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.

[Ouderkirk]

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.

B.S. it was Nixon for 8 and would have been another Republican in 1976 if it weren't for Watergate.

In 1980 and 1984 it was Reagan, and 1988 it was Bush Sr. It would have been Bush Sr in 1992 if it weren't for Ross Perot.

This guy is an idiot wih no sense of history.

[Graymatter]

Pure bilge ship.
The blue states want the lib, they will vote the lib. The Democrat lib.
Meanwhile the conservative vote in the blue states will be depressed...not to mention the conservative vote in all the other states.

[Steel Wolf]

..excuese me, when did we become beggars?

For those of us just tuning in, we became beggars after 2006, when it became clear that the undecided voters are giving up on Iraq, and the GOP establishment in general. Without a doubt, we cannot, period, full stop, end of sentance, win in 2008 without a candidate that appeals to the center. There are some years when we can run a solid cultural conservative. Right now, after 8 years of nice guy President Bush and the endless Iraq mess, the voters want something different.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to realize that Romney or Hunter is going to get plowed under by Hillary or Obama in a general election. Either we deliver them something different from the normal GOP fare, like Condi Rice or Rudy Guiliani, or we eat a Bob Dole style defeat. The voters want change. Either we give them moderate change, or they'll take extreme change.

FR is not the outside world. The George Allens and Rick Santorums of the world just aren't what the swing voters are interested in right now. Either we get that through our heads, or we get used to being the minority party.

[Mr. Brightside]

"Non-Partisian" Unity08 Agenda:

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

Sounds like the typical democrat talking points: anti-Bush/Haliburton big oil, pro-union, pro nuclear freeze, pro global warming controls, pro McCain/Feingold, pro public education, pro socialized medicine.

Really credible source!

[areafiftyone]

GOOD POST!!

[Steel Wolf]

Why don't you tack "if it hadn't been for Iraq" on there as well? Because his history is apparently quite solid. You seem to think that those pesky historical events are getting in the way, but that's kinda how history works.

[areafiftyone]

The post is from the NY OBSERVER see the link. If they use him as a columnist that is their problem not mine.

[dirtboy]

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.

You're a Rudy booster, so pardon me if I find your concern less than compelling.

I would welcome Fred's entry into the race as a viable alternative to the three current allegeded front-runners in case Hunter cannot get traction - however, I will still support Hunter up to the point that he shows he cannot move into the top tier.

But this early in the process, the more, the merrier, especially when the alternatives are considered. Unlike Rudy, Fred has clearly stated that Roe is bad law. Fred isn't ideal, but at least the glass is half-full with him, instead of about 20 percent full. Unlike Romney, Fred's pro-life position doesn't appear to be a recent epiphany that coincides with seeking higher office. And unlike McCain, Fred isn't a nutbar.

[dead]

I will be supporting the likes of Hunter or Thompson in the primaries.

A Hunter/Thompson ticket would also pick up the confused stoner vote.

[ken5050]

The Kerrick thing will blow over..but it will grab headlines for a while.. I say to you, and those others who don't like Rudy for now..(and it's important to remember that we all AGREE on the issues that concern you...we're on the same side of the battle lines here ) I am willing to consider others..I would actively and happily support Hunter if he were the nominee..but you and your candidate have to show me that he has some support, can gain some traction in the party..before I will take him seriously. I'm still happy that Hunter is in the race, because he will see that the debate shifts the party further to the right, where it belongs..you in turn should be at least willing to listen to Rudy, as he tries to earn your vote and support over the coming months..all we ask is that you keep an open mind..

[Smokin' Joe]

"Beggars can't be choosers?"

Ahem.

We're not begging.

Besides, I thought Rudy got rid of all the 'squeegee men".

[dforest]

When you start trashing our top three candidates - we look no better than the liberals when they trash our candidates.

No one needs to trash Rudy, another plus for his management skills, is that he managed to trash himself without anyone elses help.

We can do better.

[freedomfiter2]

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.

If they do it'd only show that the conservatives are willing to make a reasonable compromise.

[areafiftyone]

They were not chosen by the MSM That is the poorest excuse you can use. The MSM takes a look at polls from (believe it or not) outside Free Republic where the real world is! If you insist on living in a FR world and ignoring the rest of the country then you are going to be on the losing side.

[TommyDale]

"It would have been Bush Sr in 1992 if it weren't for Ross Perot."

Actually it would have been Bush Sr in 1992 if he hadn't played along with the Democrats and raised taxes. The GOP base was incensed. Perot didn't help matters, but Bush Sr did it to himself.

[concerned about politics]

They can try all they want. Rudy knows how to handle the left.

That's because he's a liberal. He is the left.

[areafiftyone]

We have been begging since 2006

[Fierce Allegiance]

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

Yeah. You must be really sick of it. If you think I am bad, wait until (more like if) he becomes the nominee, and the MSM starts their attacks, after telling us for so long how great he is. I'm nothing comapred to what the MSM will do. It will be all Kerick, all day, all night. Rudy will drag the party down to depths never seen before.

Sure, he's the media darling on the republican side, because they know the people are stupid enough to go with him without doing their own researdch, but if he gets the nod, they'll pull the rug right out from under him (and us), and WHAM!

[Ouderkirk]

His presumption that 8 for them 8 for us is what is just plain stupid. It is the facts of history that don't make his assertion true.

The 8 and 8 theory falls flat in the face of the facts.

There are plenty of if's and but's in the history of the elections. It is not as cut and dried as the 8 and 8 that he is asserting.

[Mr. Brightside]

Rudy will have a hard time getting a majority of the southern Red States.

We have spent decades getting conservative Democrats to vote with us. Giuliani could undo all that in one election.