Sunday, April 30, 2006

Rs: Ready or Not, Here Comes Rudy

Today's LA Times carries a decent enough summary of the state of one of our favorite questions: can Rudy Giuliani get enough Republican support to beat the Ds like a cowbell in 2008?

And since this topic is a favorite one for gentle readers to post comments, we address it once again. C'mon, all you McCainiacs and social conservative purists, let's hear from you once more!

Here's our favorite pull-quote from the article, a remark from one of the sharper crayons in the Republican box:

"There is no way on God's green earth that many people with [Giuliani's record] could get this party's nomination,'' said former Republican Rep. Susan Molinari of New York. "But I do think Rudy Giuliani can. He's a historic figure who is able to shake that conventional wisdom and break that mold."

10 comments:

fiona said...

The LA Times article says that Sir Giuliani is liberal on abortion, homosexual rights, and gun control.

The NRA has 5 million members and numerous sympathizers. If Al Gore couldn't win Tennessee (his home state) and West Virginia in the general election in 2000 because of advocating gun control, how will Giuliani win the primaries in the south or pro-gun plains and western states (Colorado, Arizona, etc.)?

When James Dobson enters the fray (not Falwell or Robertson) on moral issues, how will Giuliani win any Republican primary except maybe New Hampshire?

The country is conservative on the homosexual rights issue and gay marriage issue, not just the Republican party. Recognizing that isn't purism; that's political pragmatism. Ignoring that is folly.

Rudy is popular because he isn't running for office. He isn't taking positions on anything. When he begins taking positions and when his competitors begin characterizing him (AKA negative campaign ads), he will be in trouble.

He won't be running for president. He'll be running for a position in the next Republican administration. Remember General Wesley Clark? He was running not for the Presidency, but for a position in John Kerry's administration.

John McCain needs to be treated for lockjaw. Otherwise he'll have trouble kissing babies.

bryan d said...

I think that it must be the single purpose of this blog to try to twart any possibility of a Giuliani presedential ticket in '08. "How can this be so?" I can hear many readers asking, "For the great SWNID does not rest until he has beaten the stump for Rudy each night." To which I respond, PRECISELY! You see, any person being for a time persuaded towards merits of a Giuliani ticket will eventually become fatigued by the sheer volume of material produced by this blog to promote it. The great SWNID, knowing all things, surely must be aware of the consequences of such tactics. So I theorize that SWNID is actually gearing up for a surprise campaign by his secret hero, Pat Robertson. Otherwise this humble yet still speaking out of his place reader might suggest that the Rudy content is toned down for a few months so that other humble readers may regain some of the energy needed to support such a great cantidate as RG. This has been my only Rudy post (at least that I can remember, there have been so many to respond to!) and I hope that it will be the last for a good long while. While humble reader Fiona seems to think that RG has never actually run a campaign before, I am not so naive, but I do suggest from my groveling position at the feet of the Great One that SWNID follows Rudy's example and choses subtlety as the course to follow through the next months.

fiona said...

Bryan D:

I agree with most of your comments. However, Fiona commented not concerning the campaign history of "RG" as you call him.

He may be a great campaigner. However RG comes with some significant built-in weaknesses that other candidates will exploit.

And for the record, I was not at the scene of the alleged crime that night.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

The reason the press keeps emphasizing Rudy's liberal social positions is that the left is afraid of his candidacy.

The reason Rudy seems to have those positions is that previously he was running for mayor of the People's Republic of Manhattan.

But check any poll, and you'll see, fiona, that your view of the demographics of the electorate is fantasy, rather like the left's notion that if we had really open and free elections with proper voter registration, liberals would get elected.

And when the campaign starts, Rudy will have lots of smart people packaging him so that he can respond to the attacks from the right and position himself in the center, from which he can (a) win primaries and the general election; (b) effect actual change.

