I was thrilled to see that Rudy Giuliani is moving ahead with a presidential run:
ÂÂ
 www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/nyregion/15giuliani.html
ÂÂ
Conventional Wisdom says there's no way he'll win the Republican nomination ”“ his support for abortion, gay civil unions and embryonic stem cell research would be a deal breaker for social/religious conservatives.
ÂÂ
Is the CW right? Can Rudy win the nomination, or will he have to “clarify” his stance on one or more of those issues to make himself more palatable for social/religious conservatives?
ÂÂ
I hope he sticks to his guns, and wins the nomination. His bold record as mayor, both in cleaning up New York City and dealing with the 9/11 attacks, is exactly the type of leadership we need (and that's lacking) in America these days.
Rudy Giuliani - Off and Running
Posted November 16th, 2006 at 02:00 PM by Bill Cleeland
After 9-11, I believe we need a Republican in the White House who can protect us. For me that's the bottom line and anything else falls away. I think those of us who didn't vote in the last election to "show the Republican party", only showed how much they didn't comprehend the consequenses of their actions. What good will it be to have supported ultra conservative candiates that lose, and have our country as a sitting duck for all those with a terrorist agenda? I am pro life and I would vote for Giuliani in a minute because he would be a great leader and we just can't have a Democrat as president during these times. I say "Run Rudy Run"!
The social/religious conservatives are what have brought this party down. It's time to make them realize they are a minority in the republican party. The"Big Tent" should include them, but they either need to understand they are out of step with the republican party, or leave the party and form their own, just like the far left has formed the Green party.
We lost with them and we might not lose without them, if we as a moderate party attract the moderate independents and moderate democrats.
I happen to be more libertarian than conservative, although I'm one of those "born again Evangelicals" that people talk about. I see the "big government" aspects of the religious right to be more of a response to attempts to redefine the constitution (right to abortion and gay "marriage"). The problem is that it's difficult, if not impossible (without violence) to shrink the scope of government power (Which is, by the way, the reason for the 2nd amendment). So given that the courts have taken the responsibility to define these things, the religious right doesn't have many options for fighting back, other than using the courts.
My view is that the problem with the Republican party is that it tries to beat the Democrats at their own game. Any government program proposed by a Republican will be trumped by the one by the Democrat, which would essentially be whatever the Republican would do, plus more.
I think that a Republican running on parental choice for schools, ending social security (which would be a HUGE tax break to the poor), and appointing judges who interpret laws the same way they were interpreted when people voted them into existence would do pretty well.
Of course, it would involve explaining to people, especially those in the media, why you want to "turn back the clock" on civil rights and why you don't care about other people's grandmas.
But I think a platform like that would work, especially in the coming years, when more and more young workers don't expect to get anything from the SSA anyway, and when more and more minority parents are fed up with the constant lowering of expectations for their children.
I see two problems with Giuliani -- one of which will result in backlash from his own party if they remain consistent in their moralistic views:
1) He will get hammered for his divorce; specifically, the circumstances surrounding it. Can't you envision the ammunition trove that already exists when you have film of Rudy informing his wife ON TELEVISION that he's divorcing her? It's unfair, it shouldn't apply, etc etc etc, but unfortunately, that's reality. Another unfortunate fact is that if Republicans complain about this, the cries of hypocrisy will be louder than the Assembly Hall when Indiana comes to town.
2) His record on crime in NYC is very misleading. Crime rates were falling before he became mayor, and they have continued to fall since Bloomberg has been mayor. In essence, Giuliani has been a competent caretaker of a successful existing anti-crime program. Plenty of data will surface to support this.
A third issue, not exclusively a problem for Giuliani, is that it looks like about 1,047 Republicans plan to take a crack at winning the nomination. Something has to get sorted out, and who represents the current party leadership? It isn't Ken Mehlman. Is it Ed Gillespie? Does anyone know?
The Republican Party has not been "brought down" by religious and social conservatives, it has been humbled by general discontent that manifests itself especially at midterm elections and especially especially at the second midterm election of a sitting president. The Democrats have done well for themselves, but not as well as Republicans did during Clinton's sixth year. Franklin Roosevelt did particularly badly, but since he started with only about 30 Republicans in the House, losing 47 didn't hurt him much.
If we were seeing general discontent with social conservative policies, one would expect to see marriage amendments fail across the country, especially in states with Democrat gains. That has not been the case.
I would certainly vote for Guiliani as opposed to any conceivable Democrat, but it is foolish to think Guiliani is the only potential Republican candidate with anti-terrorism credentials. In fact, Guiliani's credentials in that regard have more to cleaning up after the federal government's failure than it does with preventing future attacks. I am sure he would do fine, but what we want to make sure of is that his particularly developed skill in digging out after a disaster is not needed again. I am sure he would agree with me.
