Rudy Files ‘Statement of Candidacy’
The AP, via BreitBart:
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose popularity soared after his response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, moved closer to a full-fledged campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday.
In a sign that he’s serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor was filing a so-called “statement of candidacy” with the Federal Election Commission. In the process, he was eliminating the phrase “testing the waters” from earlier paperwork establishing his exploratory committee, said an official close to Giuliani’s campaign.
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting any disclosure by Giuliani.
More at Yahoo:
“Today we just took another step toward running for president,” the Republican said, hours after filing a so-called “statement of candidacy” with the Federal Election Commission, which moved him closer to a full-fledged campaign.
“It’s a big step, an important one. Quite honestly, we’re probably ahead of schedule,” Giuliani told reporters in Long Island while campaigning with a state Senate candidate. “We still have to think about a formal announcement and how to do it, but this is a pretty strong step.”
Later, in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” Giuliani was more direct. “I’m in this to win,” he said. “My campaign is going to be about the future.”
Yes. He’s definitely in.
As Liz Sidoti points out, most people think that it will be incredibly difficult (if not downright impossible) for Giuliani to win the Republican nomination because he’s not conservative enough. However, “conservatives also aren’t entirely sold on McCain [...] and Romney [either] and that could even the playing field for Giuliani.”
Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey wrote a long, interesting post on this. He takes a closer look at how Giuliani handled himself before Hannity. Some quotes:
On Roe v. Wade and abortion in general:
HANNITY: That might get you in trouble. That’s the first campaign gaff. Let’s talk about the controversial issues. You will be asked about them. Where does Rudy Giuliaini stand on abortion? And do you think roe v. wade is a good law or bad law.
GIULANI: I oppose it. I don’t like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that is a personal matter I would advise something against. However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that. I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and have to respect the choice that somebody makes. So what I do say to conservatives because then you want to look at well okay what can we look to that is similar to the way you think. I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can’t think of any– that I’d do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it’s something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously.
On guns:
HANNITY: You inherited the gun laws in New York.
GIULIANI: Yeah. And I used them to help bring down homicide. We reduced homicide I think by 65, 70%. And some of it was by taking guns out of the streets of New York City. So if you are talking about a city like New York, a densely populated area like New York, I think it’s appropriate. You might have different laws other places and maybe a lot of this gets resolved based on different states, different communities, making decisions. We do have a federal system of government in which you have the ability to accomplish that.HANNITY: So you would support the state’s rights to choose on specific gun laws?
GIUILANI: Yeah. A place like New York that is densely populated or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem like a few cities are now. Thank goodness not New York but some other cities. Maybe you have one solution there and in other place more rural, more suburban, other issues you have a different set of rule.
HANNITY: Generally speaking do you think it’s acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.
Ed concludes:
Interesting, and this plays to both Rudy’s strengths and weaknesses. He is not going to change his beliefs to win the nomination, a position that will build both respect and opposition for his campaign. On the other hand, he shows that he has a thoughtful position on these issues, not ones that fall easily into pigeonhole slogans. Will it be enough to convince enough Republicans to support him for the nomination? If so, he could easily beat Hillary Clinton in a general election, and especially in a debate. I’d pay to see that one.
Go to Ed Morrissey, by the way, to read the entire exchange between Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani is handling himself very well, for now at least. He remained true to himself in his answers, while – at the same time – explaining very carefully why he holds certain positions, that he is not the ‘enemy’ of social conservatives, etc.
His opinion regarding Roe v. Wade is nuanced. A nuance I agree with. Giuliani is, in essence, making clear that he does not consider Roe v. Wade to be the best decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in its history, but that it is precedent right now and that he supports abortion being legal (to a degree / with some limitations).
He is more socially liberal than the ‘social conservative’ base is, but he is not overly socially liberal. That is, at least, how he is trying to position himself. He has to get rid of the ‘socially liberal’ label: he has to transform it into a ‘socially moderate’ label or ‘socially moderately liberal’ label.
Anyone still able to follow it?
He is socially more liberal than many Republicans are, but he is trying to make clear to ‘the base’ that he understands them, that he is open to discussion, open to limitations, etc.
I especially liked his response to Hannity when Hannity said:
“I think conservatives would be happy with choices of Roberts, Scalia and Alito but there will be a disagreement on abortions.
Giuliani’s response:
There are always disagreements. And then some people just won’t be able to vote for you. You got to live with that. Reality is you got to be who you are. You got to be honest with people. If your views change you got to be willing to express it. When I was mayor my views changed. I began as mayor thinking I could reform the school system. After four years I became an advocate of choice, of scholarships and vouchers and parental choice because I thought that was the only way to really change the school system. When I started as mayor, I didn’t believe that. When I went through three or four years of experience, that’s what it taught me. I think you have to be willing– you have strong ideas, strong views. but then you have to be willing to look at experience.
A reasonable candidate, open to debate. Open to the opinions of others.
Isn’t that exactly what America needs right now? Isn’t Giuliani one of those few people who are able to end the uberpartisan nature of American politics today?
I’d say yes. He will be able to get the support of quite some traditional DP voters: people who are socially liberal but fiscally moderate or even reasonably conservative. For that to happen he has to win the Republican nomination first of course, but if he does, I’d say that his prospects of winning the Presidency are reasonably good (depending on his opponent of course).
Some people argue that Giuliani will not be able to win the Republican nomination. I disagree. I am not saying that he will win the nomination (not predicting anything here), but I do think that he has a very real shot at winning it.
Like Ed Morrissey, D.M. Eaton wrote a long but interesting post for Red State: Achieving Socially Conservative Ideals Through Liberal Means: Making The Case for Rudy.
An excerpt:
I speak with experience when I say that converts to conservative ideology will come around surely (albeit slowly) if they are approached indirectly. If their beliefs structures are attacked head on they will most likely recoil and defend themselves like snakes. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers, “Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.�
For this reason, contrary to conventional wisdom, a victory by Rudy Giuliani would strengthen even the socially conservative agenda in the long run. As the new Fox Dynamics Poll shows, 65 percent of Americans would be “comfortable� with a Rudy Giuliani administration. Being comfortable is a major step in the right direction. Americans might actually listen to him when gives the State of the Union (without a teleprompter no less, as he usually speaks with note cards or does so extemporaneously). A Giuliani administration that would focus on fighting the Islamic Extremists, reducing the size and scope of government, handling crisis, and putting strict constructionists on the bench who will interpret the law properly will draw more support from more people in the short term. This will translate to more understanding of conservative policies on other matters because individuals will have more patience to read the conservative ramblings of columnists and pundits. In the long run, as a result this will turn into more votes.
[...]
On social values, however, we have a problem. Though wrong, voters in general see the fight to protect marriage and value the sanctity of life as an “unnecessary government intrusion� into their lives (remember the response to Terri Schiavo). Voters in 2008 will be much more interested in being gay (i.e. happy) than with the problem of gays wanting to enjoy all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals do. We can accept this, cut our losses, govern in an otherwise conservative manner, and appoint conservatives to the bench, or we can ignore the voters and end up further in the minority. This election will be about management and leadership, as voters are nervous about terrorism, education, trade, health care, and retirement. In short, voters are nervous about being insecure. Voters, in general, are not insecure about their masculinity or femininity.
[...]
To reclaim the Senate and Congress, to hold onto the White House, to build a sustainable Republican majority, and to advance conservative principles, we Republicans must unite together and support a candidate who can win the hearts of the vast majority of Americans.
Although my view on certain matters differs a bit from that of Eaton, I agree with his general point: it would be wise for Republicans to nominate Giuliani. He will be a binding factor. He will improve things that need to be improved, he will reduce the size of the government, etc.
As I see it, the conservative movement in the U.S. has been hijacked by social conservatives: as if they are interchangeable. As if the only type of conservatism is social conservatism. This is – of course – not true. There are different types of conservatism. Some conservatives aren’t that conservative on social issues, they emphasize fiscal conservatism for instance.
Barry Goldwater anyone?
Meanwhile, Taylor Marsh thinks less highly of Giuliani than I do. Same goes for The Anonymous Liberal.
What’s Giuliani’s strongest point? He is able to appeal to Centrists. Whether progressives or conservatives like it or not, they have to get the support of independents / centrists to be able to win.
50 Responses to “Rudy Files ‘Statement of Candidacy’”
Rule number one in politics should be do not nominate a candidate that cannot win his home district/state, etc (Remember that Al Gore lost Tennessee and lost his old congressional district. The Republicans would be idiots to nominate someone who cannot win his home city or state.
The Democrats would also October surpirse Rudy ever week from Labor Day to election day (remember Bush’s DUI conviction that was leaked to the media a couple of days before the 2000 election.
On the positive side, at least Rudy would be better that handling idiots with video cameras that any of the other Republican Candidates.
If one trully supports a moderate viewpoint via their candidate then Rudi would certainly be your man.
I like him. However I do not think he has a chance to win the republican nomination because he is not conservative enough. If he swings right to win the nomination to appease the right then he will have whored himself out like every other candidate for the position has done the last 200 years and counting.
The republican party has an identity crisis right now and they are going to turn back to their roots with vim and vinegar in order to confront the Liberals…..(American Politics definition of liberals) with a candidate that fully represents the past winning ways of their party. I just cannot see them turning to Rudi……….YET.
I disagree with you, SD. It’s probably true that he wouldn’t win NY but I think he’d make a reasonable showing and I think he’s probably about the only Republican who could do so (in other words, it’s not expected for a Republican to win NY, so as long as a candidate doesn’t lose it by a landslide, that’s still a good showing there). And, I think he’d do well in other NE Blue states and would possibly take some of them. I’m curious as to whether there’s any regional or state polling data on this yet.
He’s already showing that he won’t take that approach though. He’s sticking to his principles, so even those of us who don’t agree with those principles can still respect him for that. And, he’s playing this just right, IMO, because he’s explained why he thinks Roe v. Wade is just bad law even though he personally is pro-choice. He’s showing signs that he would pick SC justices who would revisit this decision and consider turning the issue back to the legislative branch where it belongs. In this way, Rudi is doing what a lot of Americans want (some of whom are pro-choice but don’t like the current status quo of abortion on demand, and some of whom are pro-life.) In this way, he’s finding common ground.
This is also the only way a president really influences the abortion issue anyway, so reasonable pro-lifers can feel comfortable that this is the only way that it matters what his opinion is about abortion. Yeah, from my perspective it would be nice to have a president who agrees with the pro-life position but that’s really immaterial (not to mention that I don’t believe in voting on a single issue anyway, no matter how strongly I feel about that issue.)
Mark this down: Rudy’s apartheid era South African financial ties will come back to haunt him. This was a big shot to his credibilyt in the 1980sm and why he lost the mayoralty to David Dinkins in 1989.
C Stanley,
I believe that any Democratic candidate starts out with 250 electorial votes in his/her pocket. I cannot see the Republicans picking up any state that Senator Kerry won in 2004 ( Ms. Giuliami may be able to pick up New Hampshire)
However, Rudy probably puts Colorado, Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio into the Democratic column since the social conservatives would stay home and Mr. Giuliani would probably win few votes away from anybody who voted Democratic in 2004.
C.S.: as usual I agree with you.
UIS: if the GOP wants to reinvent itself – truly reinvent itself – it would be wise to nominate Rudy. One of the aspects of this reinvention should be to be less partisan and to stop letting CR and Neoconservatives dominate the Republican party.
What would be a better way to do that than by nominating Giuliani?
The GOP has to get rid of the polarization, it has to stop dividing American society into all kinds of different groups. It has to stop attacking people on their lifestyles, etc.
I think that Giuliani could lead the GOP into a new era, an era of reinvention: focus on the fiscal conservative side, etc.
I have to say though, I think- much more than his stance on social issues- his personal life will haunt him and could undo his chances. I think social conservatives will see the abortion issues as I do, but many will see his sordid marital infidelities as a serious character flaw. And of course, there’s absolutely no doubt that the other GOP candidates will throw all of this at him and then if he makes it though that, he’ll face it all again in the general election.
C.S.: the problem is… the other candidates have problems of their own.
All Rudy needs is the support of some Christian and neoconservatives, etc. he has to make sure that their votes are split.
All I’m saying is that I think the personal issues are more significant than his policy stance on social issues, in terms of erosion of support. In the general election, he’d attract enough centrists to overcome the loss of some from the far right, but in the primaries I could definitely see more religious conservatives going for Romney, for example, and more traditional moderate Republicans and paleocons going for McCain. McCain of course is going after the neocon vote too by supporting the surge. So then the question is, will Guilliani be able to pick off enough support from each of those groups. I think it’s too early to know how this will play out.
If I remember correctly, wasn’t Giuliani involved in some sort of scandal prior to 9/11? Wasn’t he kicked out of the mayor’s mansion by his wife after he had an affair (and lost big in the polls)?
Also, I saw a poll yesterday that Kevin Drum posted that had Hillary with a 21 point lead in the polls over Giuliani in New York state. Losing one’s home state would seem to significantly reduce a candidate’s prospects.
FYI: I’m not unbiased, as I’m supporting Hillary.
Really? I wouldn’t have guessed
Thanks for the head’s up about the polling data at Drum’s site, I’m going to check it out.
As for the sex/infidelity scandals, they’re quite well known and quite messy (as I mentioned two or three times above.) The only good thing, I guess, is that hopefully all of the dirty laundry’s already been aired so maybe no surprises.
The Rudester was getting horrible reviews in NYC before 9/11 – that disaster saved his butt and allowed his authoritarian tendencies (“Hey, get out of my way, I’m in charge here.”) to have free rein. Was he successful? I don’t know but he sure gave the right appearance at a very traumatic time. Despite the war, things are not too traumatic now and I’m not sure people will respond well to his “DA/cop” personality.
He’s too conservative for Blue voters and too liberal for the Red voters – he’s neither fish nor fowl. I could care less about his marital woes but they will be deal breakers for many genuine “family values” voters. In my opinion the divided electorate is not ready to come together yet. It is certainly not going to believe someone who tries to suggest they are a “uniter not a divider.”
Speaking of HRC, where is she on the political spectrum?
Conservatives consider her very liberal. But compared with her Senate collegues she seems a more conservative Democrat. Many liberals see her as too conservative.
I haven’t seen anything comprehensive about her political orientation. Professor Bainbridge rates her an “11″ on his poll, making her a “hard core liberal” (not coincidentally, I took the same poll and also scored an 11). But Bainbridge is conservative and his views might be skewed.
I tried Project Vote Smart but that just has a lot of confusing interest group ratings.
“I haven’t seen anything comprehensive about her political orientation.”
A correct observation. Her consultants are really doing a heckofajob!
“I took the same poll and also scored an 11″
This sounds like fun! I checked his site, but can’t find it.
Got a link, Alan?
Sorry–I saw the link on Andrew Sullivan’s site a month or two ago. I don’t remember what the poll was called or where it was on Bainbridge’s site.
LOL, exactly.
Can’t wait to see James Dobson and Jerry Falwell’s take on Giuli as GOP nominee for 2008, once it becomes widely known that he lived in a NY apartment with two gay guys and liked it, lol!
I couldn’t vote for Rudy unless he answered a lot of questions about how poorly he handled the NY public schools, racial issues, and poverty issues in New York while he was mayor. I was at college in PA at the time and got a lot of news about how he was a pretty bad mayor on the above issues. 9/11 made him a hero in the eyes of many (and somewhat deservedly), but his response to 9/11 doesn’t erase problems that occured before, or since.
Angliss,
How can you claim that Giuliani was bad on race considering who was mayor before him. I think you have to look at the Giuliani Administration in light of what had happened in the previous NYC administrations. One of the things that Giuliani can boast is that he cut taxes and balanced his budgets.
What specific examples are you aware of? And do you acknowledge any of the positive changes that he made in NYC, particularly with crime? Anyone who has visited NYC before and after his term would have to be lying if they said they didn’t see a huge improvement in public safety.
Michael asking the Republicans to abandon their neo conservatives is akin to asking the Liberals to abandon Their NEOLIBERALS like Michael Moore and George Soros to reinvent themselves.
These are PART of who the party reflects and represents. The Republicans represent the Neo Conservative views of many millions. To me the crisis is not that they represent these views. The crisis is that they allowed GWB and The Liberals to paint them in a bad light and to convince America that Neo Conservatism is an EVIL.
This simply is not true. The Republicans do not need to reinvent themsleves but they do need to reenergize and take the offensive which they will have the impetus to do in the next 2 years. For that they do not need Rudi Guilliani and they will not turn to Rudi.
I would vote for Rudi. He is my favorite but then I think I am more moderate then many of my conservative brethern and I do not believe that Rudi is Conservative enough to get the nod.
CStanley said “and do you acknowledge….” You’re right about crime statistics but a lot of of Giuliani’s “crime fighting” involved making cops issue citations for petty and “victimless” crimes like jaywalking. The essence of Giuliani’s administration was centralized control and then more centralized control. I do not know what angliss meant by racial issues except that back in the 1990s (I cannot remember precisely) I recall several high profile cases of alleged police brutality and the shooting of unarmed suspects that involved Blacks and Hispanics in which Guiliani supported the cops 100% without waiting for investigations to be concluded.
