in 2008, and it's this: 270. And I don't know any electoral math that gets 270 votes for Newt. No candidate who can't explain how they're going to carry or obviate Ohio need apply in 2008, and Rudy can do both - he can win Ohio, and he can win New York.
In essence, there are only three Republicans in the game for the Presidency right now - Rudy, Mitt and John McCain. And I think that people underestimate just how willing the right is to commit Hari Kari before they see McCain in the White House.
In any event, regarding Paul Begala's advice, let's first remind ourselves that Paul Begala is devoutly pro-life social liberal, which means that he isn't an entirely disinterested observer in suggesting which social issues Rudy "surrender" to the "far right" on, and it is no surprise that he picks the one issue on which Begala would happily surrender to the far right. I don't say this to disagree with Begala, but to grab some cover for myself (viz., if Begala can do it, so can I) in suggesting that Rudy put forward the view that I'd like a candidate to take, which is, as explained most recently in comments here, that he regards abortion as a matter for the states, and will appoint judges who take the same view.
Internet Ronin said...
"BTW, John McCain will be 72 in 2008."
So will Antonin Scalia. So what? Of all the arguments advanced against McCain, his age is about the most useless.
I agree with Cedarford, and I also think Giuliani potentially could be a great President.
As others have noted, the deal killer is that he has enough skeletons in various closets that all any enterprising opponent has to do is yank on a nearby door. He's not exactly a spring chicken, either, has had health problems, and is visibly aging. My fear is that Giuliani will simply not be a factor when the '08 primaries roll around. And despite being adored by the media, John McCain is just too old and too devious for much Republican love to ever come his way. And Gingrich? Spare me.
No, I'm afraid that the Republicans will nominate a blow-dried nonentity such as Mitt Romney, perhaps as a "compromise" or "fresh face" candidate. Now Romney is nice in public, a good businessman, a solid family man, has a square jaw and more teeth than Bert Parks (anyone old enough to get that reference?) The problem is that he is too closely identified with the Republican social conservatives. He's a Mormon, which is, IMHO, more deadly for a general election than being a Catholic ever was. As a Massachusetts resident, I know more about him than I want, and, believe me, he's no Ahh-nold. He's been a tolerable Governor, but that's about it. He's the most recent Republican Governor trailing in the long shadow of Bill Weld, and it looks like he will be the last for quite a while.
Realistically, who else other than Sen. Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee? It would be a great Presidential campaign, with two good choices for once, if it indeed were Clinton vs. Giuliani. Being the eternal pessimist, I'm afraid that it will be Sen. Clinton vs. some dork who appeals only to the Republican base. The hopeful thing is that Sen. Clinton will have to be a better President than her husband.
Gerry, I once again find it amusing that you describe me as a Democrat. "I love how Democrats seem to think they know how conservatives think and how the GOP works".
Please read my blog before commenting on my political affiliation.
Furthermore, the problem isn't that Giuliani won't get a large percentage of the African-American vote (which he wouldn't in a general election) but that suburban swing voters will be turned off. Furthermore, the media will focus on his poor race relations at the expense of his political platform.
The gun control issue he can chalk up to states' rights as NYC isn't going to have the same gun policy as Nebraska or at least so the logic goes. He is pro civil union and not gay marriage and while the issue will hurt him in the primary it wouldn't destroy him. More Republicans are coming around to this position and as a previous blogger noted it is judges that matter the most, which he will likely emphasize on abortion as well. Furthermore, Giuliani personally is religious and almost became a priest, which will mitigate some of his more liberal stated positions.
That said, he has too much personal backage to win and he is not going to run for President but he will allow for months of speculation which will help upgrade his political capital and help his business interests.
That's funny, I always know I'm dealing with a major league semiliterate when they don't know an adjective from a noun.
Old Dad: So you think Giuliani's the frontrunner, too?
Doyle's right. They're the Democratic Party. And, unfortunately, as we saw last week (Lott, Blunt), we're still the Stupid Party.
Your sarcasm aside, suburbanites don't like to be considered racist or be associated with candidates who have bad race relations amongst other things. Quite a number of people didn't vote for Bush based on his lobbying against gay marriage who normally would have.
Giuliani's perception in the African-American community (not just Sharpton) could and would hurt him with the exact voters that currently like him. To what extent I don't know, but it would hurt him.
"Realistically, who else other than Sen. Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee?"
Obama or Bayh jump to mind as the most likely other contenders. Don't give up on Romney, BTW. He's not my first choice, but he's a serious contender, particularly if the Dems nominate Hillary.
