Is Rudy a “friend the social cons haven’t met yet?”

posted at 4:25 pm on October 29, 2007 by Bryan

That’s David Frum’s pitch (disclosure: He’s one of Giuliani’s national security advisors) to get social conservatives to take another look at Rudy.

If Giuliani captures the Republican nomination, it will be precisely because Christian conservatives will have come to the same realization as economic conservatives, national security conservatives, etc.: the guy who cleaned up Times Square, and broke the Mafia, and saved the lives of 1,500 New Yorkers per year, most of them minorities, can do the most to implement a conservative agenda nationwide after 2009.

Some social conservatives have qualms about Giuliani, I know that well. But it’s very wrong to suggest that there is some kind of reciprocated feud on the other side. I think it’s rather more accurate to describe the relationship in the old slogan of the Irish tourist board, as one of friends who haven’t met yet.

First, all of this Rudy speculation may be moot: He’s running a national campaign, and he’s ahead there, but he’s way behind Romney in Iowa and in New Hampshire. If he doesn’t pick up wins or at least compete in the early states, he could still crash and burn, especially if he doesn’t do well in southern states on the super-duper primary schedule.

But supposing he doesn’t and he gets the nomination, I won’t deny that there’s something to Frum’s analysis. Rudy took on the entrenched liberal interests in New York, a city that was nearly written off as ungovernable before his tenure, and won. He took on the press and won. He took on the criminals and the race hustlers and all the other miscreants and troublemakers and won.

I also won’t deny that Giuliani makes for a compelling national security leader. He is the mayor who kicked out Arafat and returned the Saudi donation, and he’s the big city mayor and major political figure who seemed to comprehend the threat of terrorism before most other political figures did. Giuliani’s the quickest and best at refuting Democrat nonsense, meaning he’ll be a formidable opponent for the likes of Hillary Clinton. There’s something about Giuliani’s mayoral career that’s suggestive of Teddy Roosevelt’s brief run as New York’s police commissioner. Well, to me anyway.

So that’s the good. Then there’s the bad, which consists of the obvious breaks between Giuliani and the Republican base’s core social concerns. There’s Giuliani’s consistent record of undermining immigration law and sneering at those of us who favor enforcement. There’s his personal life, his liberalism and along with all of that the possibility that he’ll end up governing more as a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican regardless of the party label he happens to carry into office. There’s the possibility, which some in the party will think of as a feature rather than a bug, of his ascension marginalizing the socially conservative wing of the party. Before the libertarian wing celebrates that, it ought to consider its ramifications. The social cons are one of the GOP’s more energetic factions; they’re motivated, they vote, they donate and they door knock. The GOP without them may attract more independents temporarily, but it could lose one of its cornerstones in the process.

So what am I saying in all this rambling? Beyond “I’m not sure about Rudy,” well, I’m not sure. Giuliani gives us reasons to think he’ll govern as a tough conservative who’ll win the war, he’s given us reasons to suspect that he’ll govern as a sort of tough liberal who could go in almost any direction, and he has given us reasons to fear that no matter how conservatively he may govern, he’ll derail himself and let us down with some kind of personal scandal.

With all of those scenarios competing for our thoughts, it’s nearly impossible to get enthusiastic about his candidacy, and some social cons will resist it no matter who he’s up against. That by itself is a legitimate reason to question his viability. Maybe Rudy is a social con’s friend. If so, he has some courting and convincing to do yet.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

There’s Giuliani’s consistent record of undermining immigration law and sneering at those of us who favor enforcement – Bryan

Rudy is caught in the Bush RNC vapor trail and the sanctuary city fight

Bush Jr was so heavily promoted as a born-again Christian more conservative than his father that the trust has evaporated.

Bush had no trouble violating his oath sworn on the Bible to uphold the law when it came to immigration. Sadly Bush was in lock step step with the RNC big shots so the GOP shattered

Rudy was heroic with NYC and 9-11 but he also led the battle for sanctuary cities in the courts. He joked about illegals (which he calls immigrants) to bring on more, God love ‘em, if they pay taxes.

I need a Presidential candidate I can trust. The last thing I need is a brilliant NY lawyer becoming chief law enforcer if I do not trust him

Sanctuary cities are un-American. Places where they can live free of the laws passed by Congress. One step below secession and one step above anarchy

entagor on October 30, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I’m a Rudy supporter in the sense that if he is the Rep. candidate I will vote for him. (The only Rep. candidate I will stay home for is Ron Paul.) So I don’t know if I’m the best one to answer your questions.

I’m not sure your scenario is correct that a Rudy Pres. automatically gets a Dem. legislature. Even the BDS folks will be forced to recognize eventually that Bush isn’t running for President. As such, people will have to focus on the failings of Pelosi and Reid at some point, even if it’s the day before the election.

But assuming your scenario of eternal gridlock is correct, then I can only say that it is still better than Clinton re-dux. Bush has been rather successful on the war vis a vis this democrat congress, on S-Chip, and could have been so on immig. reform. I know that Rudy has a least as much fight inside him as Bush does– which is a lot. Rudy will fight the Dem’s in Congress. In fact, you may get sick of all the fighting if he ever is elected.

I don’t know for sure if he can push the so-called Conservative agenda forward one iota, but I do feel for sure that he can hold it in place if he chooses to. That is better than you can say with Hillary.

If the worst happens, and the Clintons are re-elected, I hope the Congress has a republican majority.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

but I do feel for sure that he can hold it in place if he chooses to.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Key point right there. Nothing in his past shows that he will hold to Conservative principals while governing.

Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 12:34 PM

You have every right to vote for the socialist RINO candidate Rudy, and would not surprise me at all– more power to you. But you have no right to call yourself a Conservative or Republican if you do so. That is fine too. It’s a big world. But nobody who votes for Hillary Rudy is on my side of it.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Fixed for me. Thanks! I barely had to make any changes at all!

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 12:44 PM

All that being said, I think that anyone who can’t distinguish between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani is out of their mind! Hillary may be slick enough to try and run to the right of Giuliani, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny, and Giuliani is more than capable of fighting back.

You have every right to vote for the socialist candidate Hillary Clinton, and would not surprise me at all– more power to you. But you have no right to call yourself a Conservative or Republican if you do so. That is fine too. It’s a big world. But nobody who votes for Hillary is on my side of it.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 11:27 AM

I am not even sure that I want to call myself a Republican anymore, but I have every right to call myself a conservative, FAR more right than Rudolf. It is not me who voted for George McGovern! It is not me who is pro partial birth abortion! It is not me who is anti gun! It is not me who is pro illegal! It is not me who marches in gay parades! Need I continue? OK, one more. It is not me who dodged the draft! There is no way to know for sure as unlike John Edwards I can not channel the dead (maybe if I got $400 haircuts instead of $10 haircuts?), but I strongly suspect that Thomas Jefferson would be on my side on this matter. As I said above Rudolf has a very dangerous personality type. He is an anti-Reagan and an anti-Jefferson. He is dangerous. When he first talked about running I was actually looking favorably on him, but as I have “Peeled the Onion” over the last months I now see him for what he is. Let him be President of some third world country, that is what would fit him, not America!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Please understand that I am not at the point where I can yet say that Rudy is better than the other Rep. candidates running. I have no favorite yet. So I am not trying to convince you to vote for him, unless the only choice is not voting or Hillary Clinton.

Take this for what it is worth. It is only my opinion. I don’t think Rudy cares that much about social issues at all, or advancing them one way or another. I think he likes to lead, to be the boss, to be the big man. I think he likes to fight. I think there is a certain logic to his claim that he “fought for NYC.” I don’t know that he is so motivated by philosophy as by desire to be in charge. This may be a character flaw. ALL OF OUR CANDIDATES HAVE THEM. SOME ARE MORE SERIOUS THAN OTHERS.

I don’t know if Rudy will choose to advance Conservative principals. But I don’t think he has a stealth plan to advance liberal principals once we’re dumb enough to elect him. I think he did what he did to get elected in NY and governed accordingly. Opportunism? Probably. But that is a trait that is probably common to all politicians. Rudy’s clearly not the great conservative hope, but he’s not the anti-Christ either. I think he may be somewhat philosophically-challenged.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 12:44 PM

That made me smile. Guess that’s what makes a horserace. Touche!

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 12:51 PM

I am not even sure that I want to call myself a Republican anymore, but I have every right to call myself a conservative, FAR more right than Rudolf.

Wasn’t the point. The point is that Rudy is FAR more right than Hillary– although I understand you do not agree with that. I never said Rudy was a conservative.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 12:54 PM

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that there are more crazy Republicans than there are crazy democrats.

Can anyone even imagine democrats being crazy enough to have conservative Zell Miller as the leader in the polls for their Presidential nomination? Making all manner and length of rationalizations for him. Oh, he is really a liberal like us, not really a conservative. He had to run in a conservative state so he had to act conservative, but if we elect him he will really put liberals on the court. He really isn’t anti choice, he just had to say that. He really hates gun rights, he just had to pretend to support them, but we just know that once elected he will take everyones guns away. Zell also really supports gay marriage we just know it.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Ah, don’t like things as they are, just as they should be. Me too. Too bad life doesn’t work that way. Anyway, like me, you will solve this conundrum in the voting booth.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 1:02 PM

This “conundrum” could so easily be avoided if Republicans just don’t betray conservatives by making Rudolf their nominee. Such a simple solution.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM

This “conundrum” could so easily be avoided if Republicans just don’t betray conservatives by making Rudolf their nominee. Such a simple solution.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM

You change the topic again. The question was Rudy v. Hillary, not Rudy v. Other Republican.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Rudy is indeed a slippery fellow.

omnipotent on October 30, 2007 at 2:21 PM

This is one reason that I couldn’t vote for Rudy.

To quote:”What if Rudy’s the nominee and the GOP loses? The party would have compromised on life and lost anyway.”

Not just life, but guns, marraige, etc…..

omnipotent on October 30, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Question… and one I’ve asked before, but no Rudi supporter has been able to answer…
For Rudi to get elected President, he is going to have to go after both the Clinton legacy and name… thus a very bitter negative election. He won’t have Conservative support, and MUST run as the anti Hillary.
Now… IF he wins… with both houses of Congress probably in control of the Dems, just how does this move the Conservative Agenda forward?
He will have contributed to the fracture of Politics here in America, and will have so polarized and angered the Left, that he will be the new Bush (as in BDS)….
He won’t get the Judges HE wants (they would never get out of commitee). He won’t get legislation passed. He will be given Liberal Social agenda Items, which he will then sign….
We’ll do nothing but change BDS… for RDS (Rudi Derangement Syndrome).
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I think you are completely wrong. BDS arose, because there was no common ground and the idealogical differences were too great. And Bush does not help things by sitting there like a punching bag (his infrequent counter punches like this morning excepted). Rudy has significant experience dealing with a liberal legislature. He can either find common ground with them or he can brow-beat them into submission. It would certainly be entertaining to watch him take on Washington!!! As far as judges, the party is over. The Dems will never allow another anti-abortion judge so long as they still have at least 41 votes in the Senate. Any appointment by Mitt or Freddie will immediately be fillibustered to death. Rudy on the other hand with his pro-choice background will not be stigmatized by the abortion debate in the eyes of the Dems. The Dems will consider Rudy’s nominee, whereas they would reflexively resist another President’s nominee. Rudy would select a strict constructionalist jurist (as he has promised) because that is his legal philiosophy (not because it will lead to a certain result in a certain case), and his selection will be without a litmus test on abortion. That is the only way we are ever going to get another judge on the court willing to overturn Roe.

It is not me who voted for George McGovern!

How far are you going to go back. I hear he was a trouble maker in High School too!!!

It is not me who is pro partial birth abortion!

Neither is Rudy!

It is not me who is anti gun!

Neither is Rudy. He is anti-criminal with gun.

It is not me who is pro illegal!

Neither is Rudy. Close the boarder, deport the criminals.

It is not me who marches in gay parades!

Okay, you got me there. He has also been seen in drag getting gropped by the Donald. I guess he is guilty of not being a homophobe and having a sense of humor. However, he has always been against gay marriage and is even in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if activist judges in too many states start forcing this down the throats (sorry for the pun) of an unwilling populace.

It is not me who dodged the draft!
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Neither did Rudy. He received educational deferrments just like every other college kid, he recieved a one year defferment while serving his country as part of the justice system. After that, he stood for the draft lottery like anyone else, but was not drafted. He has spent his life in public service trying to make the world a better place. He freed NYC from the clutches of the mob. He fought corruption on Wall Street. He saved a city and made the daily lives of 8 million people better. He has truely given over the larger part of his life to public service (destroying his marriages and family in the process). For you you throw out false allegations of draft dodges is very low. I know you’ll claim that making any effort to obtain a deferrment is draft dodging but you are wrong. Draft dodging is doing something illegal or dishonest to obtain a deferrment or avoiding the draft when selected. Rudy did not do any thing of the sort.

You are very misinformed about Rudy and your opposition is very irrational. You need to realize that he’s the friend you haven’t met yet.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Rudy’s on Cavuto right now and he’s lying about Romney’s tax cutting record.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 4:11 PM

You change the topic again. The question was Rudy v. Hillary, not Rudy v. Other Republican.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM

You dance to your music, I’ll dance to mine.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Non-responsive, but informative nonetheless.

JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Neither did Rudy. He received educational deferrments just like every other college kid, he recieved a one year defferment while serving his country as part of the justice system. After that, he stood for the draft lottery like anyone else, but was not drafted.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM

There you go again.

So here I have to go again.

“He (Rudy) applied for a deferment but was rejected (first attempt to dodge the draft). In 1969, MacMahon (low friends in high places) wrote a letter to Giuliani’s draft board, asking (using and abusing his influence) that he (Rudy) be reclassified as 2-A, civilian occupation deferment, because Giuliani, who was a law clerk for MacMahon, was an essential employee (It would be hard to think of anything LESS essential. Even DOD employees seldom got 2-A’s. Even at a “top secret” Army installation in Utah, civilian Army employees did not get deferments.). The deferment was granted.(second attempt to dodge the draft successful)
*
He was clearly a draft dodger. Very arguably times two. Text book case in plain fact.

For him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM

You do not even seem to know what a draft dodger is.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM

We’ll do nothing but change BDS… for RDS (Rudi Derangement Syndrome).

I certainly hope you don’t think for a moment that the derangement of the Left is suddenly going to clear up over night, like a slight rash, once Bush leaves office. BDS is something of a misnomer at best; it should be called Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Not Wrong But Evil Syndrome, and it’s been metastasizing on the Left at least since Reagan, and probably (in a slightly less debilitating form, maybe) since Goldwater.

And I say again: voting for a liberal candidate has never, ever resulted in a conservative taking office.

Mike H on October 30, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Although I do concede that EWDWMIWBES is not exactly, umm, pithy as an acronym.

Mike H on October 30, 2007 at 6:28 PM

NW, NW. PIMF.

Mike H on October 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM

For him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Obviously, I am mistaken (NOT).

In your world anyone who didn’t volunteer was a draft dodger. You really should seek some help. You have some deep seated resentments that you need to get over. Just because someone did not serve, or served in a different way from you does not make them unworthy, or worse, a draft dodger.

There was a system set up for people to get deferments, if you wanted one and did not get it or did not even want one and had to beg to be permitted to serve — it doesn’t matter. If someone else received a deferment for a legitimate reason they did not dodge. In Rudy’s case: A judge wanted Rudy’s help in his courtroom. As future events would clearly prove, Rudy was a brilliant lawyer. It is not unreasonable that the Judge would want Rudy’s services. The judge duely requested a deferrment for Rudy. A draftboard reviewed the application and granted it for good cause. You cannot go back in time and substitute your judgment for that of the draft board.

Your obsession with Rudy is not natural and I am really concerned about you. You really ought to seek some professional help.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Your obsession with Rudy is not natural and I am really concerned about you. You really ought to seek some professional help.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Oh the sweet, sweet irony.

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 7:35 PM

For him not to be a draft dodger there would have to be no such thing as a draft dodger!

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM

You realize you’re arguing with someone who claims that NYC wasn’t a sanctuary city, right?

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM

What is the definition of a sanctuary city? If by sanctuary city you mean — a city that reported every illegal alien that was suspected of committing a crime to the federal authorities along with a request that said illegal alien be immediately deported and had a record of reporting more illegal aliens each year to the federal authorities than the feds bothered to deport — Sure, then Rudy’s NYC was a sanctuary city.

But then that is expanding the definition to the same unreasonable lengths that MB4 seems to want to take the definition of draft dodger. You both are being disingenuous in an effort to slander Rudy. I, on the otherhand, can back up all the sordid allegations that I level at Fred, because they are all true.

P.S. The professional help comment was a humorous ode to weasles and ferrets.

tommylotto on October 30, 2007 at 7:53 PM

You realize you’re arguing with someone who claims that NYC wasn’t a sanctuary city, right?

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM

I think that you have solved the case Watson!
He believes Rudy rather than his “lying eyes”.

I think that he may be Rudy’s mom.

MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 8:59 PM

I will not vote for a guy who will not admit that jihadists have infiltrated his country and are destroying it from within.
I will not vote for a guy who will not enforce laws on the books to stop illegal immigration and punish illegal aliens.

paulsur on October 30, 2007 at 9:27 PM

I will not vote for a guy who will not enforce laws on the books to stop illegal immigration and punish illegal aliens.

paulsur on October 30, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Don’t blame ya. Now Rudy’s making it clear that he has no plans to enact workplace enforcement either.

Comically, he thinks that he can use his super-duper 9/11 NYC magic powers to completely stop illegal immigration… with a virtual fence. Once they’re here? Amnesty for illegals and the businesses that hire him.

Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Rudy thinks illegal aliens are a federal problem. He wants to deport the ‘criminals’ only.

He does not consider illegals who sneak in through the desert and work illegally to be criminals.

You can’t call it anything but amnesty with a full pardon to boot. Rudi lets employers off the hook by placing fault on the feds for letting them in.

His idea that it is not the ‘job’ of municipalities, or employers to deal with illegal workers is arrogant and fake. He is passing the buck so the gravy train can continue on my back while my country sinks under cultural displacement

I wish MB4 had not mentioned Zell Miller. Now there is the type of candidate I would love to see. Put Zell Miller into a debate with either the DEM candidates or the GOP candidates and he would outshine them all with his decency truthfulness and common sense

entagor on October 31, 2007 at 3:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2