In an interview with the New York Post former House Speaker Newt Gingrich compared our man Rudy Giuliani to the Gipper:
[Gingrich] Said the GOP needs to nominate a Ronald Reagan-type candidate and added, “I think it’s not an accident that Giuliani is running as well as he is in the polls.”
(Via reader Peter Hughes)
He’s not he only one to attribute the former New York City Mayor’s popularity to his stature. Writing in National Review’s Corner, John Derbyshire contends:
The reason that Rudy is getting so much support from conservatives, in spite of a poor record on social issues, is his Gestalt. It screams ANTI-LIBERAL! Rudy is the anti-Kerry—the very opposite of a mincing, apologetic, guilt-addled elite liberal. A lot of people like that. Whether you can win a nomination on Gestalt remains to be seen, but it’s carried Rudy a good way with conservatives already.
No wonder George Will wrote that Rudy is “confounding expectations.” The American people want a leader who can unite the nation. The former New York City Mayor has a demonstrated ability to lead in the time of crisis. And as the former House Speaker notes, his success in the polls is due, in part, to his resemblance to the most recent Chief Executive to provide a sterling example of leadership.
My guess is Republicans are rallying around Giuliani because they think he’s the only one who can beat Hillary. If Rudy is Reagan, then, like Reagan, he will have to govern far more conservatively as president than he did in his previous elected office.
I know Rudy-Dudies are saying his personal liberalism doesn’t matter, because he’ll appoint strict constructionist judges. But, now we find out that as mayor, the vast majority of judges appointed by Rudy were left-wing activists.
Let’s not forget, Reagan’s legacy includes two of the worst Supreme Court justices — O’Connor and Kennedy — ever to disgrace the bench.
Maybe “left-wing activists” is not justified by the article, but it makes clear the majority of appointees skewed decidedly liberal.
Oop, too bad Rudy is a draft dodger !
“Any suggestion that he was dodging the draft is totally, factually inaccurate,” said a senior Giuliani campaign adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. “He opposed the war on tactical and strategic grounds.”
Has anyone followed the ever-so-slightly hysterical discussions of Rudy at Free Republic? Some fans, of course, those who aren’t so socially conservative, but Rudy’s abortion, gay, and gun policies have inspired some truly passionate anti-Rudy posts. Assuming that FR represents a more conservative wing of the GOP, do you think Rudy will make it through the primaries? Maybe he would win on a brokered convention, if the primaries don’t point to a clear winner? He seems to be making all the right moves in the polls, but I’m not sure if it will translate to primary votes.
V, thanks for showing us how a conservative filter works. I love how an article about appointees “leaning to the left” = left-wing activists. But you’ve already corrected yourself there, so good on you. Moving on to the substance of the issue: are you familiar with how the process works? From what I read (disclaimer: my info comes from FR posts), the NY Mayor works with and from a list generated by a panel over which he has limited appointee power, so the names which he has to work with is skewed heavily left in the first place, especially in light of a near 10:1 D:R registration ratio in the first place . But I guess “Rudy appoints gay left-wing activist abortion-lovin’ judges” is the only real take-away here.
Is Chuck Hagel more conservative than Rudy?.
The pragmatic push for Rudy seems more on par with Kerry than Regan.
Democrats pragmatically choose Kerry. He couldn’t really excite the base and he lost.
It appears the Republican elite are pragmatically choosing Rudy even though he fundamentally disagrees with the base on some of the most important issues.
I can’t see how he excites the FOF republican base….
Dan, I know this is blasphemy around here, but as a GOPer, I don’t care if Rudy passes the “conservative enuff, pure enuff, true enuff” tests on giving everyone an Uzi to hunt deer, kicking illegals to the curb or making ’em beg for work in the noonday sun, establishing the death penalty for drug dealers and perverts, punching the trigger to blow-up the UN or the French, outlawing Hollywood Values, and bringing back brown-shirts and leather gun straps as the new black for fashion.
Frankly, all he needs to do is demonstrate he’s competent to lead, he’ll toe the line on GOP values like smaller govt, lower taxes, protect free enterprise, stress conservation, restrain the courts with constructionist judges, stay resolved in the WOT, and provide for a strong natl defense.
Screw the TerrySchiavo-ish excesses meant to placate the FarRight like FMA, preserving DOMA and DADT, prohibiting abortions in 3rd world countries, and building an Israeli-styled wall from San Diego to Brownsville.
