DON’T INSULT THEIR OR MY INTELLIGENCE!

I hope you all heard New York Times Op-Ed “token conservative” columnist David Brooks — whom I like very much — last Sunday on “Meet The Press”. The main part of the discussion between and among Brooks, Tom Friedman, and Moderator Tin Russert, centered on just how bad a disaster Iraq and the greater Middle East could become in the next two years. In this context, when talking about the ‘08 election, Brooks first acknowledged Rudy’s standing in all the polls, then he said (I paraphrase): “I think security is going to be the big issue in 2008, and I think that evangelical voters are going to be willing to trade their disagreements with Rudy on social issues for his leadership on security issues. That could pull Rudy through in both the primaries and the general election.”

Thank you David! These comments are also in tune with Fred Barnes’ comments to the same effect last week on both “Special Report” and “Beltway Boys”. This is the very theme on which I have been harping at least since last May, when Frank Rich said in his Sunday column, when commenting on a Rudy campaign appearance in Georgia for Ralph Reed (I quote): “Any religious conservative who mistakes “America’s mayor,” an adamant supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, for a fellow traveler is in desperate need of an intervention, if not an exorcism.”

I am very much in sync with the comments of certain of my colleagues to the effect that:

“First of all, the statement that Rudy is pro-gay marriage is an outright lie. He has always come out strongly against gay marriage and in favor of upholding traditional marriage.

Also, I think most social conservatives are intelligent enough to make sophisticated value judgments in regard to assessing Rudy’s gun and abortion views in light of his support of strict constructionist judges with strong conservative backgrounds like Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. If you think so-cons would “never” accept Rudy, then you’re insulting their intelligence. ”

And:

“I think the fact that he dropped out of the Senate race in 2000 shows Rudy has good judgment if anything–if you’re facing cancer and can’t go for a few hours without puking because of the chemotherapy, and if you feel like you’re going to die 24/7, then that’s no way to campaign. Had he campaigned in that condition, he would have been SURE to lose. But instead, he passed the torch off to someone else, who at least had a better chance. He put the good of his Party above his own political ambitions and knew when to put his health first. I think that just shows that Rudy is a wise man with a good head on his shoulders.

Believe me. Research Rudy’s runs for NYC mayor, and you’ll see that he embodies ‘fire in the belly campaigning.’”

I do not count my self as an “Evangelical Voter” — I am a life-long Episcopalian — or a “Religious Values Voter”, but I did grow up and go to school in Virginia, my first wife was from South Carolina, I have lived in New Orleans and North Florida (as well as some 20 years in New York City), and many of my relatives could easily be described by these terms, one of whom, with whom I am very friendly, also an Episcopalian, was once a high ranking official in Pat Robertson’s organization. All of this is to say that I have an intimate feel for these people, as well as enormous respect.

The stock-in-trade of the MSM is disdain for Southerners in general and Religious Conservatives in particular, and their “default position” is to insult the intelligence of this broadly-defined group. For my part, I have seen for some time a “bargain” a-borning between these voters and Rudy. Agree with them or not, these people are intelligent, sophisticated, and self-aware, and they are eminently capable of assessing their options and striking a clear-headed, cold-eyed bargain. Like Fred Barnes and David Brooks have opined, I also believe that is exactly what they are going to do.

Finally, I would like to quote two people, both of who are (were) actually Democrats:

The first is Midge Costanza, a Democrat operative, who said in 1976, when she was trying to sell Jimmy Carter to up-state New Yorkers:

“Politics is not an exercise in applied theology.”

The second is another Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, who once said what I believe should be the mantra of all politics:

“If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist.”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

FROM “SAY NO TO RUDY” TO “RUDY ROOTS”!

Remember "SayNoToRudy.org"? That was the anti-Rudy web-site that closed itself down in early November, with a very pro-Rudy closing-up-shop article. At the time, they promised to reorganize and reappear as a pro-Rudy web-site/organization. Well, they've done it! It's called "RudyRoots.org". Here is the hyper-link:

http://www.rudyroots.org/

I have book-marked the site and intend to visit regularly. I commend to you all the entire site, but for starters, I heartily recommend reading the internal links entitled "Who is Rudy?" and "What Rudy Stands For".