MD said...
"Is Guiliani really that unpopular with social conservatives?"
Well, with the real hard core, yes, he is - but McCain is even less popular, so I suspect they'll swallow hard and support Rudy, because they want to keep the White House, they want to beat McCain, and they know Rudy can do both.
I thought Mary Matalin's advice was the soundest -- keep the focus on constitutionalist judges. He would then not have to back off or reverse his current stance on abortion. It is an entirely principled position to hold that as a matter of public policy or as a legislator you would not vote to criminalize abortion, yet at the same time to recognize that the role of a judge is to interpret faithfully the law (especially the Constition) and not to set public policy, and to nominate such judges. This would more than satisfy social conservatives -- it's basically Scalia's position (though I think it's safe to say that if Scalia was a legislator he would vote to criminalize abortion). It would also be very difficult for rabid social liberals to attack in the general election a candidate espousing this principled position who has a long record of supporting abortion "rights." I don't know if Giuliani has a record of statements on his view of the role of the judiciary and whether a right to abortion is found in the Constitution. It would seem that the political offices he has held thus far would not have called for him to express those views.
If he can do this, it would seem he would be extremely electable.
Zeb,
What is the basis for saying that their formal name is "The Democrat Party" rather than the "The Democratic Party"? What documentation has the authority to resolve that question, as a formal matter? I mean, it's called the "Democratic National Committee" - can we look at their Tax Return? Who has the authority to say?
Besides - playing desultory word games is pointless. What matters is who they are, not how you refer to them. They could call themselves the "really good care-bear love party," but as long as they have the same platform and the same people, their problems would remain.
Ok Zeb, they are the Democrat party and the other is Republic party. Works for me, in a way.
Simon, I agree that Obama and perhaps Bayh have a chance, but a slim one as seen through my admittedly cloudy crystal ball. The fact that Romney is "serious contender" against Clinton is exactly the problem. Romney is that dork I mentioned who appeals only to the Republican base.
Having seen Romney in action, my fear is that Sen. Clinton will eat him for lunch. He's not fast on his feet. He gets tied to rigid ideological positions and has a tendency to rationalize and get deeper in whatever hole he has dug for himself.
Speaking of holes, and on the plus side, he did go after the head of the Mass Turnpike Authority Board, but it took a ceiling collapse in a Big Dig tunnel to give him the leverage he needed. I'm afraid this may be of too much local interest to effectively use on a national stage, although he could spin it as an example of anti-waste, fraud, and abuse actions he has taken as Governor. The trouble is, like so many things in Massachusetts politics, it's too complex, tangled, and ambiguous to be a clear example of Good Governor Mitt.
The African-American community in New York disliked him, including many if not most of its prominent leaders.
This is not accurate. Many African-Americans disliked him for very specific reasons:
1. He ousted the city's first black mayor in a very close election (51%-49%) by appealing to Long and Staten Islanders (i.e., the richest areas in NYC);
2. He took credit for some of the previous mayor's crime and punishment efforts;
3. He had a combative style and would always side with cops, even before the evidence was out on police brutality cases. Add to that he badmouthed community policing efforts (hire cops from community in which they serve -- it reduces crime and the instances of cops shooting residents) and civilian review boards (which oversee police brutality complaints).
Reasons 1 and 2 more or less evaporated the longer Rudy was in offce (as he really did improve the quality of life in the city, and Dinkins truly was a mediocre mayor). Certainly after 9/11. I did not hear any black people in NYC badmouthing Guiliani's immediate and heroic response to the crisis.
Reason 3 evaporated before 9/11 when Guiliani softened his image and his approach. This was even before he decided to run for Senator and then dropped out due to prostate cancer. Instead of irking people over police brutality, he began to irk people over freedom of expression by trying to dictate what art pieces museums could exhibit.
As for the "prominent black leaders" part, "prominent black leaders" do not lead anyone or represent anyone. They are media-creations who use their media clout to extort money from the government. And most black people view them that way.
John Kindley said...
"It is an entirely principled position to hold that as a matter of public policy or as a legislator you would not vote to criminalize abortion, yet at the same time to recognize that the role of a judge is to interpret faithfully the law (especially the Constition) and not to set public policy, and to nominate such judges."
That's precisely right. The "big lie" (and I'm sorry to say that my side contributes to it almost as much as does the other) is that one's position on abortion should have anything to do with one's position on what the Constitution says.
"This would more than satisfy social conservatives -- it's basically Scalia's position (though I think it's safe to say that if Scalia was a legislator he would vote to criminalize abortion)."
