Breaking: Rudy’s in

posted at 2:34 pm on February 5, 2007 by Allahpundit

Fox gets the scoop and the first interview, tonight at 9 on H&C. And yes, he’s running as a Republican. How could he say no after last week’s polls?

He’s counting on McCain to bear the brunt of the backlash if Iraq goes bad (which is why it’ll be interesting to see if he hedges a bit tonight on the surge), but I think he’s kidding himself. He’s been stumping for the war since before it began. If Petraeus can’t turn it around, then he, St. John, and My Man Mitt are competing to see who gets to lose to Hillary in the general election.

Standby.

Update: He’s leading McCain across the board and has been since December. Eh, that’s because people have had to live with McCain’s immigration compromises and “torture” sanctimony for the past year; those polls are less pro-Giuliani than anti-Mac. Plus, Rudy’s still wearing his halo from 9/11. Wait until the mudslinging starts.

Update: McCain actually led Rudy by a few points in a Time magazine poll taken two weeks ago, but that result hasn’t been replicated.

Update: McCain’s stockpiling Christians.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Run, run Rudolph.

flipflop on February 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Well this is good news, it certainily wasn’t unexpected anymore then Madame Hillary declaring. I still think the smart move is the Gingrich model. Wait until much later, let the Democratic spin machine work itself into a frenzy tearing each other up and then get in. By declaring early all Rudy has done is give the enemy a target of convience that all of them will take shots at. It would be easier if there were only a couple of Dems lining you up in their crosshairs not the current crop of a dozen they have right now.
Well I wish him the best and maybe his strategy is to get them to expend all of their ammo now and then when it comes hand to hand time he can polish them off.

LakeRuins on February 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Newt will announce next year. He feels ’07 should be the year of Solutions and Dialogue, and ’08 should be the year of campaigning.

Gingrich/Petraeus ’08!

RushBaby on February 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Mitt 08!!!!!!!!!!!

Jared_MA on February 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Gingrich/Petraeus ‘08!

Ooohh! Now there’s an idea I could like.

Lawrence on February 5, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Giuliani has always gotten the star treatment from the press. It’ll be interesting when they take the gloves off.

Matticus Finch on February 5, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Plus, Rudy’s still wearing his halo from 9/11. Wait until the mudslinging starts.

The mudslinging has already begun. I, for one, long for the days when Mike Lupica’s hackery was confined to the sports page.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 5, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Wait until the mudslinging starts.

Maybe… I’m a conservative Christian, and I know Rudy’s stance on social issues is about 180 degrees off of mine, and I know about his personal history. But I’m okay with that. Rudy says he will appoint strict constructionists to SCOTUS, given the chance, and I believe him. His personal beliefs about social issues don’t really come into play if he keeps his word on SCOTUS. He’s got backbone enough to say no to Saudi money and actually booted Arafat out of a party celebrating the UN’s 50th anniversary. Had security guards escort him out, arguing, when he tried to crash the party! My kind of guy.

McCain, on the other hand, would sell his grandmother for a buck – that YouTube video of him flipping reminds me too much of John Kerry. And I haven’t forgotten BCRA, or the Gang of 14, or the fact that he flat refuses to fine employers or enforce existing border law.

I trust McCain to do the expedient thing. I trust Guiliani to do the right thing.

Laura on February 5, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Petraeus? On what grounds?

DaveS on February 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Mitt from MA is going to be tainted, tarred and feathered by association. MA has produced Kennedy and Kerry neither name is respected by sane people. Even though Mitt has the (R) behind his name the introduction will also include former governor of MA. If he can get labeled as the guy who brought the Olympics to Salt Lake City he has a chance. Most people bring up the question of whether we are ready to elect a Morman, and the answer is that doesn’t matter as much as being from MA.

LakeRuins on February 5, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Rudy’s war stance will not hurt him at all. Even though most of America (according to polls, so as far as that goes) are angry because of the war, the majority upset with the war are upset with the way it’s been ran, not mad at the war itself. So, if someone pops up and actually says what their plan is will not have a problem with the peoples.

– The Cat

MirCat on February 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Breaking: Rudy’s in

Oy Veh

Valiant on February 5, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Rudy Guiliani/Tom Tancredo…….