In order to "square the circle" and start "RudyRoots" off on the right foot in this space, I have reproduced below the closing-up-shop article from "SayNoToRudy.org", together with my commentary on same at the time.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

________________________________________________________________________

READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT NOW,

THEN SEE MY COMMENT AT THE END:

"IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE

SayNoToRudy.org Ceases Operations, Endorses Giuliani for President

Sunday November 05, 2006

Today, SayNoToRudy.org will officially cease its operations and will no longer seek to actively discourage former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from seeking the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. In what has been a complicated, and outright ironic, transition for the entire organization, we now officially endorse Mayor Giuliani for President in 2008, should he choose to run. It has been a long journey for each of us involved on this team that has made us truly look inside ourselves and ask hard questions, but as of today, the consensus is that we as social conservatives have no reason to so forcefully oppose a Giuliani candidacy in 2008. We want Mr. Giuliani to have a fair chance to explain himself on the positions to other voters without negative preconceptions coloring their judgments. We will no longer write pieces discouraging Mr. Giuliani from seeking the presidency, nor will our writings discourage other voters from considering Mr. Giuliani as a presidential candidate, nor will we actively petition to prevent Mr. Giuliani from being a candidate, nor will we sell anti-Giuliani paraphernalia or engage in any sort of campaign to thwart his aspirations.

The creators of this organization now have a complex, but interesting story to tell. When we began this organization, we had skeletal knowledge of Mayor Giuliani's views on social issues and some of the issues surrounding his tenure as Mayor of New York City. Uncomfortable with what we knew, we sought to do everything legally possible to prevent such a candidate from becoming the Republican presidential nominee. In our efforts to stop his potential candidacy, we delved deep into his record, poured over his speeches and writings, and spoke personally to those who were most familiar with him as a friend and leader. Unexpectedly, as we began to see more and more of who Mr. Giuliani really is, we found our disdain for his candidacy becoming continually undermined as we found that Mr. Giuliani is truly a committed Republican and an accomplished conservative on many issues. When we felt we had a sufficient picture of Mr. Giuliani, we found that his positives now outweighed his negatives. Furthermore, many of us have, in the past month, come to the conclusion that not only is Mayor Giuliani a leader to be admired and respected, he may also be the Republican Party's best chance in 2008. Therefore, the creators of this organization, with much humility and apology, beyond all probability, hereby announce that we are willing to endorse Mr. Giuliani for the Presidency in 2008 both now, and if and when he decides to run. We have truly been humbled by this experience and we hope this will be a lesson to all of us in America that we must not be too quick to rush to judgment and that all of us can work together for the greater good, even if we disagree on some issues.

We hope that you will join us in this endeavor to promote a leader who we feel embodies all of the overlying principles that we think makes the Republican Party great: Hard work, preparedness, optimism, responsibility, integrity through accountability, smaller government, and a bold vision for the future. We feel that Mr. Giuliani, America's Mayor, embodies these values more than any other candidate on the political playing field today. As a result, Say No To Rudy is officially and forever shut down and will, in the coming weeks, be replaced by a website that will seek to provide convincing evidence to other social conservatives that it is not only O.K., but also preferable, to support Mr. Giuliani for President."

This is a truly moving tale of self-introspection, reflection, and a resulting change of mind, demonstrating an honesty and a candor that is today all too lacking in American politics (moi inclusif!)! This statement moves me to make two comments, both of which are deadly serious, though the second is expressed with the inimitable humourous touch of Hizzoner Ed Koch.

First: This statement gives the lie exquisitely well to all the opinions by all the commentators, both in the MSM, such as Frank Rich, and out, who grossly underestimated the intelligence of the Republican Base, including Social and Religious Conservatives, by saying that these people would not vote for Rudy once they learned of his past "liberal positions", thus at least intimating, if not actually saying, that such people were so consumed within themselves that they could not look at the facts and make the conscious choice to opt for Rudy's Leadership, even though they disagreed with some of his positions.

Second: In my judgment, Mayor Koch summed it up best and most pithily, during one of his many mostly successful runs for office, when he said: "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist!"

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

EVEN THE MEDIA “ELITE” CAN’T COMPLETELY IGNORE RUDY!

Here is the hyper-link to a new "polling story" by the Los Angeles Times, published on latimes.com:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-prezpoll14dec14,0,360296,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Naturally, since the LA Times is a bastion of the "Liberal Media Elite", the headline favours John McCain: "Voters favor McCain over Clinton in '08". Please read the entire story. I have excerpted below the "money quotes" from the perspective of this space.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

_____________________________________________

"Still, the survey spotlighted obstacles to McCain emerging as the GOP standard-bearer. A significant segment of Republicans who call themselves conservatives - the base of the party - have an unfavorable opinion of him.

"In contrast, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani received highly favorable marks across the party's ideological spectrum. Giuliani has not taken as many steps toward a presidential candidacy as McCain and Romney have, and the poll did not measure how he would perform against Clinton."

"Romney's religion - he is a Mormon - and McCain's age could be more problematic. Fourteen percent of registered voters polled said they would not vote for a Mormon, and the same number said they would not vote for someone who is 72 years old, which will be McCain's age by election day in 2008."