Mr. Dove, on the other hand, has a point. I will gladly take up another topic as soon as I can find one that provokes interaction to the degree that this one does.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Let me add to all who comment on this blog that Rudy can't win R primaries, I will favor Susan Molinari's judgment on that possibility over yours.

Kevin K said...

He may get the party's nomination, but he will not get my vote. Being a Republican does not automatically make you a conservative. Rudy may be a popular candidate at this point but that does not make him a wise choice. I will not gamble on the security of the nation simply because republican commentators spin Rudy's candidacy.

fiona said...

SWNID,

What credentials does Susan Molinari have? Oh, she is paid her for her opinions. Allow me to wash her feet with my hair and expensive perfume, for we will only have her for a short time, but we will always have the proletariat (including me).

I misjudged you. I thought YOU dispensed inerrant truth. I thought you would address the substance of my arguments.

I didn't expect you to say, "My expert is smarter than you, therefore I can dismiss what you think." I thought you were man enough to take up for yourself; not rely a woman you don't know personally to defend you. Girl, was I wrong! She goes girl, she goes.

With regard to Sir Giuliani, it's not about what the press says about him. It's about who he is. Hillary has had the sense to move to the center in the last 2 years in preparation for her candidacy. Sir Giuliani hasn't.

The press isn't opposed to Giuliani. They love him. And they would love him as a Republican candidate. While the press is pro-Democrat during the general election, they are pro-liberal Republican during the primary season.

They fawned over John McCain because they perceived him to be a liberal Republican. They will fawn over Rudy as well. The press doesn't want the debate to be between conservatism and liberalism. The press wants the debate to be over how liberal can the Republican party become.

Fantasy? Don't get me started. Sir Giuliani on a white horse in the company of Lancelot and Arthur coming to your rescue; now that's fantasy!

Effect actual change? What change? You merely want him to continue the endless war in Iraq. That's not change. Or do you want him to change the country on social issues?

Sir Giuliani is one patriarch I will have trouble voting for.

fiona said...

SWNID:

Too soon, too soon, we both spoke.

Sir Giuliani has already spoken for himself, and recently.

Check out this Newsmax article. Newsmax is a conservative site, not your typical liberal media.

Yesterday Sir Giuliani began taking positions on issues. His primary position? The GOP needs to move in Sir Giuliani's direction on social issues.

Oh well, the fantasy was fun while it lasted.

Here's the link to the Newsmax article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/1/164657.shtml?s=ic

Read it and bleep!

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Too soon? Where's the surprise? Ronald Reagan could have said that the Republican Party needs to be a big tent. Little tents don't hold enough voters.

Politics is about coalitions and compromise. Rudy isn't running the social conservatives out. He's inviting people in on a broader set of issues.

The failure to do that will mean defeat for any political party. It's the problem that the Ds have, as you well know, Fiona.

But here's the bigger question: who stands the better chance of putting together a coalition that can roll back the status quo on abortion: a polarizing pro-lifer, or a compromising pro-choicer willing to talk to all sides and come to an agreement on things like restricting late term abortions?

Again history: who opened China? The anti-communist Nixon. Who negotiated real arms reductions? The father of the biggest peacetime increase in military spending, Ronald Reagan. Who fought the war that ended slavery? The member of the antislavery party who refused to outlaw slavery, Abraham Lincoln.

We cite Ms. Molinari as a political pro who agrees with our prior assessment, well aruged already, as to Giuliani's ability to secure the nomination. We do not accede to authority, we enlist its support.

Now, to the central political issue: who ever did anything politically by insisting on purity? The party isn't a church.

"Endless war in Iraq"? Let's hope it doesn't end soon, or we're in big trouble. We need a fighter, not a quitter.

And we say again: who better than Rudy?

fiona said...

As I well know, as I well know.

I'm running short of fresh arugements. We appear to be aruging in meridians.

I will say this: your distinctions between pragmatism and purity are treble ackwards. Pragmatism isn't having the purity of the opposing party.