And frankly, I don’t care if he’s less than Reagan or more like W in political philosophies… I want someone who can win, serve, and lead. That’s the only test that should matter to GOPers voting in the primaries… not how far he can run from his record or what “gotcha games” can be played out by fiscal conservatives bean-counting NYC’s budget trends in 1990-92… gheeeeeeeesh.
In the end, being in power as President and advancing your agenda as a GOPer is a whole lot better than letting less competent, less thoughtful, wrongly directed liberals manage govt… even if it might –might– mean another backlash against liberalism 4-8-12 years from now. Reagan wasn’t going to wait for an opening in 1976, he took it without apology for what it did to the GOP.
If Rudy remains true to GOP values, he’ll speak to a majority of conservative voters. And maybe he’ll capture more of the indepedent voters like RR did with his anti-tax, pro-growth perspective in a General Election, if he makes it that far.
Let Rudy be Rudy… the GOP is a bit larger than Dobson’s, Nyquist’s and Newt’s living room. Leave the litmus test issues for the Democrats… they’re the party of victims.
While the rallying around Rudy as the next Ronald Reagan is heartening; I’m still hoping the Newt will throw his hat in. Rather than a Reagan, it’s my opinion that we need another T. Roosevelt; an activist reformer to lead the Nation in looking at it’s own institutions and assumptions…and to re-cast it’s foreign policies and instrumentalities.
Be it Rudy-Newt 2008, or Newt-Rudy 2008 would be a intellectual and pragmatic that the heartland could support. And the trifecta would be Thomas PM Barnett as SecDef.; our own Alfred Thayer Mahan for the 21st-Century.
Newt ? Didn’t Newt resign as Speaker of the House because he was having an affair during the Clinton impeachment ?
No Tim, but that’s a nice try at a smear. I see you’ve been studying HillaryClinton’s book on politics.
He resigned, as I remember it, from the Speaker’s perch and didn’t run for Congress because of his own ethics debacle over a book deal (sort of like Jim Wright who preceded him), a censure, a big fine, growing disfavor toward him in the general public, and ultimately his own peers decided he was more a drag on the House Majority than he was worth…
But nice try at the smear. Go to the back of the class and get your GayLeftBorg card punched by Ian or keogh.
Matt – Considering that both Dan and Bruce seem to like Rudy, and several commentors like yourself, it’s hardly “blasphemy”.
In fact: if there were a GayPatriot “party line” – and I know there isn’t one, except for just asking people to like and support America in the War on Terror – your #8 captures it.
So c’mon, Matt – don’t join the self-righteous dolts who make “blasphemy”, “party line”, or “GayRightBorg” smears on the people on this blog 😉
The reverse position – that Rudy has unfortunately caved into the Global Warming crowd, might not be good enough on judges, etc. – might almost be “blasphemy”. But even that isn’t so: since Dan has zero problem with people disagreeing with him (intelligently) on Rudy.
P.S. And where do I stand? I don’t know. Looks like I might be between a rock and a hard place, like I am every year. I might, emphasize MIGHT, be philosophically closest to Newt – I’m not certain yet, and I doubt his chances anyway.
I do know that I will never be able to forgive McCain for attacking our most basic and cherished Constitutional rights – free speech and free association – via McCain-Feingold. I’ll probably take Rudy over McCain.
I would disagree with Derbyshire’s statement that Rudy’s Gestalt “screams ANTI-LIBERAL”. I think his popularity is because his Gestalt screams “LEADER”.
Reagan was able to unite a vast majority of the populace not because they agreed with his politics, but because he was viewed as a leader.
That’s my $.02 anyway. LOL
Mike, agree.
When I hear Rudy talk, I’m sorta mesmerized, even when I might disagree. The guy is a leader.
I look at the 2008 GOP primaries this way – who best can lead the nation, go toe-to-toe with Iran/Syria/North Korea, preserve our territorial safety during the WOT and govern effectively?
So far, only Rudy seems to be the one who can pull it off. And I just can’t help but chuckle at the lower-case-libtrolls here who think that Rudy is not conservative ENOUGH for the “base.”
When your enemy starts giving you pointers on picking a candidate, it means that they are scared. Real scared.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
I’m so glad the GayRightBorg has weighed in.