"Among Republicans, the two best-known and most popular potential candidates are Giuliani and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Both were viewed favorably by more than 80% of those polled.

"Giuliani, renowned for his leadership role after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, surpassed the 80% favorable mark even among conservative Republicans polled - in spite of his liberal record on issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control. He has formed a presidential exploratory committee; Rice has said she does not plan to run for president.

"The view of McCain is more mixed among Republicans, with 65% of those polled viewing him favorably and 20% viewing him unfavorably."

“MACACA”: FINAL CHAPTER!

I’m going to indulge myself here and make one last posting about George Allen and his “Macaca Moment” that cost the GOP control of the Senate. Then, my plan is to devote the next two years virtually exclusively to the Giuliani Campaign.

Here recently, the editors of “Race 4 2008”, a Republican web-site that I follow, made the announcement that George had (finally) formally withdrawn as a candidate for the Presidency in 2008. That posting, and my response thereto were as follows:

December 13, 2006

Allen '08 Officially Ends.

Confirming what everybody already knew, outgoing Virginia Sen. George Allen this weekend announced that running for President in 2008 is now out of consideration. While he did not rule out running for elected office again some time in the future, his loss to Democratic challenger Jim Webb in November effectively ended his presumed White House ambitions.

It was a long, exciting, and interesting nascent campaign to follow these past couple of years, but it has now officially come to a close. Recently ousted politicians never make very good presidential candidates anyway (Tom Daschle had enough sense to drop out on the Democratic side a couple of weeks ago as well). The Allen "campaign" was an amazing story. One that took an underdog, unheard-of young Senator to becoming the Insider's frontrunner for the Republican nomination. And a story that brought him down with a single slip of the tongue. Allen can be both an inspiration and a warning to other candidates. May we wish him well in whatever he chooses to do after January 2007.

Response to "Allen '08 Officially Ends."

1. Luther C. Hardy Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 10:09 am

"As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." - Publius Vergilius Maro

George has been a bully all his life, and it was this very characteristic that ultimately did him in. The "Macaca Moment" was not born out of racism, as so many people form Larry Sabotage to some on this very site have assumed. Rather, the motivating ethos of George's actions toward the young Webb staffer was his own bullying nature.

Despite the misapprehension of a nation obsessed with race, I must conclude that George ultimately got what he deserved. That said, it is nevertheless sobering indeed to see a personal character flaw come to the fore at just the right/wrong moment and have such monumental consequences as to shift political control of the United States Senate in a time of war.

This exchange led a colleague of mine to pose me the following question:

“But do you truly think that the sole cause of G. Allen's losing his re-election was due to that [ridiculous] Macaca incident? That is a rather simplistic view of things, is it not?”

To which I responded:

I don't think this view is at all simplistic. At the time of the "Macaca" incident, George had a solid 16-point lead in the polls and almost ten times as much cash-on-hand as Webb, to say nothing of the power of Republican incumbency in an at-least-semi "Red State", less than 3 months out from election day. Think of it this way: "Macaca" was the pebble that formed the snowball that rolled down hill and became the avalanche.

With "Macaca" George gave the opening to his enemies, and they piled on. Without "Macaca", Larry Sabotage would not have come out with his spurious charges of "racism" from George's college days. Without "Macaca", the Franco-Algerian Jewish origin of George's mother would not have come up, as it has not come up in any other race he has run. Because, however, the term "Macaca" -- a word I dare say very few Virginians had ever heard before George used it on camera -- is so firmly rooted in the Franco-Algerian patois, those origins had to come up this time round. This led directly to George's "ham sandwich" moment with the editors of the Times Dispatch, which by itself was so awkward and immature that it made my skin crawl. Then, the National Democrats, with control of the Senate potentially in the balance, saw an opening and piled on with 20 times the financial support for Webb they had given him in the theretofore. This led to Webb's actually outspending George by a significant margin in the last two months before election day, by far the most crucial time for campaign spending.

George's campaign was thrown into a "damage control" mode for at least a month-to-six-weeks after the "Macaca Moment" because of George's unwillingness to deal forthrightly with it and, at a minimum, apologize. Perhaps most importantly, all charges of "racism" aside, the "Macaca Moment" showed a side of George's character that many voters did not know was there, and it reminded those of us who did know it was there 30 years ago, but who had essentially forgotten about it, or at least put it to one side. For example, I myself began the campaign very much in George's camp. After "Macaca" and "ham sandwich", I felt almost unclean that I was more-or-less compelled to continue to support him because I did not want the GOP to lose control of the Senate.

