Rudy Can’t Fail, Part III
By Mitch Berg
Ed and I had a great conversation about the ’08 GOP race on the show Saturday. I think we are in similar places.
For both of us, seeing Rudy Giuliani speaking in ’05 at the Center of the American Experiment was a bit of an epiphany; Rudy has something that is sorely lacking from too many in the GOP, especially on the short list; leadership.
Giuliani isn’t a conservative true believer; he’s very weak on abortion and the Second Amendment. But if you’re a conservative, abortion is best handled by the states, and as long as the President refrains from turning the BATF loose on the people and pushing to repeal the Second Amendment, I can look at other issues more seriously. Indeed, the most important way the President interfaces with either of these issues is via the judges he nominates to the federal and Supreme Courts.
And it’s there that Ed got some good news:
On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued cases in the Supreme Court. I’ve argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that’s part of our freedom and when that’s taken away from you that’s terrible.
This, combined with the pragmatic desire to have a leader running for the White House, has given Giuliani a surprisingly good start.
I am still undecided. I was impressed with Romney last week, and Giuliani is on my short list. McCain isn’t – he has a lot of forgiveness to grovel for.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Mitch informed: “Rudy has something that is sorely lacking from too many in the GOP, especially on the short list”
Yeah, he talks like Elmer Fudd.
Why do you wingnuts hate McCain so much? He’s much more conservative than Rudy. Plus Rudy’s just flirting with you – he’ll never go through with a serious run.
Maybe you can be the one to tell the right-wing God-botherers that “if you’re a conservative, abortion is best handled by the states,” by the way. That will be highly entertaining.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:28 am
And Reagan talked like Clint Eastwood on a good day.
I dislike McCain for McCain/Feingold, and for the Gang of 14.
He might be more conservative than Rudy on some issues, but he caves on some of the important ones.
Maybe you can be the one to tell the right-wing God-botherers that “if you’re a conservative, abortion is best handled by the states,” by the way. That will be highly entertaining.
I have. Every caucus in which I’ve run for office.
Most agree.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Mitch said,
I have. Every caucus in which I’ve run for office.
And yet, always a bridesmaid and never a bride. Maybe someday Mitch. Maybe someday…
February 5th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Sorry, Doug. It was district party offices.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Clown whines “Why do you wingnuts hate McCain so much? ”
Because of his blatant assualts on the1st and 2nd Amendments of the Constitution. You DO remember what the Constitution is Clown, don’t you?
LL
February 5th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Angryclown is disappointed, though not surprised, to discover that Log Lady is an idiot. What’s Angryclown got to whine about if you wingnuts don’t like McCain? Nominate Brownback, for all Angryclown cares.
While Giuliani is simply the Republican flavor of the month. if you can’t abide McCain, who’s as close to the wingnut position on most issues as is consistent with the remotest chance of electoral success in 2008, how in God’s name can you expect Rudy to get the nomination? Answer: You can’t. He won’t. You wingnuts aren’t sufficiently broad-minded.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Dunno, Clown. He’s polling a LOT better among rank and file conservatives than anyone had figured.
It’s about 18 months too early to sweat it too much, but how is it you figure that McCain – he of the BCRA and the Gang of 14 and zero executive experience – is more palatable to conservatives than Giuliani?
It might be fear of nominating someone named “Huckabee”, but I think it goes a tad deeper than that.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mitch said,
“Sorry, Doug. It was district party offices.”
I see. So then it was kinda like getting married in Vegas.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Dunno, Doug. Tell us about it.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I can’t. I was married in a tiny little Lutheran Church and the only time I was in Vegas was for Siggraph and in passing through on the way to the Grand Canyon.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I guess I should not try to make too much of Clown’s comments, but surely it is a joke when he criticizes conservatives for not wanting states to decide the abortion issue. Most of those concerned with the abortion issue focus on Roe V. Wade, which took that choice away from the states in the first place. If Giuliani promises to appoint conservative judges, then he has to rank a lot higher on the conservatives’ popularity charts than McCain, who actually managed to get several good judges defeated.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
SIGGRAPH?
Dude, I’d have stuck with “married in Vegas”…
February 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Here’s one “wing-nut, god-botherer” who would vote for Giuliani. McCain would NEVER get my vote.
I see that someone is now directing his irrational hatred/childish insults toward Lady Logician. Is it a woman thing?
February 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Don’t be too harsh on AC Colleen – he’s in his usual petulant mood. He doesn’t lilke it when he gets called on his curlishness.