I’m in agreement with Matt and will take it one step further: I actually like Giuliani. I also think it’s smart to recognize that we have a very unpopular President who is waging a very unpopular war and will not be an incumbent. Reagan had the advantage of running against an incompetent Democrat, while Giuliani has the distinct disadvantage of running against the record of what many see as an incompetent member of his own party. Giuliani’s ability to differentiate himself will be one of his greatest challenges of the campaign and to this end, I think his record is an advantage because it is pragmatic and can speak to more than just the Small Tent folks.
And yes, it is a relief to be able to listen to a Republican presidential contender without wincing at his elocution.
Let’s take a quick count.
Of 8 commentors in this thread who could reasonably be considered “right” to some degree: At least 7 of us will take Rudy in some form.
Hey HardHobbit, look – YOU are your “GayRightBorg”! LOL 🙂
(sorry if duplicate post – Site just crashed a couple min.)
I take it HH and MM would like those of us who have concerns about the GOP’s anointed kwisatz haderach to just STFU.
OK.
And, I also get the distinct impression that those of us who are socially conservative should also go pound sand.
OK, fine, we won’t let the door hit us on the way out.
Then, gun owners, I guess expecting the GOP nominee to actually want to protect the second amendment is too much to ask for. So, I guess we’re not welcome in the party either.
Oh, and people who are sick and tired, or infuriated, at the way the Bush admin has let itself be Mexico’s bitch on the border issue, well, the GOP doesn’t want our votes either.
So, social conservatives, gun owners, and people who want to secure the border can just FOAD as far as MM and HH are concerned.
And, anyone that’s left can vote for Rudy (as long as they don’t question him).
And all this time, I thought it was the left who were supposed to be intolerant of dissent.
You want a conservative candidate? Then get busy and work for one. Just as the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the onus is on YOU to make your voice heard and to prove the worth of your ideas in the political marketplace.
Your problem is that you live to complain. Doing something about your discomfort re. this or that issue or candidate such as volunteering to raise cash or walk a precinct is certainly beneath you, isn’t it? You love your misery and thus, that is all you have to offer. Nothing but spewing and spite, railing against anyone who disagrees with you or anyone who demands that you walk the walk. You point out the hypocrisy of others, but are blind to your own such as regularly using caustic and dirty language as ‘argument’ while claiming to be a religious conservative or claiming to be a misunderstood victim of intolerance for dissent while hiding behind the comfort of a computer screen. You remind me of those self-righteous pacifists from 1st-World countries who claim to hate the very arsenal that has purchased their freedom to allege their love of peace. People like you are so twisted that if your ideal, 100% pure candidate were to sweep into office in a landslide and enact your pet legislative agenda, you would move to the left just so that you could continue to complain.
I love misery? You’ve obviously never been to my blog. I’m the jolliest m-fer in the blogosphere.
What I’m not is stupid. I remember in 2000 people were making the same apologies for Bush as people were making for Giuliani. Some of us were concerned about his softness when it came to big government programs, and his willingness to compromise. But we were told to shut up and vote, because we were promised Bush would govern as a conservative.
And what have we got? Massive entitlement increases, out of control spending, caving to Democrats right and left, plus the added bonus of a wide open border and a president who’d rather prosecute border patrol agents than drug runners or coyotes. Who was right and who was wrong about Bush?
So, go ahead and flame me for not drinking the Giuliani Kool-Aid, and we’ll just see what happens. Maybe if you got off your high horse, you’d realize that I’m not spewing unfounded allegations, but I’m talking about Giuliani’s actual record as mayor. But just keep name-calling the critics instead of addressing concerns. After all, that worked so well for the GOP in 2006.
Actually, V the K may have a point. Some of my (more) liberal (than me) friends who normally wouldn’t be caught dead voting for a Republican have said they would consider Rudy Giuliani. As of now, I prefer him over Hillary Clinton. My concern is that he may lean more to the right as the campaign goes on. Should be interesting.
Peter, I can’t speak for all liberals. All I can say is for me and others, it’s not a question of being scared. As of now, we don’t view Giuliani being President as a terrible thing, and perhaps even positive. Giuliani’s strong point is that he appeals to a broad middle ground. The question is if he can win the primaries, since it seems that moderate candidates from either party have difficulty winning. In some ways, he is similar to Bill Clinton, who also appealed to a broad middle ground, despite his many character flaws, and he was able to win the Democratic primaries. Giuliani, who has less apparent baggage, could also succeed.