If he were a state legislator, yes, I'm sure he would do so without hesitation. His position is that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, which means the matter is almost entirely within the domain of the states. Scalia's view on abortion and the Courts:
"[M]y difficulty with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one. I do not believe – and no one believed for 200 years – that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law, for the same reason that I vote against invalidation of laws that contradict Roe v. Wade; namely, simply because the Constitution gives the federal government and, hence, me no power over the matter."
(That's one of those cold, legal, arguments that Ann so prefers to the emotional arguments over abortion, right?). Moreover:
"do not think that the anti-abortion people are not willing to use The Constitution the same way. I mean, I've spoken to people who say that The Constitution not only does not require the States to permit abortion, it requires the States to prohibit abortion.
And I read my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, I can't find anything in there about it. It says nothing about it[,] ... [b]ut the anti-abortions say, well nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And the fetus is a person and therefore it's covered. The only thing is the very next sentence; you see, I'm a lawyer so I do read the next sentence. I mean, talking about a text here. The next sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment says representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State. You think they were counting fetuses? I don't think so."
A President's view on abortion shouldn't make any difference. That's why I can live with a Rudy candidacy: as long as he shares Scalia's view (and mine) of who gets to decide, and will act accordingly in appointments to the bench, I'll suck it up and support him enthusiastically.
Theo,
Re Bayh, if the Democrats aren't looking seriously at him, they're being idiots. He was a (not entirely unsuccessfull) governor in my state, which is hardly the most liberal place on Earth, he's got plenty of foreign policy experience in the Senate. He could carry Indiana, and if he can carry Ohio as well, that's the election for the Dems.
Mortimer Brezny,
(1 "This is not accurate. Many African-Americans disliked him for very specific reasons." It was accurate and you misinterpreted what I did say and didn't say. I stated that many African-Americans didn't like him. I never stated why. So your statement is inaccurate.
(2) You state, "he ousted the city's first black mayor in a very close election (51%-49%) by appealing to Long and Staten Islanders (i.e., the richest areas in NYC);" Obviously, you are not very familiar with New York. Staten Island is a blue-collar area for the most part that Giuliani did very well in but it is not one the richest areas in NYC. He didn't do particularly well the first time he ran in wealthy areas like the Upper West and Park Slope. While some of the wealthy and upper-middle class supported Giuliani initially, it actually took awhile for them to warm up to him, in part because of previous role as US Attorney. His main base of support initially was cops and firemen.
(3) Prominent black leaders hold some sway (how much is a matter of dispute) but as you yourself note the media picks up on it and that is the problem. As we saw with Senator Allen, media perception can matter quite a bit.
Advice for Giuliani.
Flip flop like McCain, and then call yourself a Maverick. The media will lap it all up. I'm sure they'll be talking about an international incident with Kerry's teeth, or hairdo anyways.
Doyle,
As for front runners in '08, that won't be even remotely predictable for a long while, but recent history suggests that he'll have an R after his name.
I'll not challenge your authority on semiliteracy, but given your obvious familiarity with the distinction between nouns and adjectives, you might try to explain the following to a semiliterate. There is a Republic of France but no Democratic of anywhere. Republicans are often elected President, and there are many Republican Senators, but Democratics are never elected to anything. Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic Republican.
English is quirky.
"Republicans need more than a one-term President - recognizing Reagan is the exception, not the rule ... Better a younger candidate like Romney."
That's fair, but Romney has plenty of problems of his own. That's the real challenge for Republicans in 2008: every single possible contender has an asterisk after their name, a "but..." argument. Pence? "But he's too young, too conservative." Romney? "But he's a mormon." Rudy? "But he's too liberal to get the nomination." McCain? "But conservatives hate him and he's wobbly on key issues." Santorum, Allen, Frist? "But they're total losers." Newt? "But no-one's forgotten the 1990s." Pawlenty / Huckabee / [insert governor of choice]? "But not enough foreign policy experience." So their aren't any perfect candidates on our side. Every candidate in the game has flaws. The question is which has the least flaws, and who can count to 270. A one-term President is better than a no term President.
"The difference is Scalia was appointed 20 years ago. If he was a 72-year old possible nominee, he would not have even been considered by either Party."
I just don't buy that. I just don't think that, in this day and age, 72 is too old for a Presidential contender.
"Bayh from running and showing his stuff in some of HIllary's weak areas (being human, foreign policy, agriculture and land use issues in Red States) would make a superb VP choice by Hillary."