All of this led to led to a desperation mode in the campaign that produced truly embarrassing moments, such as reading the sex scenes out of Webb's novels, in the crucial last days before the vote. Finally, after all this, George still only lost by slightly over 9,000 votes out of over 2.3 million cast. Another way to put it: "Macaca" was the pebble in the pond that caused all the ripples. In sum, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, had George not decided to bully the young Webb staffer, he would now be headed back to Washington, with the GOP (barely) in control of the Senate. As Chris Matthews has put it: If George had not campaigned at all, but simply gone on vacation for three months and kept his mouth shut, he would have won.

Subsequently, my colleague asked me to explain the “ham sandwich” moment and the derivation of the term “Macaca”. I responded as follows:

“Ham sandwich”: Shortly after the “Macaca Moment”, George gave an already-scheduled interview to the Editorial Board of The Richmond Times Dispatch, Virginia’s largest and editorially most influential newspaper. The editors asked George if it was true that his mother was Jewish.

Now, right there, I think we should pause and acknowledge that this says something positive about Virginia. At that point George had been a major public figure in Virginia for over 30 years. He was an incumbent United States Senator, and had been a Governor of Virginia, a United States Congressman, and a Virginia State Delegate, holding the very same seat held some 200 years before by Thomas Jefferson. Moreover, George had been an Academic All-American quarterback at the University of Virginia, and his father, George Allen, Sr., had been a major public figure in the Commonwealth for many years as Head Coach of the Washington Redskins. After all of this, the fact that George’s mother was Jewish was not known by the Editors of the State’s most influential newspaper. They didn’t know it because it hadn’t come up. It hadn’t come up because no one considered it significant.

How George responded: He mumbled and fumbled around, admitted it was true, and claimed he had “only just learned about it”. Then he felt compelled to add, “but I still had a ham sandwich for lunch”. As I said above, George’s response here actually made my skin crawl.

What George should have said: Since you asked, yes, it is true. My mother’s maiden name was Lumbroso. The Lumbrosos are one of the one of the most prominent and accomplished families in the Mediterranean World. They were originally a family of Italian Sephardim, and have been in Algeria for over 300 years. I am enormously proud to be a Lumbroso descendant. I never brought it up before now because I didn’t want to seem to be bragging. That would not have been appropriate for a Virginia Gentleman. Next question.

The derivation of “Macaca”: This is a perfectly legitimate scientific term. It is the French term for a sub species of the Rhesus Monkey, which is native to North Africa, among other places. In the French Algerian patois, when someone is referred to as a “Macaca”, the term’s meaning depends entirely on context. It can be used as a slur, racial or otherwise. It is also used as a diminutive term by mothers for their children, as in: “you’re just my little monkey, aren’t you?” Mrs. Allen, Sr., who was raised in Tunis was undoubtedly familiar with this term, and may very well have used it, indeed probably did use it, in the Allen household when George was a child.

In fact, the current scuttlebutt going around Virginia on this matter, assumes this to be the case. The story, which I believe to be essentially true, is told below in the from of yet another response I made to a posting on “Race 4 2008”, which I have excerpted to avoid repetition in this space:

I’m through defending George because I think he got exactly what he deserved, even though the specific charge of “racism” was in my judgment unfounded. George was acting like a bully, which is essentially what he has been his whole life, and frankly, I’m glad he is — I hope — out of public life for good! . . .

And now, I have picked up some “inside baseball” in Virginia that I think sheds some interesting light on the “Macaca” incident. . . . I admit that, given that the object of George’s use of the term was of Indian descent, George slid close to the edge and should have known better, regardless of what he thought the term meant. Now, here’s the “inside baseball”:

The Allen campaign wanted to put out the following “explanation”, which, surprisingly enough, appears actually to have been the truth: George’s mother grew up in Tunis and spoke the French Algerian patois. George learned the term “Macaca” as a child from his mother as an endearment. Not speaking French, let alone the Algerian patois, however, George was blissfully unaware of its parallel usage as a racial epithet. [Having known George as a young man in law school, it is not at all hard for me to believe that his own mother might very-well have described him as a “little monkey” when he was a child.] When George used the term in the campaign, he meant it sarcastically as a “false endearment”, applied to someone who was after all an agent of the opposing candidate. The “false endearment” is actually a perfectly legitimate rhetorical device. In this context, the sense would have been: “Let’s give a big welcome to my dear friend over here from the Webb Campaign.” The story goes on to say that George himself nixed the use of this explanation because he did not want to call attention to his mother’s foreign (Jewish) origin!

Now, we can fairly accuse George of being many things, from dimwit to bully to lunkhead to idiot, but the specific charge of racism that was made did not fit.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

ALL WORSE OFF FOR IT!

This morning, in a discussion about the potential political fall-out if the health problems of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) cause him to leave the Senate, a colleague posed the following question: “Would we be debating this if senators were chosen by the state legislatures like they used to be?” My response follows:

Short Answer: Yes, but in a different and less urgent way. I have no idea what the Senate would look like today if State Legislatures did still choose the Senators.

The more important point to make, however, is that the structure and powers of the US Government in the original Constitution, as well as in the intent of the framers, are vastly different from what they were in 1788. Here, one should think of the first 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) as part of the original Constitution. They were proposed by the first Congress in 1789, little more than a year after final ratification of the original document, and the process of ratification by the States was complete less than two years after that, in 1791. Most, if not all, of the original framers agreed they should have been part of the basic document. The remaining 17 Amendments -- numbers 11 through 27, however are a very different story.

In my view, only two of these Amendments -- 13th (Abolition of Slavery); and 19th (Female Suffrage) -- have had a beneficial effect. Indeed, we would have undoubtedly been a better nation/society if we had resolved the slavery issue in 1788. Three other Amendments -- 20th (Terms of Office/Congressional Succession), 26th (Presidential Succession) and 27th (Congressional Compensation) have had a more-or-less benign effect because they deal merely with the mundane internal mechanics of the central government.

All the other 12 have been a bad idea. The 22nd (Presidential Terms) has not yet had a bad effect, but it has created a disaster waiting to happen – think of Wendell Wilkie as Commander in Chief in WW II. The 18th (Prohibition) and 21st (Repeal) may appear to have been a "wash", but in their 15-year process of canceling each other out, they created the economic base for organized crime.

The worst, however, have been the 14th (Equal Treatment), 15th (Voting Rights), 16th (Income Tax) and 17th (Direct Election of Senators). Together, these four Amendments have, essentially by themselves, transmogrified a Federal Republic, based on mutual consent and limited surrender of sovereign prerogatives by Sovereign States, into a federal tyranny. This is exactly what the original Framers feared most. Moreover, these Amendments form the bulk of the asserted justification for the unchecked arrogance of the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary. Every American is worse off for this state of affairs.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

A BARGAIN IS A BARGAIN IS A BARGAIN!

Please allow me to draw your attention to the "Fox All-Stars" panel discussion last night on "Special Report with Brit Hume". Brit's panelists were: Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, and Michael Barone -- three of the most astute observers of the political scene today. They all agreed, more-or-less without discussion, that "Conservative Christian" voters were willing to trade "correctness on social issues" (I paraphrase) in return for Rudy's leadership on security issues! They were focusing specifically on the Iowa Caucuses, but also expressly extended their assessment nationwide.

Even Fred Barnes agreed more-or-less en passant that Religious voters were willing to make this trade, or strike such a bargain with Rudy! This alone is quite important. Of all the more-or-less major political reporters writing today, Fred has essentially staked out his territory as understanding the Christian Right -- indeed, so much so that I have in recent years come to question his overall political prognostication. That said, however, no one can question Fred's knowledge of the Christian Right, or the "values voters" that form the core of the vaunted "Republican Base". Moreover, the Panel's specific description of Rudy's support as a "trade" or a "bargain" is particularly significant because it indicates that the Base knows exactly what it is doing, and their attitude is not based on some sort of ignorance of Rudy's "social positions". Thus, the support is solid and will not waver when this group somehow "learns more about" Rudy.

At the risk of seeming to beat you, gentle readers, over the head with the obvious, this assessment is even more important for two additional reasons, both of which apply to the "horse race" aspect of the 2008 campaign, and both of which I have previously trumpeted in this space, as follows:

First, as I wrote in this space on 01 December, when discussing Rudy's polling lead among "White, Male, Born-Again Christians" in a November Poll done by Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute:

"What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination. Moreover, that's all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" as to why Rudy won't win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won't vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new "darling" of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points!"

Second, as I have written in this space since July, and been harping on since 2005:

"Conservative Christian Republican sentiment [voters] are absolutely ripe for a bargain with Rudy." and

"Rudy has solid support in “Base” states like South Carolina and Georgia, and this support does not drop off significantly either when Rudy’s former and current “liberal positions” become known, or when poll respondents are “push-polled” with respect to these issues."

As I said in October, the "shall-we-say 'maturity' and 'self-awareness' reflected [by the Republican Base is] driving the 'Bargain' that I have described in this space and elsewhere as a-borning between Rudy and the Republican 'Base'"

Finally, on 08 December, in discussing the latest FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll released the same day, this space informed its readers that:

“The poll also asks about perceptions of Rudy Giuliani’s ideology. Even more than Hillary, a whopping 47% of Americans say Rudy is in just the right place politically. Only 9% of Americans say he’s too liberal, and if anything, 15% say he’s too conservative. Funny enough, amongst Republicans, with 81% of GOPers knowing enough about Rudy’s positions to have a definitive opinion on him, a total 65% say he’s in the right place. Only 11% of Republicans say he’s too liberal, which is about the same number of Democrats who say Hillary is too conservative (10%). According to the numbers, if a pundit says Rudy is too liberal for the GOP, then they must also say Hillary is too conservative for the Democrats, which few MSM analysts would buy.”

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!

Yesterday, Tuesday, 05 December 2006, during an interview on Dennis Prager’s radio show, Rudy made the following statement that has had the Conservative blogosphere all a 'twitter this morning. Some are even saying it “may well be the quote of century”:

"I think we should be a society in which government, when it can, sort of extricates itself from people's personal lives."

By clicking here you may listen to the entire Prager interview with Rudy. If you have "pod cast" capability, you may actually view the interview. At the end of this posting, I have reproduced a sampling of blogosphere commentary this morning on the interview.

As you will see below, "tax cuts" and "leave me alone" have been the most commented upon aspects of the interview. For my money, however, the most "immediate" issue was Rudy's flat statement that he is opposed to same-sex marriage, and always has been: "Marriage should be between a man and a woman." At the same time Rudy believes that "civil unions" -- called "domestic partnerships" in New York when Rudy, as Mayor, signed legislation approving them -- are a viable way to address the issue and afford gays and lesbians equal protection of the law as they live their lives.

Take note that this flat statement came less than 24 hours after Tom Brokaw said on "Hardball with Campbell Brown" that Rudy could not win the Republican nomination because he is in favour of "gay marriage". Play a mental game with yourself and see if Mr. Brokaw ever corrects himself. Please take note, also, that this statement of position by Rudy is almost exactly how I have articulated for you all in the past what I had sussed out his position to be.

In sum, the entire Prager interview points up, to me at least, why I support Rudy so strongly: In addition to his toughness on crime and terrorism, his tax cutting record, etc., this interview shows him to be a strong National-Security and Fiscal Conservative with a strong (small "l") libertarian streak. This is almost exactly how I would describe myself.

The only significant issue of Principle left is "Federalism" -- which is the latest euphemism for "States' Rights" -- and Rudy appears to be making "Federalism" a central plank in his campaign platform, e.g., "strict constructionist" judges, social issues left to state legislatures, etc. For me that squares the circle.

Yet, the Tom Brokaws of the world keep saying Rudy is too "liberal" for the Republican "Base". Well, hogwash! Dare I say it? This man could be a more significant President than Ronald Reagan! Both in the sense of what he would do as President and in sense of how the MSM will continue either to ignore or underestimate him until he has absolutely eaten their lunch!

Finally, I would ask all McCainiacs to take especial note of Rudy's conciliatory, diplomatic, indeed praising comments about the good Senator, who will most likely prove to be Rudy's principal rival for the GOP nomination in 2008. Could it be that Rudy is consciously resurrecting Ronald Reagan's vaunted "11th Commandment"? Could we really be once again on the verge of "Morning in America". Ah, 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!

And now, the blogosphere commentary on the Prager interview:

10 Responses to "Quote of the Day"

1. jake Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:46 pm

That should be the mantra of the Republican Party, repeated by every candidate when he wakes up in the morning, before every speech, and again before he goes to sleep.

2. Zach Mayo Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:53 pm

Take out the "sort of" and that may well be the quote of century. Of course, this is only a step away from the "out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom" rhetoric that so angers the so-cons (mostly that latter half). Being a social moderate myself, I don't care much whether Giuliani was thinking about abortion when he said this.

3. DaveG Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

Dare I say it's morning in America again?

4. jake Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

Dave G. . .nice.

5. Zach Mayo Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 9:04 pm

Well, Dave, I dare say that Rudy Giuliani's staff would love for you to make that particular connection .

6. Nusrat Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

Is it just me, or is Giuliani the closest thing a small-l libertarian like myself will get to the perfect candidate?

7. Nusrat Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pm

(In a major party, that is)

8. DaveG Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm

Nusrat: It's not just you

9. Steve Says:

December 6th, 2006 at 12:31 am

As a social conservative (as well as a fiscon and neocon), and a Republican that knows that without social conservatives the Republican candidate can never win, I find this statement troubling. I was close to being able to enthusiastically supporting Rudy if he were the nominee. Now, I'm significantly less sure.

10. DaveG Says:

December 6th, 2006 at 1:01 am

Hi Steve,

Just to make sure you know, this statement wasn't code for any sort of position on abortion. It came up in the context of taxes and civil unions, and Rudy was arguing that his opposition to taxes, and his support in NYC for ensuring that gay citizens are afforded the same legal protections that the rest of us enjoy as we live our lives, both stem from his political philosophy, which is articulated in our quote of the century above. Beyond that, I guess I would just ask to what extent you would disagree with the general principle that government should generally err on the side of not meddling in people's lives? If it's abortion that you're concerned about, I think it's quite possible to be a small-l libertarian and pro-life, and it's definitely possible to be a small-l libertarian and support judges who defer to the democratic process.

