Audio: Mike Gallagher interviews Rudy Giuliani
posted at 12:57 pm on November 7, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We’re fair and balanced around here. This is from earlier today. Rudy talks about the Robertson endorsement and social conservatives. It gets fun when Gallagher brings up Hillary’s flip-flopping. Maybe it’s just me, but Giuliani is at his best when contrasting himself with the likes of Hillary Clinton. Ditto for Thompson, Romney and McCain, fwiw.
Let me speculate a bit about Giuliani and social cons. It may be, and I’m just throwing this out there, but it may be that Giuliani’s weakness on social issues ends up forcing him to stick more closely to conservative issues if he wins. One of the problems we’ve had with Bush is that, apart from the three huge issues of the war, taxes and judges, Bush has not governed as a conservative. No Child Left Behind is not a conservative initiative. The prescription drug bill and a whole range of other spending issues haven’t broken the conservative way, and part of the reason for that is that we as conservatives gave Bush a pass for too long. We gave him a pass because we tended to assume that he was one of us, so whatever he was doing would end up reflecting our values at some point even if it didn’t appear to from the get-go.
Giuliani has had to spend quite a bit of time courting the social con vote and drawing out where there might be common ground. Supposing he wins, social cons aren’t going to give Rudy as long as leash as we gave Bush. We’re just not. And in what we can presume to be a hostile congressional environment, Giuliani will need a solid base of support. Independents don’t provide that base, and if he goes too far left the social cons will have little problem turning on him. He’ll be aware of that, so he may be less likely to test their limits than Bush has, because he’ll know that he can get away with a lot less than Bush has gotten away with.
As I said, it’s all just rumination and doesn’t reflect me moving toward or away from any candidate. Just throwing it out there, half expecting a backlash.
And yes, similar arguments can be made for Mitt Romney, John McCain and to a lesser extent Fred Thompson on some issues.
More: Rich Lowry has some interesting quotes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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:
Your views intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously, I think you’re on to something Mr. BP.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 1:14 PM
If I recall there was an article at Right Wing New touting evidence that Rudy was weak on immigration. This should put that to rest. Note what he said at the end:
He wants to do employer sanctions, but we can’t do it now because our system of employee verification is a farce. It’s not fair to employers. First you stop them at the border. Then you get a real ID. Then you can crack down on employers that knowingly hire illegals.
tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 1:16 PM
There are over 80 million gun owners in the U.S.A.
Very few of them are willing to vote for anyone with a history of gun grabbing – especially Rudy.
“Lesser of two evils” isn’t going to do terribly well either. If it’s a contest between two gun grabbers look for another sizeable block going third party / staying home.
KCSteve on November 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I just can’t see nominating a guy who would reward law breaking illegal aliens. It would be more of the same of what we have now. Further, he does not understand the war against jihad, he seems to think it is all over there somehow, and ignores the jihad right here within our borders. I can’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t, or wnt come out and say the way is about defeating jihad, both abroad and here at home. As far as defeating jihad abroad, one of the first thing that needs to be done is dismantling the two sharia/terrorist democracies that Bush created.
paulsur on November 7, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Aint no one taking my guns. That is cause for revolution in my book. Anyone reversing the second Ammendment is a traitor and must be dealt with accordingly.
saiga on November 7, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I don’t understand how Giuliani would “grab guns” as President. First of all, in order for him to sign “gun grabbing” legislation, it’d have to pass through Congress. Then he would essentially have to say to himself “Well, looks like we won’t be having a second term in office”. Then, the courts would have to decide that it isn’t unconstitutional.
I agree with Bryan’s sentiment:
amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Get’er done Rudy !!!!
jake-the-goose on November 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM
I’m sorry, but Rudy is not going to take anyones guns. He doesn’t strike me as politically suicidal.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM
amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Don’t hold your breath for a response there!
Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM
As far as Rudy vs Hillary, they both stink. I hate the New York City arrogant high and mighty mentality. Put either one of these schmucks out to West Texas and turn them loose 5 miles from a road and they would both be dead in 2 hours from thirst, starvation, panic, or snakebite.