#22 – That is why the Republican party elite want Rudy. Where I would work like hell to be sure someone like Huckabee or Hagel is not my president, I would not mind Rudy at all. – But I prefer the Big O..
My dream:
O vs R
It would be a lot of fun to watch…and I be OK with whoever wins.
Dear Calarato, when you invoke the GayRightBorg nonsense it seems to trivialize the reality of the GayLeftBorg… if one thing is certain, the gays on the political Right who frequent here are as different, unique and endearing in the DIFFERENCE of their political opinions and they celebrate it loudly. There is no GayRightBorg; unless it’s in the certainty that their political opinion is 100% correct and Right (wink).
I seriously, seriously doubt there is anything on the Right that involves conservative gays which could remotely be considered evidence of a Borg mentality. On the Left, it’s a slam dunk; ref: Ian, raj, PatrickGryphon, JustAQuestion, sean-keogh-and the lower case clan, etc.
But I can appreciate how you might feel my comments somehow engender a “We’re not the GayRightBorg” defense. I didn’t say you were… I didn’t say it exists… I think you’re all wet on this one -with respect.
What I meant by blasphemy was the notion that as a gay GOPer, I want someone who can win. PERIOD. I don’t need a scratch and sniff test for purity of conservative values… I can take it that Rudy would understand viscerally that term #2 in 2012 can’t occur if term #1 isn’t done with sensitivity to conservative views and interests… I didn’t mean I support Rudy and that will likely be at odds with all the witty, sage, sometimes unreasonable conservatives who habit here.
I’m not sure Rudy is the best choice right now… personally, I like Romney just because I know him and his family… and the guy I really want couldn’t get elected and isn’t running… Lamar Alexander (ok, VdaK… now you know I’m a wild-eyed moderate… there’s the proof).
So take a chill pill, conservative Calarato. Blasphemy isn’t what you thought it was… I don’t think there’s a GRB.
I do think litmus tests on issues and playing the gotcha game about past Rudy positions he advocated as Mayor of a strongly progressive city are just that… if he were running for Mayor, I’d look to his pronouncements… but he ain’t –it’s President this time… or at least the GOP nomination. Frankly, his mayoral record is about as compelling to me as his record as Asst AG… I’m listening to what he says now.
And here’s the other part… maybe more for VdaK and social conservatives who opined before the 06 Election that maybe the GOP needed to learn a lesson about heeding the almighty interests of the mucky-muck conservatives and catering to their agenda… I’m not against dissent. I’m not against discussion. I don’t want them to STFU. But frankly the conservatives who ran the Congress last term –guys like Delay and Cunningham and Hastert and Lott and others– were the ones who LET THE GOP DOWN… in their monopolistic greed for power, their corruption of the system, their divorce from GOP values.
Instead, because of those nuts, we have the GOP tarred as the party of corruption –even tho NancyP and HarrygReid are helping erase that image quickly.
What I am against are the social conservatives who sat out the last election, who helped put the frickin’ side show into power we now have (thank you very much for sitting on your hands on Election Day and sending that message all you social conservatives who didn’t vote) and mostly I’m against giving those social conservatives the key to the Party –ever again. And the whole litmus test –he aint pure enuff for me crap is exactly that. Will conservatives pick the next GOP nominee?
NO. No they won’t. Party regulars and GOP loyalists will and that’s why there’s a bloody battle on from state to state to ensure the pearl-handled crowd doesn’t get to elect precinct delegates… keep the ReligRighters from control of State Party Committees… and make sure that picking a winner drives the writing of the planks of the next platform.
And for cryin out loud, not put Pat Buchanan or Dobson or Tancredo as a keynote speaker during prime time at the next GOP Convention.
Now, for those social conservatives who might offer that if the GOP doesn’t get tough on illegal immigration they’re out of here, I say… too bad. You guys gave us the liberals in Congress, now it’s time to compromise… problem is that the goalpost for legislative compromise is down in the liberal endzone. If you had helped out on Election Day, it might be different… but like the LogCabineers learned in 2004, you can’t piss on the people who brought you to the Party and expect them to now roll over, dry off and thank you for the lesson.
