I had a chance to see Rudy Giuliani speak at the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame in Chicago on Friday. While I don't necessarily have too much reference point, I do believe that in most ways this was much like any campaign towhall meeting and speech. It was still quite illuminating nevertheless.
I believe you can tell a lot about a candidate's agenda by what they focus on during such a meeting. The first policy that Rudy spoke about was illegal immigration and how important it is to finally get a handle on it. His newfound commitment towards combatting illegal immigration will no doubt be met with skepticism and controversy by many of my conservative colleagues. Unfortunately, it is one of those debates that is in many ways pointless. There will be plenty that will look at his prior New York City record and concluded based on past performance that he isn't serious. There will be those like me that will look at his current plan for illegal immigration and say he always gets accomplished what he sets his mind on. His plan involves beefing up the border patrol, building a fence technological and real, and creating a tamper proof ID card. Thus, take it for what it is worth.
His thoughts on the GWOT were no doubt general. His first thought vis a vis the GWOT is that we must stay on offense. This has became his calling cry with regards to this issue. He believes in victory in Iraq and he defined that as an Iraq that is an ally not an enemy in the GWOT. He believes that it is NOT an option to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. He also mentioned that Pakistan must be worked on though frankly besides vague ideas his plan was short on specifics. Some might take this as a sign that he may not be the right person however I would humbly disagree. Rudy has a long and very successful history in confronting and beating bad guys. As U.S. Attorney, he took on and defeated the mafia in his district. As Mayor of New York City, he took on the criminals and beat them lowering crime dramatically. He has a history of taking on bad guys. He has a history of beating them. While the terrorists may not be a perfect comparison to the bad guys he has a history of beating, his prior accomplishments can't be ignored when determining the best terror warrior.
The most fascinating portion of the meeting, for me, came in his answer regarding health insurance. Rudy's plan to revolutionize health care is entirely conservative. The hallmarks are lower taxes, health savings accounts, and market principles. He believes that much of the problem comes in the fact that people don't usually choose their own health insurance. Since most get it through work, it is essentially chosen for them. As such, when it comes to health insurance, people aren't the dutiful consumers that they are towards other products and services. Through credits, tax breaks, and health savings accounts, Rudy believes that individuals will be able to not only buy their own health insurance but at a lower cost than they normally do. In many ways, Rudy's vision of health care mirrors that of John Stossel's. Consumers drive down the price of everything and drive up the quality, and we must give the consumer choice back to the individual. He does it through health savings accounts, credits, and tax breaks. He also pointed out that our litigious society has created an environment of defensive medicine and higher costs. He proposed that the loser of any lawsuit must pay for the costs of both parties to limit many of the more egregious lawsuits.
On taxes and spending, Rudy tried to wake up the echos of Ronald Reagan. He stressed over and over his commitment to limiting the size of government. It was his solution to a whole host of economic related problems. He pointed out that limiting the size of government is largely done through leadership. He pointed out that none of his deputies in New York City ever came to him asking to make the budget for their respective department smaller. Thus, it was ultimately up to him, the Mayor, to stand firm in limiting the size of government even if he had to take on his own administration to do it.
He spoke about productive and unproductive taxes. An unproductive tax is one that is among the most extreme when compared to the civilized world. For instance, he pointed out that our corporate income tax is one of the highest in the entire civilized world. He said that if we merely lowered our tax so that is closer to the middle not at the top that it would keep a lot of the business we lose. He said his tax policy would focus on identifying and lowering those taxes that he determined to be unproductive.
He ended the meeting with an answer to something dear to my heart, the mortgage crisis. He said that he thought Paulson's plan to freeze rates was a good idea. I was quite put off by this question, and and if you want to know why please read this. He also said something very interesting right afterwards. He said that he believed that it was a good idea especially in light of pending Congressional action. I took this to mean that this was the least of two evils. If freezing rates means halting action on such things as H.R. 3915, then while it is still not a good idea it might be better than the alternative.
He was asked how he would confront the mortgage crisis, and this he answered perfectly. He pointed out that the duty of the President is NOT to focus on any given segment of the market but rather to be a proper momentum builder for the economy as a whole. He believed that shrinking government and waste would not only strengthen the economy but the housing market. One can take this as a canned answer, and to some extent it is, however I personally find it a positive that a Presidential candidate doesn't feel the uncontrollable urge to tinker with every portion of the economy that may be going wrong at any given time.
The meeting was revealing not only for what he said but what he didn't say. There was absolutely nothing about any social issues. Clearly, Rudy is trying to downplay his socially liberal record as much as possible and frankly his supporters didn't much care because there were no questions. I was surprised that he didn't touch at all on judges as well, though I assume his public unabashed support for strict constructionists holds. He also said nothing about guns or the environment as well. Rudy took out a lamenated card that had his twelve commitments. That is where I believe his focus will be in his administration. If you are worried about Rudy's position on any matter, check the twelve commitments. If that position isn't on there that, it is unlikely his administration will spend much time on the issue anyway.
All in all, I found Rudy to be quite charismatic and charming, still maybe not quite Mike Huckabee, but charismatica and charming nonetheless. At one point, a voter revealed that not only was he a supporter but also a registered Democrat. Rudy, spontaneously, came over and gave the man a big bear hug. I continue to maintain my support for him, and all reasons stand. He is a proven leader. He has a proven track record. He has a proven history of shrinking government, cutting waste, cutting taxes, expanding choice, and confronting bad guys. In this day and age, I believe that is exactly what we need.
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
My Hubris Moment Vis a Vis Susan Estrich
I know that I am threatening to step over the lines of political analytical hubris as I disect this piece by Susan Estrich, however I will explain later what gives ME the right to challenge such an accomplished political operative. Before that, here is some disclosure. I am NOT a Huckabee supporter, and he wouldn't even be in my top three choices for the Republican nod. (I am a Rudy supporter)
Huckabee is now a bona fide contender because the knives are out all over the place for him. For instance, Rick Moran wrote this scathing analysis.
Red State is having a virtual orgy of scathing analyses of Mike Huckabee. Michelle Malkin has weighed in negatively on her forte, illegal immigration. It is obvious that the right is now picking apart every nook and cranny of his record. I have never been one to look this deeply at anyone's record. I know that in reading some of the most extreme analyses of Rudy's record that a lot can be twisted. I HAVE FOUND that detractors and supporters alike have totally misanalyed the phenomenon that is now the candidacy that is Mike Huckabee.
It really comes down to two words: charm and charisma. Those are universally appealing qualities and Huckabee has them in spades. He far exceeds those qualities compared to any of his Republican opponents, and matches even Barack Obama in those two qualities. He has a solid resume to boot which is something Obama doesn't have. Charm and charisma is the simple and succinct explanation for his tremendous appearances in every debate, and he exhibits those two qualities in every interview and appearance.
This brings me back to Susan Estrich. Now, the reason that I have decided to put Estrich in my cross hairs and not everyone of my colleagues is that she doesn't simply misanalyze Huckabee but the entire state of our party. Second, she is a Democrat and with all due respect to her, she knows less than me, a Republican, about the dynamics of our party. Now, here is a sampling of her analysis.
There is plenty to blast here. First, the minute you don't take someone seriously as an opponent is the moment your opponent defeats you, just ask USC about their loss to Stanford, the Soviets about their loss to the U.S. in 1980, Georgetown about their loss to Villanova, and the St. Louis Rams about their loss to the Patriots in 1999.
Second, while she claims that most of his proposals aren't mainstream, she backs none of it up with data. She claims ridiculously that the flat tax is a loser by attaching it to Forbes. The Flat Tax is not necessarily a loser, Steve Forbes is. The flat tax is new and revolutionary and most people don't know it or understand it. What such a proposal needs is a great ambassador to sell it. What a great salesperson needs is: charm and charisma. See where I am going here. Huckabee has all the attributes that Forbes was missing to be able to sell a revolutionary idea to the public like the flat tax. Besides what exactly will the Democrats counter with, tax increases?
She claims that while no one likes the IRS or taxes the flat tax is regressive. It is but it also gets rid of income taxes entirely. It bulks up sales taxes which are entirely voluntary (in other words you choose to buy stuff). In any case, I don't want to debate the fair tax here. What I do know is that the fair tax can be framed just fine if it has the right person framing it. Clearly, she dislikes the Fair Tax and dismisses it out of hand without much analysis. I believe that by doing so Estrich...well let me let Vizzini of The Princess Bride explain...
She, not surprisingly, condescends to his faith and spirituality as if he is out of the mainstream. Eighty percent of this country is Christian. They may not be a Baptist Minister like Huckabee, however, again, when he speaks about his faith people WILL be impressed because: Charm and Charisma.
She claims that she wouldn't be worried about a race between Huckabee and Hillary. I would. Huckabee is charming, charismatic and likeable and Hillary is not. He compares just as favorably against Obama, given that he is experienced and Obama is not. Everyone compares favorably to Edwards so that is beneath me.
The worst part of the analysis is the claim that Huckabee's rise is indication that our party is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. His rise shows that our party is strong and vibrant. It shows that we have a plethora of good, qualified candidates that can at anytime capture anyone's attention. The Democrats have a scandal ridden, cold unlikeable, candidate who's only accomplishment is being married to a popular President competing against a lightweight with less than four years of national experience. In third position is a total fraud who claims to be for the little guy while living in a home that measures five digits in square footage. None of the other candidates are worth even one look.
The Democrats are arrogant and cocky because they think that Iraq has dragged the Reps down to where they can't recover. I think that will all change soon enough, and their cockiness is quite obvious in Estrich's piece. There is a reason why superbia, or pride and arrogance, is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Democrats should heed the warning not to revel in it.
Finally, I am still a bit of an internet dunce. Thus, I can't seem to figure out how to put the video into this post. Thus, for an example of Huckabee's charm and charisma check out the video in the post directly above this...
Huckabee is now a bona fide contender because the knives are out all over the place for him. For instance, Rick Moran wrote this scathing analysis.
But Mike Huckabee is not a conservative – at least not any kind of conservative that I would recognize as such. His tenure as Arkansas governor was marked by a corn pone populism – part Huey Long and part Jimmy Carter along with a massive increase in the tax burden on the individual taxpayer in his state as well as a sharp rise in spending. Huckabee channeled the ghost of Huey Long in his funding of state road improvements – largely through a hefty gas tax increase and a controversial bond issue. He also put a $5.25 premium on nursing home patients and raised the sales tax in the state. The Club for Growth detailed his “conservative” tax policy and ideas:
...
The Club for Growth isn’t the only fiscally conservative group that has looked in askance at Huckabee’s record. The Cato Institute was also unimpressed by Huckabee’s tenure as governor. They gave him an “F” in fiscal policy for 2006. Hucksterites will point to his $80 million tax cut package he pushed through the legislature that eliminated capital gains taxes on home sales and indexed taxes to the inflation rate. But that’s just a drop in the bucket. While Huckabee claims to have cut taxes 90 times totaling $378 million, the state’s Department of Finance and Administration says he also raised taxes 21 times that brought in a whopping $883 million. Under his “conservative” governance, the “average Arkansan’s tax burden” went “from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes.”
Red State is having a virtual orgy of scathing analyses of Mike Huckabee. Michelle Malkin has weighed in negatively on her forte, illegal immigration. It is obvious that the right is now picking apart every nook and cranny of his record. I have never been one to look this deeply at anyone's record. I know that in reading some of the most extreme analyses of Rudy's record that a lot can be twisted. I HAVE FOUND that detractors and supporters alike have totally misanalyed the phenomenon that is now the candidacy that is Mike Huckabee.
It really comes down to two words: charm and charisma. Those are universally appealing qualities and Huckabee has them in spades. He far exceeds those qualities compared to any of his Republican opponents, and matches even Barack Obama in those two qualities. He has a solid resume to boot which is something Obama doesn't have. Charm and charisma is the simple and succinct explanation for his tremendous appearances in every debate, and he exhibits those two qualities in every interview and appearance.
This brings me back to Susan Estrich. Now, the reason that I have decided to put Estrich in my cross hairs and not everyone of my colleagues is that she doesn't simply misanalyze Huckabee but the entire state of our party. Second, she is a Democrat and with all due respect to her, she knows less than me, a Republican, about the dynamics of our party. Now, here is a sampling of her analysis.
Huckabee is an interesting guy. He is a straight shooter, a former Baptist minister, a born-- not born-again--conservative.
But as a Democrat, am I worried about Hillary or Barack taking on this former Arkansas governor?
Not a little. Certainly not a lot.
Not only is he out of step with the rest of America, as opposed to the right tail of the right tail of the Republican party, which is to say the religious conservatives who dominate the caucus and primary process, on social issues, but his proposals in such areas as federal taxation and especially Social Security are enough to make any Democrat’s mouth water.Not that anyone loves taxes, but eliminating the IRS and progressive tax system and replacing it with one that puts a flat tax on all consumption, which is the most regressive way to pay our bills, doesn’t have political winner written all over it. It’s one of those ideas that people with no chance of winning run and lose on. Think Steve Forbes. It’s not one you want to defend in the World Series.
But that’s nothing compared to his proposal to get rid of the payroll tax for Social Security, and his support for private retirement accounts. Did anyone say Florida?
There is plenty to blast here. First, the minute you don't take someone seriously as an opponent is the moment your opponent defeats you, just ask USC about their loss to Stanford, the Soviets about their loss to the U.S. in 1980, Georgetown about their loss to Villanova, and the St. Louis Rams about their loss to the Patriots in 1999.