Rudy Guiliani/Duncan Hunter………

Rudy Guiliani/Newt Gingrich……….

Anyone to Secure the Border/Anyone to Secure the Border!!!

Win in ’08!!!

PinkyBigglesworth on February 5, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Okay Valiant If I saw just your post and that colon was removed this topic would have a much different meaning and discussion.

LakeRuins on February 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Well said, Laura. I too am a conservative Christian…er…Christ follower and, to be honest, I know what Giuliani has said about social issues (namely the ‘A’ word). It doesn’t bother me. He, like all politicians, has to say what he has to say to get elected. He was voted mayor of NYC. Enough said. Frankly, I don’t think the ‘A’ word is something he thinks a whole lot about. He just doesn’t seem impassioned about it. He knows its third-rail powers, so he steers clear of it.

The fact that he is on record as supporting strict constructionists on the SCOTUS is good enough for me.

Matticus Finch on February 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Newt / Julie Chen ’08

America’s future has never looked so good!

It’s got a hopeful, positive message, taps the youth vote, locks in the consevatives, and:
1. Julie would look better running on the beach than Obama
2. She’s easier on the eyes than Hillary
3. she has better hair than Edwards.

Alden Pyle on February 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM

My Man Mitt

Are you endorsing a candidate, Allah?

Troy Rasmussen on February 5, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Whether I decide to vote for him or not, I think Giuliani is going to add to the presidential election by getting us to focus on exactly what we want in a commander in chief (and what does and doesn’t matter in those qualifications).

frankj on February 5, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Rudy/Newt 08??

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I’m still not enthused. The current slate of ’08 GOP hopefulls is dismal.

natesnake on February 5, 2007 at 3:09 PM

ELF – it’s going to be Rudy/Newt or Newt/Rudy. Just depends if Newt’s strategy of declaring later will work.

Editor on February 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I’m still not enthused. The current slate of ‘08 GOP hopefulls is dismal.

natesnake on February 5, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Amen, natesnake.

BacaDog on February 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM

After watching the DNC meeting this weekend on CSPAN I am now truly scared for this country. The Republicans need to put a strong mature candidate forward and not allow the one issue voters to dictate. I know there is a strong vocal group out there on the “A” issue but it is law and as such until changed it is what it is. The gay marriage issue is being handled at the state level as it should as should most matters. I am a big advocate of most issues being resolved at the state level rather then the national level. going into thei national election cycle my priorties are real tax reform, (i.e. The Fair Tax), immigration and the border, and national security. Those are national issues. The amount of money spent in classrooms is state and local and has no correlation to success anyway. Items like that need to just get out of the national debate. Quite frankly kids failing Engrish in Detroit don’t bother me, but 12 million illegal aliens sapping the resources of this country do. The real threat of Islamic radical bent on killing me is a national issue.
/and further more if elected. . . .

LakeRuins on February 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM

A gun-grabbing, illegal alien-comforting Republican presidential candidate has entered the race. Spiffy.

On a related note, as of last week I’m once again a registered voter for the Stupid Party. I figured I’d at least stick around long enough to vote for Tancredo during the primaries. By doing so, my conscience will be clear when I’ll have to throw my vote away on a third-party candidate during the presidential election when it’s down to McCain vs. Hillary.

Perpetual Student on February 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM

We could do a lot worse.

I think we probably will.

see-dubya on February 5, 2007 at 3:30 PM

PinkyBigglesworth, E L Frederick (Sniper One) and Editor beat me to it, and good for you:

Giuliani/Gingrich or the other way around – perfect imperfection – what are the lacrima christi purists going to do? Vote for the “pure” snow-white Hillary?

These two are flawed men, like all of us – but they do know how to hold a thought and belief in their heads, without having to stick a finger into the wind/polls. They know the times we live in and what needs to be done, without worrying about the next hug or vote. They both bring much needed energy. Mr. McCain strikes me as tired and listless, lately.

And, it’s G I U L I A N I, or just Rudy, but not Guiliani.

Heh, the thought of the final debates – the last ones will be below lame, in comparison.

Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM

A gun-grabbing, illegal alien-comforting Republican presidential candidate has entered the race. Spiffy.

Wait, hasn’t McCain been in the race for a while?