The fact that the big cities have so damn many people, they ultimately choose the President. Like in Illinois, Chicago drowns out the rest of the state. All those wise old farmers and small town workers are squashed by all the free money welfare/food stamp/unemployment/government check trough sloppers.
The down state folks that pull the wagon are overwhelmed by those riding in the wagon. What a shame and the problem is getting worse.
I saw a deal in the N.O. news that a car bumped a bus. When the ambulance got there were 30 people laying in the median holding their necks. The bus driver said there were only 7 people on the bus. That’s the character of too many people many of our urban centers are turning out these days, and they are begged to vote.
Hence we get leaders like Hillary and Silky.
saiga on November 7, 2007 at 1:47 PM
If people are so myopic that they stay home or vote 3rd party they will deserve everything they get. We better wake up, figure out who has the best chance to beat Hillary, and ride that horse. The alternative is unfathomable.
TheBigOldDog on November 7, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Amen Dog!
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I’ve been trying to make this exact point for awhile now, glad to see it made at a prominent conservative blog.
I just don’t think abortion and guns are Rudy’s key issues and MO, like they are for the activist Left. I think his concerns are the WOT, Fiscal stuff, and Capitalism, and as importantly articulating capitalist principles and how they work.
I could be wrong, but atleast there is a chance of that being true. With Hillary there is zero chance.
jp on November 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM
We’ve got a whole year to convince the single-issue conservative voters that Giuliani/Romney is preferable to Hillary. My opinion is that some of those voters are talking big now (”I’ll never vote for a pro-choice/Mormon candidate!”) but will change their minds when staring at “Hillary” on the ballot.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 2:26 PM
And the only way to do that is to have either of them be the nominee. It’s the only reason I’d vote for either of them. But honestly, if there were another reasonable 3rd choice, I’d go for that.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 PM
That’s an idea worth some thought.
If a gay marriage amendment, “protecting the rights of everyone” reaches Rudy’s desk does he sign it? If he does what can we do about it?
If a “path to citizenship” bill reaches Rudy’s desk, will he sign it? If he does what can we do about it?
If Rudy decides to chagne ICE policies away from internal enforcement what can we do about it?
The length of our leash matters little when he is in office. I am not relishing electing a guy I know will back a myriad of policies that I am against. Our only hedge against Rudy is congress and who wants to spend 4 years going through that?
Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Nice to know that myself and the millions of other hard-working city dwellers are apparently just welfare/food stamp/unemployment/ government check trough sloppers doing nothing for the economy. Clearly our votes shouldn’t matter.
sublime on November 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I would say the same thing we did to get rid of *shudder* Harriet Myers.
Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM
He’s already come out against employer sanctions and in favor of amnesty. The “it’s not fair to employers” line even further gives away his opposition to workplace enforcement.
Much of it is very simple- compile a list of duplicate Social Security numbers, notify employers who’ve hired (knowingly or not) those fraudulently using those numbers, and require employers to fire those who can’t demonstrate legal residency.
Simple- but Rudy would rather just give them amnesty instead of identifying those here illegally, just like he protected illegals from deportation in NYC.
Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM
But aren’t his supporters always reminding us what a “fighter” Rudy is? Given his record of crony appointments and sticking by cronies even after they’ve been convicted of corruption, why should we believe that Rudy would’ve backed down in response to conservative uproar where Bush only reluctantly did so?
Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Wow, saiga. Ever been to NYC? Before or after Giuliani?
He succeeded in making it livable again. He went against ENTRENCHED, CALCIFIED, SET-IN-STONE crap and WON. He lowered taxes. He got people off welfare. He lowered crime. The economy BOOMED. How much more “conservative” can you get? His policies on welfare caused the abortion rate to go . . . are you ready for this? . . . DOWN.
He cares very little for opinion once he knows what’s right. He just does it. His finger is NOT in the air, testing the winds. It is conducting the march of true government and progress.
Imagine if he was in Washington, DC where the entrenchment and calcification is even worse. Not only would he not care about the entrenched opinion makers, he would be up in their faces, NYC style, telling them what they can do with their opinions.
Wouldn’t that be refreshing?
Mommynator on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
No matter who is the Republican nominee, we will have a binary solution set come November 4, 2008:
1) Hillary as president
2) Hillary as an ex-nominee
I’d much rather Romney be president than Giuliani, but in the solution set above, there is ZERO choice for me or anyone else who cares about America. Yes, it will be a pain dealing with some of Giuliani’s positions, but (a) that will be true to some degree with any of the candidates, and (b) take a look at those two choices again. If you and I have to hold our noses when we vote Republican, so be it.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Which is exactly why we have such a hard time trusting him.
Lawrence on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
OK, and you and those like you will hand the keys to the Clinton-Borg.
If a protest vote falls in the woods does anyone hear it? Well, no they don’t, but we all pay in the end.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
i can’t watch this because mike gallager is a doofus. sorry. he even looks like a cartoon representation of a doofus.
i used to give him a fair shake because he was one of the few talkers to go around with melanie morgan and deborah johns. but then i realized that he tagged allong in a tourbus with his huge stupid face decaled on both sides.
he is a fool and an embarrassmnent to the salem network.
one time i was listening and i couldn’t believe it. he was telling some story about getting a massage at a spa and was shocked – shocked! – that the male massuse disrobed. i couldn’t believe what i was hearing. it was like that onion schtick. since then i’ve always been half-suspicious that he’s just a highly-placed sabateur.
if not, the best that can be said of him is that his ibecility is a liability.
jummy on November 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Sorry, but I have a conscience. I’d rather go out knowing I made the right choice rather than the expedient one.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM
As the country goes down the crapper and al Qaeda triumphs.
Hilts on November 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Oh ye of little faith.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Dude, it’s the Primary. It’s not Hillary vs. Rudy. Why is the conclusion Rudy or I’m packing up my toys and going home. You want Rudy advocate for him. But don’t threat all or nothing.
At least 4-5 of the Rep candidates average anywhere between 15-30% and it changes from week to week. What for the final result before you start issuing ultimatums. If Rudy gets nominated I’ll vote for him. But that’s a BIG IF.
Sultry Beauty on November 7, 2007 at 3:44 PM
the ‘right choice’, is beating Hillary. a defacto Vote for hillary is the wrong choice, that includes staying home or voting 3rd party.
jp on November 7, 2007 at 3:45 PM
OT:
Anyone else just see Shep burn that Democrat talker type person? good stuff!!!
Democrat talking type person lead off by calling Rudy a drag queen. Shep burned him.
Sammy316 on November 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM
The arguements in here are so muddled. We are in the primary but I keep seeing people argue as if we are in the general already. We are not. I will not cast my vote for a pro-abortion candidate, in the primary. There is a difference that vote and my vote in the general.
Clean it up people.
Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Think of it this way, conservatives will have more say with any of the Republican candidates as Pres (including Rudy), than with ANY Dem in office.
I don’t get it when people choose not to vote to “teach them a lesson” – the only thing that does is cause us to go back to square one and start fighting for our issues from scratch. Any and all progress made on issues is lost, and that seems pointless. We are better off voting, and putting the pressure on the one that gets elected.
Rick on November 7, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Fair enough, but not everybody will do that.
Rick on November 7, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Did Giuliani say “We have the same goal, to reduce abortion?”
Okay lets say we do. Conservatives back the Hyde Amendment, it prevents federal monies going toward abortions. Rudy backed the exact opposite position.
Rudy says he wants to reduce abortions by changing the hearts and minds of the people… by federally funding abortion? C’mon man?!?!
Rudy’s other arguement for funding abortion? It is a right and if a woman cannot afford to exercise that right, she should be subsidized by the federal government. Get it, a right that a person cannot afford to exercise, the government should. I cannot afford a Heckler Koch USP .40 cal either. Can I get that federally funded? I’m thinking not. See the difference? I know I know as a mayor he was trying to clean up crime… by taking away the rights of legal gun owners. There is not a statistic in America that supports a gun ban, not one, see Washington D.C.. But he needed the gun ban. He did not. He cleaned up New York by cleaning up New York. If the assault weapons ban was all that effective Washington D.C..
He can be for this right, but against another, as long as he has a good explanation. I’m sure he’ll have a really good reason to fund abortions, because they’ll help “lower the number of abortions” I suppose…
You can trust his picking and choosing which rights are important, good for you. I cannot. Oh and by the way Strict Constructionists aren’t my choice for SCOTUS, Originalists are.
Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM
How about paying attention? It should have been completely obvious I was talking about the general, not the primary, and responding to someone who was also talking about the general. The subject at hand is Giuliani, and since I’m not voting for him in the primary, the only thing left to discuss is what’s going to happen in the general if Giuliani is the nominee. As I’ve said several times, I’m pulling for Romney, but if Giuliani is the nominee, I’ll vote for him rather than hand the presidency to Hillary.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Unfortunately, you’re not the only one who takes a singularly illogical approach to voting, but thankfully there aren’t many. And I’m betting you’ll change your mind come 11/07.
Using the “conscience” argument, I voted for Perot in ‘92, knowing he couldn’t win. Well golly, that sure worked out well, didn’t it? And I sure taught those squishy, moderate Republicans a lesson, because they nominated an ultra-conservative in ‘96. Wait . . .
As I noted earlier, here is the choice you’ll have on election day:
1) Help the Republican win
or
2) Help Hillary win
There is no other choice. If your conscience allows you to choose #2 as you are threatening, I say pack it up and sell it on ebay, because it’s obviously defective.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Whoops, make that 11/08. Yeesh.
Splashman on November 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM
My biggest fear if Hillary wins is the sheer number of people she’ll inspire to try a ‘rooftop recall’.
I worry that it’s high enough that it will get done (or at least attempted).
The shockwaves back and forth from that would (possibly) end up with some good coming out of them (the thinning of the elitist herd) but the bad that will result is just such a high price to pay.
I’m really in favor of political solutions to internal problems even if the ‘pragmatic’ ones are quicker.
I just want our next POTUS to be someone who at least does minimal harm – i.e., doesn’t screw up foreign policy items beyond repair and also doesn’t inspire armed insurrection. Be nice if the leading contenders met that standard.
KCSteve on November 7, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I’ve been pointing out since 1999 that “compassionate conservatism” is the worst possible mistake. Conservatives should try to sensibly reduce the size of government and not be compassionate spenders. Yes, there is definitely a place for conservative input into liberal social spending. We can make it work better, and in fact I hold we are morally obliged to make it work as best it can. However, after meeting that obligation we should be hacking away at government to the fullest extent we can in democracy.
This does mean we’ll play bad cop to the liberal’s good cop, but we can win many elections that way. After all, the “good cop” is on the take from the taxpayer.
thuja on November 7, 2007 at 5:30 PM
You forgot one:
3) Help neither of them win.
If your conscience would allow you to vote for someone you disapprove of simply because they have an “R” next to their name (R being short for RINO in Rudy’s case), then perhaps you should consider the health of your own.
I’m not the only one opposed to Rudy becoming the nominee, but I’m not going to try and convince them one way or the other if they should vote for him or stay home. I’ll let their own conscience decide.
As for me, mine tells me that in a choice between Rudy and Hillary, since I oppose both and support neither I shouldn’t vote at all. I’d take the short term pain of a Hillary presidency instead of contributing to the long slow death of what the Republican party is supposed to stand for.
Hollowpoint on November 7, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Would someome please explain to me why Rudy gets this mantle as the “War on Terror” guy? What has he actually done to deserve this coveted title, besides attend 600 funerals?
FYI, Jihad is just as big a problem here as it is over there, and in my opinion you win this war here first. Build that fence, crack down on who is in this country illegally,
and don’t fair to use the “j” word to decribe so called islamic civil rights leaders. Someone need to find the balls to stop them now!
paulsur on November 7, 2007 at 10:24 PM
The insurgency, at home, and subversive Liberal indoctrination…, which plays right into the hands of the Jihadists, illegal aliens, and militias too…, are wothy reasons to vote for the Conservative candidate during the general election, regardless how short they fall of being THE Conservative candidate among the ‘also rans’…
Rugged Individual on November 8, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Comment pages: