GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

In the Wake of Katrina, Rudy’s Looking Pretty Good

by

In her column at townhall.com, Polipundit’s Lorie Byrd thinks “in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and with the mission in Iraq and the Middle East still far from over,” my man for ’08, Rudy Giuliani, looks pretty good as a presidential prospect. She notes how the leadership he showed in the wake of 9/11 makes him an especially strong contender. He has a “proven ability to perform under pressure” and “is already known as a uniter and a strong leader.” It’s a good piece on a great man and as Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

Update from GP: Join me in voting for Rudy at Patrick Ruffini’s September Straw Poll !

Comments

  1. Most people touting Giuliani tend to forget all of his personal baggage. Setting aside his 180 degree difference on many critical social issues, he would come to the job after a messy divorce and his own acknowledgement of adultery. Rudy might be nominated as Vice-President, but I can’t see him getting the top job.

  3. DoubleplusUngood: Conservatives Cave to RINOs on Hurricane Spending Offsets

    Mike Pence (R-IN) and the RSC’s heresy was to propose that massive federal outlays resulting from Hurricane Katrina be offset by reduced spending elsewhere. Specifically, they requested offsets to cut highway projects earmarked by individual House members, and a delay in implementing President Bush’s new Medicare prescription drug subsidy. The negative reaction by the leadership was reflected when Pence, offered a seat at a later meeting, explained that he would be more comfortable standing because House Speaker Dennis Hastert had just tanned his hide.

  4. And the link in #3 illustrates why I really wish the Democrats were behaving sanely. The more they become the party of Michael Moore and DailyKos, the less they become a viable alternative to Republicans on spending and border issues.

  6. The problem with Rudy isn’t Rudy. It’s the rest of the GOP’s current leadership. Frankly he has more in common with many Democrats than he does with them. How often has he been called a RINO? And by whom? And what if Rove is still interested in playing king-maker? Given his extremist credentials, is it likely he would support Rudy? And if he doesn’t what then?

    I keep hearing “moderate” (or Classical?) Republicans placing all their hopes on this or that particular candidate. Those hopes are misplaced if you don’t control the nuts and bolts of your own party. And right now, you don’t. That’s what you need to address. That is what should be your #1 focus, not who you think is your next savior.

    Learn a lesson from the democrats in the last election. The extremists were left in charge of the party. And just as Joe Lieberman and many other moderates got left out in the cold, so too will Rudy if you don’t take care of the rest of it.

  7. Just on the issue of his personal baggage… it’s not the known things that would hurt him. A “real man” takes responsiblity for his past actions. As long as he doesn’t try to pretend that stuff never happened it might even be an asset to him, even among many of the most conservative republican voters.

    Every time that Clinton tried to claim that nothing happened with Monica he dug his hole deeper. Had he simply admitted it there’d have been an outcry soon forgotten and he’d have been able to move on. He would have avoided the un-manly appearance of leaving the girl to twist in the wind. When he bravely admitted smoking pot but then claimed not to have actually *smoked* it, he didn’t seem to be taking responsibility but avoiding it.

    The reason that die hard moralists don’t seem to care so much about Bush’s youthful indescretions is that he admits to them, in general terms at least. Add the “saved by a good woman” archtype in there and it’s a winner. True he never admitted specifics about drug use, but saying that he doesn’t want young people to think it’s okay to use drugs is nearly admitting it as well as being a sentiment that most people can understand.

    So the moral conservative base’s reaction to “Bush did cocaine!” is a shrug and a “maybe, but does it matter?”

    And this confuses democrats (and others) because they’ve forgotten that, no matter how the Christian church fails in application, the *foundation* is public confession leading to absolution. It’s not simply forgiveness but the comand to forgive when asked to do so, no matter how heinous the crime. Christ forgave his murderers. That’s the standard.

    Now, I haven’t been paying attention because I really don’t care, but if Giuliani, when asked, says something to the tune of, “I hurt her badly” he’ll be respected by those who would condemn his actions. If he tries somehow to deflect blame or appears to deflect even the blame that realistically ought to go on other people, he will be condemned. What he needs isn’t to defend himself, but to put other people in the position of defending him. Let voters use their own life experience to conclude that probably it wasn’t all his fault. HE must never ever even *imply* that it wasn’t all his fault. Because he’s a man and men do not try to avoid blame or consequences. They most certainly do not blame the girl.

  8. Um, Patrick. I’m not sure I’d classify a cross-dressing adulterer as a “moderate” in the Republican party.

    Also, try all you want to stifle the Santorum wing of the party, you have to recognize that they’re turning off far fewer people from the GOP than are Michael Moore and Al Sharpton from the Deomcrats. To equate the two ‘fringe’ elements of their respective parties is to make an error of degrees.