Second, while she claims that most of his proposals aren't mainstream, she backs none of it up with data. She claims ridiculously that the flat tax is a loser by attaching it to Forbes. The Flat Tax is not necessarily a loser, Steve Forbes is. The flat tax is new and revolutionary and most people don't know it or understand it. What such a proposal needs is a great ambassador to sell it. What a great salesperson needs is: charm and charisma. See where I am going here. Huckabee has all the attributes that Forbes was missing to be able to sell a revolutionary idea to the public like the flat tax. Besides what exactly will the Democrats counter with, tax increases?
She claims that while no one likes the IRS or taxes the flat tax is regressive. It is but it also gets rid of income taxes entirely. It bulks up sales taxes which are entirely voluntary (in other words you choose to buy stuff). In any case, I don't want to debate the fair tax here. What I do know is that the fair tax can be framed just fine if it has the right person framing it. Clearly, she dislikes the Fair Tax and dismisses it out of hand without much analysis. I believe that by doing so Estrich...well let me let Vizzini of The Princess Bride explain...
fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this:...believing that something you don't like will also be disliked by the public at large.
She, not surprisingly, condescends to his faith and spirituality as if he is out of the mainstream. Eighty percent of this country is Christian. They may not be a Baptist Minister like Huckabee, however, again, when he speaks about his faith people WILL be impressed because: Charm and Charisma.
She claims that she wouldn't be worried about a race between Huckabee and Hillary. I would. Huckabee is charming, charismatic and likeable and Hillary is not. He compares just as favorably against Obama, given that he is experienced and Obama is not. Everyone compares favorably to Edwards so that is beneath me.
The worst part of the analysis is the claim that Huckabee's rise is indication that our party is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. His rise shows that our party is strong and vibrant. It shows that we have a plethora of good, qualified candidates that can at anytime capture anyone's attention. The Democrats have a scandal ridden, cold unlikeable, candidate who's only accomplishment is being married to a popular President competing against a lightweight with less than four years of national experience. In third position is a total fraud who claims to be for the little guy while living in a home that measures five digits in square footage. None of the other candidates are worth even one look.
The Democrats are arrogant and cocky because they think that Iraq has dragged the Reps down to where they can't recover. I think that will all change soon enough, and their cockiness is quite obvious in Estrich's piece. There is a reason why superbia, or pride and arrogance, is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Democrats should heed the warning not to revel in it.
Finally, I am still a bit of an internet dunce. Thus, I can't seem to figure out how to put the video into this post. Thus, for an example of Huckabee's charm and charisma check out the video in the post directly above this...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Rudy The Enigma
Only Hillary Clinton is more hyperanalyzed as a politician than Rudy Giuliani. It irks and confuses the talking heads and pundits that given his record on social issues, three divorces, and Northeast roots he continues to lead in the Republican field. The analysis is almost always absurd and from time to time, as I have pointed out, it is nothing more than a hatchet job. Once in a while the analysis is excellent like this piece by Tom Bevan and this one by Michael Barone, but most is nonsensical garbage. Speaking of garbage we have this piece from the Politico entitled, Right Fears Giuliani with Good Reason. Make no mistake, there are plenty of nervous folks on the right in lieu of a Giuliani candidacy, and many of those fears are addressed in the article, even so the article is no less garbage.
The punditry could never understand Rudy's appeal among Republicans. I remember Dick Morris professing in March that Rudy was only leading because his stances on the social issues hadn't yet been made public. I found this to be a peculiar statement then given Rudy's star power and celebrity. It turned out to be one of Morris' worst predictions because Rudy continues to lead seven months later despite all of the supposed baggage. Now, either people still don't know about his divorces and socially liberal stances or they just don't care as much as the punditry thinks or wants them to care.
As his candidacy went from pipe dream to reality, the analysis shifted. Now, most of the pundits wonder what his candidacy will do to the party. The real answer is no one knows. For instance, George Bush running as a compassionate conservative did nothing to the party. On the other hand, when compassionate turned into big government programs, that turned off much of the fiscal conservative base. The same goes with Rudy. His stances on abortion and gay marriage are not the issue. His policies will be.
If Rudy chooses liberal judges a la Ruth Ginsberg and promotes a legislative agenda that is friendly to Planned Parenthood, then that would tear the party apart. On the other hand, if Giuliani picks strict constructionist judges, like he has promised ad nauseum, and focuses his agenda on lower taxes, crime fighting and the GWOT, then the party will be fine. So, while the pundits and talking heads choose to focus on the liberal end of his personality, Rudy has chosen to focus on the Conservative things he wants to accomplish. Here are Rudy's 12 commitments.
Politico, on the other hand, has decided to pre empt any policy initiatives and moves immediately to a political civil war. I pick it up here.
There is so much wrong with this analysis that I don't know where to begin. First, the Republican base has about as much use for the narrative of the MSM as Brittney Spears has for twelve step programs. While the rest of the country long ago convinced itself that Iraq was lost, poll after poll had the Republican base supporting the war fairly overwhelmingly. Second, Rudy is a unique politician the likes of which this country may never see again. He may very well be able to run as a socially liberal Republican and win but that will not necessarily make it the conventional wisdom.
There is no doubt that SoCons will take a hit if Rudy wins. So what. This won't be the first time a niche group took a hit. How come sports teams everywhere can take embarrassing losses and come back to fight another day, while political movements see doom every time they lose? If the SoCons want to stay relevant in the Republican Party then their best option is to find a quality candidate that fits their ideals to run in upcoming elections.
The smear job on Rudy continues with this.
The Politico sees the SoCons as this monolithic group that uses abortion as a litmus test. They aren't and abortion is NOT a litmus test for all of them. Besides the issue of abortion, there is plenty for SoCons to get excited about with a Rudy nomination. He cleaned up the streets of New York City and made them safe for families again. Politico may not realize that too is important to SoCons, but it is. He stood up when an artist attempted to display a sacreligious painting in a New York public exhibit. Abortions decreased and adoptions increased while he was mayor as well. None of these things are lost on SoCons anymore than his well publicized stance on abortion. Yet, they are never mentioned when discussing his candidacy or his effect on the party.
As Power Line once astutely pointed out vis a vis SoCons
Politico not only misreads Rudy's candidacy but the motives of the SoCons as well as primary politics in general.
This is wrong on so many levels. First, SoCons like every other niche group has as its only goal to convince everyone else to see the world the way they do. They aren't happy just to see a candidate pay homage to them on a couple issues but rather to see a candidate that agrees with them on their core. The far left is not happy merely seeing Hillary Clinton backing off sanctions with Iran. They want promises that the war will end the day she is inaugurated. None of these groups are playing to win sometimes, but all the time.
Second, it is a well established fact that all candidates on each side, run to the edges in the primaries and in the middle in the general election. Politico is acting as though Rudy taking on some new Conservative ideals is somehow different than any Presidential candidate appealing to the so called base during the primaries.
Finally, I should mention that Politico slipped in that dig about Rudy contributing to Planned Parenthood. There is absolutely no analytical value in that fact and Politico knows it. They could only hope to create the sort of negative visceral reaction that such a thing would cause with many card carrying members of the party. Planned Parenthood is a long time adversary of most Republicans and Politico plays on that. It won't work. Anyone who decides to vote against Rudy simply based on that knowledge was never going to vote for him in the first place.
What strikes me about this analysis as well as most vis a vis Rudy is what they all miss: leadership and effectiveness. Those are the reasons that I am supporting him and the reasons that many others are. People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding his candidacy when really it is very simple. Presidents need to most of all be leaders and be effective and in this race on those two fronts, one candidate stands out.
The punditry could never understand Rudy's appeal among Republicans. I remember Dick Morris professing in March that Rudy was only leading because his stances on the social issues hadn't yet been made public. I found this to be a peculiar statement then given Rudy's star power and celebrity. It turned out to be one of Morris' worst predictions because Rudy continues to lead seven months later despite all of the supposed baggage. Now, either people still don't know about his divorces and socially liberal stances or they just don't care as much as the punditry thinks or wants them to care.
As his candidacy went from pipe dream to reality, the analysis shifted. Now, most of the pundits wonder what his candidacy will do to the party. The real answer is no one knows. For instance, George Bush running as a compassionate conservative did nothing to the party. On the other hand, when compassionate turned into big government programs, that turned off much of the fiscal conservative base. The same goes with Rudy. His stances on abortion and gay marriage are not the issue. His policies will be.
If Rudy chooses liberal judges a la Ruth Ginsberg and promotes a legislative agenda that is friendly to Planned Parenthood, then that would tear the party apart. On the other hand, if Giuliani picks strict constructionist judges, like he has promised ad nauseum, and focuses his agenda on lower taxes, crime fighting and the GWOT, then the party will be fine. So, while the pundits and talking heads choose to focus on the liberal end of his personality, Rudy has chosen to focus on the Conservative things he wants to accomplish. Here are Rudy's 12 commitments.
I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.Granted some of these are vague, however, nowhere in any of these commitments is anything that would turn off any SoCon or Conservative of any stripe. Thus, if Rudy, as he always does, sticks to accomplishing these narrow set of goals, the Republican Party will not only survive a Giuliani Presidency but thrive as a result of it.
I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
I will impose accountability on Washington.
I will lead America towards energy independence.
I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
Politico, on the other hand, has decided to pre empt any policy initiatives and moves immediately to a political civil war. I pick it up here.
Others take a longer view. If Giuliani wins the nomination and the presidency, it will be very difficult for him not to dilute the Republican Party’s anti-abortion image, even if he does not intend to.
For starters, the media will portray a Giuliani win as a victory for the right to choose and the final defeat of the religious right. The GOP is filled with politicians who oppose abortion only because it is the path of least resistance. President Giuliani would alleviate the pressure. Republicans who aspire to the presidency have always been well-advised to become anti-abortion. A Giuliani defeat of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would advertise that such conversions are no longer required.
A Republican office seeker will be able to offer less to anti-abortion voters. If anti-abortion activists complain, the candidate can always point to President Giuliani. Giuliani would also make it more difficult for Republicans to bring up social issues in future elections.
There is so much wrong with this analysis that I don't know where to begin. First, the Republican base has about as much use for the narrative of the MSM as Brittney Spears has for twelve step programs. While the rest of the country long ago convinced itself that Iraq was lost, poll after poll had the Republican base supporting the war fairly overwhelmingly. Second, Rudy is a unique politician the likes of which this country may never see again. He may very well be able to run as a socially liberal Republican and win but that will not necessarily make it the conventional wisdom.
There is no doubt that SoCons will take a hit if Rudy wins. So what. This won't be the first time a niche group took a hit. How come sports teams everywhere can take embarrassing losses and come back to fight another day, while political movements see doom every time they lose? If the SoCons want to stay relevant in the Republican Party then their best option is to find a quality candidate that fits their ideals to run in upcoming elections.
The smear job on Rudy continues with this.
A Giuliani nomination would be revealing in two ways. First, it would show
where social conservatives’ concerns really sit on the Republican agenda.
Economic conservatives haven’t allowed election-year concessions to allay their
concerns about Arizona Sen. John McCain or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s fiscal records.
Does the religious right care about abortion less than economic conservatives care about campaign finance reform or Arkansas’ gas tax?
It will also reveal whether those who speak on behalf of “values voters” know what they are talking about. Giuliani has previously donated money to Planned Parenthood, praised Margaret Sanger and advocated taxpayer-funded abortion. He remains in support of abortion rights and in favor of domestic partnerships.
If he can still attract the values vote with this record, almost any Republican can.
The Politico sees the SoCons as this monolithic group that uses abortion as a litmus test. They aren't and abortion is NOT a litmus test for all of them. Besides the issue of abortion, there is plenty for SoCons to get excited about with a Rudy nomination. He cleaned up the streets of New York City and made them safe for families again. Politico may not realize that too is important to SoCons, but it is. He stood up when an artist attempted to display a sacreligious painting in a New York public exhibit. Abortions decreased and adoptions increased while he was mayor as well. None of these things are lost on SoCons anymore than his well publicized stance on abortion. Yet, they are never mentioned when discussing his candidacy or his effect on the party.
As Power Line once astutely pointed out vis a vis SoCons
It's possible that a group of social conservatives could support a fringe third-party candidate--Gary Bauer, say, as the nominee of the Constitution Party--and it's certain that a few social conservatives would stay home if the Republicans nominate Giuliani or, perhaps, Romney or McCain. That number would be about equal, in my opinion, to the number of anti-war zealots who would stay home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton.
Contrary to the assumption of many liberals, religious conservatives (a group in which I include myself) are not stupid. As President, Rudy Giuliani would nominate judges who will support rather than usurp the Constitution. That's the only significant role the President plays with respect to social issues. James Dobson et al. wish that they controlled the Republican Party, and Salon wishes they controlled it, too. But they don't.
Politico not only misreads Rudy's candidacy but the motives of the SoCons as well as primary politics in general.
