| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| If He Runs, Don't Bet Against Rudy |
| 2006-06-06 |
| By Richard Baehr The rubber chicken circuit can be brutal. So one of the best indicators of how likely it is that a potential candidate will in fact run for national office is how much effort he expends to campaign for his party's candidates in the Congressional election two years before the presidential race. Tomorrow night, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will be in Chicago. He will be here for a fundraiser for Dave McSweeney, the Republican candidate for the 8th Congressional District in Illinois. While there are a few dozen endangered GOP incumbents around the country, McSweeney's race may represent one of the best pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2006, as he tries to unseat first-term Democratic Congresswoman Melissa Bean in a district that President Bush captured with 56% of the vote in 2004. Giuliani is also providing support for other GOP Congressional and Senate candidates, as well as to Ralph Reed, the GOP candidate for Lieutenant Governor in Georgia. Giuliani has been a busy man since he left office in New York at the end of 2001. He has consulted with municipalities on how they can reduce their crime rates, created an investment banking firm, associated with a Texas law firm, and given lots of speeches. At age 62, he appears to be happily married, financially successful and cured of the prostate cancer that forced him out of the 2000 US Senate race in New York against Hillary Clinton. Many of Giuliani's talks are on the topic of leadership. Democrats have run on the issue of competence several times in recent decades, and not very competently. Michael Dukakis' "Massachusetts miracle" did not resonate nationally, in part due to the frozen fish personality of the former Massachusetts governor. John Kerry also campaigned on competence, but could not articulate how his approach would be different from the President's on Iraq, the issue where his critique of Bush's competence rang loudest. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #24 #15 I think his hanky-panky, not cancer, would do him in. Ed does have a point on this one. I live in a Seattle-area congressional district represented by a lefty Democrat who defeated a Republican incumbent several years back. The Pubbie was a prominent Seattle lawyer and big "family values" guy who made the reeeeally unfortunate mistake of bringing his twentysomething cutesypoo extracurricular activity to a number of public functions in the district. Now, Democrat/lefty women don't give much of a rat's ass about this if the guy makes the right noises on policy - remember the radical feminist who said she'd be perfectly happy to polish Bill Clinton's knob out of gratitude because he "kept abortion legal"? Republican women ain't like that at all...as my district's Repub now-former congressman found out to his great chagrin, they actually take stuff like that both very seriously and very personally. A friend of mine told me that once this guy's hanky-panky became public knowledge, the district's Republican women manned the jungle telegraph to get the word out - this guy says his wife personally cost the congressman at least a dozen votes. That being said, I think that Rudy would still have a very good chance of winning both the nomination and the presidency, messy personal life aside. Republican women don't like philanderers, but I think they'll grit their teeth and support someone with a proven track record of getting horrendously difficult shit done and done right. Newt Gingrich? Fuhgeddaboudit...to the Republican woman, his achievements as the conservative movement's ideas guy are counterbalanced by his disgraceful treatment of both his first and second wives. Rudy's behavior was similar - he went out of his way to publicly humiliate his wife in his last years as NY mayor. But the Republican woman will compare that with the indisputable fact that he singlehandedly saved a city that everyone assumed was doomed to be an American Calcutta. And they'll decide that the man capable of doing that would be capable of keeping them and their families safe in the years ahead. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2006-06-06 23:26 |
| #23 Of the potential Republican candidates in 2008 put forward thus far, the only two I would seriously consider voting for at the moment are Condi and Rudy. Part of me wants to see Condi win the Republican nomination just so I can watch all the LLL's heads explode. A woman who is also a minority running as a Republican, and a formiddable opponent to boot, will send them all into a tizzy of the likes we've never seen before. The other part of me wants Rudy to get the nod just so I can cast my vote his way with more conviction than any Presidential vote in my 13 years as a voter. And yes, I'm from the Big Apple. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2006-06-06 22:29 |
| #22 I'd vote for Rudy in a NY second. |
| Posted by: JDB 2006-06-06 20:00 |
| #21 For me, among established politicians, only Rudy generates confidence that the three fronts in the WoT would be prosecuted and taken to the next level: 1) We must call Islam the problem - out loud and very publicly. Demand they reform it, isolate the jihadists, or go down with them. We have to take this step, else we lose - fighting ghosts and phantoms. 2) We must attack the funding and safe harbor centers of Islam. The funding from "charity" networks, the Mullahs, the Saudis, and the Pakistan / Malaysia / Indonesia harbors. All must be made front-burner villians from the bully pulpit. All must be stopped, by whatever means necessary, or this goes on forever. 3) We must prosecute the internal war against the subversive leakers, the outlaw activists who wear the robes of the law, the social-engineering enemies who want open borders and indoctrinate our children into moonbat cults. We need someone who knows the law, believes in the law, and will prosecute according to the law. Either we believe in what we claim to be, and act accordingly, or we bleed to death from "a thousand cuts". And people like Rice, Bolton, Tancredo would make excellent VP's. Every election is crucial. We can't afford to take 4 years off in the WoT. The rest of it, including some individual issues that ring the bell personally, have to take a back seat to the one that is for our very existence. |
| Posted by: flyover 2006-06-06 19:35 |
| #20 I'm Colorado ... his big issue is immigration, on most other things he's right of center, not super right, but right. On Rudy, I'm with bk - that was leadership on 9/11. I kept looking to Bush to come on the air and assure the nation, esp Early on. Instead there was Giuliani leading NY and the rest of us as well, to be honest. |
| Posted by: bombay 2006-06-06 18:37 |
