Posted on 07/07/2006 7:32:14 AM PDT by chiller
Twenty-eight months to go, and I can't wait.
( edit )
Since Condi insists she isn't interested - and for the moment I believe her - speculation ranges from base-pleasing Republicans like Sens. Bill Frist, Sam Brownback and my current favorite, George Allen, to the intriguing prospects of envelope-pushers like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
And these two intriguing figures constitute my point of the day. There are two things I have stopped saying: first, Mr. McCain can't win, and second, Rudy won't run.
I still don't believe Mr. McCain will be the '08 nominee, but his loyal support for the war has healed some distaste that the GOP base has had for him since he challenged Mr. Bush six years ago. His disconnect with many Republicans on overhauling campaign finance is still an anvil around his prospects, but I can no longer write him off.
As for Mr. Giuliani, I used to say that he won't run and couldn't win if he did. The gay-friendly, abortion-rights-supporting ex-New York mayor whose legacy includes an embrace of gun control? It would seem highly unlikely.
Unless you were in a room with me at the Hotel Crescent Court last month as the Dallas County Republican Party welcomed Mr. Giuliani to a fundraiser also heralding local congressional candidates.
I served as master of ceremonies, and there was a thoroughly polite welcome for the GOP primary survivors who will try to unseat Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Chet Edwards.
But it was Mr. Giuliani who put a room of Reagan-loving red-staters into a positive swoon.
He did it with steadfast support for the Bush war doctrine, coupled with a passion for tight borders that even the still-admired incumbent cannot muster. He did it with strong fiscal conservatism, another Bush weakness. And he did it with a passionate pitch for school choice, an issue Republicans have neglected - mysteriously, since scads of Republicans and Democrats want it.
His content was great. His style was even better. His sharp wit and off-the-cuff comfort are miles beyond the average glazed, scripted politician. He sports a good-natured partisan streak that puts him a head above Mr. McCain, who seems to gag on any sentence suggesting that a Democrat might be wrong.
This is not my prediction that Mr. Giuliani's hand will rest on a Bible at the swearing-in on Jan. 20, 2009. But the Bible-embracing core of the GOP shows a willingness to consider him as he includes evangelical groups in his curious tour of various Republican constituencies.
He will not launch a national gun grab, leaving gun statutes to the cities. He will not push for nationwide gay marriage, happy to leave those decisions to the states, where the Constitution says they belong. He will not pound the bully pulpit for affirmative action, leaving that to the courts.
And speaking of the courts, he speaks glowingly of Mr. Bush's Supreme Court selections, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, suggesting he does not necessarily dream of packing the court with sure-fire abortion-rights opponents.
Throw in the tasty imagery of the Mayor of America wiping the debate stage floor with Mrs. Clinton or virtually anyone else, and it's the kind of thing to make a Republican heart quicken.
I don't know yet whether I can be a Rudy voter, but I'd enjoy watching him try to make me one.
Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.
Neither. I consider McQueeg only marginally better than Frenchy. Rather than choose, I would prefer to proceed without a CO. Me and my crew will share CO duties. Couldn't do much worse than either of those two political jokes.
"I'll make sure to bring a barf bag to the polls in November in case I lose it."
I already do that below the federal level, but last year I decided to stop. No more pulling that voting lever on a "least worse" basis. I'm all done with that. In California, its gotten me nothing but even more liberal governance. The federal level, I would agree, is a little different with more at stake. Even so, I am thinking very seriously about adopting the same "no more least worse" choices at the federal level.
Look, voting in pretend-conservatives who are really liberals in RINO clothing only gets you more of the same. With distrust of the federal government at an all time completely justifiable high, I see less and less reason to continue to participate in a process that lacks honesty, integrity and which has become thoroughly corrupt. Too many lies, denials and coverups.
In other words, I no longer trust them.
A Giuliani presidency would keep the Supreme Court under the control of a liberal majority for a least ten more critical years, and probably longer. You wouldn't recognize the US after they were finished with it.
"I vote for no more wars. How's that for a platform?"
That platform sucks. We may need to make war upon Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il in the near future. I certainly would not take the use of force off the table.
This is exactly why America needs Rudy and not the surrender monkies that infest both parties.
BTTT
|
I agree with you both. Rudy is, perhaps, the best person of either party to prosecute the War on Terror, the determinative issue of our time. Rudy is tough. He is experienced. He is bright. He is eloquent. And he has the confidence of most of America. (And wouldn't he automatically get New York?) And unlike the poseurs in DC, when Rudy is a conservative is a conservative in deed:
The Democrats generally, and the clintons, in particular, are deadly dangerous, especially now. They cannot be trusted with our national security. We must focus on defeating the terrorists. The War on Terror and the "RINO" assault are separate problems often with conflicting solutions. (And, in any case, the root cause of what we call the RINO problem isn't the RINO: It is the professional pol. To belatedly focus on the RINO doesn't fix that problem and only undermines our war effort, i.e., in order to "show 'em," some of us are willing to put the proximate cause of 9/11--the clintons--back in the Oval Office.) By conflating the two problems, we would be all but ensuring that we will solve neither. We would be playing right into the clintons' hand. Let's get a little perspective here and put these two issues in descending order of--if not priority--expected mortality endpoints.
|
Another point: What kind of a court do you think hillary would appoint?
fyi
A Giuliani presidency would keep the Supreme Court under the control of a liberal majority for a least ten more critical years, and probably longer. You wouldn't recognize the US after they were finished with it.
I actually don't think this is so. Look at his governance. (see post 266.) And don't overlook his comments about Alito and Roberts. He is more conservative than his image or the press would have you believe.
And, in any case, what do you think the court would look like if hillary got her paws on it again?
There are safer, winning, conservative choices than Giuiliani.
bump
Although I cannot think of one, ;) that isn't really my main point.
My main point is that we must hang together. We must vote, and we must vote GOP. To do anything else is to place a de facto vote for hillary or whichever horror the Ds serve up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.