Right - my bet is that whoever's at the top of the ticket for the Dems, it's going to be Bayh or Warner for Veep.
Cedarford: Great comments! If I were politely complimentary I'd say LOL, but the truth is that put me more in LMAO territory.
BTW, I also agree with your point about Rice - any nominee closely associated with the Bush Administration is likely to get mauled in 2008, including Rice. At an absolute minimum, candidates will have to repeat the mantra that they supported the war, but they believe that the implementation was seriously messed up. The conventional wisdom is that this helps McCain, who has been arguing for more troops for some time.
That's too bad about Rice, but it's true. She's done for in politics. A nice academic bower awaits her.
As I said about Romney, not only is he a Mormon, but the real problem is that Hillary Clinton will eat him for lunch. If he's the nominee, it's going to be painful. I plan to avert my eyes.
Advice for Giulani: do not listen to the advice of all these pros who are telling you how to lie to and trick the electorate. That's how the GOP lost this time.
Pat: Good advice!
Here are a couple of Republican governors who have prior experience in Washington, D.C.:
Bob Riley of Alabama. Served as vice-chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness. A rather handy thing to have on his resume.
Mark Sanford of South Carolina. Served on the House Government Reform Committee, the International Relations Committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. (Also refused to accept PAC money while in the House.)
Stranger things have happened!
Mark Sanford is also Class of '94, and bailed out of the House before the DeLay-era rot really set it. I'm not hostile to him getting into the race, but you know my mantra - show me 270. ;)
Somehow, I doubt that any of the possible candidates mentioned here are capable of delivering (or would be allowed by their "handlers" to deliver) a message similar to that delivered 143 years ago today:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I do like Giuliani just for being a hardass in his cleanup of NYC despite all the people who called him "Fascist" and the like for doing so. (My aunt&uncle live in NYC and they *hated* Giuliani, as did all their friends.)
Ronin,
These 2 this week are pretty good
http://mccain.senate.gov//press_office/view_article.cfm?id=770
http://mccain.senate.gov//press_office/view_article.cfm?id=769
Someone here mentioned that Obama could be the dem nominee.
Is it me or am I wrong in thinking that a person with the name "Barack Hussein Obama, jr" will never be elected president.
Imagine Thomas Dewey Tojo Hipler... lets get real here.
Sloan, you're too funny!
Thanks Drill SGT. Yes, they are good. I'd already read one but not the other. Believe it or not, it never occurred to me to go to his website for either, though!
My guess is that Americans are weary of being spoken to by politicians making use of the cadences and vocabulary of professional politicians. Anyone who can sound like a human being may have a big advantage in this case.
I hope so, Ignacio. I really hope so.
Ronin,
The GOPAC speach is likely the one you hadn't read. There is a laundry list of topics that goes on a bit too long. Each area is ok as it is, but there are just too many to be crisp, but having said that, the last 7 paragraphs make it worth it.
I don't think there is anyone on either side of the aisle does a better job today in talking about what we face in Iraq.
clear and crisp.
Yes. Two lines in particular struck me. I emailed them, along with a link to the speech, to my brother:
The situation in Iraq is dire. But I believe victory is still attainable. And I am certain that our defeat there would be a catastrophe, and not only for the United States. But we will not succeed if we no longer have the will to win.
[That is the real question, isn't it: Do we have the will?]
What I cannot do is ask him to return to Iraq, to risk life and limb, so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year. That is more to ask than patriotism requires. It would not be in the interest of the country, and it surely would be an intolerable sacrifice for so poor an accomplishment. It would be immoral, and I could not do it.
[He's right, of course: it would be immoral. Which brings us back to the real question, doesn't it.]
Unfortunately, I don't think we have the will to win.
we're going to pull out
the bad guys are going to be emboldened.
We're going to fight the GWOT in court rooms, until
we have a WMD attack in the US and then it will get ugly.
I just hope it's on a weekend when my wife is out of central DC. We're not downwind of any likely target.
That does make me think of a humorous anecdote to break up the melancholy
In the early 90's the top General of the Soviet Army was visiting his counterpart, General Powell for the first time at the Pentagon. This is after the wall came down but before the USSR broke up.
Powell was leading the Soviet delegation across the open space in the center of the Pentagon to a meeting on the other side. In case you didn't know, there is a snack bar in the center of the green open space and its nickname is "Ground Zero"
Powell turned the the Soviet General and says, "General, we call this place Ground Zero".
The interpreter translates, and the General smiles and says, "yes, we do also".
Yep. I think you are right, right down the line. Great story, thanks.
