For those readers so inclined, below is a list of articles I've been reading about Rudy Giuliani as of late. Off the top three Republican contenders he's the one I know least about at this point, beyond the obvious "America's Mayor" bit. Thus, I've been boning up. The selections offer quite a range, from fawning to critical...
...including the short:
Jacob Weisberg at Slate and John Podhoretz in the New York Post.
...and the long:
Profiles in New York Magazine and City Journal, the latter of which Stefan linked to a while back.
Meanwhile, the "meat grinder" I mentioned earlier that all major candidates will have to endure has already had its way with Mitt Romney. See but one example of that negative scrutiny from Roger Simon at the Politico here, and a counterpoint here from the Powerline blog. [Sidenote: don't get me started on the focus pundits like Simon have been putting national polls this early in the cycle. At this point in the 2000 cycle McCain was in single digits, and at this point in 2003 Lieberman was leading the Democratic field. Such polls are simply not instructive at this juncture, especially since attention from regular voters, outside the hardcore in the early caucus and primary states, is laughably low.]
Now, the "meat grinder" has turned on Giuliani as well. Here's a sampling, ranging from the thoughtful to the blatantly biased:
On past judicial appointments.
On past statements related to assorted issues of import to social conservatives.
And on his endorsement of Mario Cuomo in 1994.
In totality, some of the critiques above seem to have more merit than others. Either way I'm favorably inclined toward Giuliani based on the whole my reading in recent weeks, though still firmly prefer Romney by far, for reasons like this excellent performance at CPAC.
The question about Giuliani, which is repeatedly raised in discussions of his candidacy, is the impact of social issues on his reception with Republican primary voters. The longer he continues to do well in straw polls and draws big crowds at campaign stops in early primary states, the more credibility one has to give to this insightful analysis at the Hotline blog discussing the willingness of some conservatives to look past social issues in this case. Whether that analysis holds should be an important and interesting trend to watch.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 03, 2007 11:42 AM | Email ThisRudy is the right guy for the job. Not in with the nutso's and tough enough to finish off the terrorists. Once that is done, he'll be the greatest domestic President ever.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 3, 2007 11:59 AMGiven a choice between Hillary and Rudy... what's the choice?
I haven't read your linked articles yet, but here are a few facts about Rudy. In 1972, he supported the Democratic nominee for president, Sen. George McGovern, a far-left radical.
In 1994, Giuliani endorsed Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo, a true-blue liberal, over the Republican George Pataki.
As mayor, Rudy went along with the City Council in denying the Boy Scouts access to city-owned property-- because the Scouts did not allow 'gay' Scoutmasters.
Rudy also favors open borders.
If one of the Three Stooges is nominated, I suspect that many conservatives will either "go fishing" or look for a third-party candidate.
Rudy also appointed some super-liberal judges in New York.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the abortion issue will go back to the states-- where it should have been all along.
BTW: Why haven't you posted anything on the U. S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear the state's appeal of Washington's "top two" lawsuit?
Posted by: Steve Rankin on March 3, 2007 03:26 PM1: I would much much much rather have Rudy picking supreme court justices than Hillary, any damn day.
2: Rudy told Mr. Alwaleed to shove his $10 million offer to help rebuild the Twin Towers after 9/11 up his Ass. That is Principle in a time of horror!
Rudi is a man of principle first, and money sucking second, something I dare you to find in any democrap especially Hillary healthcare, can't tax enough Clinton.
But fortunately, I do see a perfect storm in the making....
Hillary and Gore have no love loss.
If you think that her continual bashing of Obama is tough, it's childs play from here perspective. It doesn't bring out her Vitriol. It is tempored, because she knows that she has an ace in the hole with Obama as her VP choice. She just has to figure out how to try and keep him from over shadowing her (which he seems very very capable of doing on a continual daily basis).
A Gore presidential run however, which Dick Morris predicts will happen, would bring the gloves off of Hillary.
We can then begin to watch with Glee :)
The vitriol of Hillary Clinton, when she finds out that Gore has dared to enter what she believes to be her DESTINY as president, oh my....that will not only be something to watch, but it will be something to cherish.
Rudy is the absolute best choice the Republicans have at this juncture, because he is the stability in a storm.
He proved that to become the nation's mayor, and he will ride that to the White house.
In 2006 Bush was absolutely beatable. But the Dems picked an ultra neolib as their man. Bush had his supporters, and Kerry his, but most of America elected Bush because "he was the lesser of two evils."
I have no idea who will win the Dem & GOP nominations, but I guarantee you that the one closest to the political center is the one who will win the election.
Hardcore conservatives do not like Rudy. But hardcore conservatives need to realize that Rudy is probably electable, and Newt is probably not.
I have heard several conservatives say that they could never ever vote for Rudy because he does not oppose abortion. Would you rather have Hillary or Obama, both champions of a woman's right to kill her baby? Sometimes one has to vote for the lesser of two evils. If it was Hillary vs Rudy, those pro-life folks will need to wake up.
Posted by: Seabecker on March 3, 2007 09:20 PM1. Gun control.
2. Choice.
3. Gay rights.
Suuuure he wins the early battles that are dominated by the Deliverance wing of the G.O.P.
In today's paper the big 4 (James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, and Paul Weyrich) told the National Association of Evangelicals to knock off all this talk about climate change and human rights and all that other hippie stuff.
Their policy director actually spoke on these issues.