/Yes, I know you meant Guiliani but McCain doesn’t exactly have a sterling record in this department either

Laura on February 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Petraeus? On what grounds?

DaveS on February 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Tweakage.

RushBaby on February 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM

I know its just a pipedream, but what would be better than:

Giuliani/Ditka ’08

Vincenzo on February 5, 2007 at 3:43 PM

At this point I’m just glad it isn’t McCain. I may not be jumping for joy…

but at least it’s not McCain… (Rinse, Repeat)

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 5, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Ditka/Bonaduce ’08!

Savage on February 5, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Dream Team = Tom Tancredo & Lt. Gen. Russel Honore

Mix and Match as you see fit.

MOMinuteman on February 5, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Wait until the mudslinging starts

The mudsling will start first thing tomorrow since Rudy is on the Fox channel I love it when they are all going in for this slugfest and I know Chillary won’t stack up against Rudy,Mit or Newt. She is going down in her own party after the mud starts to really fly in the next couple of months.

bones47 on February 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Okay, my pick for ’08:

Giuliani/Steele!

Gottafang on February 5, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Giuliani/Rice

Matticus Finch on February 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM

I’m still holding out for Tom Selleck in ’08.

natesnake on February 5, 2007 at 4:24 PM

At this point, I’d vote for Stalin if I knew he was serious about winning in Iraq and killing terrorists.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 5, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Most people bring up the question of whether we are ready to elect a Morman

The only ones I hear talking that up are democrats…

Purple Avenger on February 5, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Gingrich/Petraeus ‘08!

RushBaby on February 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Petraeus has a job to do right now thay’s a lot more important than the Vice-Presidency.
Maybe in ’12?

billy on February 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Schwarzkopf/North: Camo Party

Limerick on February 5, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Yawn

Nominating Giuliani is the best way I know to send more votes to Badnarick.

Jose Chupacabra on February 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Rudy/Santorum ’08! Rick’s Conservative enough to balance out Rudy’s Liberalistic leanings…But I like Rudy immensely!
And Mitt, too.

Jen the Neocon on February 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Petraeus has a job to do right now thay’s a lot more important than the Vice-Presidency.
Maybe in ‘12?

billy on February 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM

OK. But admit you’re intrigued!

RushBaby on February 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Oh for the love of God….NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! He’ll never make it.

c.a. Marks on February 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM

I trust McCain to do the expedient thing. I trust Guiliani to do the right thing.

Well said, Laura.

Pablo on February 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Howsabout this one:

Mike Ditka/Dick Butkis Ditka/Butkis ’08

In all seriousness, I pray Giuliani will take a firm stand on gun rights and keeping the federal government out of states’ rights.

We got ourselves a winner.

And from a purely popularity standpoint, I’m afraid that Newt will scare off independent voters. No offense to Newt, but he comes with more baggage than Imelda Marcos returning from a sale at Foot Locker.

Vincenzo on February 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM

How about a draft Fred Dalton Thompson campaign?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on February 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM

How about a draft Fred Dalton Thompson campaign?

I’d love to hear more from him – I wanted him to run in 2000. But I think he’d go all Shermanesque if we tried to draft him.

Laura on February 5, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Gingrich/North ’08!

A gun-grabbing, illegal alien-comforting Republican presidential candidate has entered the race. Spiffy.

Perpetual Student

Exactly. Plus he wants to systematically commit genocide on certain breeds of dogs-very freaky in my opinion.

NTWR on February 5, 2007 at 5:21 PM

I can’t wait to see the reaction of the hard core RW when they first hear about how Rudy moved out of G Mansion when leaving wife #2 and moved into an apt with a homosexual couple and their Lhasa Apso doggy.

Oh I hope I remember the popcorn…..

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM

honora, I can’t speak for the entire hard core RW, but I’m well aware of it, and I’d vote for him anyway.

Oh, and didn’t his gay friends have AIDS, too? You should jot that down so you can mention it next time.

Laura on February 5, 2007 at 5:41 PM

honora, I can’t speak for the entire hard core RW, but I’m well aware of it, and I’d vote for him anyway.

Oh, and didn’t his gay friends have AIDS, too? You should jot that down so you can mention it next time.