    Paradoxically, by the way, while the “Right Wing Nut Jobs” are far less likely to “take over” the Republican Party (witness the likes of PJ Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and David Duke having either bolted or lost their sway in the party), there is at the same time an increasing restlessness at the core of the GOP when we hear guys like DeLay say there’s no pork, or when McCain makes curbing political speech his raison d’être. And you’ll see guys like this also fall away, I believe, as the core of the Republican party rallies around the concepts of limited government and free markets. It just might be the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, actually, that brings the party back around to its founding principles.

    On the other hand, I don’t hear much (Hillary’s latest distancing from Momma Cindy notwithstanding) in the way of Democrats speaking out against their fringe.

    What a curious world we live in politically: One party (Republicans) is all foundations and ideals without a person who embodies them, while the other (Democrats) is overflowing with personalities, none of whom seem to be able to articulate what the hell the group believes.

  10. …although none of us should necessarily be too eager to endorse Rudy just yet either. There’s still lots we’d need to know about him. Sure he’s a great leader and would be excellent in the GWOT.

    But what about his fiscal philosophy?

    And would he be easily brow-beaten into, say, conceding to the hand-wringers in the press that it actually is the responsibility of the Federal Government to address every state and local issue everytime something goes wrong like, oh, somebody I could name?

  12. If Guiliani would back a policy of fiscal restraint and co-opt Gengrich and Steve Forbes to rein-in the budget-melt-down; he would have my support. If he opts of social right-wingers and the big-government spenders of the GOP as a mean to get-elected; I’d look elsewhere. The Federal Budget and the Federal Tax Code need to have a meat-axe taken to them both to cut waste and pork.

    Allen is too-cozy with the social right-wingers in Virgina, which is becoming the most gay-unfriendly state on the East Coast. In a pinch, I’d support Pawlenty of Minnesota if back by Rice as VP to steady the foreign policy-side. Though the Nation might be better served if Rice stayed at State.

    Personally, I’m resigned to four or eight years of St. Hillarybeast running things until the next generation of GOP bright-lights come-up from the farm-clubs of the States. The current group of National GOP hopefuls are too-long in the tooth, and to compromised by their dealings with the bigots, the social right, and the big-spenders.

  13. Oh, no way. There is no way this GOP is going to nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay, divorced Catholic who has been repeatedly photographed appearing in public in drag. You’ve got to be nuts. He’ll never survive Primary 1. Dead. In. The. Water.

  16. I was being tongue-in-cheek about Rudy’s cross-dressing, but the point remains (and is compounded by further comments after mine): Rudy’d have a tough time, I think, earning the nomination. Although, I’d be the first to say that I’ve become a nearly-single-issue voter, that being the GWOT. I feel pretty confident that Rudy and McCain are the best choices out there along that one issue for now.

    Luckily, it’s still early, and I feel very confident we’ll find someone before ’08 who will prove himself (or herself) worthy of the “Security ‘Mo” vote without having to sacrifice all the things a Pres Rudy or McCain would entail.

  18. Okay, so I followed the “dress in drag” link… go Rudy!

    It will depend on the climate of the Republican primaries. In the primaries the ultra social conservatives might vote for Keyes or someone like that. A few may defect to the Constitutional (?) party if the final Republican candidate is too moderate. The majority will probably decide that it would be better to win than to lose and vote for the person they feel best able to secure the swing votes.

    The dems do that too, but badly. Kerry is a wonderful example and I think that it also explains Clark being at the top of the KOS poll. ( I once took a survey to see what general my command style most resembled… it was Clark. 😉 ) But I don’t think Clark can win because he comes across as a whiner. *pout* it’s so unfair I lost my command *pout*.

    All Giuliani really has to do in the face of inevitable criticism about his past and even about his socially liberal policies is to take it like a man. Really.

  22. TGC:
    Rudy’s problem isn’t his previous “transgressions” (divorce, adultery, drag). It’s his positoins (on abortion, taxes, gay marriage) that will do him in if anything.

    However, I agree with Ted above (#12), that if he is a hard-core fiscal and policy conservative (government in its right place, and spending less), that matched with what would unquestionably be the toughest (yes, even tougher than McCain probably) stance on the GWOT might might> be enough to pull him through the primaries. Still a long-shot though, although I’d give him better odds than McCain.

    I still like Forbes and Gingrich (Ted again stole my thunder), but I think they’ve got about as much chance as Perot (who?). But watching Richard Myers today, I see a good VP candidate in a couple years. With someone like him, we wouldn’t necessarily even need a GWOT president as much…just someone who believes in the mission. What that would do is free us up from having to even consider guys like McCain or Rudy in the first place. Just food for thought.

  23. #20

    The problem isn’t so much that moderate Republicans forget, it’s that to so many people, Christian conservatives are complete aliens. Consider the rash of “understanding red state America” features after the last election. Consider all the times people show up on this blog to proclaim that Christian conservatives hate gays.