Their anti-Giuliani campaign has already yielded one practical result: It has forced the Republican front-runner further to the right on social issues than ever seemed likely. Giuliani has gone from supporting taxpayer-funded abortion to pledging to veto attempts to weaken the Hyde Amendment. He has gone from opposing a “partial-birth” abortion ban to being in favor of one. He has gone from outspokenly opposing a constitutional amendment to block same-sex marriage to saying he would consider one if the courts interfere with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
This is wrong on so many levels. First, SoCons like every other niche group has as its only goal to convince everyone else to see the world the way they do. They aren't happy just to see a candidate pay homage to them on a couple issues but rather to see a candidate that agrees with them on their core. The far left is not happy merely seeing Hillary Clinton backing off sanctions with Iran. They want promises that the war will end the day she is inaugurated. None of these groups are playing to win sometimes, but all the time.
Second, it is a well established fact that all candidates on each side, run to the edges in the primaries and in the middle in the general election. Politico is acting as though Rudy taking on some new Conservative ideals is somehow different than any Presidential candidate appealing to the so called base during the primaries.
Finally, I should mention that Politico slipped in that dig about Rudy contributing to Planned Parenthood. There is absolutely no analytical value in that fact and Politico knows it. They could only hope to create the sort of negative visceral reaction that such a thing would cause with many card carrying members of the party. Planned Parenthood is a long time adversary of most Republicans and Politico plays on that. It won't work. Anyone who decides to vote against Rudy simply based on that knowledge was never going to vote for him in the first place.
What strikes me about this analysis as well as most vis a vis Rudy is what they all miss: leadership and effectiveness. Those are the reasons that I am supporting him and the reasons that many others are. People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding his candidacy when really it is very simple. Presidents need to most of all be leaders and be effective and in this race on those two fronts, one candidate stands out.
.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Republican Debate Wrap Up
Last night's Republican debate was by far the best in my opinion. I think everyone did a great job (even Tancredo) and so there was no winner. This means that everything remains the same with Giuliani (my guy) remaining the front runner.
Each one had a moment to savor. I think McCain had the line of the night when he was talking about the money that Hillary Clinton trying to get money for the Woodstock Museum and he said,
Thompson got in the first good line and left the debate with the last. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney each went back and forth trying to prove they were the purer conservative. Chris Wallace asked Thompson if they had convinced them and he replied that there was still a couple hours left. He was also asked at the end if he was lazy. He responded by forcefully giving his resume, which included being married with a child at 17, a prosecutor, on the prosecuting team during Watergate, an attorney, and a Senator. He said that if that is lazy then everyone should try being lazy.
Even Tancredo got off a good zinger when he referred to NONBINDING resolution to condemn the Ottoman Turks for the genocide on the Armenians during the first world war and he said that not only does this show that pandering never works but that Nancy Pelosi is as bad a Speaker as she is a Secretary of State. Rudy's best line was on education. Wallace tried to trap him by reminding everyone of Rudy's feud with the teacher's union. He asked how Rudy could possibly bring the union together with the government to improve education as President. Rudy responded that with due respect he wasn't so worried about the union as the kids.
The weakest moments for me were during the social security portion of the debate. None of them had answers that satisfied me. The problem, for me, is that Social Security is really nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and so, to me at least, the only way to save it is to scrap it, however even I know that is not politically savvy to say.
The field saved their best zingers for Hillary Clinton with a nice set up from the staff at Fox News who saved a round of questions for her specifically. Rudy got off the best zinger. He said he agreed with her on two points, one, they are both Yankees fans. Of course, he became a Yankee fan growing up in New York while she became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago. He didn't say anything and like a great improv performer looked out at the crowd and let the silence make people laugh. The second point he agreed with her on was this quote,
Sometimes, her own words say everything you need to know.
All in all, it was a great debate. They talked about everything from foreign policy, to tort reform, to social issues. There was great division on some issues, like social security and the federal marriage amendment, and great unity on things like foreign policy (with Ron Paul playing the part of the Democrats as usual) As for Ron Paul, he stood in there tough while much of what he said received quite a lot of boos.
Each one had a moment to savor. I think McCain had the line of the night when he was talking about the money that Hillary Clinton trying to get money for the Woodstock Museum and he said,
I was tied up at the timereferring of course to the fact that he was in a VC camp while Woodstock was going on.
Thompson got in the first good line and left the debate with the last. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney each went back and forth trying to prove they were the purer conservative. Chris Wallace asked Thompson if they had convinced them and he replied that there was still a couple hours left. He was also asked at the end if he was lazy. He responded by forcefully giving his resume, which included being married with a child at 17, a prosecutor, on the prosecuting team during Watergate, an attorney, and a Senator. He said that if that is lazy then everyone should try being lazy.
Even Tancredo got off a good zinger when he referred to NONBINDING resolution to condemn the Ottoman Turks for the genocide on the Armenians during the first world war and he said that not only does this show that pandering never works but that Nancy Pelosi is as bad a Speaker as she is a Secretary of State. Rudy's best line was on education. Wallace tried to trap him by reminding everyone of Rudy's feud with the teacher's union. He asked how Rudy could possibly bring the union together with the government to improve education as President. Rudy responded that with due respect he wasn't so worried about the union as the kids.
The weakest moments for me were during the social security portion of the debate. None of them had answers that satisfied me. The problem, for me, is that Social Security is really nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and so, to me at least, the only way to save it is to scrap it, however even I know that is not politically savvy to say.
The field saved their best zingers for Hillary Clinton with a nice set up from the staff at Fox News who saved a round of questions for her specifically. Rudy got off the best zinger. He said he agreed with her on two points, one, they are both Yankees fans. Of course, he became a Yankee fan growing up in New York while she became a Yankee fan growing up in Chicago. He didn't say anything and like a great improv performer looked out at the crowd and let the silence make people laugh. The second point he agreed with her on was this quote,
"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."
Sometimes, her own words say everything you need to know.
All in all, it was a great debate. They talked about everything from foreign policy, to tort reform, to social issues. There was great division on some issues, like social security and the federal marriage amendment, and great unity on things like foreign policy (with Ron Paul playing the part of the Democrats as usual) As for Ron Paul, he stood in there tough while much of what he said received quite a lot of boos.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Stuck in the Middle: the Rudy Giuliani Paradigm
I am always amused by the venom some political observers direct at Rudy Giuliani. He isn't the first politician to find enemies who spew hate. He is just the most unique in the list of enemies he has developed. For instance, I found two articles yesterday that were each full of venom and hate. Here is the first and it is full of venom from prominent liberals in the New York area
and here is how Norm Siegel, president of the New York Civil Liberties Union feels,
What about Rudy and his whining and moaning about MoveOn and the NYT ad rates given he - yes sports fans...RUDY - appointed Soros to, of all things, a coalition of well-known individuals and organizations who oppose the anti-immigration forces now being seen in Washington and elsewhere back in the day? What about his having endorsed Cuomo even though he was thoroughly b-slapped by Cuomo a few years before that?
What about having been against Pataki's initiatives, even though Pataki continued to publicly endorse him over the years?
Loyalty? The man has loyalty to himself...and his election prospects. He needs to go-he doesn't care about Conservatism; he cares about whether throwing that word around (as a matter of convenience and expediency) might get him some mileage in the electorate. I'd rather see Kinky Friedman living on Pennsylvania Avenue than Giuliani...at least Kinky knows how to throw a party.
Furthermore, James Dobson has already come out and threatened to support a third party candidate if Rudy wins the Republican nomination
Now, if you have both hardened liberals and hardened Conservatives against you, one would think you have no shot of going anywhere. Not so, Rudy not only continues to lead but at this point he would need to have a major screw up in order to lose. Anyone who has followed his political career can safely bet that won't happen.
It is amazing that you will find just about as much venom for the way Rudy governed New York from liberals as you will from conservatives. For instance, here is a comment from the discussion of the post from Redstate.
In other words, to many liberals, his policies were so conservative that it made their blood boil, and yet, to many conservatives, his policies were too liberal. It seems he can't please anyone and yet despite this he must have been doing something right. Crime went down, the economy was up, in fact by most statistical analyses New York was a far better place after he left than when he took office. As Rudy himself pointed out New York was voted the "World's Best City" under his leadership.
So, here he is, scourge of not only the New York Times the ACLU, but also many Social Conservatives, as well as Moveon.org, the unions, and I even found an anti Semitic group that has Rudy in its cross hairs. So, what is going on? Well, for my money, the liberals have nailed it. Rudy governed New York as a conservative and that was something they just can't stand. As for the Conservatives, they fail to put his mayoral run into context. It is impossible for anyone to run New York as the type of pure Conservative that some want and be effective. Some of the Conservative seething entirely disregards that his entire city council was liberal and Democrat. He simply couldn't get anything done while governing in a way that would make some conservatives happy.
As for Rudy, it takes a politician of enormous skill and savvy to be able to thread the needle he is threading. His enemies won't ever give him any credit, but frankly that is their loss. A politician like Rudy Giuliani this country may never see again.
“It’s totally unbelievable,” said Charles Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation and a longtime adversary of Mr. Giuliani. “I refuse to believe that this could possibly happen to our country. I have too much confidence in our country to believe that this could really happen.”
and here is how Norm Siegel, president of the New York Civil Liberties Union feels,
I’ve been saying to people in New York, especially the liberal community that I’m proud to be part of, that unless the truth is revealed about the real Rudy, he could win, and not just the Republican nomination, but the presidency as well. Most people in New York look at me, and they say ‘no way.’ They say it can’t happen. The political leadership in New York is underestimating him. They are really in political denial. I say to people, ‘You better wake up.’”Then, there is former mayor Ed Koch,
“I’ve not only written a book called Giuliani: Nasty Man, I’m on television programs, answering questions,” said former Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who has often endorsed Republicans not named Giuliani. “I have access to getting my voice heard.”I know what you are thinking. Well, of course political opponents would spew venom at Rudy. True, however on the same day, I found this blog post on the conservative blog, Redstate.
What about Rudy and his whining and moaning about MoveOn and the NYT ad rates given he - yes sports fans...RUDY - appointed Soros to, of all things, a coalition of well-known individuals and organizations who oppose the anti-immigration forces now being seen in Washington and elsewhere back in the day? What about his having endorsed Cuomo even though he was thoroughly b-slapped by Cuomo a few years before that?
What about having been against Pataki's initiatives, even though Pataki continued to publicly endorse him over the years?
Loyalty? The man has loyalty to himself...and his election prospects. He needs to go-he doesn't care about Conservatism; he cares about whether throwing that word around (as a matter of convenience and expediency) might get him some mileage in the electorate. I'd rather see Kinky Friedman living on Pennsylvania Avenue than Giuliani...at least Kinky knows how to throw a party.
Furthermore, James Dobson has already come out and threatened to support a third party candidate if Rudy wins the Republican nomination
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
Now, if you have both hardened liberals and hardened Conservatives against you, one would think you have no shot of going anywhere. Not so, Rudy not only continues to lead but at this point he would need to have a major screw up in order to lose. Anyone who has followed his political career can safely bet that won't happen.
It is amazing that you will find just about as much venom for the way Rudy governed New York from liberals as you will from conservatives. For instance, here is a comment from the discussion of the post from Redstate.
His 9/11 personal is wearing thin and is all but gone, IMHO. He was a leader in a time of crisis, but there are many in NYC that say is was not that good of a Mayor. He did what he had to do to make himself look good. He cleaned up crime in a lot of neighborhoods, all the things that get good press. But, many say what he did wasn't really for the good of the people, taxes continued to climb and the city continued to get more expensive to live in, do business in and work in.
In other words, to many liberals, his policies were so conservative that it made their blood boil, and yet, to many conservatives, his policies were too liberal. It seems he can't please anyone and yet despite this he must have been doing something right. Crime went down, the economy was up, in fact by most statistical analyses New York was a far better place after he left than when he took office. As Rudy himself pointed out New York was voted the "World's Best City" under his leadership.
Earlier this month, New York received Travel + Leisure magazine's prestigious World's Best Award, honoring our City as the best place to visit in the United States and Canada. The rebirth of New York as the number one city to visit was acknowledged in a survey conducted by the country's leading travel magazine, which has a circulation of nearly one million readers. This is just the latest sign of our City's remarkable resurgence.
In 1991, New York City received 22 million visitors. Last year, more than 37 million people made their way to the Capital of the World - marking the sixth consecutive year our City has seen record tourism. As the visitors continue to pour into New York, so do the awards and honors. Our City has been bestowed with such diverse titles as "The Number One Place for Business in North America" by Fortune magazine, "The Best Sports City" by The Sporting News, and the city with the "Best Food" by both Travel + Leisure and a CNN/USA Today poll. In addition, Zagat's restaurant guide company recently also ranked New York as the best city in the country to visit. For the first time since the Zagat's survey began in 1987, travel agents and travelers alike agree that New York is the premier destination in the United States.
So, here he is, scourge of not only the New York Times the ACLU, but also many Social Conservatives, as well as Moveon.org, the unions, and I even found an anti Semitic group that has Rudy in its cross hairs. So, what is going on? Well, for my money, the liberals have nailed it. Rudy governed New York as a conservative and that was something they just can't stand. As for the Conservatives, they fail to put his mayoral run into context. It is impossible for anyone to run New York as the type of pure Conservative that some want and be effective. Some of the Conservative seething entirely disregards that his entire city council was liberal and Democrat. He simply couldn't get anything done while governing in a way that would make some conservatives happy.
As for Rudy, it takes a politician of enormous skill and savvy to be able to thread the needle he is threading. His enemies won't ever give him any credit, but frankly that is their loss. A politician like Rudy Giuliani this country may never see again.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Rudy's Speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition
Hat tip to the Republican Jewish Coalition
T]hank you for the opportunity to talk to you this morning. No one is working harder to take our party's message to new communities and new voters and bring new people into the Republican Party than the Republican Jewish Coalition.
If any group stands for the spirit that our party needs this year and next year, it's the RJC.
A lot of you are the first Republicans in your families, right? Am I right?
A lot of you get grief for being Republicans, right? As a three-time candidate and eight-year mayor of New York City, I know what you're talking about. Wow.
I remember this happened so many times, I get all the incidents confused. But one that was particularly poignant was this man who was very, very old and frail came up to me and he grabbed my hand and he said, You're the first Republican I ever voted for. I said, How old are you? He said, I'm 92 years old.
I said, In over like 80 years of voting or whatever, you couldn't find another Republican to vote for? He said, I thought it was sinful.
True story. I remember the moment that I knew Ronald Reagan was going to be president of the United States. I remember it. I was at a bar mitzvah reception in Manhattan. I went to the bar mitzvah in the synagogue and then I went to the reception.
The table was filled with people that lived in Manhattan, east side, west side. This is the 1980s. This is before the Republican Jewish Coalition did all its good work. So you would think most of the Jewish community overwhelmingly Democrat.
I'm sitting at the table. One after one, everybody's talking about voting for Ronald Reagan. This is New York, in Manhattan. This is a city Abraham Lincoln didn't carry.
I swear. That's why, you know, when they want to know, Are you a real Republican, I gave my blood for the Republican Party in New York. I often say that I was the first Republican mayor of New York in 25 years and I was the first one to remain a Republican in 50 years.
But like Ronald Reagan, we need an inspiring – we need a realigning of candidates for president. We need a coast-to-coast candidate.
We need a candidate that, you know, the day after the nomination, we don't close down our offices in 20 states or 25 states, like we've been doing. Right? We don't win this next election if we don't run a campaign in New York and California. I tell you, we don't.
Do we give it away again? The margin of error isn't what it used to be. We decide to kiss away New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, wow.
We ask Florida to do a lot, but...
Right, Mel? I mean, I know you guys are great, but -- and I believe that I'm your candidate. I'm the one who can be a coast-to-coast candidate.
And I'm honored to stand with the Republican Jewish Coalition. Let's talk a bit about Iran.
As we all know, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and they're threatening to use them. And through Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, Iran has become the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Now, this isn't -- this whole development with Hezbollah is not new. For a lot of people, they think this is new. It isn't. Hezbollah killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before September 11, 2001. Hezbollah suicide murderers killed more than 300 American and French troops in Lebanon in 1983. They hijacked a U.S. airplane and murdered a U.S. Navy [diver], Robert Stethem, in 1985.
And we can go on and on and on. They captured a U.S. CIA station chief in 1992. In 1994, you remember, I remember them very well, because I was mayor then, you remember the attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina, killing all together more than 100 people.
So this is a group that operates as a terrorist group all over the world. They seek out Americans, they seek out Israelis, they seek out those who are allied to us.
Now, Iran, this nation that's been a rogue or run by a rogue regime now for several decades, is assisting terrorists who are killing American troops.
We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president of the United States, I guarantee you we will never find out what they will do if they get nuclear weapons, because they're not going to get nuclear weapons.
Thank you.
You know, there are people that say that we have to accommodate ourselves to a nuclear Iran. We can have something like we had during the Cold War. We can have some kind of accommodation. We can have mutually assured destruction or damage.
I've read those articles in foreign policy magazines and on the editorial pages, op-ed pages of newspapers, and I can see the movement kind of building for that.
Well, you know, what was the worst nightmare of the Cold War? The worst nightmare of the Cold War was nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible people. In that respect, we were fortunate. The Soviets were horrible. They were, as Ronald Reagan said, an evil empire.
Communist China, no different. But at least in both of those situations, there was a residual self-interest or you might even call it a residual rationality that said, We don't want to die. We don't want to lose Russia, we don't want to lose China. There's too much at stake here.
The reason I come to the conclusion that I do about Iran is not out of any desire to ever have to use American military power. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use American military power.
But a president of the United States can't hesitate to do that if it's in the best interest [of the nation.] …
If we learned anything from the 20th century from dealing with Nazis, Communists, and Islamic terrorists, if you haven't learned this lesson, I don't think you lived through the 20th century, you have to stand up to dictators, to tyrants, to terrorists.
Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps [us] safe.
And I believe we're the ones that really want peace in the Middle East, real peace, what it really means. Peace has to be based on realism, not romance. It's shocking that 60 years after the Holocaust, the Jewish people are still required to negotiate for the right to exist.
This should be beyond negotiation. Someday I hope that Jews and Arabs can sit down together to negotiate borders, water, trade. It's going to happen, but it's going to happen more quickly if we remain strong and we remain really, really clear.
You cannot negotiate with someone who is threatening to destroy you and your family.
This is the great fallacy in this now very strong Democratic desire to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and negotiate. You've got to know with whom to negotiate and with whom you should not negotiate.
When Barack Obama, a couple of months ago, said that he would invite Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro and Chavez -- did I miss somebody -- to Washington in the first year that he's in office to meet with them, without preconditions, when he was condemned by Hillary Clinton, who now has joined his position, but that was the one of the longest positions she's held, by the way. She held that one for two months.
That one she held for two months. But at that time, she said he was wrong. That's the first time I agreed with her since the time that she announced she was a Yankee fan.
Now she's taken the rug out from under my feet. But he announced that he's going to negotiate with these people without preconditions and then he went on to explain, well, Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Communists.
I say this most respectfully. You're not Ronald Reagan, you know.
Here is what Ronald Reagan did before he negotiated with the Communists. First, he called them the Evil Empire. Then he took missiles, intermediate range missiles. I know this because I represented him in court when this was challenged.
And he pointed them, he put them in European cities and he pointed the missiles at Russian cities with names on them and then he said, in his very nice way, Let's negotiate. (APPLAUSE) …
In 1995, when, as Sheldon mentioned, I had Yasser Arafat thrown out of the United Nations...
... that was a Freudian slip. I didn't have him thrown out of the United Nations. I had him thrown out of the United Nations' concert at Lincoln Center. I think it was a Freudian slip because you might have gotten the point of whether I really would have liked to have done.
I helped to keep him away from the United Nations in the 1980s, but that's a different story.
When I made that decision, which had to be made right at the moment, because I went out to give a curtain speech, it was for a performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, great work of art, a great piece of music, one that's dedicated to peace, and I did find some real incongruity in the idea that he was coming to that concert.
But the thing that really bothered me was he didn't have a ticket.
He was a freeloader. Just like he stole all that money and sent it to the south of France, he didn't pay for his ticket.
But in seriousness, the truth is I was informed that he was there and I had to go out and give a curtain speech. I didn't hesitate, like Hillary Clinton hesitates to answer questions on what she's going to do about Iran. I didn't seek to negotiate with him, like Barack Obama would do or says he'd do with these people.
I didn't call for a team of lawyers to help me...
I didn't call for a team of lawyers to tell me, Well, on the one hand, you can throw him out, but on the other hand, you can't, and maybe you can partially throw him out. Maybe we could have him sit like further up.
I just made a decision. See, I lead. That's what [being a] leader is about. A leader has the confidence to make a decision.
So the administration was real angry at me. President Clinton condemned me the next day. I framed the article.
The United Nations -- the United Nations, they were going to condemn all of New York City, I think, for what I did. But it turned -- I knew. …
The reason I did it was I knew from my own investigations of Arafat that he was a murderer and a terrorist, that he had killed many Israelis, killed many American citizens. The case with Leon Klinghoffer was the one that probably I knew the best.
And I also thought from the very, very beginning, when they first started negotiating with him, that this whole idea of holding him on a morally equivalent plane to like the prime minister of Israel, like these two people are equal, was a terrible, terrible mistake and I believe that set back the whole cause of peace in the Middle East, maybe for at least a decade and maybe even longer. I hope not.
Similarly, that's the reason I rejected the $10 million check. Prince Al-Waleed came to Ground Zero, like many people did. He came with a group. It was very early in the morning. I was asked by the State Department to take people there and the reason I think the State Department wanted me to do it was because was, quite obviously, first of all, people were moved by it and, number two, it might build support for what they knew they were going to have to do.
And I took many, many leaders and people there, many families and other people, and there's not a single person of any political persuasion, political party or whether you're talking about heads of state, like Putin or Chirac, or you're talking just about ordinary people or children, I didn't take one there that wasn't legitimately moved by it.
When I took Al-Waleed there and I stood there for a while and answered his questions, I felt something funny. I mean, it's just a feeling you get. And when you deal with people as much as I have and you have, you obviously get an instinct from them. Sometimes your instincts are right. Sometimes your instincts are wrong. And when I left to go to a funeral, I almost felt bad and I said, Well, maybe my instincts were wrong here. He did come and he did give us a check for $10 million for the firefighters' and police officers' families, which is a wonderful thing to do.
And then I went to the first funeral, and I don't remember if it was the second, and I got a call from my press communications director, Sunny Mindel, and Sunny said, Al- Waleed did something very, very surprising. He held a press conference after you left and he put out this press release and she read the press release to me and basically, as I recall the press release now, it said that, in essence, America has if not all, some of the responsibility for the attack of September 11 because of the foreign policy that we pursue.
It mentioned some other particulars, but it said, and because of our strong support for Israel and that we should think of changing that.
And I said, Sunny, I can't keep this money. I mean, this is exactly what's wrong. This is this moral equivalence.
Israel's not perfect and America's not perfect, but we're not terrorist states and we're decent countries that have the right motivations. And I said, Well, I'll be back in about an hour, after I finish this one more, I think, funeral and I said, You know what I'm going to do? It's not my money. It doesn't belong to me.
It wasn't given to me personally, thank goodness. Right? Mayor of New York, you get any money personally and they take you away in handcuffs.
It wasn't even given to the city of New York, which would be my kind of fiduciary responsibility. It was given directly to the families of these firefighters and police officers and we organized that charity -- we organized that charity so every penny -- there'd be no diversion of administrative costs.
So if you gave me a check for $10 million, I could say to you, honestly, that $10 million is going to go right to a firefighter's family, a police officer's family, a rescue worker's family.
So it was all their money. We're like just transferring it. So I called -- first, I called my fire commissioner and police commissioner and, of course, they told me -- I won't even tell you the language they used. …
The reality is there are many, many grievances and injustices in the world. We have some within our country. There are some in Israel. There are some all over. We've got a lot of things we have to correct.
But these people are attacking us not for the things that are wrong about us that we have to correct. They're attacking us for the things that are right about us.
I mean, they're attacking us for the good things about us. I mean, why are they doing it? They're doing it because -- my wife and the wives of the other candidates addressed a women's breakfast this morning. You think they have women's breakfasts with political candidates speaking in Islamic terrorist countries or countries that support Islamic terrorism?
Imagine if they showed up for a breakfast. Maybe they'd get stoned. They don't want women to have rights. Let's just deal with it. I mean, that's just the reality. They don't want to allow them to have rights. …
I mean, there's no room for compromise on these things. Like I was saying about Israel earlier, you can negotiate with all kinds of people. You can even negotiate with bad people if there's some degree of rationality left, if there's some ground for negotiation.
But you can't negotiate with people who want to kill you and destroy you. I mean, think about it in the case of your family.
Think about it in the case of your family. Somebody threatens to kill you and your family. What are you going to negotiate with them about? How many of your kids they're going to kill or when they're going to do it?
You've got to negotiate with people that at least make a step toward giving a reasonable possibility of getting a sensible result.
In the case of the Palestinians, here's what it is, two big ones. First of all, the Palestinians have to say and acknowledge and mean it that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Number one, because Israel's already negotiated its existence. That negotiation happened a long time ago and that's over and they've just got to kind of move on.
Second, second, they have to be willing to say, We forsake terrorism and we're going to help to reduce and eliminate terrorism and they need to show their good faith by that condition remaining that way for some period of time. It's as simple as that -- or as hard as that. They do those two things and they mean it and time demonstrates that they do mean it, then, of course, they can negotiate. We would like to negotiate. We would like to have peace, but we don't want to have a peace in which we're taken advantage of.
We don't want to have a peace … in which have the name peace and Israelis and Americans are getting killed and we certainly don't want to create another terrorist supporting state. We have too many of them already. …
John Kennedy once said that the first World War began … because of ambiguity and lack of clarity. And the reality is we've got to be clear and the clarity has to be we're not going to allow Iran to be a nuclear power. We do not want to use a military option. Using a military option would be dangerous, but certainly will if we have to, and American presidential candidates should be clear about that.
T]hank you for the opportunity to talk to you this morning. No one is working harder to take our party's message to new communities and new voters and bring new people into the Republican Party than the Republican Jewish Coalition.
If any group stands for the spirit that our party needs this year and next year, it's the RJC.
A lot of you are the first Republicans in your families, right? Am I right?
A lot of you get grief for being Republicans, right? As a three-time candidate and eight-year mayor of New York City, I know what you're talking about. Wow.
I remember this happened so many times, I get all the incidents confused. But one that was particularly poignant was this man who was very, very old and frail came up to me and he grabbed my hand and he said, You're the first Republican I ever voted for. I said, How old are you? He said, I'm 92 years old.
I said, In over like 80 years of voting or whatever, you couldn't find another Republican to vote for? He said, I thought it was sinful.