As a gun owner and sportsman, I think the NRA gets about 75% of natl gun policy wrong… I think it puts more emphasis on protecting gun merchants and sellers than they do sportsman or gun safety and, frankly, I hope we (the GOP) can kick the NRA’s own litmus test/anal control freakish nature to the curb. Good riddance. Is the 2d A as critical as the other 10? Sure. Should it trump everything else like common sense and controlling violence in our inner cities? Hell no. Should the natl GOP worship at the 2d A altar? No. No more than it should worship at the Pro-Life altar.
Let Rudy be Rudy. You might not agree with him on most things, but at the end of the day as Prez will he stand up in the WOT, hold fast on tax cuts, downsize govt, protect free enterprise and provide for a strong natl defense… and will he do it better than the Democrats? F–k yes, you even need to ask that?
We have along way to go before the 1st GOP primary. It’s why I’m going to CPAC this weekend… because I still share many of the values about fiscal and budget and tax policy with those folks even though the CONSERVATIVES in Congress let us all down in the last few yrs. It might be litmus test heaven for those attending, but I’m going to learn, listen, explore and explain… as a moderate GOP activist who wants the Party to return to its roots… Under the Oaks.
It sure won’t be to hob-nob with Ripons.
sorry, cyber filter is working OT; I did respond C and VdaK and HH
Its laughable that you would suggest that the groupthink mentality doesn’t permeate on the GayRight7of9ers (am I a nerd or what)
All I have to do is yell Gore n’ Hillary 2008 and the snapping sound will be your minds become as one.
But the thing I can easily agree with you on Matt is indeed your party has lots its way.
The George Bush Republicans with their horrific spending, bumbling foreign policy and misguided priorities have turned Americans away from the Republican party. The NE fiscal cons have gone to the Democrats, the western freedom-cons are moving to the Dems and now that Virginia is almost reliably Democratic, I believe we can count on Democratic majorities for a long time.
Could Rudy halt your decline? Maybe. But as Ralph Nadar has shown, the extreme socio cons will leave your party and vote for a third party no matter what the consequences. And we will have a Democratic control again!
I hope.
The spamfiler “ate” one of Calarato‘s comments and he asked that I post this on his behalf:
#26
The very notion that the liberals are picking up anybody is patently absurd. They’ve offered nothing and, so far, won’t be offering anything anytime soon. They offered nothing in 2006. They didn’t win, Republicans lost.
You can’t win when you don’t run on anything. Besides, what in the hell does the left offer that would inspire ANYBODY? Sure if mad, purple apoplectic rage is your bag, the libs are for you. Hate, anger, misery etc.? Democrats all the way. Other than that, why in God’s name would anybody want to be around that kind of people?
No. The libs couldn’t pick up a bag of dog crap, let alone more voters.
#17
And yes, it is a relief to be able to listen to a Republican presidential contender without wincing at his elocution.
My how snobbish. You would prefer a candidate who can “pahk the cah in the Havahd Yahd for some chowdah” perhaps? To my way of thinking, if you’re so anal that you miss the point of what it’s said by dwelling on how it was said, you’re way over educated and/or stuck on yourself. I know what he’s saying and I know what he means. That’s good enough for me. Plus, he does very well when it really counts.
I see incorrect grammar, spelling etc. on here, many other blogs and even in newspapers on a daily basis, but I usually don’t say anything because I’m not an arrogant dick. Plus I know that I make mistakes too and I have the balls to admit it.
BTW, why doesn’t anybody else call the several other presidents who pronounced it nucular complete idiots? I keep asking, but nobody can answer.
I didn’t start out hating Giuliani, but I’m starting to get there. I had what I thought were real concerns about his record, but every time I raise them, people attack conservatives, or me personally, instead of defending his policies. It’s all very cultish and bullying and frankly off-putting. So, I’m just going to drop it. I won’t criticize the lord and savior of the new Republican party any more.
TGC, indeed. I tried to say the following the other day – maybe I’ll get it right this time:
– In 2004, the Democrats proved you can’t beat something with nothing – not even if the media is on your side.
– In 2006, the Democrats proved you CAN beat nothing with nothing – especially if the media is on your side.
Republicans don’t have the media on their side, so they better have “something” if they want to win elections. That is: Reagan-like, consistent and philosophical or principle-driven leadership.
