Rudy Giuliani: Because Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

NY Observer ^ | 3/14/07 | Steve Kornacki

[areafiftyone]

If pragmatism prevails in the Republican primaries and caucuses next winter—a questionable proposition for a party that once dutifully lined up behind Bob Dole—then Rudy Giuliani will roll to the G.O.P. nomination.

 

Simply put, the former Mayor would flip to the Republican column several deep, dark blue states that the G.O.P. has barely bothered to contest in recent election, gobbling up territory that is pivotal to any Democrat’s hopes of corralling 270 electoral votes. And he could do this without ceding an inch of safe G.O.P. turf to the Democrats. Sure, they may loathe his social liberalism, but will Mississippians really hand their six electoral votes to Hillary Clinton over Rudy?

 

As it stands now, Republicans are in grave danger of losing the White House in 2008. There is a pattern to American politics that has prevailed, almost unblemished, since the Second World War: One party controls the Presidency for eight years, then the other party does. It was the Democrats’ turn in 1992 and 1996, the Republicans’ turn in 2000 and 2004, and—well, you see what that means for ’08.

 

And it’s not as if voters are inclined to buck history: Fatigue with the national G.O.P. is unusually high—and, with every passing, seemingly futile month in Iraq, growing. Against such a backdrop, a Republican Presidential nominee who appeals to the usual G.O.P. cheering sections and antagonizes the familiar Democratic constituencies is going nowhere.

 

To win next year, Republicans need to nominate a map-changer—a candidate who can attract support in unlikely areas and overcome the significant built-in handicaps.

 

Enter Rudy. Say what you will about whether he truly deserves them, but his Sept. 11 tough-guy hero credentials position him perfectly to lead election-swinging Reagan Democrats back into the Republican fold.

 

Consider the electoral map, which has subtly shifted in the Democrats’ favor in the last two years due to Republican bumbling on the national and state levels.

 

Ohio, for instance, famously put Mr. Bush over the top in 2004. Months later, though, that state’s Republican governor, Bob Taft, pleaded guilty to four criminal misdemeanors in an ethics case, precipitating the total collapse of Ohio’s G.O.P. establishment. Now, early polls show Mrs. Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards poised to turn Ohio blue in ’08.

 

Against Rudy’s G.O.P. rivals, the Democratic front-runners would have little trouble doing so. John McCain’s fortunes will be tied to public opinion of the war he has so tirelessly promoted. And Mitt Romney’s politics of convenience—now a conservative, he built his political career in liberal Massachusetts by telling wrenching personal stories about his commitment to keeping abortion legal—will only remind Ohioans of the double-talking governor who until recently occupied their own Statehouse.

 

But Rudy can run as a leader and a hero, the man who stood tall on America’s darkest day—just as the President went into hiding for a few hours. He can call himself a results man too, the mayor who made New York safe for suburbanites again. That appeal frees him from the liabilities of his party or from the kind of single-issue identification that figures to doom Mr. McCain.

 

And Ohio is only one example.

 

Look at Mr. Giuliani’s home region. He’d have a hard time, perhaps, in New York itself. But he’d be favored in New Jersey, a state filled with blue-collar, ethnic Catholics who loved him even before 9/11. At the same time, his social liberalism won’t scare off the state’s affluent, educated suburbanites like George W. Bush’s religious rhetoric has. The same is true of Connecticut, another bedroom state that has turned on the national G.O.P. as it has morphed into a party for Christian conservatives from the South.

 

Between them, Connecticut and New Jersey have 22 electoral votes, and neither has voted Republican since 1988. Before he’s even left his backyard, then, Rudy could produce a 44-vote swing in the electoral math, potentially decisive in itself. And that’s not even touching Pennsylvania, whose blue-collar masses have lined up with the Democrats for four straight elections. And so on.

 

We’ve been down this road before, of course. In 1996, Lamar Alexander, then a likable and somewhat moderate former Tennessee governor, donned a checkered shirt and told Republicans that his campaign was as simple as ABC: “Alexander Beats Clinton.” No one short of Colin Powell could have defeated Mr. Clinton that year, but surely Mr. Alexander would have fared better than the soporific Mr. Dole, who Republicans nonetheless tapped. Similarly, had the G.O.P. simply nominated Mr. McCain in 2000, it would hardly have taken a Supreme Court decision to hand the White House to the party.

 

Maybe, given his well-documented history as a social liberal, it’s naïve to think that Mr. Giuliani will be able to count on Republican support in 2008. But if Hillary Clinton ends up defeating Mitt Romney, the G.O.P. will have no one but itself to blame for the Clinton restoration.

 

Steve Kornacki works as an organizer for Unity08, a group that advocates a bipartisan Presidential ticket in 2008.

[concerned about politics]

Well, for starters, Fred Thompson is a heck of a lot more dynamic. He also speaks with authority in a booming, masculine voice, unlike the lisping Rudy Giuliani.

Yes, he does. In an era of terrorism, he appears - without saying a word - as a strong leader. When he does say something, his voice automatically enlists attention.
He's got the job if he wants it. Republican voters are looking - or even screaming - for a strong leader. I think we've all had just about enough Republican weeniness and cowardliness for one life time.

[You Dirty Rats]

The comparisons of Thompson to Reagan are overblown. Reagan was Governor of California and head of the SAG before that -- a demonstrated leader. Thompson served in the Senate - big deal. He hasn't demonstrated leadership at any level -- unless portraying an Admiral in a movie counts.

Fred could have been a contender, but he hasn't paid his dues. The enthusiasm for him in the past couple of weeks is easy to understand -- the other conservative candidates in the race are all mini-mees, and therefore the anti-Rudy crowd has to find someone acceptable. Fair enough. But those trying to sell the idea that he's another Reagan are grossly misunderestimating Reagan's accomplishments prior to his election as POTUS.

[Gracey]

I wonder what he'd be polling if professing conservatives weren't bending over for Rudy?

WHAT???? Is this wag the dog? People are going for Rudy because he has balls and they have confidence that he'll fight for this country and won't take the sh#t off the democrats, or Islamofacists. He's not very politically correct.

[You Dirty Rats]

He also speaks with authority in a booming, masculine voice, unlike the lisping Rudy Giuliani.

You should love Osama Obama and his voice then.

C'mon, you certainly can do better than that!

[TommyDale]

The question was how Thompson differed from Bob Dole.

[concerned about politics]

He's not very politically correct.

Rudy is only 99.9% politically correct, so Conservatives should run right out and vote for him - NOT!!
Rudy is political correctness in the flesh. He's a NYC liberal.

[ichabod1]

You would do well to use care when bandying that word about, neocon.

[Resolute Conservative]

Exactly, I will not vote for a liberal with an "R" after his/her name. Right now I will support Thompson or Hunter, if neither one gets the nod I will be party shopping ( Constitution ) but at least I can look in the mirror and also when I complain I won't be complaining about someone I elected against my better judgment.

I'd rather lose and regroup than win under the illusion that all is right and this is the path we need to be on.

[Resolute Conservative]

No,

Rudy - he wears a dress and cleans up better than Hillary!

[Resolute Conservative]

I personally am hungry for someone who will stand for the principles of the people who elected him and Rudy isn't that person.

You stand Thompson next the Hillary and let voters hear her shrill versus Thompson professional demeanor and the rest will take care of itself with regards to swing voters.

[Resolute Conservative]

Funny, some people call them reformers or people with integrity. What do you call someone who will sell his soul for a win?

Even if Hillary gets elected we survived 8 years of Bill, she would be out in 4 after people got a good does of her and does not have Congress behind her like she thinks. This is why other races are just as if not more important than President.

[Resolute Conservative]

What dues has Rudy paid? Serving as mayor of city that is more messed up than the country is? I don't want the US to be an image of NYC.

FT has the same amount of experience ( more than others ) as most other candidates in the race.

[freedomfiter2]

A lot of people are reacting to the severe beating we took in November. They jumped on the first candidate that wasn't wimpy like the Bush administration. It wasn't a reasoned reaction and so buyers remorse is beginning to set in. Fortunately, there's still time.

[You Dirty Rats]

And all you had to mention is voice and presence? By that standard Frank Sinatra would have been a great candidate.

If image is more important than substance Fred Thompson is a good choice. I don't believe Republican voters vote that way.

Now 'rat voters -- that's a different story. Their two top candidates are all image and no substance (Hillary and Obama).

[Steel Wolf]

The comparisons of Thompson to Reagan are overblown. Reagan was Governor of California and head of the SAG before that -- a demonstrated leader. Thompson served in the Senate - big deal.

That's pretty much the case. As I pointed out, the electorate is clearly okay with cutting some corners in 2008. Hillary and Obama are not particularly well qualified or experienced, yet they're polling quite well. That begs the question, Why?

Fairly or not, there's a heavy sense of Bush fatigue out there. The voters want something, anything, so long as it's visibly different. That's why they're courting candidates who, all things being equal, shouldn't be pulling more than single digits in the polls. Barack Obama? Are you serious? The fact that this lightweight gets half a glance at all is because he's so diametrically different from President Bush.

We need to wake up and take a look at the situation. Not how we want it to be, but how it is. Either we field a candidate that is attractive to the center, or we lose. The base (i.e. us) may not like it, but that's the situation.

[concerned about politics]

There is a word for people who are willing to "let the country crash and burn" because of their own vain ideals. That word is: traitor.

No. There's two words. Representative Republic. You're asking Conservatives to deny their own core beliefs and vote for a liberal because you say so.
If liberalism represents you, then fine. It's a free country, but liberalism doesn't represent a lot of FReepers here. They have no reason to support Rudy if their philosophy is Conservatism.
If I were to support Rudy, then I would be a traitor - to the Conservative movement.

[slowhand520]

To be honest I am getting tired of hearing people on our side saying "vote for Rudy he is almost conservative". Why should we defer to these pseudo candidates when it should be the other way around. We shouldn't be fooled by Giulliani's lip service (or lisp service). He hates guns, all the judges he appointed are liberals and if this man gets in we are all going to be on this message board complaining about the same thing we disapproved of in our current President. Yes, like President Bush he would be great on the War On Terror but so would Gingrich, Hunter, Thompson.

[Resolute Conservative]

I for one did not vote for Reagan because he was a governor or the leader of SAG ( be deal ). SAG thing was a big deficit in my book. I voted for him based on what he told me he would do as President and what his vision for my country was and his charisma. Second time, same thing and what he had done first term.

Being a governor carries no weight, brass tacks: people vote for what they hear the person campaign on and whether or not they think that person can deliver any of what they say and their looks ( studies verify that women especially partially base their vote on looks ). FT has the looks department over Rudy.

[TommyDale]

Fred Thompson's record speaks for itself. I don't need to defend his pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment stances, nor do I need to defend his viewpoint on illegals.

[kellynch]

Hunter has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.