"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Giuly, Giuly, Giuly

As a social conservative, as a Dobson apologist, as a Colson fan, as a man who has been in love with Alan Keyes in the past, I am surprisingly enthusiastic about the idea of Rudy in the White House.

Yes, he's socially liberal. Yes, he won't be anybody's moral crusader. That's alright with me.

If the man understands the real nature of the office AND follows his career-long law and order instincts, then there is arguably no one better for the White House than Rudy G. He is articulate, effective, and widely admired.

He saved New York. I dare say he can pull Iraq out of the crapper, too.

9 comments:

Mike D'Virgilio said...

Hunter, I am tending to agree with you. I have a Pulitzer Prize winning post ready to go about The Mayor, but I can't figure out how to post it with the new Blogger. So I decided to post it at mdvoutlook.com, and I think I make someone else's novel case very well. I'll get it up here as soon as I, or Tom, can figure it out. Go Rudy!

Michael said...

Hmmmm...what do you say to the idea that Giuliani is Nixon repackaged?

S. T. Karnick said...

I say that such a claim is completely wrong. Rudy's strengths are law and order and free-market economics, meaning an emphasis on the balance of liberty and individual responsibility. Nixon was for social order above other considerations (having, in the war against communism, what he saw as legitimate reasons for such an emphasis). Nixon's handling of the economy was statist and thoroughly catastrophic, whereas Rudy's stewardship of the NYC economy was brilliant.

Mike D'Virgilio said...

Based on what he did in NYC, no way. Supply side economics didn't exist then, and Nixon had no concept of limited government. Price controls? I don't think so.

I read an article last night at NRO (I tried to put in a tag but couldn't get it to work: Terence Jeffries, "Rudy's a No-Go," 2/6)and this is what he will have to put up with from social conservatives for the duration. He needs to repudiate any of his past support for partial birth abortion and assure folks like me that he will never make any kind of social liberalism part of his platform or policies if elected. He's got a lot of work to do.

Hunter Baker said...

Looks like Sam and I are in the Rudy fan-club. All it takes is a visit to NYC. I went there at the height of Rudy's reign and was stunned at the cleanliness of the city, how safe I felt, and the fact that I was panhandled NEVER. Unthinkable in any other major city.

Mike D'Virgilio said...

I just read a piece in the UK Telegraph that it's too early for Republicans to despair, because Rudy may be able to come to the rescue. I like his last paragraph:

"The former New York mayor has already indicated he won't let his socially liberal personal views stop him appointing conservative judges. And who better than the hero of 9/11 to persuade Republicans that defeat in 2008 is not inevitable and convince Americans that the war on terror is not lost?"

I really think the judges thing is crucial for social conservatives and that kind of commitment will go a long way for people like me. The rest of his positives for conservatives will be hard for his opponents to dismiss.

Michael said...

I'll agree on the free market issues (Nixon was a disaster of biblical proportions) and Rudy's commitment to winning the war on terror is, I think, even more serious than Nixon's anti-communism (which always had more than a whiff of opportunism about it - witness detente and the opening to China). And so I'm fairly convinced that the Nixon analogy doesn't work.

But I'll say this. I don't care if he promises on his mother's grave to appoint conservative judges, if he won't repudiate his support for partial-birth abortion, there's no way I'll vote for him. It's simply a barbaric procedure and any politician who thinks it ought to be legal *AND* funded by the state (irrespective of its constitutional issues) has some very bad judgments. I may not vote for the other guy (or, gulp, gal), but I won't punch the ticket for someone who's in favor of what's essentially infanticide. And I'd bet I'm not alone in that.

Tom Van Dyke said...

No, you're not alone on that, Michael. But I think this will do, from last night:

HANNITY: Partial birth?

GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld. I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there's provision for the life of the mother, then that's something that should be done.

HANNITY: There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion.

GIULIANI: Yes, well, if it doesn't have a provision for the life of the mother, then I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother, then I would support it.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Rereading that, I must hope that there's a place in the American political heart for someone who will actually answer the damn question, whatever it is.