Dick is right about Rudi's impact on NYC. I was a frequent visitor during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as a subscriber to the NYT. Giuliani was totally outside the box and savagely vilified by the media; but he transformed the city. Before Rudi was elected the CW was that NYC's decline is inevitable and the issue was how to manage that decline without too much bloodshed. He understood that public safety was the first requirement of good government. Is that not why we are failing in Iraq? Rudi agreed with liberals about tackling the "root causes" of crime and ordered cops to be agressive against "yoots' who commit even misdemeanors. The results were extraordinary and all pre-9/11. Small business blossomed all over the city, despite crushing taxes and regulations. Immigrants flocked in for a chance to raise their families in peace. Maybe if Rudi could find a way to encapsulate this transformation into a 30-second spot he might have a chance. Our problem now is that the world, including much of the US and even much of Manhattan, feels secure enough to think that 9/11 and the London and Madrid and Bali bombings were one-offs. Before Giluliani that is how New Yorkers though about crime: give the mugger a few dollars and he'll go away; avoid that neighborhood; better yet, avoid the streets and schools altogether. Too bad though about the poor schmucks who have to live there.
of course you are forgetting that 6 billion dollar deficit that rudy pushed off to mayor bloomberg...did you forget that?
did you forget that aside from 9-11, rudy's popularity in the city after these great years of success was in the 40s?
did you forget his mistress and flaunting his affair to the detriment of his child?
do you remember that his social programs morphed into the 3 visit plan....do you fools know what that is???...nyc's foodstamp administration made it a rule for the prospective food stamp recipient to have to show up 3 straight times to appointments...very nice for a mother of 2 living on the edge..3 trips that would take hours each and if you missed an appointment, you started over...he then bragged that he got so many people off food stamps but he didn't tell you that he did it by making it costly and nearly impossible to get them.
he will loose ny in a ny heartbeat and rightly so. and i'm not even up to Kerick as his business partner.
I second what cocaygne says. I, too used to go down to New York from Boston a fair bit during the same time, and had the same experience. I remember two friends who both lived in Soho separately enthusing about how much Mayor Giuliani had improved things. I was completely surprised, as they both were of fairly conventional leftish Manhattan political views. This demonstrated that Mayor Giuliani could appeal across the political spectrum, and I was hopeful he would run for higher office. Unfortunately, his own demons and some bad luck helped create those skeletons Cedarford and others mentioned above.
I must say that what was done in New York compares favorably with the decline of public order in San Francisco during the same time. I go to the Bay Area once or twice a year for family visits, and the contrast between the changes in the two cities was quite noticeable. I'm not sure how things are in San Francisco now, as I just don't go there any more, not wanting to subject my kids to the filthy, aggressive and sometimes dangerous street people.
And BTW, I completely agree with what Internet Ronin says above about Drill Sgt's comment above.
Kirk Parker said...
"ROFL! 'He was a (not entirely unsuccessful) governor in my state.' With a recommendation like that, why look any further? I can hear the campaign spots now..."
Well, he's a Democrat, you know. I'm not going to give him too much praise, now, am I? A lot of whether you think a Governor is successful or not depends on whether you agree with what they're trying to do. ;)
What if Rudy declared that his position on abortion is irrelevant?
To refuse to elect someone who is otherwise a true conservative, one might argue, is a disqualification with no practical effect. Think of the most conservative possible candidate for president winning. That candidate will have no greater effect on abortion law than Rudy would.
Likewise, gay marriage. Yes, the movement is winning a few victories in the state courts, but voters are generally shooting them down. The proposition is going nowhere federally. The vote for Defense of Marriage was overwhelming and included most liberals. Liberals who have to face voters do not have the courage of their convictions on this matter.
Rudy should therefore say: Abortion and gay marriage are off the table. I will certainly do nothing as president to make abortion or gay marriage easier. None of my opponents can credibly claim they will be able to make abortion or gay marriage more difficult. On judges--I don't believe in litmus tests, but the kinds of judges I would appoint are the same kinds of judges George W. Bush has appointed -- conservatives.
That's the key for social conservatives. None of my judges would find "rights" to gay marriage where none exist in the constitution.
I think Rudy can convincingly punt on the issues of gay marriage and abortion by saying they should be left to the states. That would allow him to be anti-Roe and pro-choice at the same time.
Revenant,
I don't think it's "punt[ing]" to be "anti-Roe and pro-choice at the same time." That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and logical position. Indeed, it would seem to be the default position for anyone who understands that the real question represented by Roe has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा