On illegal immigration, I don't know if we know where Rudy stands.
As mayor of NY, he had to deal with illegal immigrants and not illegal immigration. There's a huge difference. He had a problem, many illegal immigrants. The feds weren't deporting them. Was he supposed to have NYC police arrest them and then what? Catch and release was his only option. His policies were designed to help his city. You would have a totally different plan if you were defending your country.
I will say that he had better make it plain that he isn't against the 2nd amendment. That's a deal-breaker for me.
Saying that, if it's him or McCain, I go Rudy. Nationally, nobody wants to get involved in 2nd amendment issues. McCain has already shown himself to be anti-1st amendment and won the issue. To quote the eminemt philosopher, Sylvester, That'th dethpicable.
Jack Ryan wasn't just a pants-dropping issue, it was also a creepy, leather-masked sex party issue (with celebrity wife to boot!) And he was going to be running against the annointed holy one, shimmering in oils and smelling of fragrant myrrh, Barack Obama. And actually, no, no one remembers Jack Ryan except you, 12% of Illinoisians, and Michael Barone, unless you're referring to the Tom Clancy character, and I don't think he ever made to president in the movies. But if I may tie this around, he did become president after a major terrorist attack on the US by Arabs who flew a plane into a national landmark, and so might Guiliani yet.
Does State's Rights as a philosophy work for an argument against the explicit words of the Constitution? I'll go along with the idea that abortion is a state's rights issue, but I wouldn't consider that limiting and/or banning firearms, in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, can be considered as a state's rights issue.
There's no friggin' way we're electing a president with a last name that ends in a vowel. He'll take New York, New Jersey and the Youngstown, Ohio area, and that's about it.
We wouldn't elect Kerry, and he's Irish. Last name was a vowel, so that was that.
Dave, you do understand that there is such a thing as a Republican primary that he'd have to win, right? Glibly dismissing things like abortion and gun control are pure madness. Do you have any idea what the South Carolina primaries are like? The bottom line is that a slightly partisan centrist is not a good way to judge the mood of the highly partisan and generally fairly extreme primary vote.
And immigration is shaping up to be THE issue this time around. McCain has a huge liability here (the mere existence of a "Kennedy-McCain illegal immigrant amnesty bill" is deadly)
"He can't win the primary. He can't win the general." That's what the candidate heard. And he just smiled: when expectations are low, you get a lot of buzz by beating them. And when your critics continue to say "He can't win" despite your proven successes, well, that's practically a recipe for victory.
And so he just kept being misunderestimated right into the Oval Office. Twice.
Last time I checked, John Kennedy was Irish and he was elected almost fifty years ago. Northerner's don't understand the South. What Southerner's want is courage of convictions and honesty. Rudy has displayed both and is tracking well in even the most conservative Southern venues (e.g. South Carolina).
What is most appealing about Guiliani is his record of proactive management of the NYPD as mayor and the prosecution of the mob as NYC DA. Both the mob and terrorists rely on stealth and using civil liberties to their advantage. Giuiiani knows this game well and understands how to work the legal system.
"Hawkins also mentions the South as a problem for Rudy"
As a resident of Alabama (as Southern a state as there is), I think statements like that are a grave mistake. The sense I get is one of *deep* respect for Rudy's leadership on 9/11 - and around here, people respect leadership.
Just as importantly, he gets major kudos here for cleaning up NYC. There's a major impression here (which was probably mostly wrong, but it's nevertheless what people think) that NYC pre-Rudy was nothing but a huge den of crime and sin. And while most southerners wouldn't go so far as to call it a "city on a hill" after Rudy, he gets major points for cleaning it up as much as he has.
That's going to matter a lot more to southerners than his stand on gay marriage or abortion - particularly if he takes the "states rights" stand. In fact, the "states rights" stance is going to get him further than anything else in the south. Remember - once upon a time, we fought a war over those very words. "States rights" sentiments run *deep* here, and it's not - and never was - just a code word for "slavery" (although, unfortunately, even today it does still mean that to a small segment of the population).