Upinsmoke,
My view is that we shouldn’t turn 180 degrees from neoconservatism, but that we should acknowledge that there are serious flaws in the neocon policies that have been attempted. I think we need a “kinder, gentler” neoconservatism, as Fukayama is now advocating (working to bring modernization to the Middle East, and then democratization will eventually follow- rather than trying to impose democracy in an environment where it can’t take root). The global changes that are advocated by neoconservatism have some rational benefits for the US as well as for developing nations, but it’s obvious now that trying to force that change isn’t really the best way to approach the problem.
That said, my views on completing the military action in Iraq are probably not far from yours. Even if it was a mistake to attempt this, and even though I think it was poorly planned and implemented, I don’t think we can abandon the effort at this point. But evaluating whether or not this form of neoconservatism works is going to be critically important for future foreign policy.
CStanly and superdestroyer:
I don’t deny that the crime rate dropped, and that Rudy got the credit. How much credit he deserves is a fair question, given that crime rates were dropping nationwide at the time (see the section on Giuliani’s crime initiatives at wikipedia). And you have to ask if there was a better way to handle the civil rights issues regarding more aggressive policing (Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo, for example).
The Brooklyn Rail has a commentary with some interesting information about Giuliani (with the commentator’s spin, of course, but the data is interesting regardless): Against the Giuliani Legacy.
And here’s another article in the Gotham Gazette: Not All Black and White
And since I’m most definitely NOT a supporter of vouchers, Rudy’s support of them (and of charter schools) is not a good thing as far as I’m concerned.
Jason,
I wholeheartedly agree that there is room for criticism in the means used to acheive the positive results on crime. I think that Guiliani probably went too far in giving authority to the police chiefs, and didn’t insure adequate measures against police brutality (I wouldn’t doubt that he thinks so in retrospect, but as I’m sure it’ll come up in the campaign, we’ll see what he says about it.) But your last statement is an example of how things get distorted, I think, because my recollection is not that he “supported the cops 100%” while the investigations were ongoing, but that he refused to condemn them until the investigations were completed (you know, that little presumption of innocence until proven guilty thing.) I think it was very much portrayed the way you stated it, but I think the reality was different than that.
OK, angliss, so first you tell us that Rudi shouldn’t get too much credit for dropping the crime rate in NYC because the crime rates were dropping nationwide during that time period.
But then in the Brooklyn Rail piece, we learn that Rudi deserves criticism for poverty remaining proportionally the same as in the rest of the US.
He doesn’t deserve credit for a positive result that followed a national trend, but he does get blamed for a negative result that followed a national trend. Nice when you can have it both ways, huh?
Or maybe we could try a balanced assessment: he produced good results on crime but perhaps the ends didn’t always justify the means. He wasn’t any more successful at fighting poverty than the rest of the nation. He did move people from welfare to employment (which of course is soundly criticized by the Brooklyn Rail even though most of the political center has come around to the belief that welfare to work reform has been mostly a positive thing.)
On education, too, you focus strictly on the vouchers, but I’ve seen other positive things he did like instituting tutoring and extended school time for students who needed help.
That sounds pretty fair to me, CS. But he would need to repair his relationships with the black community. He really angered a lot of their leadership by backing the police without question, and refusing to meet with any of them after controversial incidents. I do think Mayor Bloomberg has been a big improvement in that respect. But he did clean up crime in NYC, and that is huge.
CStanley, Like I said, I’m running on memories of 10-15 years ago and while I was living in the East, I was not in NYC so I never actually “lived through” this stuff. I can’t really dispute your characterizations; I’m simply providing my recollections. One point is that if I have these recollections, many other people may have them as well. Context is indeed important. My views are less a critique of Guiliani (OK, I’m no fan) than a brief litany of reasons why I do not think he can or will collect the Republican nomination.
CStanly – You fairly criticize the “can’t have it both ways” issue in my supporting links (I’m actually much happier with the details in the Gotham Gazette piece, personally, so I probably shouldn’t have included the Brooklyn Rail link at all. Mea culpa.).
