WHY I SUPPORT RUDY FOR PRESIDENT: Part I: History Lesson:

A complete understanding of why I support Rudy for President must begin, I believe, with the New York City Mayoral election of 1989:

Briefly: Rudy, having recently resigned as US Attorney, demolished Ron Lauder in the Republican Primary, and then narrowly lost to Democrat David Dinkins in the general election. Dinkins had narrowly defeated incumbent Mayor Ed Koch in the Democrat Primary. Koch was running for nomination for his fourth term as Mayor. New York’s current two-term limit on Mayoral tenure was instituted in direct reaction to Ed’s three-almost-four terms in Gracie Mansion. Among the many negatives Ed faced in his re-election bid was that several high-ranking members of his administration, as well as other influential New York City Democrats, had recently been prosecuted for one species or another of corruption in office by US Attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Digression (1): I was then, and remain, very fond of Ed Koch personally. He is every bit as much a “real New Yorker” as Rudy, albeit with a different spin. Don’t forget that Ed had both the Democrat and Republican nominations when he ran for re-election the first time in 1981. Despite the prosecutions of some in his administration, there was never the faintest hint that Ed himself had ever been involved in anything untoward. He remains one of the most piquant observers of American Politics: I think he has given the most dead-on assessment of how Bill Clinton got the Democrat nomination in 1992.

Confession: In 1989, I was still engaged in the practice of law in New York City. I supported Ron Lauder over Rudy in the Republican Primary. Although I nominally supported Rudy, as the Republican Candidate, in the general election, I was decidedly ambivalent about his candidacy.

Digression (2): Ron Lauder was then and remains among the most estimable of men, and I am proud to be able to claim that I supported him! Before he ran for office he had been Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Austria. Since his brief foray into electoral politics, he has used his vast inherited wealth much to the benefit of the commonweal, both in his Central European Corp’s pivotal role in the commercial development of Central Europe in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Empire, and in his support of the Arts at home, such as his generous support of the Neue Galerie of Austrian Art on 86^th Street.

Political Reasoning in 1989: In those days, I considered myself a creature of Wall Street. I made my living essentially by representing brokerage houses and issuers in public offerings, as well as individual brokers in arbitrations at the NYSE and the AMEX. While I was very much in favour of Rudy’s prosecutions of the Mob and the Koch Administration, I thought he had gone way-over-the-top in his prosecutions of Wall Streeters. I thought Rudy had overreached egregiously when his minions “perp-walked” three traders off the trading floor at Kidder Peabody and when his office prosecuted one of the top traders at Goldman Sachs for the most inconsequential violation. Well, with respect to those two incidents, I still think I was right, but overall:

I WAS WRONG! MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MAXIMA CULPA!!

In those days, I “bought” the “defense” that Junk Bond King Mike Milken -- who along with co-Defendant Ivan Boesky was certainly the most high-profile of the Wall Streeters that Rudy prosecuted -- had worked out through his public relations firm: Essentially, and I paraphrase from memory, that he was a true visionary who had created the financial marketplace of the future, and that he was being wrongly prosecuted by lesser mortals, who did not understand his visionary genius – men who were applying out-moded laws and regulations that were actually holding American capitalism back form the wave of the future, and criminalizing petty offenses that were only malum prohibitum and not malum in se.

In a word: CRAPOLA! As I learned subsequently, principally through the writing of James Stewart, the Milken-Boesky offenses that Rudy, and his successors in the US Attorney’s office, prosecuted were real crimes that had nothing to do with a futuristic vision of America’s financial future. No, they were very much malum in se, and the prosecutions were very much deserved. But, let’s not bog down on that discussion.

Digression (3): Milken has apparently learned his lessons well from his brush with the law. Since serving his time, he has put his great accumulated wealth very much in the service of good, and I salute him for it. I take no issue with Bill Clinton’s ultimate decision not to pardon him, but if Clinton had done so, it would not have offended my sensibilities in the way that the pardon of Marc Rich did.