In 2004, WOT was the issue and Bush had it (especially by contrast to Kerry). But 2006 was more domestic-oriented, and in terms of domestic politics, the Republicans have been a mess for a long time – offering only a confused hash of “me too” Big Government policies.
Maybe Guiliani is the new Reagan, and maybe he isn’t. I can see why he is so popular on this blog – and I also have doubts or concerns. I’ve acknowledged both.
V, please don’t. I love what you have to say. Sometimes I don’t agree, sometimes I do agree, but I almost always love how your mind works. We need the dissenters and (to use a very silly word) “blasphemers”.
(P.S. Before some lefty tries to attack my characterization of 2006 as more domestic-oriented: remember that (1) it was a Congress-year election, (2) Mark Foley (!!!) was the top issue in the media, (3) according to exit polls, the Iraq war ranked fourth, yes FOURTH on a list of voter concerns, and (4) Lamont lost.)
Calarato… sorry for misunderstanding your point and thanks for clarifying it resolutely. I get it now.
V, I’ll offer my apology to you as well if you took my comments as trying to muzzle discussion… what I was trying to point out, without much luck given your comments at 30, was that I think the GOP ought to be more about winning and less about how far to the right we can be pushed on issues that didn’t resonate with voters in 06… and likely won’t resonate with a broader base of voters in 08.
Last night, a group of GOP moderates (me included) met with Michigan’s Pro-Life movement’s leadership. When we examined the results of the 06 election, the leaders of pro-life groups generally argued that the reason the election was lost –and I kid you not– was because the House didn’t pass a ban on abortion procedures on military bases outside the US. No reference of the corruption of power; no recognition of the role of an unpopular war; no acceptance that social conservatives stayed home and the Dems were motivated by the anti-war faction to get out and vote.
I thought that was a bit like the debate/discussion I’ve been having with some social conservatives who have claimed that the Party –state and natl– haven’t been pro-life enough… or strong enough on illegal immigration… or willing to rebuke Congress in 2000-2006 for drunken sailor spending.
When some folks talk about the GOP doesn’t stand for anything anymore… I hope it’s more about their frustration with party conservatives not being Reagan-ish enough to suit them. Well, Reagan ain’t running… and McCain has now pissed off the CPAC crowd to a point where he’ll never get their attention. Like the calls from social conservatives for the GOP “to find itself”, I think it’s about time to redefine what being a conservative means in the absence of the Reagan-era defining item: spread of communism. If you haven’t read Chuck Lester’s piece, you should.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1255/article_detail.asp
I think sticking to GOP conventional values and reinforcing that the overarching issue IS winning the WOT will allow us to resist the historic impulse to switch WH party control in 08 and maybe gain control of the Senate.
Sorry if my intemperate remarks were construed as off-putting or bullying or cultish. If that was result, I am indeed sorry.
I’ve heard different people’s lectures on how you can never expect to get the whole enchilada in politics, yada yada. True – to a point. But consider this.
Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” And people were inspired by that truth.
Hordes of people turned out to vote for Reagan to cut government (and stand up to the Soviet Union). That’s part of the winning philosophy, that the Republican needs to have.
Is it George Bush’s or Denny Hastert’s or Steve Boehner’s philosophy? Not so much. They pay lip service – sometimes – but have let government expand and grow far beyond anything Slick Willy did.
Is it, in fact, Rudy Giuliani’s philosophy? That’s where I have unanswered questions.
I haven’t heard Rudy talk about cutting government. I have heard him say he “definitely believes” in Manbearpig. (Big Government measures for combatting Manbearpig, to follow.) I can’t say what Reagan would think, but it doesn’t seem very Reagan-ish.
And then yeah, there’s that other very painful issue of border security…
Calarato, check out Giuliani’s speech this past week to the Hoover Institute donors in DC. CSPANs got it up & running now. It was an unconstructed talk more than a speech… although he rolled into the stump speech that I’ve heard him give since the 06 Elections. He talks about values, GOP values and what is at stake for America and the Party. For those who opine that the GOP doesn’t stand for anything… he addresses what HE’d like to see the GOP stand for again.
Last week I heard Romney offer his prespective on what he’d like to see the GOP and America stand for once again. Of course, Romney said it at the Ford Museum and the liberals started whacking him on his tacit support for the notorious Jew-hating Hank Ford… but then that’s par for the Left Put-put course of politics.