Gun Control: "I've talked to a lot of gun owners as I've crossed the country the last few years and I've changed my mind."
From a political theater point of view, he should sometime in the next year or so get "invited" on a hunting trip, to a shooting match, or maybe both. He should be seen listening to the gun owners, not just "changing his mind". He should talk to them, and really listen, with humility and an open mind. It will make his turn-around more persuasive.
Giuliani has the advantage of McCain being unmittigatedly, power-trippingly evil. I can't imagine voting for McCain over any likely opponent. I would rather have Hillary for President than McCain, no contest.
I think the guy who straightened out the NYPD and actually made them work for a damned living is just the guy to cut the bureaucratic crap at Homeland Security.
Hell, back in 2001, I was wishing for Rudy to be appointed the first DHS director. We'd most likely not have gotten certain follies we all know and remember if he had been.
And I do think that it's possible a number of Republicans, even ones who are pro-life, anti-gay, etc., may hold their noses and vote for Rudy - if the alternative were Hillary... or worse. (Yes, there is worse, I suppose.)
The bottom line is that he's obviously got enough appeal that he should try and let the chips fall where they may. If the social conservatives don't like it, let them find a candidate who can beat him in the primaries.
I think Rudy would be very electable in the general election, the question is can he win the Republican primaries.
Here is California the Republicans usually pick candidates that are not very electable in statewide races. Our current (moderate) Republican governor, who now looks like he will be re-elected, won a special recall election, meaning he did not have to win a Republican primary. If he had run in a regular election, he would have had a very difficult time winning the Republican primary because of his moderate positions on social and cultural issues. (Actually, some conservative Republicans in California seriously talked about trying to take him out in this year’s primary, but backed down).
The congressional district I lived in was represented by a moderate Republican at one time. He tried to run for the US Senate, but lost to some un-electable, ultra conservative Republican in the primary. As a result we have US Senator Boxer.
Well, Deanna, no one is "officially" in the presidential race now. It's too soon.
As Dean has pointed out before, Mr. Giuliani never declares he's running. He just runs. By that criterion, I think he's unofficially more running than anyone this side of Senator Clinton.
"And considering how strongly Rudy's polling now even in ultra-conservative South Carolina, those saying he can't win the nomination are crazy."
Polls at this point are near completely useless. None of the candidates positions on anything are known, no one has been talked to, and no one knows who else is in the race. A man that could win the Democratic primary is not a likely winner of the Republican one. Just isn't.
That's simply not so, Vic. Republicans in fact typically elect moderates. The last genuine conservative to win the Republican nomination was Ronald Reagan. (Yes, I know, the left is convinced that Bush is the most right-wing guy in history. It's baloney. He's a moderate centrist with one or two key conservative issues and that's it. And he ran in 2000 AGAINST the hard right. No one remembers that either, apparently.)
And Democrats typically elect moderates, though they may nominate more extreme folks. While I disagree with him on any number of issues, President Clinton got elected as a moderate. (After what happened to Senator Lieberman, President Clinton might count as right wing according to modern Democrat activists.) President Carter was more than a bit on the left side (which has become more obvious since he left office); but he was swept in on anti-Watergate hysteria. He might never have gotten the nomination otherwise, and certainly not the election. President Johnson was a legacy, so I'm not sure I count him. President Kennedy was the last elected Democrat President who could truly be called a liberal; and how that term was applied then vs. what the so-called liberal party stands for today are pretty far apart.
The country elects moderates. A party that forgets that is running its race with one foot in a bucket.
As elected mayor of the city of New York, you could hardly expect Rudi Giuliani to be other than lukewarm on citizen gun rights and strong on women's abortion rights. Going as he obviously is for the presidency of the United States, you are likely to see a certain sea change in the parochialism of his earlier political upbringing.
But Rudi showed himself in the most fundamental way, in the supreme crisis of the United States of recent years, to be a man of decisive leadership that seemed to surpass that of almost anyone else in the country. Obviously, he was on the scene in New York that fateful day. But the responded well, he responded sensibly, and the whole of the United States bonded with him in a way they rarely do for any public figure.
