Quote:SYNDICATED COLUMNIST FOUND IN MANY LEADING PUBLICATIONS
An absolutely delicious translation of "townhall".
sozobe wrote:(As an aside, all of what kelticwizard says is familiar to me from following it in the NYT.)
Myself as well.
Pre 9/11, Giuliani was a New York personality and a New York story, a rather odd and colorful duck in the mode of New York mayors and politicians. One had to be reading mainly the New York press (or the New Yorker) to bump into him in any significant way. The marriage turmoil got more extensive national coverage because so much of the media is centered here and because the story itself was so outrageous (particularly to women). The New Yorker carried a serious criminology piece addressing Giuliani's claims of his personal responsibility for crime reduction in the city (mixed conclusion...every major US city was evidencing reductions in crime statistics at the time which argued for some other or complimentary factor).
Cycloptichorn wrote:You guys are missing the point -
Guiliani is the 'great white hope' for the Republicans now. They can't support Bush any longer - at least not with the blind, 'I won't hear anything bad about him' fervor they like - so they are turning to the next one that they can throw their reality-denying support behind.
A more honest person would admit that they think Guiliani would make a good prez. in spite of the fact that he's acted as a real scumbag to his ex-wife, rather than argue insane positions at length. But we aren't dealing with people who even have the capability of being honest with themselves.
Don't hold your breath waiting for admissions about Gulliani.
Cycloptichorn
Well, I'm not a Republican but I think Guiliani would make a better President than any of the other Republican hopefuls in spite of the fact that he's acted as a real scumbag to his ex-wife.
Close enough?
JPB wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You guys are missing the point -
Guiliani is the 'great white hope' for the Republicans now. They can't support Bush any longer - at least not with the blind, 'I won't hear anything bad about him' fervor they like - so they are turning to the next one that they can throw their reality-denying support behind.
A more honest person would admit that they think Guiliani would make a good prez. in spite of the fact that he's acted as a real scumbag to his ex-wife, rather than argue insane positions at length. But we aren't dealing with people who even have the capability of being honest with themselves.
Don't hold your breath waiting for admissions about Gulliani.
Cycloptichorn
Well, I'm not a Republican but I think Guiliani would make a better President than any of the other Republican hopefuls in spite of the fact that he's acted as a real scumbag to his ex-wife.
Close enough?
Yup! You won't hear that from those on the right, tho.
Cycloptichorn
joefromchicago wrote:As I've
mentioned in another context, Giuliani would never be acceptable to the Republican right-wingnuts, who would crucify him for his social liberalism, his messy personal life, and his Papism. He is just too liberal, too ethnic, too urban, too divorced, and too Catholic to get the nod from the GOP.
I've always thought along the same lines, joe. At this early point, however, I'm hopeful that the GOP Republican right-wingnuts have, in fact, been marginalized and if ever a moderate Republican had a chance to survive the primaries, this could be the time.
O'Bama probably has a lock on the Democratic primary in IL. My vote there would be irrelevant, but it might make a difference in the Republican primary. I haven't voted in a Republican primary in a long time, but I'm seriously considering it this go-round.
joefromchicago wrote:As I've
mentioned in another context, Giuliani would never be acceptable to the Republican right-wingnuts, who would crucify him for his social liberalism, his messy personal life, and his Papism. He is just too liberal, too ethnic, too urban, too divorced, and too Catholic to get the nod from the GOP.
Rare for me to disagree with you, joe, but I'm no longer convinced it will play out this way. Note the townhall piece that fox linked earlier and the attempt to deny that he has any real "liberal" bone in his body. I thought a bit about his catholicism too and there are a couple of factors that come into the equation, one being the increased relationships that Rove and Donovan have been seriously working on for years now between evangelicals and catholics; and the other being that, in comparison to that creepy, weird and un-American Mormonism, Catholicism might look like Jesus' second favorite church after all.
The Republicans are in a corner now and many know it. They don't have a champion and loss of the presidency looks probable. Giuliani is, I think, their best bet and I think more and more of them will figure that out. The long-term strategists have a couple or three choices...grit the teeth and take a lesser evil or splinter to a third party (doubtful, I think) or take a four year loss and work like hell to bring whatever dem president wins into disrepute (the strategy applied to Clinton) while working on grassroots and institutional power.
sozobe wrote:blatham wrote:Thomas wrote:blatham wrote:My supposition is that he represents authoritarian leadership far moreso than the other two or three options. And this is a community that really likes authoritarians.
As a strategist, would you recommend that he rename himself Giulialini?
There's a joke here (aside from my habit of spelling his name with the 'u' preceding the 'i') but I'm not sure what it is.
Mussolini, I think.
Likely you have it. Isn't it fun to put thomas in the position where he has to explain his jokes.
I would have chosen Mussoliani. :-D
JPB wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You guys are missing the point -
Guiliani is the 'great white hope' for the Republicans now. They can't support Bush any longer - at least not with the blind, 'I won't hear anything bad about him' fervor they like - so they are turning to the next one that they can throw their reality-denying support behind.
A more honest person would admit that they think Guiliani would make a good prez. in spite of the fact that he's acted as a real scumbag to his ex-wife, rather than argue insane positions at length. But we aren't dealing with people who even have the capability of being honest with themselves.
Don't hold your breath waiting for admissions about Gulliani.
Cycloptichorn
Well, I'm not a Republican but I think Guiliani would make a better President than any of the other Republican hopefuls
And that's a sentiment with which I seriously disagree. I think the very last thing the US needs now is another loud and angry meglomaniac at the helm. More enemies you do not need.
sozobe wrote:I would have chosen Mussoliani. :-D
Much better! Rudy Mussoliani. Skips off the tongue with zest and enthusiastism.
blatham wrote:JPB wrote:
Well, I'm not a Republican but I think Guiliani would make a better President than any of the other Republican hopefuls
And that's a sentiment with which I seriously disagree. I think the very last thing the US needs now is another loud and angry meglomaniac at the helm. More enemies you do not need.