LL
February 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
As I strive for precision, I should point out that while Clown is known for churlishness (and, one drunken evening in law school, girlishness, but what happens at SUNY-Nyack stays at SUNY-Nyack), I don’t think he’s ever had “curlishness” associated with him.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I suspect it was a typo Mitch.. I think that bug even bites you from time to time, on supposedly incendiary questions, if nothing else.
There are no bones in ice cream.
Gulliani will NOT get the Republican nomination unless he blah blah blah blah
Maybe. But he’s showing unexpectedly strongly, and for good reasons.
The right is just a bit too wrapped up in self-righteousness to let those go.
You’re be the expert.
sleep with a lot of pigs to stay in power.
But enough about Bill and Hillary.
As for McCain…it still was an attempt to ensure one man one vote politics,
Rubbish. All it did was forefend regular Americans from banding together and spending their money to be heard (unless they’re union members).
Yet, you complain about free speech in one breath on McCain Feingold, but take no issue with the numerous right-wing nuts who spew filth about criticisms of the President equating treason. Your ethics seem ethics of convenience on this issue.
Um, PB? I’m trying to figure if your problem here is one “of convenience” or something else.
Focus like a laser beam, now; can you see a difference, perhaps, in import and effect between a federal law and a citizen voicing an opinion? Whether I agree with it or not, by the way (your generalization is as faulty as your logic and reading comprehension).
You recognize that the ultrawealthy back the Republicans by a 10:1 majority, and don’t want the golden goose cooked.
That, PB, is crap. Show me stats – NOW, from a reputable source, to support that number.
The numbers in the ’02 MN Senate race were illustrative; if memory serves Coleman’s average contribution was under $30; Wellstone’s was at least twice as high. Another example; in 1993, the NRA had four million members that paid around $30 a year in dues; HCI charged less than half of that to its’ 150,000 members. And yet HCI had an ad and PAC budget that competed nicely with the NRA. Where DID that money come from?
in your lapdog “reporting” of purely the “good news”, perhaps this Blog should instead be called “Apple Polish Anyone?” Nah, I’m just being curlish.
It’s more likely to be called “Donkey Free Zone”.
Now clean the spittle off your monitor and find me those stats.
February 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Mitch said,
“SIGGRAPH?
Dude, I’d have stuck with “married in Vegas”…
It was 1991 and it was a professional obligation. Although I did get a lovely Microsoft tote bag as a gift.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
It’s about 18 months too early to sweat it too much, but how is it you figure that McCain – he of the BCRA and the Gang of 14 and zero executive experience – is more palatable to conservatives than Giuliani?
I can think of at least five reasons:
1) McCain supports a presidential line-item veto whereas Giuliani brought suit in “City of New York v Clinton” which lead to the Supreme Court overturning the line-item veto.
2) McCain has a well-deserved reputation for being a pork buster whereas Giuliani (like so many big city politicians) has one of being a supporter of the patronage system. Giuliani actually endorsed Mario Cuomo in 1994 because he thought that Cuomo would be more likely than Pataki to support bailing out NYC.
3) McCain has actually been very solid on RTKBA (aside from requiring background checks at gun shows) and abortion whereas Giuliani has usually been on the other side.
4) McCain has been solid on entitlement reform (supports Social Security reform and voted against Medicare Part D) whereas Giuliani is an unknown quantity.
5) The G14 notwithstanding (I tend to be agnostic on it and blame Lott and Frist for not changing the rules at the beginning of the 2000, 2002, and 2004 sessions when they had the chance), McCain has been very solid on support Bush’s judicial nominees. Giuliani – his assurances notwithstanding – is at best an unknown quantity.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
See what (at last count) 107 posters on Lucianne.com had to say about Rudy. And that is usually a pretty conservative (even god-bothering) crowd.
http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=322068
February 6th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Really, does nobody remember his personal life? From Colleen’s link:
It’s NOT about the Economy, stupid.
It’s NOT about The War, dummy.
It’s NOT about Social Issues, silly.
It’s ALL about Character.
Only one candidate has it.
Rudy has my support.
Character?!?!!? When all the social conservatives find out about his personal life…he is done.
So let me get this straight, Romney apparently has no chance b/c he is mormon, but Rudy all the chance in the world, even though he has a harder time keeping his dick in his pants than clinton? And oh yeah, good luck courting the minority vote too…
February 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I have read VERY few conservatives mentioning Romney’s Mormonism. It’s a non-issue. He comes in a close second to Rudy or even number one with many…It seems to me it’s the left that WANTS us to have problems with those issues they usually consider to be our shortcomings. I can’t imagine why they care. HA…we’re not the ones hung-up on it.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Actually i would imagine the left is hoping Rudy gets nominated b/c there is absolutely no way he wins a general election. Too much baggage…
Romney would be a more formidable challenger.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Is donkeyman talking to himself?