And just to put a finer point on it, here in Michigan in 80, when RR lost the Primary and then won the General… he was talking mostly about restoring American power and prestige abroad and cutting taxes. In the former case, govt is the only answer… like the 600 ship Navy and StarWars. RR won the blue collar Reagan Democrats here in Michigan because of his tax cutting pledges and his keen interest in seeing American military might restored –two clear winner issues then. Conservatives may have cheered when he offered that govt was the problem… but then RR didn’t revoke the Dept of Ed or Dept of Energy or HUD or the thousands of federal agencies that pollute the regulatory waters of business.
#29 The ability to communicate effectively is extremely important for a politician, especially for the President. With Bush, this is sadly lacking and I think it does him, his ideas, and the GOP a great disservice. It’s not intentional, of course — I suppose he does the best he can. But it isn’t ‘snobbish’ or ‘anal’ to express relief that the single greatest reason people mistakenly think Bush is an idiot will not be an issue with Giuliani or others.
I’ve always thought that one of the biggest failings of the Republican Party is that it simply cannot understand the importance of image (visual and otherwise). The Democrats have it all over us in this category. Now, I know that image is often used to distract from issues or it assumes an unwarranted importance and is extremely important to those who are in the business of agitprop, but that doesn’t mean it is unimportant. One of the reasons Reagan was so successful was his command of common language and the ease with which he existed when a lens was trained on him. We are fond of Reagan in part because he was brilliant at creating memorable visual and aural images and liberals who hated what he stood for couldn’t help but like him — proof that communication is a very powerful ally.
Nixon, probably one of the brightest Presidents we’ve ever had, famously didn’t understand the importance of image. Gingrich doesn’t. Lott and his clumsly statements re. homosexuality certainly doesn’t. Bush 41 doesn’t and his son doesn’t either. Pointing that out isn’t bashing the President — I intended to compliment Giuliani’s speaking ability (he’s very good under pressure [how could he not be and remain Mayor of NYC?]) and point out one area where he is an improvement over Bush.
Do I wince when Bush speaks? Yes, sometimes. It’s because I, as you write, know what he means and wish he could get it out a bit more smoothly. Communication is too important not to take it seriously and there are some who wonder why he doesn’t seem to do so. Sure, some have a natural ability such as Reagan but others like Charles Grassley have worked hard (and sometimes struggle) and manage to do pretty well despite an apparent lack of talent.
Sorry. Instead of “Gingrich doesn’t” I meant “Hastert doesn’t”. I’m getting Speakers of the House mixed up.
I heard Rudy on our drive-to-work talk station 950 AM here in Houston and here are some of the points I gleaned when he talked to our conservative talk show host: (Rudy’s comments are in quotes.)
1. On gun laws = “What worked in NYC would not work in Texas. I believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe that states should set their own gun laws.”
2. On illegal immigration = “Legal immigrants should precede illegal ones. Those who are here legally should become citizens. That includes an English proficiency test. We should fine those who are here illegally and strengthen our borders.”
3. On the GOP nomination = “Republicans should elect someone they believe will lead the nation and keep her safe.”
I report, you decide. Let the comments commence.
PS – I’d love to hear more from other candidates if they ever become available. (Memo to McCain – snubbing the CPAC convention is not a good way to win friends and influence conservatives.)
Regards,
Peter H.
#33
…was that I think the GOP ought to be more about winning and less about how far to the right we can be pushed on issues that didn’t resonate with voters in 06…
Soooo we should set aside what we believe in just to win? I don’t think it’s a matter of “how far to the right we can be pushed…”. Conservatism does resonate with voters and it wins. Giving up what you believe in to make people happy and just to win is when you get bogged down.
I think it’s about time to redefine what being a conservative means
Why in God’s green earth would anybody want to do that? Do you see liberals redfining what liberalism or Socialism means? No. They hide what it means, but they don’t redefine it. Why in the hell should we hold a finger up in the air and change whichever way the wind blows so people will like us and be happy?
I don’t fancy your “moderate-ism”. You need to change that.
#36
Sorry. I encounter poor “elocution” on a regular basis, but I’m not arrogant enough to judge people on it. In my world, I consider the “ignorant” to be the ones who are stuck on how it was said rather than what was said. One can cram “elocution” as far as I’m concerned. Maybe that’s why I hated Public Speaking in college.