As a matter of fact, the last time any liberal figure in this country won such universal bonding was when Adlai Stevenson -- of all people -- out-argued the USSR's Anatoli Zorin in the Security Council of the United Nations Organization in New York, at the height of the Cuban missile crissis in October 1962. Second to the seemingly steadfast JFK, and the metallically hard and precise secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, Americans who were were adults in that era remember Stevenson's role in the UNO that critical day, and it helped solidify the national unity that Kennedy needed to get Khruschev to blink first before an incident could trigger the nuclear incineration of multimillions.
I judge Rudi Giuliani as such a man, even if, as a gun rights fanatic and local NRA operative, he doesn't viscerally dance to my drummers.
In any case, Dr Rice is not going to be a candidate. Nor would she hold up very well even if she were not to chicken out from running. She really wants to be president of one of the big football leagues, and/or return to a lifetime of low-stress honors as chancellor of a great university, such as Stanford, from which she arose to prominence in Washington. Like Colin Powell, she knows very well that being appointed to a high profile job is one thing. But to have to fight for a high-profile elected position robs you of your dignity, your privacy, and in the end, probably your reputation.
Therefore Rudi Giuliani probably is the only nationally known Republican who has the visibility to get elected elected president of the United States. Arnold Schwartzenegger would be an even more popular candidate by far, except for the accident of his Austrian birth. And no, the US Congress and 75% of the US states will not amend the US Constitution just to make it possible for the governor of California to be elected to the highest office of the land.
McCain is a non-starter. Far too confrontational. Far too much anger which springs out in unexpected moments. (If he were going for such a nomination for real, questions would begin popping up about whether his confinement in a prisoner of war compound in North Viet Nam took his mind slightly out of balance.) And vigorous or not, McCain is far too old and frequently shows it.
The fact is, Rudi Giuliani is probably the only Republican who stands an excellent chance of beating senator Hilary Clinton in the November 2008 general election. Among other considerations, he handles himself better than her in unscriptable situations, which a unique kind of experience as an old-time trial attorney prepares people to do in times of need. I seriously think he knows how to argue better than senator Clinton does. Which means that Giuliani will beat her in the debates, before the largest audiences in human history.
But will Hilary be the democratic candidate? I would all but lay money on it as things stand right now. All the other Democrats of note are ghosts of Christmases past. The one Democrat who really could get elected to the presidency in 2008, almost without campaigning for it, is her husband. But the same as for Arnold Schwarzenegger, nobody is going to rewrite the US Constitution to enable that to happen. But just because a lot of folks around the country no doubt have mellowed memories of Big Bill, doesn't mean this necessarily translates to mellowed memories of his wife, who has so obviously been competing with him for power from the day their first met.
Clinton and Giuliani both are centrists. Neither of them are likely to take hardened stances favorable to the rabid wings of either of their parties. So the various debates will not be subject to hijacking over gun rights, abortion rights, marital rights of homosexuals, or much of anything else.
And because of all that, Rudi will have a serious advantage over Hilary in this particular ultimate political arena. He has actual experience administering the government of the most important city in the United States. Hilary's experience is specifically that of a legislator. White House insider she certainly was. But she never occupied the desk at which the buck stopped, and the only serious crises she ever dealt with were (possibly) getting Vince Foster's corpse out of her bedroom and into Marcy Park, and helping Big Bill explain away the unexplainable as Monica's testimony was dragged out by the relentless mouse of a public prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. (Whatever happened to that man, anyway?)
So that's it, folks. I think it will be Hilary and Rudi, in a national replay of an earlier race. But this time -- just maybe -- the results will be reversed.
That was great Arnold. There are things you said that are so good. So much of it is absolutely right on. I hadn't thought about Hillary and Bill being that way towards one another until later in his second term. After reading that, I feel you are right.
I do remember the fine moments you speak about. I want those fine days back where we have an Adali Stevenson. And I will hope that he is going to listen to the American people on immigration. He will have to be tough on that issue.