| #19 Rudy's happy, Rudy's kids are doing OK - 3rd time's the charm at this point in time. Besides, at least he had the guts to divorce....unlike a certain couple I could mention...... |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-06-06 17:49 |
| #18 Straw poll in Michigan is putting Tom Tancredo in first. Love him on immigration, but where does he fit overall on the political spectrum? Super right on every issue? Only right on immigration? Any Colorado folks care to chime in? |
| Posted by: Glaising Hupiting7015 2006-06-06 17:46 |
| #17 ryuge: OK - good point. I'd vote for anyone who nominates John Bolton as their VP! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-06-06 17:45 |
| #16 By 2012 Sept 11 will be too far in the past and those issues will kill him (for now I think he'll get a pass). If he wants to run 2008 is his only chance. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-06-06 17:29 |
| #15 I think his hanky-panky, not cancer, would do him in. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-06-06 17:11 |
| #14 Rudy is unelectable. The prostate cancer issue will kill him politically. The Doinks need only whisper 'cancer'. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-06-06 16:49 |
| #13 It would be good if social conservatives could pick a couple of their most important issues and have him pledge not to cross certain red lines - a pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench would be an obvious one. More conservative Republicans might vote for him if they got a sense that there wouldn't be any regression on those things that they consider crucial - especially when they would be expecting regress should the Democrat win. Under those circumstances, most Republicans would feel that a "pox on both houses" vote from someone who usually votes Republican would be, in essence, a vote for the Dems. Maybe a good VP nomination would help win social conservatives over. I would find it personally satisfying if he chose John Bolton for VP - I would certainly enjoy the reactions - but since he has good WoT creds, that would probably be a silly choice. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2006-06-06 16:42 |
| #12 While I understand the point that all of you are making, for me gun control is a Martin Luther issue. As in, “Here I stand; I can do no other.” The president sets the tone on social issues in nation. While I understand the importance of a strong leader in uncertain times, Giuliani and I aren’t playing on the same team. Hell, we aren’t even playing the same sport. For me, being a Republican is kind of like being a libertarian with the happy advantage that I’m not insane. For example, you can’t convince me that an unborn child is just “tissue” or that we don’t need a military. Other than that, government is a parasite with very little appreciable value. I’m a Nevada “mind your own business or else” Republican. Wanna smoke a joint and shoot up copies of Koran with a machine gun while reading porn? So long as you do it on your own property, not my business. Giuliani is a New York “do what you’re told or else” Republican. He’ll thrown your ass in jail for AT LEAST three out of four of those things because, in his opinion, everything you do is society’s business. Honestly, the two types of Republican (libertarian vs. statist) don’t have that much in common outside of our mutual support for an aggressive, military-backed foreign policy and a belief in the free enterprise system. But without a functioning version of the constitution our Founding Father’s created, what’s the point? Rudy doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights and his judicial appointments won’t either! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-06-06 16:04 |
| #11 Seeing what I'll probably have to pick from, I'd vote for him. I don't agree with with on every issue but just seeing how he pulled New York out of that cesspool it had become would've been good enough for me. And the man can lead. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-06-06 16:01 |
| #10 On Giuliani and religious conservatives: Sorry I can't remember the date and author, but someone quoted some evangelical ladies after a presentation by Giuliani to this effect: None of the social issues will matter if America is not safe. |
| Posted by: mom 2006-06-06 15:03 |
| #9 Secret Master, the President cannot change the Constitution so his stance on gun ownership is not as big a deal as you think. You should ensure the Congress agrees with your stance on gun ownership and your state elected officials because they are the only ones who can truly change things. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-06-06 14:13 |
| #8 SM, I understand your frustration but I think john66 makes the point. NRA too strong (I'm a lifetime member btw). I'm sure he will have to come way right on guns and he knows it. Actually a lot of moderate dems don't like either of their gun stances. It's only the loonies on the far left who keep it an issue. Guns is usually a non-issue among non-gun owners. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-06-06 14:01 |
| #7 Well Rudy pretty much can't stop the NRA, so I vote for him over Hillary. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-06-06 13:16 |
| #6 I have been a good Republican my whole life, but I WILL NOT vote for Rudy. His stance on gun control is totally unacceptable and precludes my support. In a Clinton vs. Giuliani election I will scream “A pox upon both your houses!” and vote Libertarian. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-06-06 13:09 |
| #5 What do Republicans want more: to capture the "social issues" right or to capture a majority of American votes for the presidency of 2008? If it's the latter-if they want to pick another winner-then Rudy would be a fabulous choice. Probably the best choice. Not thrilled about his gun control stance, but in most other areas, I think he is a solid, believable centrist candidate with great security credentials. That would keep my presidential vote Republican. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-06-06 12:31 |
| #4 I would vote for him. THE GOP NEEDS TO LEARN THAT RIGHT NOW social stands are LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE WAR ON TERROR! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-06-06 12:30 |
| #3 It won't be easy for him to get some of his personal history and issues on social stands past the GOP primary electorate. If he can pull that off, he'd have comparatively smooth sailing in the general election |
| Posted by: Throlurt Flaiger8080 2006-06-06 12:01 |
| #2 Go Rudy. I'm waiting for the debates. Someone has to point the finger at Islam and say ENEMY. That's who I'll follow, hopefully that'll be Rudy. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-06-06 11:05 |
| #1 Rudy is a TRUE leader, he showed that on 9/11.... better than anyone else, I would say, including monkey boy, W. |
| Posted by: bk 2006-06-06 09:47 |