True story. I remember the moment that I knew Ronald Reagan was going to be president of the United States. I remember it. I was at a bar mitzvah reception in Manhattan. I went to the bar mitzvah in the synagogue and then I went to the reception.
The table was filled with people that lived in Manhattan, east side, west side. This is the 1980s. This is before the Republican Jewish Coalition did all its good work. So you would think most of the Jewish community overwhelmingly Democrat.
I'm sitting at the table. One after one, everybody's talking about voting for Ronald Reagan. This is New York, in Manhattan. This is a city Abraham Lincoln didn't carry.
I swear. That's why, you know, when they want to know, Are you a real Republican, I gave my blood for the Republican Party in New York. I often say that I was the first Republican mayor of New York in 25 years and I was the first one to remain a Republican in 50 years.
But like Ronald Reagan, we need an inspiring – we need a realigning of candidates for president. We need a coast-to-coast candidate.
We need a candidate that, you know, the day after the nomination, we don't close down our offices in 20 states or 25 states, like we've been doing. Right? We don't win this next election if we don't run a campaign in New York and California. I tell you, we don't.
Do we give it away again? The margin of error isn't what it used to be. We decide to kiss away New York, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, wow.
We ask Florida to do a lot, but...
Right, Mel? I mean, I know you guys are great, but -- and I believe that I'm your candidate. I'm the one who can be a coast-to-coast candidate.
And I'm honored to stand with the Republican Jewish Coalition. Let's talk a bit about Iran.
As we all know, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and they're threatening to use them. And through Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, Iran has become the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Now, this isn't -- this whole development with Hezbollah is not new. For a lot of people, they think this is new. It isn't. Hezbollah killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before September 11, 2001. Hezbollah suicide murderers killed more than 300 American and French troops in Lebanon in 1983. They hijacked a U.S. airplane and murdered a U.S. Navy [diver], Robert Stethem, in 1985.
And we can go on and on and on. They captured a U.S. CIA station chief in 1992. In 1994, you remember, I remember them very well, because I was mayor then, you remember the attacks against Jewish targets in Argentina, killing all together more than 100 people.
So this is a group that operates as a terrorist group all over the world. They seek out Americans, they seek out Israelis, they seek out those who are allied to us.
Now, Iran, this nation that's been a rogue or run by a rogue regime now for several decades, is assisting terrorists who are killing American troops.
We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president of the United States, I guarantee you we will never find out what they will do if they get nuclear weapons, because they're not going to get nuclear weapons.
Thank you.
You know, there are people that say that we have to accommodate ourselves to a nuclear Iran. We can have something like we had during the Cold War. We can have some kind of accommodation. We can have mutually assured destruction or damage.
I've read those articles in foreign policy magazines and on the editorial pages, op-ed pages of newspapers, and I can see the movement kind of building for that.
Well, you know, what was the worst nightmare of the Cold War? The worst nightmare of the Cold War was nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible people. In that respect, we were fortunate. The Soviets were horrible. They were, as Ronald Reagan said, an evil empire.
Communist China, no different. But at least in both of those situations, there was a residual self-interest or you might even call it a residual rationality that said, We don't want to die. We don't want to lose Russia, we don't want to lose China. There's too much at stake here.
The reason I come to the conclusion that I do about Iran is not out of any desire to ever have to use American military power. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use American military power.
But a president of the United States can't hesitate to do that if it's in the best interest [of the nation.] …
If we learned anything from the 20th century from dealing with Nazis, Communists, and Islamic terrorists, if you haven't learned this lesson, I don't think you lived through the 20th century, you have to stand up to dictators, to tyrants, to terrorists.
Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps [us] safe.
And I believe we're the ones that really want peace in the Middle East, real peace, what it really means. Peace has to be based on realism, not romance. It's shocking that 60 years after the Holocaust, the Jewish people are still required to negotiate for the right to exist.
This should be beyond negotiation. Someday I hope that Jews and Arabs can sit down together to negotiate borders, water, trade. It's going to happen, but it's going to happen more quickly if we remain strong and we remain really, really clear.
You cannot negotiate with someone who is threatening to destroy you and your family.
This is the great fallacy in this now very strong Democratic desire to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and negotiate. You've got to know with whom to negotiate and with whom you should not negotiate.
When Barack Obama, a couple of months ago, said that he would invite Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro and Chavez -- did I miss somebody -- to Washington in the first year that he's in office to meet with them, without preconditions, when he was condemned by Hillary Clinton, who now has joined his position, but that was the one of the longest positions she's held, by the way. She held that one for two months.
That one she held for two months. But at that time, she said he was wrong. That's the first time I agreed with her since the time that she announced she was a Yankee fan.
Now she's taken the rug out from under my feet. But he announced that he's going to negotiate with these people without preconditions and then he went on to explain, well, Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Communists.
I say this most respectfully. You're not Ronald Reagan, you know.
Here is what Ronald Reagan did before he negotiated with the Communists. First, he called them the Evil Empire. Then he took missiles, intermediate range missiles. I know this because I represented him in court when this was challenged.
And he pointed them, he put them in European cities and he pointed the missiles at Russian cities with names on them and then he said, in his very nice way, Let's negotiate. (APPLAUSE) …
In 1995, when, as Sheldon mentioned, I had Yasser Arafat thrown out of the United Nations...
... that was a Freudian slip. I didn't have him thrown out of the United Nations. I had him thrown out of the United Nations' concert at Lincoln Center. I think it was a Freudian slip because you might have gotten the point of whether I really would have liked to have done.
I helped to keep him away from the United Nations in the 1980s, but that's a different story.
When I made that decision, which had to be made right at the moment, because I went out to give a curtain speech, it was for a performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, great work of art, a great piece of music, one that's dedicated to peace, and I did find some real incongruity in the idea that he was coming to that concert.
But the thing that really bothered me was he didn't have a ticket.
He was a freeloader. Just like he stole all that money and sent it to the south of France, he didn't pay for his ticket.
But in seriousness, the truth is I was informed that he was there and I had to go out and give a curtain speech. I didn't hesitate, like Hillary Clinton hesitates to answer questions on what she's going to do about Iran. I didn't seek to negotiate with him, like Barack Obama would do or says he'd do with these people.
I didn't call for a team of lawyers to help me...
I didn't call for a team of lawyers to tell me, Well, on the one hand, you can throw him out, but on the other hand, you can't, and maybe you can partially throw him out. Maybe we could have him sit like further up.
I just made a decision. See, I lead. That's what [being a] leader is about. A leader has the confidence to make a decision.
So the administration was real angry at me. President Clinton condemned me the next day. I framed the article.
The United Nations -- the United Nations, they were going to condemn all of New York City, I think, for what I did. But it turned -- I knew. …
The reason I did it was I knew from my own investigations of Arafat that he was a murderer and a terrorist, that he had killed many Israelis, killed many American citizens. The case with Leon Klinghoffer was the one that probably I knew the best.
And I also thought from the very, very beginning, when they first started negotiating with him, that this whole idea of holding him on a morally equivalent plane to like the prime minister of Israel, like these two people are equal, was a terrible, terrible mistake and I believe that set back the whole cause of peace in the Middle East, maybe for at least a decade and maybe even longer. I hope not.
Similarly, that's the reason I rejected the $10 million check. Prince Al-Waleed came to Ground Zero, like many people did. He came with a group. It was very early in the morning. I was asked by the State Department to take people there and the reason I think the State Department wanted me to do it was because was, quite obviously, first of all, people were moved by it and, number two, it might build support for what they knew they were going to have to do.
And I took many, many leaders and people there, many families and other people, and there's not a single person of any political persuasion, political party or whether you're talking about heads of state, like Putin or Chirac, or you're talking just about ordinary people or children, I didn't take one there that wasn't legitimately moved by it.
When I took Al-Waleed there and I stood there for a while and answered his questions, I felt something funny. I mean, it's just a feeling you get. And when you deal with people as much as I have and you have, you obviously get an instinct from them. Sometimes your instincts are right. Sometimes your instincts are wrong. And when I left to go to a funeral, I almost felt bad and I said, Well, maybe my instincts were wrong here. He did come and he did give us a check for $10 million for the firefighters' and police officers' families, which is a wonderful thing to do.
And then I went to the first funeral, and I don't remember if it was the second, and I got a call from my press communications director, Sunny Mindel, and Sunny said, Al- Waleed did something very, very surprising. He held a press conference after you left and he put out this press release and she read the press release to me and basically, as I recall the press release now, it said that, in essence, America has if not all, some of the responsibility for the attack of September 11 because of the foreign policy that we pursue.
It mentioned some other particulars, but it said, and because of our strong support for Israel and that we should think of changing that.
And I said, Sunny, I can't keep this money. I mean, this is exactly what's wrong. This is this moral equivalence.
Israel's not perfect and America's not perfect, but we're not terrorist states and we're decent countries that have the right motivations. And I said, Well, I'll be back in about an hour, after I finish this one more, I think, funeral and I said, You know what I'm going to do? It's not my money. It doesn't belong to me.
It wasn't given to me personally, thank goodness. Right? Mayor of New York, you get any money personally and they take you away in handcuffs.
It wasn't even given to the city of New York, which would be my kind of fiduciary responsibility. It was given directly to the families of these firefighters and police officers and we organized that charity -- we organized that charity so every penny -- there'd be no diversion of administrative costs.
So if you gave me a check for $10 million, I could say to you, honestly, that $10 million is going to go right to a firefighter's family, a police officer's family, a rescue worker's family.
So it was all their money. We're like just transferring it. So I called -- first, I called my fire commissioner and police commissioner and, of course, they told me -- I won't even tell you the language they used. …
The reality is there are many, many grievances and injustices in the world. We have some within our country. There are some in Israel. There are some all over. We've got a lot of things we have to correct.
But these people are attacking us not for the things that are wrong about us that we have to correct. They're attacking us for the things that are right about us.
I mean, they're attacking us for the good things about us. I mean, why are they doing it? They're doing it because -- my wife and the wives of the other candidates addressed a women's breakfast this morning. You think they have women's breakfasts with political candidates speaking in Islamic terrorist countries or countries that support Islamic terrorism?
Imagine if they showed up for a breakfast. Maybe they'd get stoned. They don't want women to have rights. Let's just deal with it. I mean, that's just the reality. They don't want to allow them to have rights. …
I mean, there's no room for compromise on these things. Like I was saying about Israel earlier, you can negotiate with all kinds of people. You can even negotiate with bad people if there's some degree of rationality left, if there's some ground for negotiation.
But you can't negotiate with people who want to kill you and destroy you. I mean, think about it in the case of your family.
Think about it in the case of your family. Somebody threatens to kill you and your family. What are you going to negotiate with them about? How many of your kids they're going to kill or when they're going to do it?
You've got to negotiate with people that at least make a step toward giving a reasonable possibility of getting a sensible result.
In the case of the Palestinians, here's what it is, two big ones. First of all, the Palestinians have to say and acknowledge and mean it that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Number one, because Israel's already negotiated its existence. That negotiation happened a long time ago and that's over and they've just got to kind of move on.
Second, second, they have to be willing to say, We forsake terrorism and we're going to help to reduce and eliminate terrorism and they need to show their good faith by that condition remaining that way for some period of time. It's as simple as that -- or as hard as that. They do those two things and they mean it and time demonstrates that they do mean it, then, of course, they can negotiate. We would like to negotiate. We would like to have peace, but we don't want to have a peace in which we're taken advantage of.
We don't want to have a peace … in which have the name peace and Israelis and Americans are getting killed and we certainly don't want to create another terrorist supporting state. We have too many of them already. …
John Kennedy once said that the first World War began … because of ambiguity and lack of clarity. And the reality is we've got to be clear and the clarity has to be we're not going to allow Iran to be a nuclear power. We do not want to use a military option. Using a military option would be dangerous, but certainly will if we have to, and American presidential candidates should be clear about that.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Rudy Picks up a Great New Enemy
Now, unfortunately, this group is obscure so most people won't notice, however Rudy can use the Jewish vote and with his stance on abortion, he certainly can pick it up in huge numbers. For instance, my dad, a big pro choice guy, is looking at Rudy because he is also a GWOT hawk. He is the profile of many Jewish people. Now, I bring you this
Rudy Giuliani named three more Jews to his foreign policy adviser team. Ruth Wedgwood, Michael Rubin and David Frum were among seven additional advisers named Thursday by the former New York mayor's campaign for the Republican presidential candidacy.Rudy can use all the help he can get in sewing up the Jewish vote. Nothing rings in the ears of candidates more than knowing that hate groups have targeted them as enemies. For instance, the Rudy Giuliani campaign got a huge boost when Moveon.org targeted him. Obviously, this groups is obscure and most people aren't going to hear of them or their silly campaign. Thus, I want to do my part to let the world know that Anti Semites have decided to make an enemy of Rudy Giuliani.
Wedgwood, like Giuliani a former federal prosecutor, is a terrorism expert at Johns Hopkins University. Rubin, now an Iran-Iraq specialist the American Enterprise Institute, was employed at the Pentagon at the outset of the Iraq war. Frum is a former speechwriter for President Bush who helped coin the phrase "Axis of Evil."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Paradigm That is Rudy Giuliani
I found this while navigating the blogosphere
So, how does a thrice married, pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro gun control politician continue to lead in a party dominated by people that well see all of those issues 180% opposite. That is the paradigm that is Rudy Giuliani and why I believe he will be the next President.