I do hope he is running and I can tell you now, he is the man I want in the White House. A lot of people feel that way down here in the South.
That was great Arnold. There are things you said that are so good. So much of it is absolutely right on. I hadn't thought about Hillary and Bill being that way towards one another until later in his second term. After reading that, I feel you are right.
I do remember the fine moments you speak about. I want those fine days back where we have an Adali Stevenson. And I will hope that he is going to listen to the American people on immigration. He will have to be tough on that issue.
I do hope he is running and I can tell you now, he is the man I want in the White House. A lot of people feel that way down here in the South.
"Because I don't think that's even vaguely plausible."
Gman is more liberal than Bill Clinton, and not much more conservative than Hillary. Or maybe its the other way around: they are all so close on things that it's hard to tell sometimes.
Look, I'm a partisan Democrat and _I'd_ vote for the guy. That does not bode well. I know the primary audiences, the major players, the major groups of voters of both parties pretty well. I just don't see it in the cards. They just aren't going to like his positions on things in the past, let alone all his negatives, and they certainly aren't going to buy him singing a new tune for the national scene.
None of this will shake out until the contest begins in earnest, but when it does, he's going to be in serious trouble. His positive name recognition and favorability have nowhere to go but down as Republicans learn more about his past and his positions. These are very picky voters, and a few memorable press conferences are not going to protect him against that. Dave cites national approval ratings for Clinton. But the nation doesn't vote in Republican primaries. Heck, most Republicans don't vote in Republican primaries. There's a bar, and I don't think Gman can cross it, especially not if McCain is in the mix (because they'll steal a lot of each other's groups) along with some more traditional conservative choices like Allen (though the macaca thing has really hurt him pretty bad, which has to make everyone else in the Republican field pretty happy, given that Allen was looking to be the next golden boy).
Again, I think Dave underestimates the importance of immigration this coming cycle. Not that different from Bush is not going to be a win at all: Bush's stance on immigration is one of the things many conservatives break ties with him on and the issue is only getting started.
The Democratic side is going to be a huge crapshoot. If Hillary runs (no its not a done deal: or at least everyone I know who works in her office still don't know what their 2007/2008 plans are going to be) AND a horde of Biden, Bayh, Kerry, and Edwards get into the mix, then this might deflate someone like Warner to the point where he can't beat her. If some of those folks stay out, then someone like him might have a chance. And if she doesn't run, it's anybody's guess.
"And he ran in 2000 AGAINST the hard right. No one remembers that either, apparently."
You'll have to explain what you mean by "hard right" in that case because as I remember it, after it came down to him and McCain, things colalasced pretty well in his favor as the annointed one. Certainly religious conservatives, who are a powerful primary bloc found lots to support Bush for (especially over McCain) and yet have been highly disappointed in him overall and will not be looking to make the same mistake again.
I'd vote Giuliani before I voted McCain. Of course after McCain-Finegold, I'd crawl naked over broken glass that'd been sprayed heavily with HIV tainted blood to vote against McCain. (Though this may be the wrong blog to use that as a way of saying that I'm really opposed to McCain... ;-D ) If the Donk canidate against McCain was Hillary, I'd still vote third party. If they were running a "Scoop" Jackson type, I'd be voting Dem.
Good points Vic, but I think you're badly mistaken in thinking that Giuliani could win a Dem primary with his position on the war.
Also, if you'll recall, Bush campaigned on a massive expansion of Medicare, which angered a lot of conservatives.
For the GOP, the #1 issue will be the GWOT, including Iraq. Republican primary voters will forgive nearly anything for a proven leader in that capacity.
Look, I'm a partisan Democrat and _I'd_ vote for the guy.
That's pretty much a self-contradiction right there. You're a thinking Democrat who looks at issues and positions and makes up his own mind. The partisan Democrats I know have hated him since before he stepped into the Mayor's office, simply because of the R after his name; and they hated him far worse by the time he left. The bile I hear from them when his name comes up is almost as bad as the bile they spew at President Bush. And if they're New York partisan Democrats, they seem to hate him worse than they hate President Bush, precisely because he's so popular: they think a man who "ruined New York" (by making it safer and cleaner, ya know) should be ridden out of town on a rail, not feted as a near-hero.
