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.

[mnehring]

The problem is Hunter isn't the only conservative w/ his hat at least partially in the ring, he is just the soup de'jour of our (conservative) side. Conservatives also have Gilmore, Tancredo, and Thompson (and Weiner Savage has even said he is running for the really nutty folks to get behind.)

[Steel Wolf]

Upon what evidence do you base this "split" by Thompson? He could very well select Hunter as VP.

And then we'd have two dull, unknown white guys running against Her Highness Hillary or rock star Obama. What do they offer the swing voters? There's a large segment of the voting block that is swayed by charisma, personality, name recognition, and star power. It's worse right now, given how unhappy the electorate is.

Your picks will fire up the base, and cede the center to the left. Which will make FR happy, but it won't work.

[from occupied ga]

This presupposes that somehow electing a New York left wing liberal with an R is any better than electing a New York left wing liberal with a D simply to keep the GOP in power. The same GOP that has cut medicare spending and fixed the illegal immiagration problem (Oh wait, they DIDN'T do that)

[Old_Mil]

that the WoT is the single most important issue facing this country today.

There are people who believe this - I'm not one of them, as I believe that unless our domestic policy house is in order, victories on the battlefield have little meaning. However, a soft on defense candidate like Rudy who has no military experience and used the terrorist attack on the Empire State building to call for more gun control in 1997 is hardly the fearless leader on the war on terror that we need.

A more logical choice is Duncan Hunter who is a Vietnam veteran, former chairman of the House Armed Services committee, and father of a young man who served two tours in Iraq.

[Fierce Allegiance]

If we get stuck with a POS like rudy as our candidate, we'll lose before the election is even held!

Every frickin day here, it's something new you have to hold your nose over regarding Rudy. Aren't you sick of that? I mean, he really is a disaster, but yet you (plural) still stick up for him. Doesn't it get really tiring fighting for a really bad cause?

[areafiftyone]

and the MSM starts their attacks

STARTS?? Have you been reading the anti-Rudy threads here especially at night? The MSM is non-stop Rudy bashing now. The only good posts about Rudy coming from the MSM are the poll numbers and once in a while a columnist who thinks Rudy is good enough to be president. You guys can take your pick of the MSM Rudy bashing stories. Just take a good look at all your posts and the posts of the other Anti-Rudy people - they are all the MSM trashing Rudy.

[Mr. Brightside]

It is simply amazing what freepers who support Rudy consider "credible" new sources now.

[veronica]

Duncan Hunter may be a decent guy, but he ZERO CHANCE of the getting the nomination and being elected POTUS. People who live in a fantasy world are generally regarded as being delusional.

[areafiftyone]

NY Observer? What is wrong with that source?

[cripplecreek]

Good thing I'm not begging.

[mysterio]

Rudy Giuliani: Because Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

The sad thing is that you think the article you posted is a selling point. Still not voting for Rudy.

[concerned about politics]

No necessarily. A Fred Thompson could unite the GOP.

Agreed. I could easily support a guy like Thompson.

[Don't think about Rudy's life long support for liberalism. It's only the (R) after his name that really matters. (S)]

[dynachrome]

"Bush Sr did it to himself."
And Bush jr. is doing it to all of us. Border control, illegals, anyone?

[areafiftyone]

Listen I don't care who you choose. You do what you want.

[cgk]

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

I went to the Unity 08 website looking for an explanation of this.

---

What do you mean by a Unity Ticket?

A Unity Ticket will consist of a woman and/or man from each major party running for President and Vice President, or by independents who assemble a Unity Team from both parties.

How would you be able to be sure the ticket will consist of one Republican and one Democrat?

It is our plan that convention delegates would vote not for each office separately, but for the combined ticket. Each candidate for President would have chosen his/her candidate for Vice President before the balloting begins. (Independents may run for the nomination if they present a Unity Team from both parties.)

---

Sounds like a winner! Dem/Repub = Clinton/Giuliani or Giuliani/Clinton? Which do you prefer?

[dynachrome]

Rudy-toot ping.

[hosepipe]

Republicans NEED someone who can talk like Ann Coulter, have the logic of Newt Gingrich, the courage of Ronald Reagan, and the gift of GAB like Dennis Miller..

The ONLY one anywhere close to that is Newt Gingrich.. ADD Giuliani as VeeP and you're talking a maybe there.. not a "fer sure" but a maybe.. Other than than "WE'RE SCREWED"..

[mysterio]

Thanks.

[dirtboy]

Fred Thompson will help split it in half

That is a joke, and a pathetic one at that.

Unlike Rudy, Fred clearly states that Roe is bad law. Unlike Rudy, Fred has actually supported a PBA ban. Unlike Rudy, Fred has not backstabbed pubbies when it suits him. Unlike Rudy, Fred supports Libby. Unlike Rudy, Fred has national experience.

And unlike Rudy, Fred hasn't pushed to take guns away. Or supported human-caused global warming.

Fred ain't perfect - he supported McCain-Feingold (like Rudy). But he is much closer to the center of the GOP than Rudy is. He would hold the party together. Your panic over Fred is telling - he would show Rudy to be the liberal Rudy truly is by comparison.

Of course, Fred will have to account for that scene in Baby's Day Out when he demands the crooks throw out the boo-boo. But that's a lot easier to deal with than images of Rudy in drag.

[Vaquero]

Rudy Giuliani: Because Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

yup lets settle for a Re-pube liberal...so we dont get a Dim Liberal