    While I could be wrong, I’m still going to go with my own feelings about what Christian conservatives might do.

  26. #18 — But I don’t think Clark can win because he comes across as a whiner. *pout* it’s so unfair I lost my command *pout*.

    And then there’s that whole tried-to-start-World-War-III thing.

    I voted for Mitt. He’s the ‘guy who’d probably be the best president out of anyone but who will get clobbered in the primaries’ candidate of this election cycle. Like Steve Forbes or Joe Lieberman.

    #12 — I’m resigned to four or eight years of St. Hillarybeast

    I’m not convinced that a Hillary presidency would be a completely bad thing. It might make the Republicans start acting like Republicans again… you know, smaller government, fiscal responsibility. And they might just be able to trick her into doing something good on border security the way they got Bill to sign welfare reform; despite her ‘Hurray forvoter fraud’ comments last week.

  27. Well, from my red state conservative perspective, shared by the other red state conservatives I know, Rudy doesn’t have a chance. It’s not that we don’t like or admire him. But we don’t trust him. He’s a metrocon, like Romney and we don’t trust him either. They’re gun grabbers. And don’t forget, he was the mayor of NYC. I suppose an ex-mayor of San Francisco would have less chance of getting any votes from us, but not by much.

    I wouldn’t vote for him. Run Condi. We’ll line up to vote for her.

  28. In No. 17, Anon raises a good question: what about Santorum? Why no groundswell for him?

    Don’t ask a question where the answer will make you look like an idiot.

    I’ll give you a hint; Santorum would be the most likely candidate for the “Christian conservatives” that you claim dominate the GOP, completely control the party, and would never for one minute support a candidate who was off their message.

  30. Mr. Thirty is so protective of Republicans that he won’t even talk about a Santorum candidacy. That’s party discipline.

    Speaking of party discipline, what’s the DeLay Defense being cranked out of RNC headquarters this afternoon?

    Let’s see, in the course of about one month, we have the prospect of seeing indictments of the Republican Majority Leader in the House, the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, and the President’s top advisor. Now THAT, Mr. Bush, is a real “trifecta”!

  31. How it it party discipline not to talk about Santorum?

    Saw the funniest website just before the last election. (On second thought, the Goths for Bush was the funniest.) It was, honest to God, warning about mind control rays urging people to vote for Bush… the lady had felt them herself and speculated that the Bush campaign had aquired a person with power to work on their side. There were instructions on how to filter and sheild against it that power.

    It would explain how Republicans all know what the message is supposed to be. 🙂

    ( My daughter and I would crack each other up for months by saying “Filter and Sheild” in a spooky voice complete with hand actions.)

  32. Mr. Thirty is so protective of Republicans that he won’t even talk about a Santorum candidacy. That’s party discipline.

    Oh, I’m more than happy to talk about it. I think it’s a bad idea and I think it’s dead in the water.

    However, my point was that the latter would not be true if “Christian conservatives” were in complete control of the Republican Party, as you assert they are — Santorum would be the favored candidate.

    Speaking of party discipline, what’s the DeLay Defense being cranked out of RNC headquarters this afternoon?

    DeLay just stepped aside, which is exactly the right thing to do in this situation. It now goes into the court system, which will weigh the evidence and make the determination of whether or not he is guilty. Finally, if he is found guilty, persuant to any particular laws that may govern his eligibility for office, the voters of his district will make the determination as to whether he should be re-elected and his colleagues in the House will determine whether he should hold a leadership position.

    From my personal standpoint, Ronnie Earle still hasn’t convicted the people he’s already indicted. This is also the last day of the grand jury in question, meaning that Ronnie would have to re-prove his case to a new set of people. However, as has already been shown in his vendetta against Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Ronnie can indict any Republican in Democratic-moonbat-controlled Travis County; the problem comes when he actually has to prove their guilt.

    Grand juries that sit for ethical judgements against statewide officials should be composed of statewide representation. The Democrats have fought that for years because they know Ronnie would be helpless in front of a jury that wasn’t completely from Travis County.

  35. The indictment looks weak (it doesn’t even allege any specific act of wrongdoing on DeLay’s part) and it seems odd to see a conspiracy indictment with no indictment for the crime the conspirators were allegedly conspiring to commit.

    But, having said that, I think DeLay is in trouble. And it will be interesting watching the left work themselves into new depths of derangement over this. (I see from the top thread, it’s already begun.) If the Dems follow their previous pattern, they’ll go overboard with the accusations and theatrics and it should be pretty entertaining.

  41. Well, like you, TGC, Santorum is a conservative. And like GP and ND30 (I don’t think GPW has weighed in on this issue), he’s quite protective of unborn babies (except in the case of incest or rape of course). And like the NRO crowd that so warmly received GPW at their fundraiser, he appears not to be personally homophobic.

    And GP can tell you why gave him money.