My Thoughts Exactly

Why I've said the Republicans would be insane to nominate anyone other than Giuliani (via Patrick Reddy in Buffalo News):

Based on his heroic image, his obvious executive ability, his making New York City a livable, governable place and his proven track record as a winner on overwhelmingly Democratic turf, Giuliani would be an extremely dangerous opponent for Democrats. In his 1997 re-election, Rudy ran 38 points ahead of Republican registration. He won nearly half of all Democrats and more than two-thirds of white Democrats. Not even Ronald Reagan was able to do that.

Pro football fans surely have heard of the “West Coast Offense” where coaches seek a matchup that favors their team. For example, they’ll send a faster wide receiver against a slower linebacker, or a taller tight end against a shorter defensive back. In four key ways — in terms of leadership, ethnicity, ideology and geography — Rudy matches up better against the two leading Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The only drawback Reddy correctly notes to Giuliani is his lack of draw in the South, but only Gore or John Edwards of 2004 (Centrist Southern Democrat not the new far-left Edwards) could capitalize on that. Hillary could theoretically win Florida. And would have to challenge him with mass Latino support in say Colorado.

Continue Reading


But I think Reddy is right that Giuliani would pull in a lot of white Catholics, urban moderate whites on security image, possibly Italian and Jewish-Americans, fiscal cons/moderates. Giuliani could bring back into play (especially if Bloomberg joins the fray) Northeastern states that during the Bush years were written off to the Dems.

If the Republicans are dumb enough to nominate say a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, then get ready for the First Woman President. But if Giuliani is the man, I think the only Democrat to face him is Obama (and I'm not convinced he can win that battle). If it came to that, Obama would have to run a marvelous, nearly flawless campaign, that would have to attack Giuliani--on his inability to understand the lesson of Iraq, his habit of throwing out legality when necessary....he would here have to call upon his nickname Prince Rudolfus and the Imperial Monarchical Presidency of Bush/Cheney, wiretapping, etc. to pull in libertarians, and call Giuliani on his flip-flop on immigration and try to make hay with saying his support for the Libby commutation is hypocritical given his prosecutorial background.

Like I said, I just don't see a way Rudy loses. He's Reagan minus abortion so far as I can tell. Well and a clarion call to freedom for the people of the Middle East (like Reagan did for Eastern Europe). Although he has promised to appoint constructionist judges, so I don't know why the social cons can't just live with him.

Reaganism is past its prime (if Fred Thompson is its best spokesman or Newt perhaps). It is no longer fighting the fights of Reagan: government regulation, stagflation, Vietnam syndrome, Soviet Empire. Bush I won Reagan's third term but wasn't "religious" enough for the Pat Robertson part of the base nor fiscally radical enough for the Ross Perot side, which cost him. Bush II tried something different, a radical new branding of Republicanism (compassionate conservatism), an evolution beyond Reaganite Republicanism (but with his call for the liberation of oppressed peoples under an "Evil" Empire or Axis). It was also a Republicanism based in large measure on buying political influence and maintaining a dominance in the Legislature which Reagan never had (and Reaganism never would have, it's an anti-government philosophy which is why it was good for winning the executive but not the legislature).

Bush Republicanism has failed and the Republicans are scrambling around for what to replace it with. Giuliani reminds me in a way of George HW Bush. He likely couldn't articulate another Republican philosophy and probably would be a one-termer president because of losing the support eventually of the Christian Right---but again remember the Democrats would have to put up either a sincerely religious candidate (a la Carter) and/or the greatest political candidate in a generation (a la Clinton). Either way need a Southern Democrat, which neither Hillary nor Obama qualifies as.

I've said before, I think Gore-Obama would be unstoppable. I think only Gore could win for the Dems IF Rudy is the Republican nominee. Unless a farther-right southern insurgent candidate ran and siphoned off his votes in the South. In the very unlikely event of that occurring, we could have an Electoral Crisis where no candidate wins the 270 necessary. That would be wild.

What I do know is this--a Rudy win (minus some Nixon goes to China miracle) means war with Iran. And then a real danger for the 21st century world security front.

tags technorati : rudy giuliani

tags technorati : president