________________________________________________________________________

And, in response to a posting entitled “Still Think Rudy’s Not Running” announcing that Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management Sandra Pack will leave her post and head to Giuliani's exploratory committee, the following:

7 Responses to "Still Think Rudy's Not Running?"

1. Paul8148 Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pm

Yes. It also helps to get some non-New York blood on his team. Romney has got the Republicans to "op-resource" guy on board for the Republican party.

2. Methepeople Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:25 pm

For Rudy fans, he was interviewed on Dennis Prager's show today, both at the end of the second hour and also at the beginning of the third hour.

Dennis asked him questions about Iraq/War on Terror and Israel as well as domestic issues like tax cuts, same-sex marriage, and campaign finance reform. He also asked Rudy about John McCain. Rudy was great- candid, much more conservative than I expected, and the way he talked about he and McCain running against each other made it clear that he is running.

Also, I think Kavon had said he supposed that Rudy might take the Reagan route and not "bash" other candidates...he's right. When asked about McCain, Rudy played his cards WELL. I, being a Romney fan, conceded that that attitude might win him the nomination. But you gotta hear it for yourself. It's the first interview that I'm aware of that he made after the exploratory committee announcement.

3. Jennifer Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Mr Meet the People, What did he say on the social issues? Did he make a strong judges pitch?

4. Methepeople Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

He was not asked about judges. He said that he was against same-sex marriage- "Marriage is between a man and a woman." He conceded that he signed civil union bill when he was mayor, but compared it to domestic partnership (in a pretty disarming way). He is pro tax cuts, and cited the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush administrations as evidence that tax cuts spur the economy.

He also said the McCain-Feingold had many loopholes, but that he was used to it because he ran for mayor under a CFR system. But he said he didn't like McCain-Feingold, but that to McCain's credit, Rudy thought McCain has realized some of the problems that were unforeseen at the time of the legislation. He said the CFR was easily as complex as the current tax code.

5. Jennifer Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

Dear MethePeople(sorry for the prior typo):

Sounds somewhat convincing. I always thought his best social conservative gambit would be that he went into the lion's den-cleaning up NY, fighting the cross defilers, defending the cops against the ACLU. Any push on that?

6. Methepeople Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm

Nope. It wasn't that long of an interview. I think a main message I got from the interview was: "I'm not liberal like you thought." It's RUDY that almost sounded like the heir apparent to Bush, rather than McCain.

7. DaveG Says:

December 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

I thought Rudy knocked the ball out of the park. My favorite line came when Rudy was making the distinction between his opposition for SSM and support for civil unions. He basically said that while we shouldn't change the definition of marriage, we should give gay individuals the ability to be protected under the law as they live their lives. He then pointed out that this is consistent with his philosophy of generally *getting government out of people's lives.*

I also thought that his Iraq response was good. Basically argued that we can't pull out now, not for some amorphous reason like the need to establish a utopia on the Euphrates, but for the simple reason that if we do, it will likely empower Iran even more and will create a hotbed for terrorist production. I assume Rudy means that if we leave now, it won't be long before Iraq becomes a Shia-led mini-Iran. The thing is, he's probably right. Rudy said we must leave a “stable” Iraq behind.

THE FRONTRUNNING UNDERDOG

And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, back to Rudy: National Review's Deroy Murdock has once again hit the nail on the head with respect to Rudy’s status as the actual “on-the-ground” frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination for President. He has also, once again, absolutely skewered the MSM’s and the “Conventional Wisdom’s” almost childishly petulant denial of that obvious reality. Here is the hyper-link to the entire article:

(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWIwODQ5ZDZkYzkzOWU4MTJhYjkwZTFiYzJlYzk4Mzc=),

and here are the “money quotes:

"The oddest thing about the conventional wisdom may be its almost bulletproof imperviousness to the facts. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Arizona Senator John McCain's oft-trumpeted status as frontrunner for the 2008 Republican nomination. Conversely, the cognoscenti titter at former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani as terminally liberal."

"Most fascinating is Giuliani's performance among self-professed "White evangelicals/Born-again Christians." Here again, among 439 of the study's most socially conservative respondents, Giuliani is at the top of the heap. He scores 66.3, ahead of Rice (64.4), Bush (58.1), McCain (57.1), Gingrich (47.8), and Romney (46.4). (Error margin for these respondents: +/- 4.7 percent.)"