John
I think (ok, maybe hope is a better word) Rudy and McCain will be fighting over the same primary voters, leaving Romney to scoop up all the social conservatives and win. Right now, there is no one to challenge him for these voters.
I'd definately vote for Rudy over any Dem, but I don't think he'll play real well in S.C, and probably not Iowa.
"I'd definately vote for Rudy over any Dem, but I don't think he'll play real well in S.C, and probably not Iowa."
I agree completely, but would Mitt Romney do any better? I don't think the states you mention would cozy up to a rich New England elitist. The Deep South and parts of the Midwest could be McCain territory, however, if he plays up the Harry Truman/straight talking/everyman/POW angles.
Given America's present political climate and challenges, Rudy is a perfect fit.
A mayor's touch, as a practical problem solver, is the right way to go for '08; and Guiliani remains the man of the hour.
I don't know where Guiliani would stand among early primary states, but, I do know politics isn't a spectator sport. If he appeals to you, get out there...
http://www.draftrudygiuliani.com/
"Run Rudy Run" He is already ahead of McCain in the polls so far. He is not a Senator. (Remember the last Senator elected President was a Dem and it was over 4 decades ago.) The only problem he faces is the social conservative GOP left, who will want to know why a thrice married, pro-choice, gun control championing former New York mayor warrants their support.
Run, Rudy, Run!!!!!
Rudy couldn't beat Hillary for the NY senate seat. He wouldn't fare any better in a national race against her. The R nominee will be someone you haven't thought of yet--just like Clinton in 1992.
Hey "Wait till next year", Rudy was not defeated by Clinton as your post leads us to believe, he withdrew after being diagnosed with prostate cancer which allowed an unknown GOP canidate to lose that Senate seat.
Rudy is a liberal not a moderate. He may have done a fine job after 9/11 but by 2008 people won't remember all that. Rudy will need the base of the party to do the work to get him elected and since he's pro-abortion, pro-gun control and pro-gay marriage he won't get that help. He is a bridge to far.
I like this new spin that the social conservatives are pro-big government to get their agenda accomplished can you give me an example? This new spin to try and marginal social conservatives seem a bit silly and not really helpful if the GOP want to win race's. We heard that we needed a moderate woman to run against Blago so she could get moderate Dem votes. Not only did she not get Dem moderate votes but the GOP moderates didn't vote for her. So lets not start talking about how we need to run another moderate. Although I don't have a problem helping if they win. The GOP lost because the moderates of the party spent to much not the conservatives that's why they call them moderates.
Another VIEW: JBT was not the best choice to run against BLAGO et. al. as was shown on the 7th of this month. Not because she was a moderate but her past association with the GOP's sorted past in Illinois politics. Corruption was top issue by exit polls.
"Corruption was top issue by exit polls."
So people voted for Blago????? And Alexi?????
Blago and Alexi aren't in prison yet. Or charged with anything. George is. Better the unindicted devil you know than the reincarnation of the incarcerated devil you just convicted.
I still think Rudy Giuliani will benefit from an Italian pride push, especially out East. That will turn blue northeastern states red. I think the large "old" immigration communities will relish the chance to elect a non-blue/blood or non-redneck president.
If he doesn't get the Republican nomination, which he probably won't, he should run as an independent. He would win.
A couple thoughts -
1. Rudy's marriages - I think the Clinton era pretty much opened the door for candidates with serious fidelity issues. Unless they do something REALLY embarassing (like taking their future Star Trek starring wife to a world tour of sex clubs), people don't take notice.
2. McCain - RSW is absolutely right, Rudy and McCain are going after the same block of centrists who already happen to be the smaller subset of Republican primary voters. A potential Rudy candidacy is probably one of the reasons McCain started cozying up to Bush and the Religious Right in the past couple of years. It was a smart move in terms of winning the nomination against Rudy, but it also harms him in the general, as he loses the progressive/maverick appeal that attracted liberals and indies to him in the first place.
I've worked for democrats. I've voted for democrats. I am a democrat. Can we borrow Giuliani for a couple years?
He'd work much better on our side and then you guys could run mccain without worrying about Rudy and Mitt splitting the rest.
No deal - we're keeping Rudy. But we'd be happy to trade you Trent Lott for Evan Bayh...
Local Voter, The corruption issue didn't come up until later in the primary. When I spoke to Kjellander he said it was because of her middle of the road tint and her polling numbers which had more to do with name recognition then her ability to win.
So has Kjellander found another job yet?
You can have Rudy and Chicago if you let us visit Chicago but you have to pay your own taxes.
I will support Rudy for he is a leader with administrative experience. Running city hall in New York is more than most developing nations.
I will support him for he has a grasp on national security issues.
I will support him for he has the ability to inspire, keep Americans forward looking, and might put New York State in play.