Laura on February 5, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Good for you. I’m a big fan of expediency myself. (The AIDS things is so 80s, what with the Rx cocktails now available).

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Rudy/anybody

Steele and Rice would both be great, but I prefer Rice since she’s hated by all the right people, just like Rudy.

The NYT LOVES McCain. The NYT HATES HATES HATES Rudy.

What else do you need?

Further, Gingrich has proven his incompetence from his time as Speaker. He was great at driving CWA to victory in 94 and he got played by WJC. Newt’s baggage is huge and he has no accomplishments large enough to outweigh it. Rudy has an impressive collection of luggage himself, but he has an incomparable record of accomplishment as an executive facing a hostile legislature, a hostile press, and hostile and ambivalent governments (Pataki was definitely not a fan, nor was the Clinton administration).

Rudy has both domestic and foreign policy experience and success. He helped drive the NYPD to create a foreign intelligence network, was tightly focused on global trade, dealt with the Saudis and the PLO as they deserved, and is personally committed to ending Salafism. He turned aorund NYC, made a hostile city liveable, created a surplus from near bankruptcy, cut the size and reach of government, cut taxes, and beat cancer.

Rudy believes in aggressive law enforcement and took on the New York Mafia, despite the danger to him and his family that was especially acute as an Italian American. We know that he’s liable to go down to Gitmo with a cordless drill and a set of pliers to conduct his own personal interviews and won’t be letting anyone interfere with National Security and Law Enforcement procedures. Lastly, Rudy is the only person on earth that makes Jack Bauer afraid.

Condi would serve as an excellent VP, since she does a better Charlton Heston than Charlton was ever capable of doing. She links her belief in the 2nd amendment to growing up in the south and having friends killed in a church bombing. They are the best possible, viable ticket, and with his declaration of support for Scalia type judges, what else do you need?

libertarianuberalles on February 5, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Oh I hope I remember the popcorn…..

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM

That is such oooooold news – girl, today you’re not sharpening that knife – did your side lose the SP?

Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM

The NYT LOVES McCain. The NYT HATES HATES HATES Rudy.

What else do you need?…

libertarianuberalles on February 5, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Nothing. This suffices.

Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

I can’t wait to see the reaction of the hard core RW when they first hear about how Rudy moved out of G Mansion when leaving wife #2 and moved into an apt with a homosexual couple and their Lhasa Apso doggy.

Oh I hope I remember the popcorn…..

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM

I’m a hard core Right Winger and I knew all this back in 2001. Does it bother me? Not in the least.
Nor do I look for a President Rudy to usher in nationwide “gay” “marriage.”
Ditto abortion on demand. As a legal scholar Rudy knows that these are states’ rights issues.
And he can’t and won’t grab our guns–We are guaranteed that right by the Second Amendment.
Rudy has already revisited his stance on immigration and border control and his current stance is to the right of everyone but Tom Tancredo!

Jen the Neocon on February 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Liberals are always first to point their fingers. You know us conservative so well. We hate gays, we love to pollute, blacks? nothing but second rate citizens, women, keep them in the kitchen, we kick our dogs, dress our kids is shirt and ties before sending them off to school. All of us go to church where we despise the “unclean”. We are full of hate for everything that disagrees with us. Hey Honora, seen any backlash from Cheney and his daughter? You are so narrow minded to think that we care about those issues to the point of not choosing a good leader. These are your policies; forget about leadership…can they win or get a few votes?

Meanwhile, liberals have dominated the inner city school districts and politics. How are you doing on that score liberals?…a fine job of educating the minorities. Well over 40% of Berkely and the rest of the UC system is a minority, unfortunately it is Asian that is overwhelming off the public payroll and is 80% conservative. Good thing you didn’t educate them.
You choose religious leaders who denounce America and call for the destruction of Israel to open their sessions. Anywhere you can get a vote, even from radical American hating muslims.
I thought the post from Jen and I last week tore you apart and embarrassed you to the point that you were leaving. I guess liberals have short memories, and no honor(a). But it was nice for awhile not reading your foolish posts.

right2bright on February 5, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Rudy might have some great qualities but if he’s nominated, the Dem Media will portray the Republican Party as the party of transvestites and former Mapplethorpe models, 24-7.