Also, I’m one of the best spellers that I know (it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it), but I don’t judge people based on that. I get the point of what was written and move on.
#39
‘Sorry.’
You don’t have to apologize for disagreeing with me.
‘I encounter poor “elocution”… One can cram “elocution”…’
I regret that I used a word that required reaching for your dictionary.
‘…but I’m not arrogant enough to judge people on it.’
Read my post carefully. I wrote that many people mistakenly think Bush is an idiot because he is a poor public speaker. This means I recognize he isn’t an idiot. (I suspect many who say he is also know he isn’t but can’t resist Bush’s engraved invitation.) Meanwhile, you, calling me ‘snobbish’, ‘anal’, and ‘arrogant’ because I wish Bush wouldn’t hand his critics ammunition, have no problem judging me by the language I use. Does that strike you a bit hypocritical? Moreover, public image is not a zero-sum game, as if complimenting one politician’s speaking ability (Giuliani’s) necessarily detracts from another’s (Bush’s). Wishing that Bush would pay more attention to and thus have greater success with his speech craft is wishing him well, not ill.
‘…I consider the “ignorant” to be the ones who are stuck on how it was said…’
Communication with the public is part of the President’s job description. Bush is our employee and demanding he pay some attention to effectively presenting his policies both serves us well and serves him well; the public’s opinion of him is in direct relationship with its opinion of the clarity of his policies and thus it is in his and the national interest to present them effectively. If Bush were able to better articulate his plans for Iraq for example, the public might be more willing to support him and more importantly, support the troops. For those who think as I do, this is not unreasonable and is the antithesis of ignorance — indeed, its purpose is to combat it.
‘Also, I’m one of the best spellers that I know…’
People who correct spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation on an open, public forum such as this think themselves awfully clever, but are obviously extremely insecure. You won’t catch me doing it, although there are some here who certainly have and will.
Now, I really must dash. Rory and I are meeting Bitsy and Muffin for brunch at Chez Shea, then driving up the coast to meet the new staff at the summer cottage. Ta-ta.
…but are obviously extremely insecure.
On the contrary. I’m very secure and wonder why others aren’t. I have to wonder why someone as brilliant as you think you are would have to strain to get in the last word like that last comment.
You won’t catch me doing it, although there are some here who certainly have and will.
I have done that a few times a long time ago, but don’t. As I said, I make mistakes too. Plus I’m not that petty and generally scorn those who are, as you’ve seen.
#41
‘On the contrary. I’m very secure…’
Again, read my post carefully. I wasn’t referring to you but to those who seem to think correcting another participant’s spelling, etc. is scoring points. I’m not mentioning names, but you probably know to whom I refer. If not, fine.
If you go back and read our conversation, you’ll notice that you’ve referred to me as ‘arrogant’, ‘snobbish’, ‘anal’, ‘way over educated or stuck on himself’ and someone who thinks he’s brilliant. The catalyst appears to have been a single word: elocution. I’ve not responded in kind, but with explanations as to why I disagree with you, such as why I think it’s important that the President speak clearly and effectively. You claim to be very secure, but the terms you’ve chosen to hurl at me indicate otherwise. You claim the moral high ground by claiming you understand the gist of what someone says or writes and isn’t hung up on how they express it, yet you have consistently misread and/or misinterpreted what I’ve written. I apologize if I’ve been unclear, but in reading what I’ve written, the meaning comes across quite clearly to me.
I expect others such as yourself to disagree with my politics. This is, after all, a politically-oriented blog. However, I think this conversation has degenerated into one that is less-than-constructive, personal, and frankly, rather uninteresting. I suggest we concentrate on politics and move on. Also, let’s not forget that Contempt and Envy are brothers and that one is often mistaken for the other.
HardHobbit, you keep saying,
Why should anyone? Look at your posts in this thread. Dense verbiage that doesn’t amount to a whole lot more than snotty, personal warfare on some people.
(I mean, when I want to get snotty, I either keep it short… or else I (1) mix in news links / info relevant to the thread topic, (2) make sure I’ve picked a target who deserves it in the first place, and (3) use whitespace.)
#44 – Cal, I’ve never known you to be snotty.
Unlike some lower-case-libtrolls, the number of which is legion…
Regards,
Peter H.
is rudy giuliani for gays in the military or not?