"The conventional wisdom further argues that Giuliani benefits from his high name ID in the wake of his universally covered and highly appreciated leadership on September 11. But Giuliani is not outshining a state senator here or a second-term House member there. McCain is widely known from coast to coast, as are Gingrich, Bush, and Rice. Giuliani easily outpolls the former speaker of the House of Representatives and the man who was runner-up for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. Giuliani tops the current secretary of State and the president of the United States in general "warmth" and comes within 0.6 and 0.4 "degrees" of them in popularity among Republicans."

"As for his alleged liberalism, Giuliani, to be sure, will face resistance from Republican primary voters who differ with him on abortion, gay marriage, and gun ownership. While Giuliani's views on these issues eventually may gravitate to the right, he will address his potential critics with an enormous reservoir of goodwill, as Quinnipiac's numbers show.

Some have speculated that Giuliani's numbers will fall once GOP voters across America learn that he favors civil unions, is pro-choice, and has called for greater gun regulations. Perhaps.

But his numbers could hold or even rise once Republicans outside Gotham learn that, as mayor, he cut the local tax burden by 19 percent, jettisoned racial and gender preferences for contracting (during his first month as mayor, no less), hunted deadbeat dads and made them pay their child support, implemented charter schools, promoted "vouchers" (always embracing that word), and hosed down seedy, crime-infested areas such as Times Square. It now is safe, literally, for Mary Poppins - a new Disney musical that opened on 42^nd Street, where pornographic films unspooled prior to Giuliani's tenure."

At least as important as Mr. Murdock’s prose, however, is the chart (reproduced below) that he compiled from Quinnipiac's "Thermometer Reading" poll (conducted 13-19 November 2006), in conjunction with his article on Rudy in National Review On-Line, yesterday, 30 November 2006. I don't believe I have ever seen anything quite this astounding. One should study this chart carefully!

At the same time that the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" are loudly trumpeting John McCain as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, Rudy leads every current potential candidate in every category of potential voters! Let me say that again louder: RUDY LEADS EVERY CURRENT POTENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EVERY CATEGORY OF POTENTIAL VOTERS!

Even when non-candidates for 2008 are considered, Rudy still leads in 8 of 9 categories. The 9th category is "Republicans" where Rudy comes in a close 3rd to two non-candidates: 1. Condi Rice 72.3%; 2. President Bush 72.1%; 3. Rudy 71.7%. More importantly, however, even in this category, Rudy leads actual potential candidates, McCain (by 9.5 percentage points), Gingrich (12.8), and Romney (18.9), all by margins that are solidly above that category's announced margin of error of +/-4.4%.

Most importantly of all, however, in the category of "White Born-Again Christians", Rudy leads the entire field by substantial margins. Here again, Rudy leads actual potential candidates McCain (9.2), Gingrich (18.5), and Romney (19.9), by margins that are solidly above that category's announced margin of error 0f +/-4.7%. What is most important here is that this is the very category that the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" say is supposed to deny Rudy the Republican nomination.

Moreover, that's all they have to say against Rudy. Let me say that again louder: THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY AGAINST RUDY! There is no other reason advanced by the MSM and the "Conventional Wisdom" as to why Rudy won't win the nomination than that the Christian Right in the South won't vote for him in the primaries. Yet, not only does Rudy lead every other name advanced in this category, he also leads Mitt Romney, supposedly the new "darling" of the Values Voters, by almost 20 percentage points! Don't forget, Rudy doesn't actually have to win this block of voters. All he has to do is garner enough of their votes so that they don't vote as a bloc for someone else and thereby deliver a primary win to that someone else.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

	Giuliani Tops Republicans in "Thermometer Reading" of National Leaders
										White Evang./
								White	White	Born-again
	Leader	Total	Men	Women	Republicans	Democrats	Independents	Protestants	Catholics	Christians
	G.W. Bush	43.8	43.6	44.0	72.1	22.2	38.9	53.6	45.1	58.1
	Gingrich	42.0	42.6	41.4	58.9	29.0	38.9	45.7	42.5	47.8
	Giuliani	64.2	62.9	65.6	71.7	56.4	64.1	66.2	66.7	66.3
	McCain	57.7	59.6	55.7	62.2	52.5	58.6	60.2	59.6	57.1
	Rice	56.1	53.0	59.1	72.3	44.1	53.3	61.4	57.2	64.4
	Romney	45.9	46.4	45.2	52.8	39.7	45.9	46.8	46.6	46.4
	Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute's "Feeling Thermometer" -- 1,623 registered voters rated the warmth
	of national leaders from 0 - 100: "The higher the number, the warmer or more favorable you feel toward that person,
	the lower the number, the colder or less favorable." Mean scores presented here.
	Key error margins: +/- 2.4 percent, overall. Among Republicans: +/- 4.4 percent. Among Born-against: +/- 4.7 percent.
	Survey conducted November 13 - 19, 2006.