It might not be fair but it will be effective. It’s not just conservatives who won’t want to be associated with Republicans ( not that many do now after the Republicans have done everything in their power to shed their conservative identity ), but the moderates, the apolitical and the idiot-majority who will not want to associate themselves with the party with their votes.

Perchant on February 5, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Perchant, I don’t think so. The Dem Media is going to have to be careful going after both Rudy and Romney…Rudy is beloved by Americans on both sides of the aisle and let’s just say that both Guiliani and Romney have gotten elected and reelected in very Blue places, meaning they had considerable Dem voter support very early on–that’s why they’re so perfect.
After 2 years of this Dem car wreck in the House and Senate, I have a feeling that most Americans will be begging for Conservatives and it won’t take much to put some Reagan/Goldwater starch into either man.
A lot can happen between now and 2008 and almost certainly the main issue will be the War on Islamist Terror and as we all know this is a war that the Dems cannot and do not even want to win whereas I can easily see either Rudy or Mitt as a wartime President and Commander-in-Chief.

right2bright, Cheers! I heartily agree with everything you said. E-ver-y-thing.

Jen the Neocon on February 5, 2007 at 8:04 PM

honora, do you have something against gay people or Lhasa Apsos?

DaveS on February 5, 2007 at 9:44 PM

I can’t wait to see the reaction of the hard core RW when they first hear about how Rudy moved out of G Mansion when leaving wife #2 and moved into an apt with a homosexual couple and their Lhasa Apso doggy.

Oh I hope I remember the popcorn…..

honora on February 5, 2007 at 5:29 PM

This says so much about the conservatives’ tolerance toward gays and your intolerance and destorted assessment of conservatives and independents.

You’re smart all right but on this one, you’re wrong.

Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 11:06 PM

To Jen the Neocon:

With respect, to believe that Rudy G will all of a sudden capture conservative hearts by declaring a “states rights” stance on abortion and gun control is to miss the point. He has shown that he is proudly pro-abortion and anti-gun rights. His actions speak volumes.

GWB was criticized in 2000 for being a big spending pseudo-conservative who wouldn’t fight the culture war against liberalism. He promised that he was something different. Lo and behold, regardless of your stance on Iraq/the War on Terror, Bush proved his critics right. If there was any surprise it’s only that he is spending a heckuva lot more than we thought he could. And his response to domestic liberalism has been tepid, at best.

Now we are expected to believe that another big spending, social liberal who backed out of a Senate race against his presumptive adversary (when she was carpet-bagging in his home state) is going to be a small government, 10th amendment, Reagan-esque party uniter.

Sorry, that’s a bridge too far. If Rudy wants to help the party, he accepts the position of Sec Homeland Security during the election. Former SecState Powell let it be known that if Bush were elected in 2000 that he would accept that position.

If Rudy wins the primary, expect a strong third party push with a real conservative taking at least 15% of the vote away from the Republicans and another 10% just staying home as a protest. You know, like in 1992 when Perot tapped into the economic angst within the conservative movement when GHWB caved and raised taxes and Clinton won with 42% of the vote.

cmay on February 5, 2007 at 11:10 PM

If Rudy wins the primary, expect a strong third party push with a real conservative taking at least 15% of the vote away from the Republicans and another 10% just staying home as a protest.

And you hand it to the Democrats – while we are at war.

You know what really bothers me? How few of the comments actually address that fact – we’re at war.

How worried would you be about abortion, or taxes or a thousand other things if this war was being fought on our shores?

Tink on February 6, 2007 at 1:27 AM

And you hand it to the Democrats – while we are at war.

Uh, don’t shoot the messenger. And the tactic of “Yeah, we have a lot of crappy Republicans, but the Dems are worse” didn’t work in 2006. So why bring it back in 2008? If winning is the purpose in both Iraq and the presidential election, why are the conservatives so willing to throw in with a candidate with very high negatives and a track record of running from Hillary?

I’m sorry, but if he wins, conservatism loses. If conservatism loses, so will the Republican party. Instead of griping at me and telling me how important winning in Iraq is, find a candidate that can unite the party on social, economic, military and political issues. Reagan did it. Bush squandered it by pandering to only specific parts of the Republican base.

Also, don’t give me the garbage that Rudy G. is the only guy who can win the war on terror. He’s not. Maybe the absence of comments on the war is indicative that folks here think that Newt, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, et al. will all do a heckuva job on the war.

cmay on February 6, 2007 at 7:12 AM

That is such oooooold news – girl, today you’re not sharpening that knife – did your side lose the SP?

Entelechy on February 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM

What’s SP? Oh come, you can take a joke.

You want to know Rudy’s real problem? I would seriously consider voting for him because he and I have a lot of the same values–pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. What’s not to like….

honora on February 6, 2007 at 9:40 AM

I thought the post from Jen and I last week tore you apart and embarrassed you to the point that you were leaving. I guess liberals have short memories, and no honor(a). But it was nice for awhile not reading your foolish posts.

right2bright on February 5, 2007 at 6:44 PM

You mean the one where you indicated you had saved ever post I ever made in a real stalker-like fashion? The one where you were gape-mouthed that someone could have been married twice and once to a Jew? And have a kid in medical school?

Wheee, was a spectacularly unbelievable life I must lead…sounds the basis of a mini-series don’t you think? What sort of drone-like existence makes my very pedestrian one look so wildly dramatic and hence hard to believe, I wonder.

LOL. Why don’t you find someone else to stalk?

honora on February 6, 2007 at 9:44 AM

honora, do you have something against gay people or Lhasa Apsos?

DaveS on February 5, 2007 at 9:44 PM

I intensely dislike Lhasa Apsos. And don’t get me started on gay Lhasa Apsos….stupid gay dogs…

honora on February 6, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Gay couple with a Lhasa Apso? Well that narrows it down to just about everyone south of 14th St. As for gay Lhasa Apsos, they should go back to where they came from.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Gay couple with a Lhasa Apso? Well that narrows it down to just about everyone south of 14th St. As for gay Lhasa Apsos, they should go back to where they came from.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

LOL. Gotta love New York!

honora on February 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM

I loved Dobson’s remarks on McCain.

I think he’s right on the money where the right wing religious types are concerned.

One Angry Christian on February 6, 2007 at 11:21 AM

GWB was criticized in 2000 for being a big spending pseudo-conservative who wouldn’t fight the culture war against liberalism. He promised that he was something different. Lo and behold, regardless of your stance on Iraq/the War on Terror, Bush proved his critics right. If there was any surprise it’s only that he is spending a heckuva lot more than we thought he could. And his response to domestic liberalism has been tepid, at best.

cmay on February 6, 2007 at 7:12 AM

I disagree, cmay and pretty strongly, too.
Now, President Bush has spent a little too much on Medicare prescription drugs and education and he did sign campaign finance reform (which has served to expose the evil machinations and modus operandi of Liberal activists), but his NCLB program is an effort to rein in the teachers’ unions’ hold on our schools by throttling their funding and he’s been trying to move toward private school vouchers, too.
In terms of leading the fight in the culture war, he’s been pretty terrific, particularly in regards to gun control, abortion “rights,” and “gay” “marriage” and the Right have made significant strides in taking our country back to its fundamental Conservative battles in his 6 years in office.
Also, the Bush Administration has made a concerted effort to put more strict constructionist judges on the bench and has steered welfare reform in a better direction with faith-based charities’ support.
There are many, many fronts to man in the war on cultural liberalism to take our country back and we’ve made significant strides since the Clintons left the presidency, but there’s a lot more left to do and I agree with you that whomever we elect in 2008 will be very important to continue to roll back Liberalism, but I have a feeling that all of us will put Rudy through a considerable ordeal to sound out his position on all these issues.
It could be that you are right and the Guiliani will continue to embrace his liberal stances, but it could cost him…but if it comes down to voting for him or Hillary (or any Democrat), I’m going with Rudy every time.
It could be that Mitt ends up being the best of the bunch, but be fair to President Bush–he’s done quite a bit, considering the obstacles he’s faced, and everytime we’ve made progress for Conservatism, he’s had to take his case straight to the American people (which is only right, I think) and over the heads of the loudly braying Leftist MSM and their enablers in the Dem Party, K street lobbyists, Hollyweird and the Leftist teachers & professors in our schools.

Jen the Neocon on February 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM

What’s SP? Oh come, you can take a joke.