Now, as I say, I’m sorry that I didn’t have the foresight to support Rudy in 1989 -- not that my support would have made any discernable difference in the outcome of the election. Ultimately, however, I must conclude that it was a good thing that Dinkins won, in this sense: I have concluded that the Dinkins Administration was necessary to prepare the way for Rudy in New York, in much the same way that the Carter Administration was necessary to prepare the way for Ronald Reagan on the national stage. In sort, had the City not sunk into the abyss, an absolutely out-of-control cesspool, that it did during the Dinkins years, 1990-1994, it is problematic indeed whether or not New York voters would have been prepared to turn the reins of government over to Rudy in 1993, or more importantly, whether they would have been willing to tolerate Rudy’s methods during his first term and re-elect him overwhelmingly 1n 1997.

Digression (4): David Dinkins is truly a gentleman -- personally one of the nicest people one could ever hope to meet, have dinner with, or sit next to in Arthur Ashe Stadium at the U.S. Open. His problem as Mayor was the coterie of Left-Wing crazies that he was more-or-less forced to bring with him into City Hall, from the Democrat Party in general, as well as his particular wing thereof. Indeed, Dinkins’ problems in this regard may be viewed as a microcosm of similar larger-scale problems that many more-or-less personally acceptable Democrats would face if they were to become President. Joe Lieberman comes to mind.

During the Dinkins’ years, the conventional wisdom developed that the City was “ungovernable”, and this opinion was widespread; it did not exist merely among the denizens of the Peoples’ Republic of the Upper West Side. Of course, few of those who voiced this opinion ever actually made the effort or took the time to spell out exactly what they meant by “ungovernable”. One can get a very good sense of what engendered the opinion, however, from Tom Wolff’s novel: The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Actually, Wolff’s book came out first in November, 1987, more that two years before Dinkins took office in January, 1990, but its roman-a-clef description of what was actually the waning years of the Koch Administration was absolutely spot-on, and entirely predictive of the Dinkins years, indeed eerily so. Tom Wolff (my fellow Richmonder) is universally recognized as a past master of descriptive prose. Frequently, however – as he did in Bonfire – Wolff will exaggerate to the point of absurdity in order to make a point. What was so eerie in this instance was that as the years passed from Koch to Dinkins, they slid from bad to worse and actually came virtually to match in reality what Wolff had intended as exaggeration-to-absurdity in fiction only a few short years before.

Anyone who was personally familiar with the situation in New York, circa 1985-1994, and who reads Wolff’s Bonfire, will certainly recognize what he lived through. More to the point, such a reader, though he may still be unable to articulate a concise definition, will be in no doubt as to what the conventional wisdom meant by its description of the City as “ungovernable”. It’s like Potter Stewart famously said about pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

Here endeth the reading of the History Lesson. The stage is set. Rudy will take office as Mayor in January of 1994, with the City at a low ebb in its social and political fortunes, and most importantly, in its citizens’ quality of life.

Coming next: WHY I SUPPORT RUFY FOR PRESIDENT: Part II: Prince of the City. Stay tuned!

It really is beginning to seem that there is something like a genuine "grassroots groundswell" a-building in Rudy's favour! This is of course accompanied by a predictable backlash from the MSM, purveyors of the "conventional wisdom", John McCain supporters, and those "social conservatives" who really do fit within the "conventional wisdom", and wouldn't vote for Rudy on a bet.

Despite the backlash, however, I am most heartened by three things: (1) So many people in the Republican "base" are voicing the opinion that they find McCain "unacceptable". (2) Many "social conservatives" seem actually to be making their peace with Rudy and are a distinct part of the groundswell. (Rudy doesn't need to win them all, he only needs to stop them from voting in a monolithic bloc against him.) (3) Once one gets beyond Rudy and McCain, among current Republican contenders, the drop-off in "stature" is downright precipitous!

I practiced law for 15 years in New York, on Wall Street, before Rudy was Mayor. During the latter part of my sojourn there, Rudy was US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, prosecuting Wall Street Arbs, the Mob, and the Koch Administration. Subsequently, I spent 15 Years in New Orleans, whence I was ousted by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Now, I am back home in the Capitol, Richmond. I am the only single, straight, Republican, White man I know who is also a passionate devotee of Opera. Before I went to law school at the University of Virginia, I was an officer in the United States Air Force.

I was born and raised a Virginia Democrat, but my last Democrat vote for any office (presumably forever) was for Jimmy Carter in 1976. That, however, was because he was a Southerner, and because I hoped and believed, rather naively as it turned out, that "Jimmy" could maintain a home in the Democrat Party for Southern Conservatives. I agreed then with Jesse Jackson that a political party, like a bird, couldn't "fly with only one wing". If only Jesse's prescription in that regard had been taken to heart! Now, I consider my vote for Jimmy to have been an embarassment.

I am a passionate supporter of Rudy for President -- the name I chose for this blog was intended to make that clear! With respect to political positions in general, I find myself somewhere on the current continuum between Rudy and Jerry Falwell, a fair bit closer to Rudy, though I have enormous respect for the Rev. Mr. Falwell. My spiritual guide for the past 15-20 years or so has been the Most Reverend George Leonard Cary. I think His Holiness John Paul II was the greatest man of the 20th Century. I appreciate his stewardship of the Church of Rome -- a genuine force for good in the world, whatever its failings -- and his ecumenism therein, but I elevate him to the pinacle principally for his central role in bringing down the Soviet Empire.

I am an intellectual follower of Frederich von Hayek and Frédéric Bastiat. The current politician with whom I find myself in the most philosophical and intellectual congruence is Newt Gingrich. The 20th Century politician for whom I would most readily have gone to "Hell-and-Back", was Prime Minister Margaret Thacher, now the Baroness Thacher of Kesteven.

Of course I venerate Ronald Reagan, but I elevate "Maggie" over "Ronnie" in my personal Pantheon for three reasons: (1) Her political philosophy was so thoroughly thought through and worked out, deriving from her intellectual affinity for Hayek and the Austrian School. (2) She had a such a supreme verbal ability, extemporaneous, and at once, lofty, feisty, and edgy -- demonstrated most famously during the brutal thrust-and-parry of Prime Minister's Question Time. Watching her there was like watching a condor swooping down on its prey. (3) She had the biggest cojones -- tip-o'the-hat to Madeline Albright -- of any national leader since Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt.

All right, you ask: "Why then do you support Rudy so passionately?" Well, that's a more than fair question, and I'll tell you, but the answer is not short, and it will take me at least the week end to compose. So, check back on Monday or Tuesday.

Cheers,
Luther Hardy

I hope everyone watched "Hardball" on Wednesday, 12 July 2006, because if you did, you heard Chris Matthews predict that Rudy Giuliani will win the Presidency in 2008! Not just that he will run, mind you, but that he will run and actually win!

Moreover, this was not just something Matthews more-or-less "threw out there", rather it was a considered and firm prediction! He actually said he was "putting himself on the line". Now, while most of me is gratified by this prediction, a small part of my mind is conflicted because I was just about to write-off Matthews completely as little more that a closet-Left wing, anti-Bush Jerk -- with a Capital "J"! Nevertheless, I suppose no one would dispute that he qualifies as one of the top political commentators and prognosticators in the country today.

He made this prediction while talking to two guests, both of whom were identified as "political strategists" -- one Republican and one Democrat -- and both of whom were loudly trumpeting the "conventional wisdom" about Rudy, i.e., that he can't be nominated by the Republican Party because the "Religious Right", particularly in the South, will never vote for him in any primary because of his stands on abortion, gay rights, and gun control, as well as his own two divorces, etc., etc. To this Matthews responded essentially that he is tired of hearing this "conventional wisdom" because, quite simply, it is at variance with the "facts-on-the-ground" (I paraphrase), as he finds them to be. Matthews went on to base his own prediction on his own instinct drawn from the following facts:

1. Despite the "conventional wisdom", every poll he sees of potential Republican voters actually shows Rudy winning over John McCain and any other currently potential Republican nominee.

2. People running for office in the South this year absolutely fall-all-over-themselves to have Rudy come and campaign for them. Here, Matthews made much of Rudy's recent campaign swing through Georgia on behalf of Ralph Reed -- the same campaign swing that Frank Rich of The New York Times saw as somehow an attempt to bamboozle the Religious Right voters in Georgia. In fact, the whole exchange was prompted by the news that just that very day Rudy was in Arkansas to campaign for Asa Hutchinson to succeed Mike Huckabee as Governor.