Fortunately, I think those folks are few in number; and similarly, the Republican extremists are few in number. And yes, the extremists of both parties are more active in the primaries; but I'm not convinced they're active enough to block Mr. Giuliani. After all, who are they going to support? Senator McCain? They hate him far worse: he has open contempt for them, and now is trying to mask it to curry votes. They're not fooled.
"You're a thinking Democrat who looks at issues and positions and makes up his own mind. "
No: I'm a Democrat that doesn't live in New York and who is used to working for an electing Democrats far more conservative than Rudy.
"After all, who are they going to support?"
A traditional conservative like Allen, or even someone that's more milquetoast like Romney or Frist. Boring establishment is often better than well-known but uncertain when it comes to solid conservative values.
In general, prior the actual start of the contest with most of the people having their hats in the ring, primaries are tough to call. But you should especially never ever put much stock in polls because half the time the person who becomes a front runner isn't even known by anyone prior to halfway in. And politicians that have faced no criticism and been tested on the campaign trail not at all will of course look like they are in great shape.
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
As mayor of NY, he had to deal with illegal immigrants and not illegal immigration. There's a huge difference. He had a problem, many illegal immigrants. The feds weren't deporting them. Was he supposed to have NYC police arrest them and then what? Catch and release was his only option. His policies were designed to help his city. You would have a totally different plan if you were defending your country.
I will say that he had better make it plain that he isn't against the 2nd amendment. That's a deal-breaker for me.
Saying that, if it's him or McCain, I go Rudy. Nationally, nobody wants to get involved in 2nd amendment issues. McCain has already shown himself to be anti-1st amendment and won the issue. To quote the eminemt philosopher, Sylvester, That'th dethpicable.
At least he's got my vote, should he run.
We wouldn't elect Kerry, and he's Irish. Last name was a vowel, so that was that.
IMHO.
And immigration is shaping up to be THE issue this time around. McCain has a huge liability here (the mere existence of a "Kennedy-McCain illegal immigrant amnesty bill" is deadly)
And so he just kept being misunderestimated right into the Oval Office. Twice.
May Mr. Giuliani be so savvy!
Last time I checked, John Kennedy was Irish and he was elected almost fifty years ago. Northerner's don't understand the South. What Southerner's want is courage of convictions and honesty. Rudy has displayed both and is tracking well in even the most conservative Southern venues (e.g. South Carolina).
What is most appealing about Guiliani is his record of proactive management of the NYPD as mayor and the prosecution of the mob as NYC DA. Both the mob and terrorists rely on stealth and using civil liberties to their advantage. Giuiiani knows this game well and understands how to work the legal system.
As a resident of Alabama (as Southern a state as there is), I think statements like that are a grave mistake. The sense I get is one of *deep* respect for Rudy's leadership on 9/11 - and around here, people respect leadership.
Just as importantly, he gets major kudos here for cleaning up NYC. There's a major impression here (which was probably mostly wrong, but it's nevertheless what people think) that NYC pre-Rudy was nothing but a huge den of crime and sin. And while most southerners wouldn't go so far as to call it a "city on a hill" after Rudy, he gets major points for cleaning it up as much as he has.
That's going to matter a lot more to southerners than his stand on gay marriage or abortion - particularly if he takes the "states rights" stand. In fact, the "states rights" stance is going to get him further than anything else in the south. Remember - once upon a time, we fought a war over those very words. "States rights" sentiments run *deep* here, and it's not - and never was - just a code word for "slavery" (although, unfortunately, even today it does still mean that to a small segment of the population).
Abortion: "This is a state's rights issue. I intend to nominate judges who know their job is to interpret the laws not legislate from the bench."
Gun Control: "I've talked to a lot of gun owners as I've crossed the country the last few years and I've changed my mind."