I will not support any sitting senator for president for they spend their life making deals for bills, show almost no leadership, and spend too much time being a policy wonk than working for fundamental guidance to lead an entire executive administration. This is the reason in this pundit's opinion that governors are the best candidates. They have lead administrations with similar functions. New York City is large enough to provide necessary experience to lead the nation.
His scandals are old news for they were played out already. The left cannot punch him for their usual topics. He can run ads promoting the leadership our country will need to complete the war on terror and guide the country economically.
He can lead, I will follow.
“Top Ten” Lists of presidential candidates: http://shadetreepundit.com/_wsn/page2.html
Rudy? A former mayor? Has America ever elected a mayor as president? Zero foriegn policy experience unless you count his french and greek experiences.
Wow, the generalizations are flying like snot in a pigpen. My opinion on "the rules":
Fidelity is not acceptable, unless you are Bill Clinton. Clinton could pull it off because he talks a good game, and he was in the middle of an economic boom. Plus, the Republicans way overplayed their hand with the impeachment thing and, frankly, the American people were sick of it. Remember ... Bush didn't win the popular vote in '00, and needed shenanigans to even pull out Florida. It wasn't because the American people don't care about fidelity, it was because they liked Clinton's policies.
Rudy has zero foreign policy experience. Yes, he once donned a surgical mask while walking toward the collapsing towers. I think he also talked into a walkie-talkie a lot that day as well. How that translates into foreign policy experience in conservative land is beyond my ability to grasp. Technically, Obama has more foreign policy experience since he has at least sat on the Foreign Relations committee for the last two years.
Finally, as a Democrat, I would like to thoroughly encourage all Republicans to race back to your conservative beliefs. Let's have '08 be all about gay marriage, abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy, your opposition to universal health care, more privatized schools (just say "vouchers"!), the need to let the military do whatever-the-hell the military wants, and ... best of all ... race relations! Specifically, how minorities need to stop complaining and get one of those jobs you just created at Sam's Club.
You'll roll!.
I think (ok, maybe hope is a better word) Rudy and McCain will be fighting over the same primary voters, leaving Romney to scoop up all the social conservatives and win. Right now, there is no one to challenge him for these voters.
RSW, I think there are more social conservative candidates to "scoop of the social conservatives" Crap there's a mess load of candidates this year. I think (while the guy isn't probably polling at all right now) Huckabee would be a contender for some of those votes. Some conservatives like him quite a bit. I personally don't know much about the guy other than he would probably get some of those votes - especially when he is on the "national stage" after Iowa. SC people would probably like him a lot which will make him more of a contender.
As for Rudy - he's not my kind of guy right now. I think if I were to pick, I'd pick more of a McCain (ducks covering her head).
He's not my ideal candidate but I think he would have more intelligence on Foreign Policy than Rudy.
As one of those social conservatives, I sorta resent the fact that I'm sorta grouped in with "why the republicans lost the governor's race". I didn't stay home on election day and went and voted for Judy Baar-Topinka - against what I would have liked in a candidate b/c like someone else said on this thread. Having her would have been tons better than having Blago.
Judy had some other problems that had nothing to do with her being a moderate. Some was she was outspent, some was she didn't get her message out to enough folks and some was because of George Ryan.
What kind of candidate can Republicans run in 08? What would be the best for us? Not known at this point but I do know that I feel that Rudy isn't the best choice.
ROTCGirl,
I have heard Huckabee's name tossed about, and Newt too. I don't know how the social conservative groups will play it, but they could choose to narrow the field by pledging money and support to whom they see as their best bet, and doing it early in the game to keep the others from running. Seems to me that running for President is all about raising money - how much you can get, and how much you can keep potential opponents from getting. If someone like Huckabee is going to make a run, he needs to be convincing money-people right now that he can win (and maybe he is, I don't know). I do know that a couple writers at the NRO seem to be firmly in the Romney camp at this early stage.
I initially recoiled at the thought of Rudy running for the Republican nom. As a former conservative Democrat, and now proud conservative Republican, I knew that my views and his do not mesh. But in doing my civic duty and paying attention and researching candidates I have discovered that I may have written him off too early. I am not committed, but I am open and here's why.
Rudy has in rhetoric and as mayor of New York shown that he is in favor of restoring federalism to its proper place. Though he may not agree with the views of Roberts or Alito (he hasn't actually said that) he supports their position on judicial restraint and legislating from the bench. He may support certain rights for gay people, however he feels that those issues are not the responsibility of the national government and would leave it to the states or local governments--same on abortion (which is a reversal of Roe...by the way his support for gay rights is not an endorsement of gay marriage... a fine line that I uncomfortably accept as a clarification)
Based on this, and his electability, I could definitely support Rudy. Increase my support if it means keeping a LibDem out of the White House.
Oh, and by the way, let's not forget the importance of winning back Congress. A Republican Congress even with a Democratic President--I would expect based on the late 90s--should control spending and taxes.