Most politicians have a core group of voters that strongly support them and agree with them nearly all the time, their base. Those same politicians then have to reach out to voters that don't agree with them on many issues. The problem, or the trick, is that by building a base you invariably turn off everyone not in your base. For instance, you are either for or against abortion. By courting one set of voters you invariably turn off another set. Of course, things get further complicated when issues are combined together.
For instance so called social conservatives aren't only against abortion, gay marriage, and other secular progressive policies, but they are invariably big on law order, and against anything that will corrupt children (smut, drug use, gambling, etc). Their counter parts, the secular progressives have the exact opposite view on all of those issues.
The other base of the Republican party is the fiscal conservatives. They believe in low taxes, small government free trade, free markets, personal liberty (especially as that enumerated in the Constitution and especially as the one most under assault the Second Amendment), and strong border enforcement.
Finally, there are the foreign policy hawks, labeled by their enemies as neo conservatives. They believe in aggressive action in the GWOT, especially finishing in Iraq, tough interrogation techniques, Iran cannot have nukes, and that Gitmo is not perfect but necessary.
With all of these three groups, they have their counterparts within the Democratic parties.
The Secular progressives dominate the Democratic party while the social conservatives dominate the Republican party. The moderates, those with no affiliation or one that isn't solid, have a mixed range of opinions on these issues.
Between the two primaries all the other candidates are trying as hard as they might to appeal to their specific bases. Rudy has no base. He appeals to everyone and to no one at all. While So Cons strongly disagree with him on the social issues, they were all very impressed with his aggressive law and order policies and when he stood strong against an obscene portrayal of the Virgin Mary and removed from the publicly funded Brookly Museum of Art. He has a strong record of small taxes and small government in New York, however his record on the second amendment and border enforcement is checkered at best. He appeals to the Neo Cons on most issues, but they aren't enough to carry a party.
Rudy walks a fine line. If you try to get everyone to like you, you invariably get no one to like you. So, how does Rudy do it? He chooses his friends carefully and his enemies even more carefully. His list of friends include Former Solicitor General, and strict constructionist judge, Ted Olsen, business leader and fiscal conservative Steve Forbes, firefighters and police officers (but not their union leaders), and the grandfather of neo conservatism John Podheretz.
His enemies include Moveon.org, the NY Times, the ACLU, and most unions. This allows him to walk the fine line of appealing just enough to all of the traditional Republican groups and being able to extend his appeal beyond the primary voters to moderates and liberals.
For instance, whatever socons think of his stances on most social issues, they are also impressed by his ongoing battles with the likes of the Times and the ACLU on a plethora of tough minded crime enforcement policies that he implemented as mayor. Whatever fiscal conservatives think of Rudy's stance on the border and the second amendment, they are all impressed by how he governed in the very liberal city of New York. Here is how the Club for Growth put it
Rudy will also show up anywhere include placing that would be considered hostile. In March, he showed up at CPAC and said this,
Last month, he showed up at the NRA and said this
Now, comes word that Rudy will be a featured speaker speaker at a dinner honoring James Dobson. This is the same James Dobson that swore to support a third party candidate if Rudy won the nomination. Look for Rudy to speak at the famed Federalist Society and in front of the Minutemen in the near future.
Finally, there is Rudy's personality. He is confrontational and he doesn't back down. The image, much deserved, of Republicans lately is of wimpy feeble minded people who are afraid to stand up to what the base believes is demonization tactics of the left. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in his battle with Moveon.org over the Betray Us Ad. In one statement he took to task Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and Moveon.org. Talk about appealing to your base.
Furthermore, his combative personality has found one individual specifically in his cross hairs, Hillary Clinton. He attacks her on everything: health care, baby bonds, socialism, Iraq and the aforementioned Betray Us ad. There is one issue in particular that unites all conservatives and many moderates and that is a perspective Hillary Clinton Presidency. By extension, he portrays himself as the only one capable of beating her. When it comes to attacking Hillary and offering an alternative to her, he takes the lead. Which brings me to my final point.
Ultimately, the Rudy paradigm comes down to that word, leadership, along with another word, effectiveness. Those are two words that all voters look for when deciding on a President. Whatever problems anyone has with any of Rudy's positions, when it comes to leadership and effectiveness, he is second to none.
So Rasmussen released a poll last week indicating that 27% of Republicans would vote third party if Rudy were nominated. My pro-Rudy friends have responded with a barrage of emails and posts directed at people like me who fit into that 27% about what fools we are all being, do we really want President Hillary, yadda yadda. TheThis sentiment is true of many so called so cons, a major niche of the Republican party. Recently, I published this analysis. While the piece I was analyzing was no doubt a hatchet job (and I encourage everyone not only to read the piece but to get a hold of the editor and feet to fires) I should address the beginning of the piece I analyzed.
basic strawman these earnest Rudynistas are knocking down is that we are demanding "ideological purity" and making the perfect the enemy of the good. This, of course, is balderdash. Most of the rest of that 27%, including myself, would vote for any other candidate in the Republican field - including McCain, Romney, and even Ron Paul, and all three of the candidates just mentioned drive me positively nuts. If we were all saying, "If the GOP doesn't support a FlatTaxer, we're voting Democrat!!" they'd have a legitimate point. But as it happens, Rudy stands for almost nothing that conservatives believe in, with the exception of the fact that conservatives apparently believe that Hillary Clinton must be stopped at all costs, and Rudy stands for beating Hillary.
You know, I'd be fine supporting a guy who I thought lacked conservative principles
in the name of defeating Hillary, and getting something rather than nothing (note my willingness to support Mitt Romney, mentioned above). I guess if I'm leaning towards somebody these days, it's Fred Thompson, and I'm not nearly such a naif as to think that Fred Thompson is actually convicted in some deep way about a lot of conservative issues. However, what my pro-Rudy friends don't seem to understand is that for guys like me, support for Rudy is a non-negotiable proposition. And it's not just (or even primarily) because he's a dirty, stinking Yankees fan. It is, of course, the abortion thing.
Republican Rudy Giuliani -- thrice-married, liberal on social issues
So, how does a thrice married, pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro gun control politician continue to lead in a party dominated by people that well see all of those issues 180% opposite. That is the paradigm that is Rudy Giuliani and why I believe he will be the next President.
Most politicians have a core group of voters that strongly support them and agree with them nearly all the time, their base. Those same politicians then have to reach out to voters that don't agree with them on many issues. The problem, or the trick, is that by building a base you invariably turn off everyone not in your base. For instance, you are either for or against abortion. By courting one set of voters you invariably turn off another set. Of course, things get further complicated when issues are combined together.
For instance so called social conservatives aren't only against abortion, gay marriage, and other secular progressive policies, but they are invariably big on law order, and against anything that will corrupt children (smut, drug use, gambling, etc). Their counter parts, the secular progressives have the exact opposite view on all of those issues.
The other base of the Republican party is the fiscal conservatives. They believe in low taxes, small government free trade, free markets, personal liberty (especially as that enumerated in the Constitution and especially as the one most under assault the Second Amendment), and strong border enforcement.
Finally, there are the foreign policy hawks, labeled by their enemies as neo conservatives. They believe in aggressive action in the GWOT, especially finishing in Iraq, tough interrogation techniques, Iran cannot have nukes, and that Gitmo is not perfect but necessary.
With all of these three groups, they have their counterparts within the Democratic parties.
The Secular progressives dominate the Democratic party while the social conservatives dominate the Republican party. The moderates, those with no affiliation or one that isn't solid, have a mixed range of opinions on these issues.
Between the two primaries all the other candidates are trying as hard as they might to appeal to their specific bases. Rudy has no base. He appeals to everyone and to no one at all. While So Cons strongly disagree with him on the social issues, they were all very impressed with his aggressive law and order policies and when he stood strong against an obscene portrayal of the Virgin Mary and removed from the publicly funded Brookly Museum of Art. He has a strong record of small taxes and small government in New York, however his record on the second amendment and border enforcement is checkered at best. He appeals to the Neo Cons on most issues, but they aren't enough to carry a party.
Rudy walks a fine line. If you try to get everyone to like you, you invariably get no one to like you. So, how does Rudy do it? He chooses his friends carefully and his enemies even more carefully. His list of friends include Former Solicitor General, and strict constructionist judge, Ted Olsen, business leader and fiscal conservative Steve Forbes, firefighters and police officers (but not their union leaders), and the grandfather of neo conservatism John Podheretz.
His enemies include Moveon.org, the NY Times, the ACLU, and most unions. This allows him to walk the fine line of appealing just enough to all of the traditional Republican groups and being able to extend his appeal beyond the primary voters to moderates and liberals.
For instance, whatever socons think of his stances on most social issues, they are also impressed by his ongoing battles with the likes of the Times and the ACLU on a plethora of tough minded crime enforcement policies that he implemented as mayor. Whatever fiscal conservatives think of Rudy's stance on the border and the second amendment, they are all impressed by how he governed in the very liberal city of New York. Here is how the Club for Growth put it
The white paper emphasizes the liberal context in which Giuliani was forced to govern. Although the Mayor took a number of anti-growth positions-such as his
opposition to NAFTA, his support for McCain Feingold, and his opposition to several tax cuts-he used free-market, limited-government values to turn around a faltering economy in a political environment dominated by a left-wing City Council; public sector labor unions; social welfare activists; and an unfriendly media.
"Rudy Giuliani will still need to flesh out his positions on a number of federal issues, and we hope he will reconsider his few anti-growth positions," Mr. Toomey said. "But it is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment."
Rudy will also show up anywhere include placing that would be considered hostile. In March, he showed up at CPAC and said this,
“my 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy:’’ “You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same and some that are different. We don’t all agree on everything. I don’t agree with myself on everything.’’
Last month, he showed up at the NRA and said this
After all the second amendment is a freedom every bit as important as the other
freedoms in the first ten amendments. Just think of the language of it -- 'the
people shall be secure'
Now, comes word that Rudy will be a featured speaker speaker at a dinner honoring James Dobson. This is the same James Dobson that swore to support a third party candidate if Rudy won the nomination. Look for Rudy to speak at the famed Federalist Society and in front of the Minutemen in the near future.
Finally, there is Rudy's personality. He is confrontational and he doesn't back down. The image, much deserved, of Republicans lately is of wimpy feeble minded people who are afraid to stand up to what the base believes is demonization tactics of the left. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in his battle with Moveon.org over the Betray Us Ad. In one statement he took to task Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and Moveon.org. Talk about appealing to your base.
Furthermore, his combative personality has found one individual specifically in his cross hairs, Hillary Clinton. He attacks her on everything: health care, baby bonds, socialism, Iraq and the aforementioned Betray Us ad. There is one issue in particular that unites all conservatives and many moderates and that is a perspective Hillary Clinton Presidency. By extension, he portrays himself as the only one capable of beating her. When it comes to attacking Hillary and offering an alternative to her, he takes the lead. Which brings me to my final point.
Ultimately, the Rudy paradigm comes down to that word, leadership, along with another word, effectiveness. Those are two words that all voters look for when deciding on a President. Whatever problems anyone has with any of Rudy's positions, when it comes to leadership and effectiveness, he is second to none.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Hatchet Job Masquerading as Political Analysis
A friend of mine asked for help in a political media interpretation class they were taking. I won't bore you with the details but I only bring it up because this is how I came upon this article. This is the sort of hatchet job one would expect to find in the New York Times or Boston Globe however instead I found it in a local Midland, Texas newspaper. It is the exact sort corrupt political writing that has made Conservatives everywhere distrustful of the media. It starts like this...
While it is pefectly fine to lead in in such a way, if there is going to be straight analysis, we will expect to understand how he has bucked the conventional wisdom that a social liberal could lead in a social conservative party. Instead, what we get is a nebulous reason that is really just an excuse to attack Rudy in a backhanded and terribly unfair sort of a way.
It continues...
The next two sentences masquerade is more mere analysis but in fact give the author away as the hatchet man they are.
If, again, we are supposed to still look at this as mere straight analysis, the sum total of his relationship with the governor will amount to nothing more than the case that his firm helped the governor with. No straight analysis would ever make such an outrageous assumption, but then again this is no analysis but a simple hit piece. The hit piece wouldn't be complete with one last dig that really has nothing to do with the substance of the rest of the story.
While it dresses it up with some nice explanations, the clear implication is that Rudy sold out to foreigners. Furthermore, if Rudy doesn't even know about the project, why did the author spend several paragraphs in a painstaking attempt to flesh out the minute details of the case.
This is frankly the sort of thing that even the NY Times would avoid printing and the editor and author should both be ashamed of themselves.
I am personally disgusted. So much so, that I contacted the editor and wrote this,
If you are as disgusted then I encourage you to go here and exercise your own first amendment rights.
Giuliani's ties to Houston law firm gives him Texas boost
Republican Rudy Giuliani -- thrice-married, liberal on social issues and aRight from the get go, the article is suspect. Imagine, the shoe on another foot. One could see this sort of lead in, Democrat Hillary Clinton, scandal ridden, highly polarizing and with negatives already at or near 50%, has bucked convention and continues to lead nationwide. Let's try another... despite his Mormon background, flip flopping on key issues, and reputation for being to slick for his own good, Mitt Romney maintains a lead in Iowa.
consummate New Yorker -- seems an unlikely White House contender to be embraced by a Texas' GOP establishment rooted in the energy industry and dominated by religious conservatives.