Really, this stuff isn't hard. If people believe him to be a man of his word, then they'll vote for him.
And considering how strongly Rudy's polling now even in ultra-conservative South Carolina, those saying he can't win the nomination are crazy.
From a political theater point of view, he should sometime in the next year or so get "invited" on a hunting trip, to a shooting match, or maybe both. He should be seen listening to the gun owners, not just "changing his mind". He should talk to them, and really listen, with humility and an open mind. It will make his turn-around more persuasive.
He's also vulnerable on immigration, though. I don't think we've seen even the tip of the righteous iceberg of anger out there yet, on this issue.
And Romney wants to be McCain when he grows up.
Hell, back in 2001, I was wishing for Rudy to be appointed the first DHS director. We'd most likely not have gotten certain follies we all know and remember if he had been.
And I do think that it's possible a number of Republicans, even ones who are pro-life, anti-gay, etc., may hold their noses and vote for Rudy - if the alternative were Hillary... or worse. (Yes, there is worse, I suppose.)
I beg your pardon! It's the freaking Second Amendment, i.e., part of the United States Constitution.
Here is California the Republicans usually pick candidates that are not very electable in statewide races. Our current (moderate) Republican governor, who now looks like he will be re-elected, won a special recall election, meaning he did not have to win a Republican primary. If he had run in a regular election, he would have had a very difficult time winning the Republican primary because of his moderate positions on social and cultural issues. (Actually, some conservative Republicans in California seriously talked about trying to take him out in this year’s primary, but backed down).
The congressional district I lived in was represented by a moderate Republican at one time. He tried to run for the US Senate, but lost to some un-electable, ultra conservative Republican in the primary. As a result we have US Senator Boxer.
As Dean has pointed out before, Mr. Giuliani never declares he's running. He just runs. By that criterion, I think he's unofficially more running than anyone this side of Senator Clinton.
Polls at this point are near completely useless. None of the candidates positions on anything are known, no one has been talked to, and no one knows who else is in the race. A man that could win the Democratic primary is not a likely winner of the Republican one. Just isn't.
And by "a man that could win the Democratic primary", do you mean Mr. Giuliani? Because I don't think that's even vaguely plausible.
Well, I guess now we'll get to see if various hyphenated-cons really like incorporation, or if they're just tolerating it until something comes along.
And Democrats typically elect moderates, though they may nominate more extreme folks. While I disagree with him on any number of issues, President Clinton got elected as a moderate. (After what happened to Senator Lieberman, President Clinton might count as right wing according to modern Democrat activists.) President Carter was more than a bit on the left side (which has become more obvious since he left office); but he was swept in on anti-Watergate hysteria. He might never have gotten the nomination otherwise, and certainly not the election. President Johnson was a legacy, so I'm not sure I count him. President Kennedy was the last elected Democrat President who could truly be called a liberal; and how that term was applied then vs. what the so-called liberal party stands for today are pretty far apart.
The country elects moderates. A party that forgets that is running its race with one foot in a bucket.
But Rudi showed himself in the most fundamental way, in the supreme crisis of the United States of recent years, to be a man of decisive leadership that seemed to surpass that of almost anyone else in the country. Obviously, he was on the scene in New York that fateful day. But the responded well, he responded sensibly, and the whole of the United States bonded with him in a way they rarely do for any public figure.
As a matter of fact, the last time any liberal figure in this country won such universal bonding was when Adlai Stevenson -- of all people -- out-argued the USSR's Anatoli Zorin in the Security Council of the United Nations Organization in New York, at the height of the Cuban missile crissis in October 1962. Second to the seemingly steadfast JFK, and the metallically hard and precise secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, Americans who were were adults in that era remember Stevenson's role in the UNO that critical day, and it helped solidify the national unity that Kennedy needed to get Khruschev to blink first before an incident could trigger the nuclear incineration of multimillions.
I judge Rudi Giuliani as such a man, even if, as a gun rights fanatic and local NRA operative, he doesn't viscerally dance to my drummers.