Then which of the other Republican hopefuls would you see as a better President?
blatham wrote:Rare for me to disagree with you, joe, but I'm no longer convinced it will play out this way. Note the townhall piece that fox linked earlier and the attempt to deny that he has any real "liberal" bone in his body. I thought a bit about his catholicism too and there are a couple of factors that come into the equation, one being the increased relationships that Rove and Donovan have been seriously working on for years now between evangelicals and catholics; and the other being that, in comparison to that creepy, weird and un-American Mormonism, Catholicism might look like Jesus' second favorite church after all.
The right-wingers' long knives have not yet been drawn in this presidential campaign. McCain looked pretty formidable in 2000 until Rove's unholy minions started insinuating that the senator had fathered an illegitimate black child -- and that wasn't until the South Carolina primary. There is still a long time for the character assassins to work on Giuliani.
blatham wrote:The Republicans are in a corner now and many know it. They don't have a champion and loss of the presidency looks probable. Giuliani is, I think, their best bet and I think more and more of them will figure that out. The long-term strategists have a couple or three choices...grit the teeth and take a lesser evil or splinter to a third party (doubtful, I think) or take a four year loss and work like hell to bring whatever dem president wins into disrepute (the strategy applied to Clinton) while working on grassroots and institutional power.
Right now, I think more evangelicals will vote for a Morman than for a Catholic, even though there have been many attempts to span the religious gap with alliances over abortion and other "family values" issues.
At this moment, then, I think Mitt Romney has the best chance to emerge as the GOP nominee in 2008. Barring any unforeseen scandal or gaffe, or the emergence of a dark-horse candidate who is not yet declared, I think Romney will get the nomination.
Quote:
At this moment, then, I think Mitt Romney has the best chance to emerge as the GOP nominee in 2008.
I most certainly hope he does.
When polled about acceptability of candidate's backgrounds, woman and African-American poll very high, Divorcees lower, old men lower than that, and Mormon lowest of all.
Cycloptichorn
McCain. His present pandering and triangulation, though disagreeable, is understandable. Everyone has to do that to some extent. The situation presently within the Republican party just makes it more acute and more visible. So for me it comes down to who I think would screw up least and forward policies and personnel which might actually help the present situation. The big negative for me with his policies has to do with foreign policy and militarism, so I'd really rather he doesn't win the presidency. On the other hand, I like many of his notions of how government ought to be done domestically.
I felt the same way a few years ago. I think his time has passed, however, and I no longer see him as someone who will push for social causes. His pandering might be simply that, but whatever support I would have given him in the past is gone.
As far as the Religious Right supporting Rudy: Seems hard to imagine. Remember the lackluster support Dole got from that wing of the party in 1996? Going on past experience, it really looks like the Religious Right would rather withold strong support from somebody they don't perceive as their own and see him lose, than bite the bullet and support someone fully they are only lukewarm about and give him a fighting chance to win.
In my opinion, the big winner from the Giuliani cadidacy will be McCain. He has some genuine conservative opinions, notably on abortion and other issues, he supported the Iraq war but he has an explanation as to why Iraq didn't work-they didn't send ENOUGH-which will be extremely palatable to conservative voters, especially since many generals are saying the same thing. Inother words, he supported Iraq but doesn't look like a loser, in the eyes of many.
McCain has some repair to do with the Religious Right, no question. But if the two big choices, (I'm not discounting Romney, but his candidacy is just building), are between one with great popularity who had genuine conservative instincts despite past squabbles, and a moderate who will have to be brought kicking and screaming to even give lip service to conservative opinions, I see the Religious Right embracing McCain.
Yes, his popularity declines somewhat while he kisses up, but he has plenty of time to come back strong, with backing that he never had before. And he has a genuinely magnetic personality, (although Romney is no slouch there either).
joe
May be so. Really interesting dynamics in this one. The center isn't holding for these folks and it all could get like a wrench thrown into fast moving machinery.
Quote:I see the Religious Right embracing McCain.
kw
There has been some strong statements from senior RR people of the "I'd never vote for him" sort and I'm guessing you've got this wrong other than some lacklustre rally behind the candidate eventuality. He also has to get support from the RNC machine and he will have to make promises which they will have trouble trusting him on (for good reason...he has some principles). I think too that the neoconservative/Murdoch camp will not find him appealing for the same reason.
Here's an interesting bit from National Review which heads in the direction I'm suggesting...
Quote:Rush to Rudy
How about a conservative approach?
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Will Rudy Giuliani be the Right's guy in the 2008 presidential race? It's still way too soon to be sure, but conservatives are flirting seriously with the former New York City mayor. Yes, the same mayor who file photos will forevermore show dressed in drag. The same mayor whose marital infidelities will be chronicled permanently in tabloid-newspaper archives.
Rudy and the Right? It's not the most obvious fit, but it's a marriage that could work. Let's just say they're dating but agreeing to see other people right now.
Even though no one will vote in a primary until next year, the presidential race is already prominent on the minds of the politically active. At a recent Beltway party, a friend who is a devoted social conservative explained, and I paraphrase, "Even if abortion is legal in this messed-up post-Roe country, I can choose to not have an abortion. I can counsel you not to have an abortion. I can even choose not to hook up with anyone in the first place. But I can't kill the jihadists. I need the government to do that."
Her point is a conservative one: National defense is what the government really needs to be involved in. So which presidential contender really understands this concept?
more at link
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDFmYjQyMzc2ZTI0YTNmNmU0MWJiM2NkYWRhYjBiM2E=