While it is pefectly fine to lead in in such a way, if there is going to be straight analysis, we will expect to understand how he has bucked the conventional wisdom that a social liberal could lead in a social conservative party. Instead, what we get is a nebulous reason that is really just an excuse to attack Rudy in a backhanded and terribly unfair sort of a way.
So, if we are supposed to believe the article, Rudy's ties to this all powerful law firm minimize the nature of his positions in a party that sees those positions 180% opposite of him. By this notion, any senior partner at this firm could get traction in the Texas Republican Primary regardless of their social views. This is of course nonsense, but it isn't really meant to be analysis. The law firm is a trojan horse as an analysis piece. It is placed in there solely so that the author could then spend the next three paragraphs analyzing the merits of a case Rudy wasn't involved in, a case that obviously is not one most people would approve of. In other words, while pretending to analyze Rudy's merits as a candidate, what the author is really doing is trying to marginalize Rudy through guilt by association.But the former New York mayor has built a formidable political base in Texas
with the help of well-connected Republican money men. He owes his advantage in
part to his role as a name partner with a powerhouse, Houston-based law firm
known for its impressive roster of energy-giant clients, Bracewell &
Giuliani.
His partnership in the law firm has also brought Giuliani
unwelcome criticism in connection with some of the firm's more controverisal
clients, including a Spanish contractor involved in planning part of a Texas
superhighway toll road known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Texas farmers and other landowners are worried their property rights will be trampled to make way for the highway. Conspiracy theorists see Giuliani, because of his highway connections, as allied with a cabal of international monied interests plotting to supplant the United States with a North American Union that includes
Mexico and Canada.
...Giuliani reported in a federal financial disclosure form in May that he
received $1.2 million in income from Bracewell & Giuliani during 2006...
It continues...
So, again, if we are pretending that this is just mere straight analysis, it seems this law firm is all powerful because it has given him a foothold financially and he has raised more than anyone else. At this point, we are almost three quarters of the way through the article and it has devoted exactly two sentences to anything that is positive about Rudy."The relationship with Bracewell has given Giuliani a financial foothold in the
state," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, which tracks
money in politics.
While Giuliani isn't "totally in sync with the base on social issues," Texans liked his take-charge approach during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and his mayoral record on crime-fighting and budget control, said Austin-based GOP consultant Reggie Bashur...
"The grassroots in Texas is ... strongly conservative. ... very much right-to-life, very fiscally conservative, strong on national defense, very strong on the war on terror, not overly sympathetic to the gay rights movement," Bashur said.
...Giuliani's campaign finance chairman is Roy Bailey, a former finance chairman of the Texas Republican Party. Dallas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks are major fundraisers.
Giuliani had raised $3.69 million in Texas as of July 30, the most of any presidential candidate....
The next two sentences masquerade is more mere analysis but in fact give the author away as the hatchet man they are.
We are nearly done with the article before a much more logical reason for Rudy's success in Texas is even referenced, his ties to its leading politician the governor. It is of course a well known political paradigm that helping powerful people get elected helps you put together an organization for your own future runs, and that is what Rudy did when he got into bed with Perry and his successful run at the governors mansion. Let's face it, the tie to Perry wasn't done for any sort of analytical reason. It was done for the excuse to say what follows next.Giuliani has also developed a bond with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whom he
helped win re-election last year. That groundwork could make Perry a
high-profile ally in Texas, although the governor hasn't yet endorsed a
presidential candidate.
...
So again, what we have is more guilt by association. Even Rudy's relationship with the governor comes down to nothing but baggage because of some obscure case they were involved in. This is a case that most people don't actually know about. It is only an issue because the author is making it an issue. Furthermore, he presents the John Birch Society and the Eagle Forum as some sort of mainstream and influential Conservative groups. Of course, that is just ridiculous. These are two fringe groups and John Birch has thrown their weight behind fringe candidate Ron Paul. The North American Union is something only fringe groups worry about, and Conservatives do not look to Lou Dobbs as any sort of leading commentator.Bracewell & Giuliani represents a business consortium involved in the
Trans-Texas Corridor, a costly, high-profile toll road pushed by Perry and
opposed by farmers and ranchers.
The first phase of Perry's proposed $184 billion toll road, envisioned as part of a superhighway stretching from Oklahoma to the Mexico border, was planned by the Cintra Zachry consortium, composed of Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA of Spain, one of the world's largest developers of toll roads, and Zachry Construction Co. of San Antonio.
Landowners say they worry that fields and farmhouses in Texas families for generations would be bulldozed for the highway.
...
But the lawsuit further fueled concerns about foreign ownership of a major Texas highway, and the project continues to be criticized by conservative groups like the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society, who see it as part of an international conspiracy to create a North American Union. The conspiracy theory has also provided fodder for cable television commentators like CNN's Lou Dobbs.
If, again, we are supposed to still look at this as mere straight analysis, the sum total of his relationship with the governor will amount to nothing more than the case that his firm helped the governor with. No straight analysis would ever make such an outrageous assumption, but then again this is no analysis but a simple hit piece. The hit piece wouldn't be complete with one last dig that really has nothing to do with the substance of the rest of the story.
Earlier this year, Giuliani sold his investment firm, Giuliani Capital, for
an undisclosed sum to the Macquarie Group, which is part of Macquarie Bank of
Australia. Cintra and Macquarie's infrastructure group formed a consortium that
operates a major toll road in Indiana.
Scott Segal, a Washington-based Bracewell & Giuliani partner in charge
of its government relations division, said Giuliani was not involved in the
Texas toll road legal work and that the law firm doesn't lobby on behalf of
Cintra Zachry.
...Black, Perry's spokesman, said he doubts Perry even knows that Giuliani's
firm has represented the transportation companies in connection with the
project.
...
While it dresses it up with some nice explanations, the clear implication is that Rudy sold out to foreigners. Furthermore, if Rudy doesn't even know about the project, why did the author spend several paragraphs in a painstaking attempt to flesh out the minute details of the case.
This is frankly the sort of thing that even the NY Times would avoid printing and the editor and author should both be ashamed of themselves.
I am personally disgusted. So much so, that I contacted the editor and wrote this,
Dear Mr. Gott,
Recently, I came across a political analysis from your paper about Rudy Giuliani that I find to be the gutter of all political discourse. This is a hatchet job masquerading as serious political analysis. I have no doubt that most people in Midland are frankly too stupid to realize what is being done to them, or at least, I have no doubt that you perceive your readers as such. I am not from Midland, but I do have power in the blogosphere and I will make this article and your paper by extension the symbol of everything that is wrong with this country’s journalism practices.
Here is the article in question.
Here is my analysis in response. If I am wrong, I encourage you to respond to my blog. I think that my response deserves the right to be heard in your paper. Furthermore, the author and whoever decided to let this be published should not be working for your paper, unless of course, you want the whole world to know that you have an obvious and uncontrollable bias toward Republicans or at least Rudy.
If you are as disgusted then I encourage you to go here and exercise your own first amendment rights.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Rudy Giuliani: Up Close and Personal
For full disclosure, my candidate of choice for 2008 is Rudy Giuliani. With that said, I would like to announce my very first guest posting. This one is courtesy of Eric @ The Tygrrr Express. This one caught my eye because I have not yet had a chance to meet Rudy in person. Here it is full and unedited...
Several months ago, I wrote, “Why Rudy Giuliani is Right.” I was, and he absolutely still is, more than ever.
On Friday, September 28th, I had the pleasure of meeting Rudy Giuliani. About 100 people attended a private home to hear what he had to say. It was a joy to be one of them.
It is one thing to read other opinions of a person. It is still better to hear politicians speak on television. To be in the same room watching their facial expressions and looking into their eyes truly does add insight into the process. The bottom line is that after having met and spoken with Rudy Giuliani, his status as the top tier Presidential candidate is absolutely deserved.
The people that came to see him were a diverse group. Despite those who continue to denigrate the republican party as a “White, Christian Party,” there were plenty of Jewish supporters in attendance. Those who love to write about the gender gap would have a tough time explaining why the crowd was half male and half female. Geographically, the crowd ranged from Southerners to Midwesterners to Californians to very proud New Yorkers such as myself. People from several countries from Africa, Europe, and the Middle East were in attendance. There were social conservatives, libertarian republicans, and former democrats all there because they cared enough to attend a serious presentation of life and death issues in an adult manner.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for approximately 30-45 minutes, and unlike other tightly scripted political candidates, Hizzoner actually took questions. The audience were not Giuliani sycophants. They were serious individuals who wanted substance. He delivered.
Some people who prefer to live in what the Jayson Blair Times refers to as a “9/12 world (What is better described as a 9/10 world),” criticize Rudy Giuliani for spending virtually 100% of his time on the War on Terror. I personally wish he would do this. Nevertheless, his speech was 50% foreign policy followed by 50% domestic policy.
As an olive branch to liberals and their world view, I will cover the Mayor’s remarks backwards.
Mayor Giuliani’s understanding of economics is brilliant, which is to be expected of somebody who saved a city on the brink of economic collapse. He brought up two very important economic points, and he mentioned each one more than once.
First of all, he stated that, “When you take money away from rich people, rich people leave.” The second point he made is that, “Money is more mobile than ever before.”
Too many individuals who worship at the redistribution alter of Keynes think that rich people will just accept whatever is thrown their way. This is nonsense. Rich people will do what is best for them, because all people do this. Liberals complain about companies outsourcing jobs to India and other global places, but what should CEOs do, settle for higher costs and lower profits?
When businesses leave, economies collapse. After 9/11, companies had to choose between staying in New York City, or relocating to New Jersey, Connecticut, or even overseas. Wall Street is doing better than ever, and the friendly business climate Mayor Giuliani created helped turn around New York City.
Yes, he cut taxes 23 times. Yes, revenues went up. Yes, welfare rolls went down. This is not a miracle. It is Economics 101. He referred to rich people during his speech as “productive people.” When you punish those who are productive, they lose incentives to produce. Everybody loses.
He spoke about health care, and he had justifiably tough words for Hillary Clinton’s health care plans. For one, the idea of giving $5000 to each child was shredded. He pointed out that this was an idea with many holes. He inquired, “Would Bill Gates’s’ children be given $5000 apiece? Would the children of illegal immigrants, as U.S. citizens, be given $5000 apiece?” He blountly declared her plan what it was…”stupid.”
This is not the language of a tightly scripted man afraid to offend anyone in an effort to please everyone. This is a man who speaks plainly. On a very simple issue he contrasted himself with Hillary Clinton. He told a story of being asked to wear a baseball cap that was half Yankees, and half Mets. He refused to do so, because he is a lifelong Yankees fan. Mets fans would refer to him as a “bum,” and “much worse,” but as the Mayor pointed out, “Many Mets fans respected my honesty and voted for me.”
If he ever asked my opinion, I would tell him that I prefer football, and find baseball incredibly boring, a three hour nap disguised as a sport. He would disagree with me, but would respect my not trying to ingratiate myself to him in a phony manner.
Hillary Clinton has said that she would not choose between the Yankees and the Mets. When asked if she would choose the Yankees over the Cubs, she demurred.
This is not about baseball. It is about an unwillingness to take clear stands on anything. If a person cannot take a clear stand on a sports team, how can they be trusted to be taken seriously on hard policy issues?
Rudy Giuliani can be lighthearted, but he is a serious policy person. As he reminded his audience, it is one thing to talk about theoretically doing things. It is another to have a record of having successfully done them. Gotham City is now a world class city again, and it is because of him.
His record on crime is legendary, but he did not spend time discussing it. The first half of his speech was a clinic on foreign policy expertise. Unlike wavering republicans, the one time the Mayor mentioned President Bush, it was to reinforce that going into Iraq was proper. He spoke with Authority on Iran, and made it clear that force was an option.
Yet the War on Terror itself was where he, as always, shined. He reminded the audience that, “Terrorism did not begin on 9/11.” He also pointed out that, “We were attacked five times during the Clinton presidency. We were attacked in 1993 the first time the World Trade Center was bombed. We were attacked when the Khobar Towers were hit. We were attacked when U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. We were attacked in 2000 with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. These were acts of war, and were never treated as such.”
At the 2004 republican convention, Giuliani connected the dots even further. The 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer was an act of Terrorism. The 1972 murder of Israelis at the Olympics was an act of terrorism. In 2007, Mayor Giuliani continues to refer to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the late Yassir Arafat as terrorists. He mentioned them at this event.
Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner in this race. He did not mention his republican primary opponents by name, with the exception of a brief mention of how much he respected John McCain. He stated that the reason why he did was because Senator McCain, “does not change his positions to please other people.” While this could have been seen as a veiled swipe at fellow republican opponents, there was no mistaking that the democrats running for the White House were the recipients of his overt ridicule.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack O’Bama were criticized on their lack of experience. There were no personal attacks. He went after them on policy, or more specifically, their lack of understanding of domestic and foreign policy.
He also defended General David Petraeus, and made it clear that when the New York Times and Moveon.org combined to smear a respected military hero, he immediately spoke up. He did remark that Hillary Clinton was still deciding what her position was on the issue.
The Mayor took several questions ranging from social security reform to the falling dollar to possible military action against Iran. He did not give sound bites. Every question that was asked was given a several minute response. The questions were not scripted in advance. The people allowed to ask questions were not chosen in advance. It was an actual, real, thoughtful question and answer session.
