Giuliani looks set to announce his candidacy (he has formed an exploratory committee). Polls show him with a lead over McCain in the GOP primary polls. This is despite the fact that the "conventional wisdom" says Giuliani is too socially liberal, too anti-gun and carries too much baggage to win the GOP nomination. Since WWII, LaGuardia and Lindsay both made noises about running for president. After throwing up a trial balloon, LaGuardia realized it was not happening, and died soon after retiring as mayor anyway. LaGuardia mostly made some speeches but figured the country was not ready for a Republican president who was a former socialist, part Jewish, part Italian Episcopalian. Lindsay tried to run a very modern television based campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1972. Lindsay had the difficulty in that he was a Republican until 1970 -- he switched parties after losing the GOP mayoral primary in 1969 but getting elected as a Liberal. Lindsay won the Arizona primary but made no impression on the wider electorate. Now we have Giuliani. Twice divorced and a social liberal, who for a while lived with some gay friends. He carries lots of baggage in a GOP supposedly under the increasing domination of the evangelicals and Christian right. Yet there he is, seemingly to increase his lead. And it is not because the right is divided, they seem nonexistant (Brownback? Huckabee? Romney -- the Mass. Mormon who was not too long ago a supporter of gay rights is not the great right hope). Is it really possible that Giuliani could win the GOP nomination? (As disclosure -- Giuliani is my second choice after McCain)
I don't think he'll get the Presidential spot (WAY too much baggage, and you haven't even scratched the surface there), but he's definitely a candidate for the Veep slot.
8 years of George the Incompetent might make Republicans overlook Giuliani's NY liberalism and personal life, particularly since he's a symbol of 9-11 American courage. It will be tricky, but he can win over some of the meat and potatoes crowd.
Giuliani is supposed to be this great leader for the actions that he took after 9/11. Can someone explain to me what exactly did he do and more importantly what he did that other recent NYC mayors likely would not have done?
In truth, Mike Bloomberg is really the man who should be given credit for all actions taken to restore NYC after 9/11. Some were unpopular, but all were necessary.
Now there's a socially liberal Republican that I could get behind. He knows how to run an executive branch. And he actually cares about policy and government.
Can someone give me one good reason why I shouldn't interpret the following as irrefutable evidence of opportunism? So, in other words, he believes in abortion rights and gay rights but he is willing to put aside his principles if it gives him a shot at power? I mean really, how else am I supposed to interpret his reasoning?
Rudy is big on telling crowds he and they will disagree on certain issues. He isn't pulling a "Romney" and flopping all over the place. He's a New York-style Republican and doesn't pretend to be anything else. And excuse me, but I haven't noticed this currently "conservative" Supreme Court outlawing abortion or homosexuality. And, believe me, they won't so get off it. Giuliani may very well select individuals like Roberts and Alito to the bench, which is fine. But he isn't the type to go for hard-ass right-wing ideologues.
About the only Republican I'd vote for. I don't like how he's kissed the president's rear throughout the Iraq war though. But I haven't heard any comments about the war in the last year or so from him.
Rudy on Hannity & Colmes: Part 1 on the Supreme Court, abortion, gun control... [youtube]VMAXw3ZZuYU[/youtube] Part 2 on gays, immigration, Iraq, other candidates... [youtube]2bM-r3dDMd8[/youtube]
Originally Posted by Wash Post Giuliani restated his support for abortion rights and gay rights but said he believes marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman and then another woman, and then another woman, and so on, and so on. He also defended his support for tough gun-control laws in New York, saying they helped reduce crime in the city while he was mayor. Fixed. I like Rudy, but he should stay away from the "m" word altogether.
I'm not claiming Giuliani is a flip-flopper. Giuliani's explanation of his position on social issues is distinctly different from Romney's. The latter claims he has had a change of heart. That may be so or he may be pandering, I don't know. Given that I've changed my mind on certain issues over the years I'm willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt. Giuliani, on the other hand, is still personally in favor of gay rights and abortion rights, but says those beliefs will not get prevent him from abiding by the "orthodoxy" of the party. Two possible conclusions here: (1) he is being sincere and, therefore, doesn't have much dedication to his own beliefs; or (2) he is not being sincere and social conservatives cannot believe their values will be protected under a Giuliani presidency. So which one is it? Sincere and spineless. Or insincere and not willing to fight for what he claims he is willing to fight for? Was never on it.
Of course, by "New York-style Republican" you mean Democrat. Which relevant case has come on their docket?
I think you're assuming Rudy has to be one or the other of the (false, in my opinion) choices you present. I believe there is almost no way the Democrats will fail to increase their majorities in both the House and Senate in the 2008 elections. As a result, if Rudy were to achieve the White House, he would be dealing with a Congress run by people who generally agree with him on his social beliefs. It may be just a matter of degrees they'll disagree on, but he and the Dems would be on the same page overall. He wouldn't have to fight with them much on that front. Therefore, he wouldn't be required to "sell out." Ironically, if there were a Republican Congress, he would have to make some serious decisions about those matters. But there won't be.
For some reason none of these people look very presidential yet, except Hillary Clinton. As much as I like Rudy, at this moment, I think Hillary looks more like a commander in chief than he does.
man.... i can support a "liberal" republican. you know, republicans who get voted into office in the west and the east coasts. guys who are fiscally conservative, but relatively moderate to liberal on social issues. and i've said for years that i would vote for the "pete wilson" types into national office. but you can see guys like giuliani starting to cave into social issues so that they can get votes in the south and whatnot. but i can never get behind the "trent lott" side of the republican party, no matter what they say on fiscal issues.
One great thing about Giuliani, if he wins, is that the White House will never have a dull moment. It will be back to the Clinton days, or perhaps even better, to the Kennedy days. How is his taste in women? Does anybody have a picture of his conquests?