THE DAILY BLADE: Giuliani’s Time?
With the Iraq War having turned into a long, hard slog, Iran believed well on the way to acquiring nukes and wide-open primaries in both parties, 2008 is Rudy Giuliani’s one and only shot at the presidency. Ever.
Rudy’s natural constituency comprises conservative Dems, RINOs and some libertarians. Only those conservatives who believe the War on Terror is the Number One issue are willing to even consider voting for Rudy in the primaries – at a New York Young Republican Club meeting The Stiletto attended last week in Manhattan, guest speaker Star Parker, for one, made it very clear she could never support a pro-choice candidate, no matter what. Rudy has just one thing going for him with the segment of the conservative crowd who can look past his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control: Being regarded as a stand-up guy.
Flip-flopping is problematic for any politician, but with a public record as unwaveringly liberal on social issues as Rudy’s coy games and pandering will permanently alienate people who are painfully aware they are compromising their core beliefs in order to be able to vote for him.
Rudy finally woke up and smelled the double-shot espresso, and gave a "what you see is what you get" speech at Houston Baptist College on Friday. From The New York Times:
In a forceful summation of the substantive and political case for his candidacy, delivered to a conservative audience … [he] acknowledged that his views on social issues were out of line with those of many Republican primary voters.
But he argued that there were even greater matters at stake in the election, starting with which party would better protect the nation from terrorism. Mr. Giuliani suggested that his record in New York, which included leading the city after the attacks of Sept. 11 and overseeing a decline in violent crime during his eight years in office, made him the most electable of the Republican candidates, no matter his stand on social issues like abortion. …
The speech by Mr. Giuliani reflected a decision - other campaigns suggested "gamble" might be a better word - to address head-on a fundamental obstacle to his winning the nomination: his long history as a moderate Northeast Republican in a party increasingly dominated by Southern and Midwestern conservatives. …
"The mere fact that I am standing here running for president of the United States with the views that I have, that are different in some respects on some of these issues, shows that we much more adequately represent the length and breadth and the opinions of America than the other party does," Mr. Giuliani said.
Whatever your opinion on abortion rights, this should not be the central issue of the presidential campaign, argues an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, which takes both Rudy and conservative Republicans to task:
As if Republicans don't have enough problems, their Presidential candidates and interest groups seem eager to re-stage a fight over abortion the American public doesn't want to hear. Blame both Rudy Giuliani and his conservative critics, but if the GOP wants to lose in 2008 they should keep this up.
Mr. Giuliani has created the stir by flopping around on an issue that he should have been better prepared to handle as he seeks the GOP Presidential nomination. The former New York Mayor says he finds abortion personally abhorrent but nonetheless supports a legal right to the procedure. It isn't news that this is a hard sell for many Republican primary voters. But for Mr. Giuliani to change his views after so many years in public life would make him look unprincipled, which is not what Americans want in a President. …
It isn't as if Mr. Giuliani doesn't have a case to make. Whatever his personal views, the political reality is that abortion policy is now determined largely by the courts. … Mr. Giuliani says he'd appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. If Mr. Giuliani means what he says, then in practical policy terms as President he could do as much to promote anti-abortion goals as any of the other GOP candidates.
If he means what he says. The Journal makes a good case against disqualifying Rudy for nomination "on a single issue that a President can't do much to change other than through the courts." But after his confused and confusing performance on abortion rights in the first Republican debate Rudy would greatly help himself with conservatives by floating a couple of names to prove that he has given the matter of Supreme Court appointments serious consideration – that the phrase "strict constructionists" isn’t just a talking point.
The Cubs Have The Goat, The Yanks Have Hillary
The New York Times is making an issue out of Rudy Giuliani’s collection of four diamond-encrusted gold World Series rings the team won in back-to-back championships from 1996 to 2000. Rudy says he bought the baubles after leaving office for fair market value, which the Times disputes:
Actually, he could not have paid what anyone else would pay because the team does not sell the rings to anyone. The whole point of World Series rings is that they cannot be bought. Moreover, on the rare occasions when they have gone on the private market, they have drawn prices many times what Mr. Giuliani paid the Yankees. …
The 1996 Yankee World Series ring, with a half-carat diamond at its center and 23 diamonds around the outside, was described in published reports in May 1997 as being worth $8,000.
Mr. Giuliani paid $2,500 for his seven years later, which is what the ring cost the team, said Alice McGillion, a spokeswoman for the Yankees. For the three other championship rings, the Yankees say Mr. Giuliani paid the team’s cost, a total of $13,500. But reporters were told years ago that the 1998 ring by itself was worth $15,000.
Does this rise to the level of a crime? The Times swings … and misses. The real crime is that the team hasn’t won a championship since Hillary became a Yankee fan and the state’s junior senator (video link). Not that Republican Yankee fans are planning to get Hillary outta New York by voting her into the White House …
Update
Voters Overwhelmingly Support TX Town’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Ordinance
By a better than 2:1 margin, voters in the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch approved a town ordinance that requires apartment managers to verify renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Municipal governments nationwide have considered more than 90 local regulations aimed at curbing illegal immigration, but this was the first to be put to a vote. City Council member Tim O’Hare, who championed the ordinance, tells The Associated Press, "It says especially to Congress that we're tired of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem. That if Congress doesn't do something about it, cities will."
Farmers Branch is already facing four lawsuits over the ordinance, and opponents plan to seek a restraining order to stop the town from enforcing it. The ACLU and other groups have already succeeded in getting a restraining order against Hazleton, PA, which also adopted its own ordinances to prevent local businesses from hiring illegal aliens.
By the way, the Farmers Branch election was conducted under the watchful eyes of Department of Justice monitors, to ensure that election materials and voting assistance were available to non-English speaking voters, as required by the Voting Rights Act.
Trackbacks
-
May 20, 2007
The Stiletto wrote:
Not being as slick as the telegenic Mitt Romney, Rudy has figured out that finessing, fudging, or otherwise obfuscating his liberal positions on abortion, gun control and other issues is a losing strategy for him. His challenge now is to persuade conservatives who judge candidates on single make-or-break issues to focus instead on his track record of competence. To that end, Rudy has been greatly helped by the release of 56 boxes of correspondence and records by the National Archives that chronicle his tenure as Associate Attorney General under Attorney General William French Smith, and by an independent ...
Comments