I asked him a question myself.
“Mayor Giuliani, I deliberately flew to New York on 9/11…” The Mayor then interjected.
“Thank you for doing that.” I replied, “Thank you sir,” and continued.
“I had the pleasure of seeing you at the Freedom Concert on 9/11, and was inspired by the crowd. My question is this…besides raising money and voting for you, what can I and my friends do as private citizens to help you win the War on Terror? What can we do to help defeat guys like Armageddonijad and others?”
(The people who caught that I said “Armageddonijad laughed, but the truth is I just used to have trouble saying and spelling his actual name)
I listened intently, and the first thing Mayor Giuliani did was say, “For one thing, people need to fly on 9/11. I think it’s great that you did that.” Yes, it feels good to be complimented by somebody, even someone who has every incentive to do so. However, he did not stop with that. He then again reminded everybody of the various serious worldwide threats.
He took several minutes to remind everybody that before any of us can do anything, we need to know who we are fighting against. If we are going to fight back, we have to openly acknowledge who and what we are fighting. He reiterated that Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah all need to be dealt with, and that “they declared War on us.” He reminded the audience that he “wanted peace, and most people want peace.” He just made it clear that the steps to get to a true, lasting peace are not always peaceful.
After he thanked the crowd, he did something else that I was not expecting. He stayed. I have seen politicians dash out of a side door of a room, before anybody can ask them anything. Mayor Giuliani spoke with several of the people, took pictures with them (in addition to the picture he took with every attendee before his speech), and most importantly, looked people in the eye when he shook their hands and spoke to them.
I have met several of the other candidates, and his republican challengers are all fine men. After meeting Rudy Giuliani, and hearing what he had to say, and looking into his eyes, I can say that he is more than a fine man. At this time in history, with civilization itself hanging in the balance, Rudy Giuliani is the right man.
Several months ago, I wrote, “Why Rudy Giuliani is Right.” I was, and he absolutely still is, more than ever.
On Friday, September 28th, I had the pleasure of meeting Rudy Giuliani. About 100 people attended a private home to hear what he had to say. It was a joy to be one of them.
It is one thing to read other opinions of a person. It is still better to hear politicians speak on television. To be in the same room watching their facial expressions and looking into their eyes truly does add insight into the process. The bottom line is that after having met and spoken with Rudy Giuliani, his status as the top tier Presidential candidate is absolutely deserved.
The people that came to see him were a diverse group. Despite those who continue to denigrate the republican party as a “White, Christian Party,” there were plenty of Jewish supporters in attendance. Those who love to write about the gender gap would have a tough time explaining why the crowd was half male and half female. Geographically, the crowd ranged from Southerners to Midwesterners to Californians to very proud New Yorkers such as myself. People from several countries from Africa, Europe, and the Middle East were in attendance. There were social conservatives, libertarian republicans, and former democrats all there because they cared enough to attend a serious presentation of life and death issues in an adult manner.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for approximately 30-45 minutes, and unlike other tightly scripted political candidates, Hizzoner actually took questions. The audience were not Giuliani sycophants. They were serious individuals who wanted substance. He delivered.
Some people who prefer to live in what the Jayson Blair Times refers to as a “9/12 world (What is better described as a 9/10 world),” criticize Rudy Giuliani for spending virtually 100% of his time on the War on Terror. I personally wish he would do this. Nevertheless, his speech was 50% foreign policy followed by 50% domestic policy.
As an olive branch to liberals and their world view, I will cover the Mayor’s remarks backwards.
Mayor Giuliani’s understanding of economics is brilliant, which is to be expected of somebody who saved a city on the brink of economic collapse. He brought up two very important economic points, and he mentioned each one more than once.
First of all, he stated that, “When you take money away from rich people, rich people leave.” The second point he made is that, “Money is more mobile than ever before.”
Too many individuals who worship at the redistribution alter of Keynes think that rich people will just accept whatever is thrown their way. This is nonsense. Rich people will do what is best for them, because all people do this. Liberals complain about companies outsourcing jobs to India and other global places, but what should CEOs do, settle for higher costs and lower profits?
When businesses leave, economies collapse. After 9/11, companies had to choose between staying in New York City, or relocating to New Jersey, Connecticut, or even overseas. Wall Street is doing better than ever, and the friendly business climate Mayor Giuliani created helped turn around New York City.
Yes, he cut taxes 23 times. Yes, revenues went up. Yes, welfare rolls went down. This is not a miracle. It is Economics 101. He referred to rich people during his speech as “productive people.” When you punish those who are productive, they lose incentives to produce. Everybody loses.
He spoke about health care, and he had justifiably tough words for Hillary Clinton’s health care plans. For one, the idea of giving $5000 to each child was shredded. He pointed out that this was an idea with many holes. He inquired, “Would Bill Gates’s’ children be given $5000 apiece? Would the children of illegal immigrants, as U.S. citizens, be given $5000 apiece?” He blountly declared her plan what it was…”stupid.”
This is not the language of a tightly scripted man afraid to offend anyone in an effort to please everyone. This is a man who speaks plainly. On a very simple issue he contrasted himself with Hillary Clinton. He told a story of being asked to wear a baseball cap that was half Yankees, and half Mets. He refused to do so, because he is a lifelong Yankees fan. Mets fans would refer to him as a “bum,” and “much worse,” but as the Mayor pointed out, “Many Mets fans respected my honesty and voted for me.”
If he ever asked my opinion, I would tell him that I prefer football, and find baseball incredibly boring, a three hour nap disguised as a sport. He would disagree with me, but would respect my not trying to ingratiate myself to him in a phony manner.
Hillary Clinton has said that she would not choose between the Yankees and the Mets. When asked if she would choose the Yankees over the Cubs, she demurred.
This is not about baseball. It is about an unwillingness to take clear stands on anything. If a person cannot take a clear stand on a sports team, how can they be trusted to be taken seriously on hard policy issues?
Rudy Giuliani can be lighthearted, but he is a serious policy person. As he reminded his audience, it is one thing to talk about theoretically doing things. It is another to have a record of having successfully done them. Gotham City is now a world class city again, and it is because of him.
His record on crime is legendary, but he did not spend time discussing it. The first half of his speech was a clinic on foreign policy expertise. Unlike wavering republicans, the one time the Mayor mentioned President Bush, it was to reinforce that going into Iraq was proper. He spoke with Authority on Iran, and made it clear that force was an option.
Yet the War on Terror itself was where he, as always, shined. He reminded the audience that, “Terrorism did not begin on 9/11.” He also pointed out that, “We were attacked five times during the Clinton presidency. We were attacked in 1993 the first time the World Trade Center was bombed. We were attacked when the Khobar Towers were hit. We were attacked when U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. We were attacked in 2000 with the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. These were acts of war, and were never treated as such.”
At the 2004 republican convention, Giuliani connected the dots even further. The 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer was an act of Terrorism. The 1972 murder of Israelis at the Olympics was an act of terrorism. In 2007, Mayor Giuliani continues to refer to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the late Yassir Arafat as terrorists. He mentioned them at this event.
Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner in this race. He did not mention his republican primary opponents by name, with the exception of a brief mention of how much he respected John McCain. He stated that the reason why he did was because Senator McCain, “does not change his positions to please other people.” While this could have been seen as a veiled swipe at fellow republican opponents, there was no mistaking that the democrats running for the White House were the recipients of his overt ridicule.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack O’Bama were criticized on their lack of experience. There were no personal attacks. He went after them on policy, or more specifically, their lack of understanding of domestic and foreign policy.
He also defended General David Petraeus, and made it clear that when the New York Times and Moveon.org combined to smear a respected military hero, he immediately spoke up. He did remark that Hillary Clinton was still deciding what her position was on the issue.
The Mayor took several questions ranging from social security reform to the falling dollar to possible military action against Iran. He did not give sound bites. Every question that was asked was given a several minute response. The questions were not scripted in advance. The people allowed to ask questions were not chosen in advance. It was an actual, real, thoughtful question and answer session.
I asked him a question myself.
“Mayor Giuliani, I deliberately flew to New York on 9/11…” The Mayor then interjected.
“Thank you for doing that.” I replied, “Thank you sir,” and continued.
“I had the pleasure of seeing you at the Freedom Concert on 9/11, and was inspired by the crowd. My question is this…besides raising money and voting for you, what can I and my friends do as private citizens to help you win the War on Terror? What can we do to help defeat guys like Armageddonijad and others?”
(The people who caught that I said “Armageddonijad laughed, but the truth is I just used to have trouble saying and spelling his actual name)
I listened intently, and the first thing Mayor Giuliani did was say, “For one thing, people need to fly on 9/11. I think it’s great that you did that.” Yes, it feels good to be complimented by somebody, even someone who has every incentive to do so. However, he did not stop with that. He then again reminded everybody of the various serious worldwide threats.
He took several minutes to remind everybody that before any of us can do anything, we need to know who we are fighting against. If we are going to fight back, we have to openly acknowledge who and what we are fighting. He reiterated that Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah all need to be dealt with, and that “they declared War on us.” He reminded the audience that he “wanted peace, and most people want peace.” He just made it clear that the steps to get to a true, lasting peace are not always peaceful.
After he thanked the crowd, he did something else that I was not expecting. He stayed. I have seen politicians dash out of a side door of a room, before anybody can ask them anything. Mayor Giuliani spoke with several of the people, took pictures with them (in addition to the picture he took with every attendee before his speech), and most importantly, looked people in the eye when he shook their hands and spoke to them.
I have met several of the other candidates, and his republican challengers are all fine men. After meeting Rudy Giuliani, and hearing what he had to say, and looking into his eyes, I can say that he is more than a fine man. At this time in history, with civilization itself hanging in the balance, Rudy Giuliani is the right man.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Will Moveon Hand Rudy Iowa
Their hubris of course knows no limits. Only hubris of an unbelievable scale could have made anyone at that group think the now famous Betray Us ad would work on the entire population. Now, they are taking on Rudy in full force. They have decided to expand their advertisements in Iowa against him. This from CNN
Now, as we all know, it was a tactical error for Rudy to wait so long to advertise in Iowa. As a result while he is the prohibitive front runner, in Iowa, Mitt Romney, fourth or lower nationally, leads. We all understand how important the first state is to the national race, and now, while in the lead on the one hand, Rudy trails where it will probably matter most.
Enter Moveon.org to pump Rudy up in Iowa. If we all think about it, Moveon.org placing anti Rudy ads in Iowa are not only more effective than his own ads but obviously much cheaper. Rudy now has priceless free advertising at a time when he desperately needs it.
Is their hubris really this ridiculous? What do the folks at Moveon.org think will happen everytime any Republican primary voter hears one of their ads attacking Rudy? Do they really think that their political opponents will be swayed in their direction? Obviously, we all know what will happen as a result of this full frontal assault on Rudy by Moveon.org.
Rudy loves to fight. I have mentioned it earlier. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if I found out that in school he got into lots of fist fights. Now, he gets into lots of poltical fights. Rudy will fight with Moveon.org as long as Moveon.org reciprocates, and if that means a confrontation all the way to the primary in Iowa in January so be it. Of course, if that happens he won't just win Iowa but win big.
So, if I am in the Rudy camp, I am grinning. I wouldn't want to smile too big or maybe just maybe, Moveon.org will realize what any high school level poly sci class student can figure out on their own.
As a Rudy supporter, bring it on Moveon.org, Rudy is behind in Iowa and he needs all the help he can get.
The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org announced Tuesday it is expanding its Iowa
television ad attacking GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani to national
cable, a move that follows the former New York City mayor's release of a radio
ad blasting the group and calling himself its "worst nightmare."
The MoveOn
ad, which began airing in Iowa Monday, slams Giuliani for leaving the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group after two months. The ad argues that he “has always been a big
fan of George Bush’s war in Iraq. Yet when Giuliani had the chance to actually
do something about the war, he went AWOL."
Giuliani's radio ad released
Tuesday does not address MoveOn's claims..."
Now, as we all know, it was a tactical error for Rudy to wait so long to advertise in Iowa. As a result while he is the prohibitive front runner, in Iowa, Mitt Romney, fourth or lower nationally, leads. We all understand how important the first state is to the national race, and now, while in the lead on the one hand, Rudy trails where it will probably matter most.
Enter Moveon.org to pump Rudy up in Iowa. If we all think about it, Moveon.org placing anti Rudy ads in Iowa are not only more effective than his own ads but obviously much cheaper. Rudy now has priceless free advertising at a time when he desperately needs it.
Is their hubris really this ridiculous? What do the folks at Moveon.org think will happen everytime any Republican primary voter hears one of their ads attacking Rudy? Do they really think that their political opponents will be swayed in their direction? Obviously, we all know what will happen as a result of this full frontal assault on Rudy by Moveon.org.
Rudy loves to fight. I have mentioned it earlier. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if I found out that in school he got into lots of fist fights. Now, he gets into lots of poltical fights. Rudy will fight with Moveon.org as long as Moveon.org reciprocates, and if that means a confrontation all the way to the primary in Iowa in January so be it. Of course, if that happens he won't just win Iowa but win big.
So, if I am in the Rudy camp, I am grinning. I wouldn't want to smile too big or maybe just maybe, Moveon.org will realize what any high school level poly sci class student can figure out on their own.
As a Rudy supporter, bring it on Moveon.org, Rudy is behind in Iowa and he needs all the help he can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