You want to know Rudy’s real problem? I would seriously consider voting for him because he and I have a lot of the same values–pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. What’s not to like….

honora on February 6, 2007 at 9:40 AM

honora, my sincere regret over my typo – meant to type SB, from Sunday, of course…

Fixed the ‘what’s not to like’, as I like to go to the range (though, I dodn’t think he’d touch that one) – and, yes, I love to laugh and I can take a joke, mostly about myself :)

Oh, and quit living such an interesting life!

Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Oh, and quit living such an interesting life!

Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Would it were so Entelechy, would it were so…..
;^)
I believe you are the one with that covered!

honora on February 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM

honora, your life is interesting. And being here on HA, loved/revered/loathed et all, sure must add spice to it. No sarcasm. I’m convinced that you love the give/take.

Yes, it’s sometimes a Shakespearean tragi-comedy but always interesting. Having overcome much, it’s actually pretty serence at this stage. Some day we’ll talk about it over good wine/cheese – yes, us independents and righties also like good things (not only Martha :)

Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Uh, don’t shoot the messenger. And the tactic of “Yeah, we have a lot of crappy Republicans, but the Dems are worse” didn’t work in 2006. So why bring it back in 2008? If winning is the purpose in both Iraq and the presidential election, why are the conservatives so willing to throw in with a candidate with very high negatives and a track record of running from Hillary?

Uh – yet you do exactly that – and put quite a few words in my mouth while doing it.

I addressed one specific part of your post. IF Guiliani wins the primary, expect people to stay home or vote third party.

I’m not a conservative nor a liberal. I’m an American who doesn’t identify with either party. I have social and fiscal beliefs that fall on both sides of the aisle.

I also believe we’re fighting for our lives here and believe that takes precedence over my social or fiscal values, whatever they may be.

Right now, this party has my vote for one reason over all- National Defense.

Here’s the thing, I’m a grunts wife, he’s deployed once, and will deploy again. I take the war about as seriously as one can take it.

I took people at their word when they said they believed as I do, that we are fighting for our lives, that we are fighting for our way of life – yet in the 2006 elections I saw some of those same people, the ones who said they felt the WoT was all important, a matter of life and death, stay home or vote for a 3rd party candidate to “teach the Republicans a lesson”

Well, it may or may not have sent Republican politicians a message, but you sure did send me a message. The war, to some, no matter how much they talk up the importance of the WoT, it isn’t quite as important as “the party”.

Politics as usual.

It also showed me that they are willing to gamble with my husbands life. They gamble that no matter what, he’ll fight his butt off to keep the war from the shores so they could teach someone a lesson.

A vote is a very important,and very personal thing. Please, vote your values.

Just don’t fool yourself that when you are presented with three choices on election day – a Republican nominee, a Democratic nominee and numerous third party candidates that have almost zero chance of winning the election – that your vote has no consequences outside of teaching a politician or a party a lesson.

I said it in my previous comment, and I’ll say it again now – How worried would you be about abortion, or taxes or a thousand other things if this war was being fought on our shores?

Tink on February 6, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Tink, you said that brilliantly. Please post on every applicable thread, even if you repeat it a thousand times!

The Left didn’t win in Nov. The Right lost. Also, the Left didn’t win a mandate or what they conceive to be a total change of all directions.

Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Right now, this party has my vote for one reason over all- National Defense!

And you miss the point. Rudy G is not the only candidate who will have a strong record on national defense. Let me put it this way: Rudy may get a 10 on defense, 8 on taxes, 0 on abortion, 0 on gay marriage, 0 on gun laws etc. Or we can get someone who gets 10s on defense, taxes and social issues. Why keep pulling out the old canard that defense is the only issue. It’s not. It’s important. Furthermore, Giuliani has no record on defense. How am I supposed to say he will do well?

BTW, I’m in the military myself, so I know how important defense is. But it’s foolish to think that Giuliani, who ran from Clinton when she ran in his home state, who has no military experience, no defense credentials, high negatives to significant parts of the conservative base, who is unethical, who hasn’t held a political office since 2001 will unite a now fallen party.

Again, if you liked the results of 2006’s election, please run with Giuliani in 2008. Then in 2009, you can complain on this blog what a bunch of ignorant people conservatives are. Maybe, it’s time Republicans gave conservatives a candidate to vote for instead of relying on them to vote against the Dems. Let me reiterate this point: This is what has happened. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just that’s what has happened. Stop telling people how they should vote and give them a candidate who can inspire the whole party. Someone who is good on defense and social issues. Someone who we’re not worried about flip-flopping.

Once again, hate the messenger all you like, but those who don’t learn from history (1992, 1996, 2006) are doomed to repeat it.

cmay on February 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM

It could be that Mitt ends up being the best of the bunch, but be fair to President Bush–he’s done quite a bit, considering the obstacles he’s faced. . . .

By obstacles do you mean that his party controlled the House and Senate until last month?

Sorry, Jen. The list of his accomplishments is greatly exagerated.

cmay on February 6, 2007 at 5:21 PM

And you miss the point.

Cmay,

I don’t hate the messenger, I have not advocated for any candidate and I certainly never told anyone how to vote unless you consider “A vote is a very important,and very personal thing. Please, vote your values.” telling someone who to vote for.

Back up and take a look at my comments. I did not miss your point,your point just had nothing to do with my question.

Which, by the way, still stands.

How worried would you be about abortion, or taxes or a thousand other things if this war was being fought on our shores?

Tink on February 6, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Tink,

Let me restate: Defense is important. But Rudy Giuliani has no record on defense and a horrible record on nearly every social issue. How worried would I be about social issues? It seems to me that you’re not very discerning about defense. Again, Rudy has no record and no experience on defense. He was a prosecutor and mayor. But you expect values voters to hold their noses and vote for him and then hope for the best. And this includes on issues regarding DoD , foreign policy, the war, etc., which, let me restate, he has no experience or track record to judge.

Also, you miss another point so let me reword it: If you believe in defense, you will not follow the same path as the Republican party did in 92, 96, and 06. This well-worn path is: Nominate someone who will not unite and inspire the party; just rely on the voters’ antipathy for the Democratic candidate. Once again, it hasn’t worked in the past. I don’t expect it will work in the future. Therefore, nominate someone who will clearly delineate the differences between the two parties, like Reagan in 80 and 84; someone to unite the party, to inspire it; someone who can rekindle “Morning in America.”

cmay on February 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM

I think a mildly significant legal point could stand some fresh air at this point. If the nation were operating in accordance with the Constitution, if our politicians used the correct terms to speak on international topics, this thread would have much less to argue about.

Congress is responsible for declaring war. Had congress not abdicated their Constitutional authority in favoring of a disgusting piece of work giving the President authority to carry out military actions as he sees fit, every single one of them would be 100% behind the WoT. Because they sidestepped accountability by handing it off to President Bush, they gave themselves cart blanche to begin opposing it. They did the same thing recently with their “non-binding resolution” opposing the surge. They can grab credit if we do well by riding the President’s coattails, but they can distance themselves from him if it goes bad.

Cowards all, and need to be held accountable for it withint their own states.

Also, our current action in Iraq is NOT WAR, except in the sense of being part and parcel of the WoT. We are not AT WAR with Iraq, we are an occupying nation helping to defend the indigenous people against an internal/external insurgency. That is how it should be spoken of by politicians and media alike.

All that said, if we were doing things the correct way, the conduct of the WoT would be a slightly less flammable issue in regards to selecting a presidential candidate.

I find myself in agreement with cmay at this point. Rudy answered direct questions from Sean Hannity about abortion, guns, and gays, and I was displeased by every answer.

He said he was fully in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but local authority should have the power to restrict gun ownership. He favored the Brady Bill, said it gave him better tools as mayor.

He said he despises the very thought of abortion, but believes in a woman’s right to choose how to treat her own body. Then he threw a bone at the pro-lifers by saying he’d appoint justices of the likes of Scalia, Alito and Roberts. (It would have been better had he said Rehnquist and Thomas) Those words to me carried the same sense of misdirection as President Bush signing the McCain-Feingold abortion while saying the Supreme Court would overturn it as unconstitutional.

I think Rudy is an extremely good administrator, and he does respect the law of the land. Attorney General Giuliani sounds good to me.

Freelancer on February 8, 2007 at 6:37 PM