In any case, Dr Rice is not going to be a candidate. Nor would she hold up very well even if she were not to chicken out from running. She really wants to be president of one of the big football leagues, and/or return to a lifetime of low-stress honors as chancellor of a great university, such as Stanford, from which she arose to prominence in Washington. Like Colin Powell, she knows very well that being appointed to a high profile job is one thing. But to have to fight for a high-profile elected position robs you of your dignity, your privacy, and in the end, probably your reputation.
Therefore Rudi Giuliani probably is the only nationally known Republican who has the visibility to get elected elected president of the United States. Arnold Schwartzenegger would be an even more popular candidate by far, except for the accident of his Austrian birth. And no, the US Congress and 75% of the US states will not amend the US Constitution just to make it possible for the governor of California to be elected to the highest office of the land.
McCain is a non-starter. Far too confrontational. Far too much anger which springs out in unexpected moments. (If he were going for such a nomination for real, questions would begin popping up about whether his confinement in a prisoner of war compound in North Viet Nam took his mind slightly out of balance.) And vigorous or not, McCain is far too old and frequently shows it.
The fact is, Rudi Giuliani is probably the only Republican who stands an excellent chance of beating senator Hilary Clinton in the November 2008 general election. Among other considerations, he handles himself better than her in unscriptable situations, which a unique kind of experience as an old-time trial attorney prepares people to do in times of need. I seriously think he knows how to argue better than senator Clinton does. Which means that Giuliani will beat her in the debates, before the largest audiences in human history.
But will Hilary be the democratic candidate? I would all but lay money on it as things stand right now. All the other Democrats of note are ghosts of Christmases past. The one Democrat who really could get elected to the presidency in 2008, almost without campaigning for it, is her husband. But the same as for Arnold Schwarzenegger, nobody is going to rewrite the US Constitution to enable that to happen. But just because a lot of folks around the country no doubt have mellowed memories of Big Bill, doesn't mean this necessarily translates to mellowed memories of his wife, who has so obviously been competing with him for power from the day their first met.
Clinton and Giuliani both are centrists. Neither of them are likely to take hardened stances favorable to the rabid wings of either of their parties. So the various debates will not be subject to hijacking over gun rights, abortion rights, marital rights of homosexuals, or much of anything else.
And because of all that, Rudi will have a serious advantage over Hilary in this particular ultimate political arena. He has actual experience administering the government of the most important city in the United States. Hilary's experience is specifically that of a legislator. White House insider she certainly was. But she never occupied the desk at which the buck stopped, and the only serious crises she ever dealt with were (possibly) getting Vince Foster's corpse out of her bedroom and into Marcy Park, and helping Big Bill explain away the unexplainable as Monica's testimony was dragged out by the relentless mouse of a public prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. (Whatever happened to that man, anyway?)
So that's it, folks. I think it will be Hilary and Rudi, in a national replay of an earlier race. But this time -- just maybe -- the results will be reversed.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
That was great Arnold. There are things you said that are so good. So much of it is absolutely right on. I hadn't thought about Hillary and Bill being that way towards one another until later in his second term. After reading that, I feel you are right.
I do remember the fine moments you speak about. I want those fine days back where we have an Adali Stevenson. And I will hope that he is going to listen to the American people on immigration. He will have to be tough on that issue.
I do hope he is running and I can tell you now, he is the man I want in the White House. A lot of people feel that way down here in the South.
That was great Arnold. There are things you said that are so good. So much of it is absolutely right on. I hadn't thought about Hillary and Bill being that way towards one another until later in his second term. After reading that, I feel you are right.
I do remember the fine moments you speak about. I want those fine days back where we have an Adali Stevenson. And I will hope that he is going to listen to the American people on immigration. He will have to be tough on that issue.
I do hope he is running and I can tell you now, he is the man I want in the White House. A lot of people feel that way down here in the South.
But I didn't think I deserved a double round of handclaps.
Here's looking at you, kid.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Gman is more liberal than Bill Clinton, and not much more conservative than Hillary. Or maybe its the other way around: they are all so close on things that it's hard to tell sometimes.
