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.

[You Dirty Rats]

If you have been to NYC before and after Rufy was mayor, then you would realize that he did a lot to improve that city. Certainly he demonstrated leadership skills, as did Reagan.

Fred Thompson has demonstrated skills as a lawyer and actor. He has never held executive office -- not Mayor, not Governor, not CEO, nothing.

Much as I dislike Bubba and Jimmah, they at least had experience as Governors managing a state. Senators only run their voices and a small personal staff -- and usually they have office managers to do the administrative work. That's why the current crop of candidates in both parties is IMHO weak -- too many blowhards, not enough actual demonstrated leadership.

Now maybe FT would be a great administrator and leader. But, to date, he hasn't had that experience. Rudy and Mitt Romney have had it.

Newt also gets credit, as his positions as minority leader and Speaker are definitely leadership positions.

[Elyse]

the Hard core conservatives will go for the people like Duncan Hunter. It's that simple.

This is why some Rudy supporters can't understand why Rudy can't win because they keep insisting that it's only "hard core" ultra conservatives that won't support Rudy in the end. Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

None of that has anything to do with his executive or leadership capabilities.

[dforest]

People are going for Rudy because he has balls

What balls? Where? Has Rudy given anyone who isn't delusional, that he is, or has been tough on the WOT? I think I just have heard lipservice.

The only balls anyone has seen of Rudy's, are the ones he has shown draped in pantyhose and a tutu. He does a fine chorus line I might add.

[kellynch]

The "hard core" conservatives also conveniently forget that Reagan didn't exactly run away from the Brady Bill.

[TommyDale]

8 years in the Senate speaks volumes. Certainly more national experience than a mayor.

[neocon1984]

I have not heard such idiocy, not otherwise coming from a Democrat, in my life.

Do you and your supposedly conservative friends really think that the country crashing and burning is a good thing as long as you hold to your ideals?

We barely survived the Clintons and Jimmy Carter, but it will be much worse this time. I will blame people like you for your vanity, egotism and lack of patriotism. If you want the country to crash and burn in order to validate your personal opinions, you are both an idiot and a traitor.

[neocon1984]

You would do well to use care when wishing for your country to crash and burn.

Do you really think you can threaten me into agreeing with your views? What scares me about you is your vainglorious idiocy. Do you even understand what you are saying?

[Resolute Conservative]

Been there before and after and only saw less garbage.

Governors in Rhode Island may run their little state solo but in bigger states governors only run their staff, who in turn run the state. Clinton and Carter were governors and were a tragedy, GW was a better than average governor here in Texas, but has been lacking in a few things I think he could do better at as a President, like I said being a governor doesn't carry much weight. Reagan was governor of California but ran it the same way he ran the U.S. by delegation, he did not personally do it all. He set policy and hired people to implement it or he fired them.

People say they want a change then maybe this is the chance, someone who was not a governor or from a political family/machine, been out of politics for a while, and is the kind of candidate we all wish would run, but half of those wishers are scared he/she won't win because he/she wasn't a governor or well known.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. It is time to fight the hard fight and quit compromising just so we can maintain the status quo.

If polls are even a tad bit correct ( yes I know ) then majority of Americans are somwhat God fearing social conservatives against homo marriage and abortion who want a strong country and economy. The nut jobs that make up MSM and the video clips that they show of members of Congress and the public are the minority. The problem is every time we gain traction we get called bad names in the press and we cow down and feel "bad" and the libs win another one. It amazes me how a small percentage of folks can "scare" the rest into apathy.

You go ahead and cast your lot for Rudy just do not complain one time when it backfires and you realize he is a tough talking Hillary with a comb-over.

[muleskinner]

8 years in the Senate speaks volumes.

The only thing it speaks volumes about is the ability toget re-elected in a Southern conservative state.

Certainly more national experience than a mayor.

The office of the mayor of New York City is somewhat more challenging than that of Paducah, Ky., wouldn't you say?

[Nonstatist]

Floria, Tennessee, Missouri, etc

I'm very sceptical, but then you could also say California is in play, and that state has more electoral votes than those 3 combined

[Resolute Conservative]

Why are you so willing to compromise this early in the game? Rudy is not the man and it will show over the summer when he has to defend his platform.

Also why are you so willing to compromise you conservative beliefs just because it is getting hard? I am glad Washington, Jefferson, et. al. did not feel the need to compromise with the British just cause it got hard.

Sticking to conservative values , which this country was founded on by the way, and demanding them from the one's you elect is not being a traitor it is being a patriot.

[TommyDale]

There was no inability to get reelected. Thompson chose to not run again. I have no idea what the reference is to Paducah, KY but Thompson's political expertise goes all the way back to the 1970s, helping screen Supreme Court nominees and includes sitting on the Senate panel during the Clinton Impeachment.

[JamesP81]

Which red state would Guliani lose? (Especially if he picks a mainstream Pubbie VP)

Probably Virginia and Florida, at first look.

[B4Ranch]

Jeff, I think this post applies to you also. I am proud to be friends with a man of principle.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800493/posts?page=4#4
Posted by FairOpinion to B4Ranch
On News/Activism ^ 03/13/2007 8:08:24 PM PDT · 4 of 22 ^

Now I know why you are a Rudy basher -- you are one of those third party voters who gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton, put the Dems in power in 2006 and want to give us 8 years of Hillary.

[Hildy]

Bravo! Well said. Everything must change. There are people who just want to hold their breath and insist the world is like it was in 1980, and if only a knight in shining armor were to come over the horizon. It's just kinda silly.

Dorothy, we're not in 1980 anymore.

[Howlin]

You meant 1950, right? :-)

[neocon1984]

You are quite right that it is early in the game, but the stakes are higher than ever and we need to play our "A" game.

It bothers me that people on this forum are eagerly and energetically violating Reagan's 11th Commandment. It sows discord when we need to be more united than ever.

Let's debate, but don't say you are willing to let the country crash and burn to preserve your ideals. That combination of narcissism and stupidity is what I usually associate with the left. As Rush has often said, words have meaning. Some of the posters here need to consider the meaning of their words more carefully.

I have yet to choose a candidate. I find Rudy personally likeable and McCain immensely unlikeable. However, I will energetically support whoever the Republicans nominate. That is a compromise I feel compelled to make.

It would be helpful if posters spent more time debating their candiates pros and cons in a respectful and open minded manner. We can count on the media to tear down whoever is nominated. We don't need to do it to ourselves.

[Resolute Conservative]

Okay. I concur the stakes are high and thus not a better time to fight the hard fight and front candidates that resonate the views of the majority of this party and not settle for someone simply because he can win. I akin Rudy to the Manchurian Candidate, he will morph after elected into exactly what we thought we were voting to defeat.

I agree on the non-bashing and more debate/discussion. I do however feel that some are thin-skinned if I cannot openly criticize some candidates based on their social views then by rights others cannot criticize my candidates based on their lack of electability or no gubernatorial experience. Too much PC in debate and that is another problem, nobody wants to hear the truth less thier feeling get hurt.

[Ciexyz]

btt