Rudy watch
Bob Novak seems convinced Rudy's running, and observes that America's Mayor is still kicking ass in GOP preference polls. He does, however, echo some of the conventional wisdom regarding Rudy's social liberalism.
Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.
Here's hoping it's gun control! That would, in my opinion, make Giuliani very nearly the ideal candidate. I'd never use the term "libertarian" to describe Rudy, but his combination of social liberalism with genuine fiscal conservatism makes him a very attractive, and rare, politician.
My problem with so-called social moderates or liberals is that they're all too often squishy on the other issues as well. I want a social liberal, but I also want an honest-to-God, hard-ass conservative on the other issues. Rudy, to me, seems uniquely positioned in this regard. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Comments
I guess the thinking is that the Bible Belt/Christian Coalition wouldn't vote for a social moderate? That's fine, but all of this (and the liberals in the Democratic Party) just confirms for me that there really has to be at least 4 distinct parties with 4 different candidates for each major election.
Posted by: K | July 10, 2006 10:13 AM
Rudy is not my first choice by any stretch, but it really wouldn't be all that difficult for him to overcome his social liberalism. All he has to do is make a sincere and convincing statement that he understands he doesn't represent the majority view on certain issues and he will never take any action to advance those views beyond trying to persuade people to side.
I'm certain that Rudy can fake sincerity as convincingly as anyone in the running.
Posted by: withoutfeathers | July 10, 2006 12:31 PM
I want a social liberal, but I also want an honest-to-God, hard-ass conservative
Hey Barry,
Have you considered that Joe Lieberman may be good for you?
Posted by: Blue Wind | July 10, 2006 03:45 PM
> Hey Barry,
Have you considered that Joe Lieberman may be good for you?
Briefly, but then decided in the negative.
Posted by: BNJ | July 10, 2006 04:02 PM
Why don't you come right out and say it: you like Rudy because he totally lets white people off the hook (like his butt-boy Bernie Kerik) but totally has no qualms about taking black men and having them sodomized with plungers and/or shooting-to-death.
You and Rudy both totally belong in the RepubliKKKan party.
Posted by: Rick James | July 10, 2006 09:58 PM
Hey!
WTF?!
Doncha KNOW???
I'M RICK JAMES BEEYATCH!!!
Actually Bill Bratton was the best thing that ever happened to NYC.
Under the weak and ineffectual David Dinkins the city had become over-run by what could euphemistically, but quite accurately be called knuckle-draggers...or "knuckle draggin' groids," depending on one's parlance.
Under Dinkins there were over 2000 murders in NYC, mostly in black/"inner city" nabes.
Under Guiliani/Bratton that number dropped to less than a quarter of that!
In short, Guiliani/Bratton saved the lives of thousands of (hopefully) thankful and appreciative blacks & Hispanics.
What about all those "disenfranchised" knuckle-draggers who didn't want to "play the white man's bullsh*t game?"
Well, I agree with the great Bill Bratton who when assailed for forcibly removing the "squeegee men" from the streets in his opening salvo in the Guiliani/Bratton "war on crime" said, "I say, get off the booze, get off the drugs...AND GET A JOB!"
Come to think of it, that might be good advice for you too Rick.
Posted by: JMK | July 10, 2006 11:23 PM
absolutely JMK. Bill Bratton was the perfect tonic for a city run amok. Too bad he and Rudy had some sort of 'who's getting the credit' clash.
Dealing with those awful squeegee guys was one step. Another was some type of police confrontation with Sharpton & Co. early in 1994, the details of which I can't recall, but was seen at the time as being an anti-Dinkins/liberal move.
Posted by: fred | July 11, 2006 12:13 PM
I guess both Bratton and Guiliani had huge egos, Fred.
Bratton commissoned a couple polls to measure his political strength and Guiliani jettisoned him.
There's really no question that the law and order details enacted by the Guiliani administration came right from Bratton.
Guiliani's subsequent Police Commissioners (Safir & Kerik) never measured up. All of them post-Bratton have merely followed Bratton's playbook, sometimes sloppily.
Other than that part of his administration (the phenomenally successful successful war on crime), the Guiliani administration didn't have many pluses - he espoused BETTER (more efficient) government, rather than SMALLER government, he raised the salaries of those at the top of government (Commissioners, Deputy Mayors and other political hacks) while freezing (zeroing) the Municipal workforce.
He SHOULD'VE ZEROED BOTH!
He did little to improve education, though no one before or since, has had much success in that endeavor, courtesy of the UFT.
he DID stand up for traditional values (rightfully assailing the picture of the Blessed Virgin covered in Elephant Dung hanging in the Brooklyn Museum) and he bullied NYC's Liberal "elites" into meek submission, including those at the NY Times, the NYCLU and the ACLU.
Before the Arab street had the NY Times running from "offending Mohammed," like scared little "girly-men," Guiliani bullied them FOR REAL and in person.
I was only surpirsed that NYC's "Liberal elites" didn't have the decency to pay for their guilty pleasure. They should've each tossed him at least fifty smackers.
At least that's what I hear the going rate for that sort of thing goes now-a-days.
Posted by: JMK | July 11, 2006 01:15 PM