Look, I'm a partisan Democrat and _I'd_ vote for the guy. That does not bode well. I know the primary audiences, the major players, the major groups of voters of both parties pretty well. I just don't see it in the cards. They just aren't going to like his positions on things in the past, let alone all his negatives, and they certainly aren't going to buy him singing a new tune for the national scene.
None of this will shake out until the contest begins in earnest, but when it does, he's going to be in serious trouble. His positive name recognition and favorability have nowhere to go but down as Republicans learn more about his past and his positions. These are very picky voters, and a few memorable press conferences are not going to protect him against that. Dave cites national approval ratings for Clinton. But the nation doesn't vote in Republican primaries. Heck, most Republicans don't vote in Republican primaries. There's a bar, and I don't think Gman can cross it, especially not if McCain is in the mix (because they'll steal a lot of each other's groups) along with some more traditional conservative choices like Allen (though the macaca thing has really hurt him pretty bad, which has to make everyone else in the Republican field pretty happy, given that Allen was looking to be the next golden boy).
Again, I think Dave underestimates the importance of immigration this coming cycle. Not that different from Bush is not going to be a win at all: Bush's stance on immigration is one of the things many conservatives break ties with him on and the issue is only getting started.
The Democratic side is going to be a huge crapshoot. If Hillary runs (no its not a done deal: or at least everyone I know who works in her office still don't know what their 2007/2008 plans are going to be) AND a horde of Biden, Bayh, Kerry, and Edwards get into the mix, then this might deflate someone like Warner to the point where he can't beat her. If some of those folks stay out, then someone like him might have a chance. And if she doesn't run, it's anybody's guess.
"And he ran in 2000 AGAINST the hard right. No one remembers that either, apparently."
You'll have to explain what you mean by "hard right" in that case because as I remember it, after it came down to him and McCain, things colalasced pretty well in his favor as the annointed one. Certainly religious conservatives, who are a powerful primary bloc found lots to support Bush for (especially over McCain) and yet have been highly disappointed in him overall and will not be looking to make the same mistake again.
He's gonna come out against Roe v. Wade? Well, that'll make things interesting, if nothing else.
Also, if you'll recall, Bush campaigned on a massive expansion of Medicare, which angered a lot of conservatives.
For the GOP, the #1 issue will be the GWOT, including Iraq. Republican primary voters will forgive nearly anything for a proven leader in that capacity.
That's pretty much a self-contradiction right there. You're a thinking Democrat who looks at issues and positions and makes up his own mind. The partisan Democrats I know have hated him since before he stepped into the Mayor's office, simply because of the R after his name; and they hated him far worse by the time he left. The bile I hear from them when his name comes up is almost as bad as the bile they spew at President Bush. And if they're New York partisan Democrats, they seem to hate him worse than they hate President Bush, precisely because he's so popular: they think a man who "ruined New York" (by making it safer and cleaner, ya know) should be ridden out of town on a rail, not feted as a near-hero.
Fortunately, I think those folks are few in number; and similarly, the Republican extremists are few in number. And yes, the extremists of both parties are more active in the primaries; but I'm not convinced they're active enough to block Mr. Giuliani. After all, who are they going to support? Senator McCain? They hate him far worse: he has open contempt for them, and now is trying to mask it to curry votes. They're not fooled.
No: I'm a Democrat that doesn't live in New York and who is used to working for an electing Democrats far more conservative than Rudy.
"After all, who are they going to support?"
A traditional conservative like Allen, or even someone that's more milquetoast like Romney or Frist. Boring establishment is often better than well-known but uncertain when it comes to solid conservative values.
In general, prior the actual start of the contest with most of the people having their hats in the ring, primaries are tough to call. But you should especially never ever put much stock in polls because half the time the person who becomes a front runner isn't even known by anyone prior to halfway in. And politicians that have faced no criticism and been tested on the campaign trail not at all will of course look like they are in great shape.
Here is a triple clap!
CLAP!!!
CLAP!!!
CLAP!!!
Here's Looking at You, Kid!
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.