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.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Rudy is a freaking disaster of a republican candidate. Unnngh!

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Cue the "'wah, he once wore a dress...let's vote for some obscure figure that will barely carry the same states as Bush' crowd..."

[KC_Conspirator]

Well I do remember 1996, and to be quite frank, we did not have any real good candidates that year. Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes were about the only real ones that had a remote chance, and quite frankly Bob Dole had the best chance out of all of them.

[areafiftyone]

That is your opinion. But that's all you know how to do is bash Rudy.

[Jake The Goose]

Wrong - people always piss and moan - right up to election day.

Anyone who threatens to "not vote" and then actually doesn't vote - the system has already discounted.

The party is only split in terms of attitude - it's always this way.

Fear not - unity only comes after the nominating convention - remember?

[Mr. Brightside]

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

And flip how many Red States to the Dems?

[pissant]

Sure, they may loathe his social liberalism, but will Mississippians really hand their six electoral votes to Hillary Clinton over Rudy?

Translation: The GOP takes conservative votes for granted and will happily dish up a liberal, if it looks like it can win that way.

Never again.

[mnehring]

We aren't 'begging' Fred to join, we are hoping for someone that not only has 'Conservative Values' but a chance to win across the board and be a figurehead of Conservative values. The problem I have with Hunter is he only preaches to the choir. Great guy, but no marketing strengths beyond the base who is already sold on him.

(I actually put Newt in the same category as Hunter in terms of marketability)

Basically we not only need values, we need an inspirational leader who will change the face of America towards conservatism, unlike Rudy who would 'change conservatism' for America.

[dirtboy]

We are beggers when we start begging other candidates like Fred Thompson and Newt to join the race. That gives true conservatives like Duncan Hunter NO Chance whatsoever.

Now you are making no sense whatsoever.

[TommyDale]

"Republicans and some conservatives will go for Rudy, McCain and Romney and the Hard core conservatives will go for the people like Duncan Hunter."

No necessarily. A Fred Thompson could unite the GOP.

[areafiftyone]

When you start trashing our top three candidates - we look no better than the liberals when they trash our candidates. We are split and will not win in 2008 this time - we will have 8 years of a Democrat presidency if we don't watch out. Mark my words. We are heading that way BIG TIME!

[areafiftyone]

Fred Thompson will help split it in half. You guys are willing to abandon your one conservative Duncan Hunter for Fred Thompson. AMAZING!

[kellynch]

I listen to Bill Bennett's show on my computer and he had Sen. Vitter on this morning. The Senator is supporting Rudy, and he (the Senator) has an extremely good ACU rating -- he believes (as do many of us Rudy supprters) that the WoT is the single most important issue facing this country today.

[paudio]

a group that advocates a bipartisan Presidential ticket in 2008.

So, why do we even need an election?

[Fierce Allegiance]

How will Rudy, and assuming he's the repub nominee, the entire republican party shake the kerick stain?

Sure, the dems have worse sains, but you know the msm beats republicans mercilessly while giving the dems a pass.

If rudy becomes the nominee, the kerick isue could bring the whole party crashing down.

Why not stick with a real conservative who doesn't have stains like rudy, and actually has a conservative platform, unlike Rudys pro-abortion, anti gun , etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum, stance?

[areafiftyone]

Oh yes I am. If Fred Thompson enters the race you will see a mass influx of Duncan Hunter people moving away from Duncan to Fred Thompson.

[Old_Mil]

Republicans and some conservatives will go for Rudy, McCain and Romney and the Hard core conservatives will go for the people like Duncan Hunter. It's that simple.

You may be right. I think if this happens, however, you'll be a bit surprised at the results. While your side has had the money in this alliance, our side has always had the numbers. The problem with the Rockafeller/liberal Republicans has been that there has never been enough of them to win an election for anything. That's why they entered into this alliance. If they've now decided that they would prefer a world that reflects the social values of the democrats, but low taxes small government and low spending, they're going to be wandering in the desert for 40 years. If all of us vote for the constitution party in 2008, the GOP will overnight become the "third" party.

[paudio]

And flip how many Red States to the Dems?

Which Red States do you think will flip to the Dems?

[TommyDale]

"Fred Thompson will help split it in half. You guys are willing to abandon your one conservative Duncan Hunter for Fred Thompson. AMAZING!"

Upon what evidence do you base this "split" by Thompson? He could very well select Hunter as VP. He would keep the conservatives happy while also keeping the issues such as abortion, illegal border invasion, homosexual agenda, and the 2nd Amendment in his corner. Exactly who would he lose? The liberal minority GOP from New York? Who cares? New York is not needed to win a Presidency.

[Fierce Allegiance]

When you start trashing our top three candidates

Those are candidates chosen by the MSM, not the party!