3. Matthews believes that in 2008, National Security (or Homeland Security) will once again be the overriding issue in the campaign, and no one -- not even John McCain -- has more credibility on this issue than Rudy. When asked to name someone who matched Rudy's credibility on this issue (broadly defined), the Democrat strategist, a fresh-faced young woman, said she thought that John Kerry was "very strong" on National Security (I do no paraphrase). This prompted a truly spontaneous guffaw from Matthews, the Republican strategist, et moi! I mention it here only to demonstrate yet again how the leadership pf the Democrat party remains so completely out of touch with reality.

Of course, as you all have no doubt gathered, at least on this prediction, Matthews and I are completely in sync. Even I, however, have been sufficiently cowed by the conventional wisdom that I have heretofore said only that Rudy "has a chance". And, because of the vagaries of Presidential politics, I am still unwilling to issue as flat a prediction as did Matthews. I will say, however, that I find the conventional wisdom, particularly as enunciated by people of the ilk of Frank Rich, to be more than a little insulting.

In this regard, the conventional wisdom assumes that Southern Conservative, Religious, and God-Fearing voters, are so insular and consumed within themselves, that they are incapable of (1) making common cause with people like Rudy on such issues as Aids-in-Africa and the Environment, and/or (2) striking an absolutely clear-eyed bargain with Rudy because they don't want to see the White House fall into the hands of any Democrat -- Hillary or anyone else. In the view of Rich and his Fellow Travelers, Southern Conservative voters will not vote for Rudy unless they are somehow "duped".

Finally, and in light of the potential "bargain" that I (and Ralph Reed and Asa Hutchinson, et al., et al.) see a-borning between Rudy and Southern voters, I take note that the Matthews prediction was made with no mention of what I see as Rudy's ultimate trump card against all other potential Republican nominees: Rudy is the only one among them who can put New York "in play" if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and who will win New York against any other opponent. Indeed, it is beyond "conventional wisdom"; it is virtually a demographic certainty that the Democratic Party simply cannot win the White House unless they carry New York!

Cheers,
Luther Hardy

I agree wholeheartedly with Kavon W. Nikrad's's take on Race 4 2008, on the Kate O'Bierne piece in the latest issue of National Review! There is nothing new. The analysis -- such as it is -- is nothing more than pre-digested pablum from the MSM and the "conventional wisdom". It is implicitly concescending both to Southerners and values voters. These people, among whom I count myself, are eminently capable of deciding for themselves that Rudy's leadership qualities and the importance of the "security issue" will lead them to make a clear-eyed compromise with Rudy's "social" positions that they might not like. Isn't "compromise" what "politics" is supposed to be all about?

Moreover, Rudy's "social" positions have been loudly "put out there" for all to see, hear, and know -- most recently by Jerry Falwell. When commenting on his invitation to John McCain to deliver the Commencement Address at Liberty University last May, the Rev. Mr. Falwell was careful to point out, in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times, that while he could support McCain for President, he could not support Rudy because of Rudy's positions on certain "social issues", which he explicitly enumerated.

In short, the "facts-on-the-ground" simply do not support Ms. O'Bierne's analysis.
That, together with her disgraceful intellectual "slight-of-hand" about Rudy's "acceptance" polling numbers pushes the overall assessment of the piece into the category of "hatchet job" -- not something one has come to expect from the National Review! The magazine has violated the very "11th Commandment" that it has in the past loudly urged on others.

But indeed, the worst is yet to come, in the form of the magazine's cover photograph of Rudy as "Rudina". Ms. O'Bierne's piece, for all its shortcomings, made absolutely no mention of Rudy's famous creation of the character of Rudina. Thus, the choice by the magazine's editors to use Rudina as cover art represents nothing more than a rank pandering to prurience, harking back to the "bad-old-days" of "Yellow Journalism". Shame! Shame! Shame!

Truly condign punishment for such conduct would be for Rudy actually to win the White House -- be still my heart -- and then deny National Review access thereto for all eight years of the Giuliani Administration! Fortunately, Rudy has far too much class for that!

Cheers,
Luther Hardy