The federal and state government sued specific welfare-to-work groups for turning away people who legitimately qualified for benefits during Giuliani’s mayorship. This indicates a problem, but the question is how widespread this was throughout NYC, and I don’t know the answer. And I hadn’t heard about the tutoring programs.
The “mixed bag” that is Rudy Giuliani is why I said initially that Giuliani has questions he needs to answer before he’d get my support. He might be a great candidate for the GOP since he is reasonably moderate/centrist, but he may still be too conservative for this economically liberal/socially libertarian political pragmatist.
Well, while there’s no reason that police brutality shouldn’t be an issue for the GOP, I think that particular criticism would affect Rudi more in the general election as it’s a concern that would more likely be brought up by the left. And I didn’t think that you were being disingenuous bringing up your recollection of it, it’s just that I think everyone’s recollection of anything political is colored by the prevailing political views of the day. Guiliani naturally made a lot of powerful enemies, and they were successful in framing discussions in particular ways just as his friends were successful in framing things in ways that flatter him.
Angliss:
Of course. Can’t please all the people, all the time.
Nic is into definitions and into defining terms. So I will define the term NEOCON as it was meant to be used, not as it has so effectively been used by Liberals the last 2 or 3 years to paint NEOCONS into being something they ARE NOT.
According to Irving Kristol, the founder and “god-father” of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.
I wholeheartedly endorse these tenets. Neoconservativism in the republican party is alive and well. Its a very strong part of what we believe and who we are and it does not need to be altered or changed.
However the Liberal/Left has turned the phrase NEOCON into something that means we are Christian Warmongering Religious fanatics that want to run around the world starting wars all over the place for fun and profit for corporations.
This is simply a lie and it is this very tenet that must be reexplained and redefined and the truth be known in order to once again achieve balance in the collective NEOCON Force.
This is why I claim the Right is in an identity crisis. We have allowed the Left to define us and their defintion is Wrong. We must redefine ourselves not reinvent ourselves. Reinventing implies that we were wrong and I do not believe that.
Oh man, I was getting ready to leave this thread and then Upinsmoke dropped the Neocon definitions. Let’s just stay with a couple of things:
“Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture”
What does all that mean? What is “strong but not intrusive?” I happen to consider the government interfering with highly personal decisions such as reproductive choices, sexual preferences, or medical issues as “intrusive.” Help me out here because this looks scary.
What is “social conservatism” and what’s wrong with a “counterculture” (assuming it can even be defined)? Don’t Americans get choices under the Neocon doctrine or are the choices akin to Henry Ford’s color choices regarding his Model-T (“You can have black or black or black…”). Who defines “counterculture.” If an administration acts contrary to the views of a majority of the people does that administration become a counterculture? This is starting to look like the “F” word folks (shhhhh, mustn’t say fascism”).
And now we have “Patriotism is a necessity.” What is patriotism anyway? Who defines it? My country right or wrong? My president right or wrong? Following the provisions of the Constitution that allow freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government to redress grievances? Freedom of assembly? Who defines “friends and foes?” Who defines “national interest?” To we get to vote on what all these terms mean or is there some Fearless Leader who will tell us?
Upinsmoke, I’m not trying to bust you and I don’t read Irving Kristol. I do think that words and their meanings are important, I’m really confused and I’m concerned that these terms are sufficiently general to cause a great deal of consternation among even reasonable people. If these are bedrock Neocon principles then they appear to my untutored eyes as being not only confusing, but in the wrong hands, highly statist, authoritarian, and anti-individual rights and liberties. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m just reading the words and filtering them through my own experiences and views….which I assume are as good as anyone else’s experiences and views.
I find it interesting that so many people are looking to Rudy Giuliani as some moderate force.
Perhaps since most aren’t familiar with everything that happened during his tenure as NYC’s mayor but calling Giuliani moderate is laughable.
Like Obama, his poll numbers are only so high because people don’t know him.
Unlike Obama there is plenty of baggage from the strong arm tactics that he used in NYC and his personal issues to make people turn against him.
I hope he does run, I can’t wait to see what the right wingers do to his sorry butt.
If you thought what they did to McCain was bad in 2000 you ain’t seen nothing yet.
“This is why I claim the Right is in an identity crisis. We have allowed the Left to define us and their defintion is Wrong.”
Right and wrong, Upin…. Right, “the Right is in an identity crisis”. Wrong, it’s not because you “have allowed the Left to define [you]“. Of course, the left does defines you, in a way that’s intended to make you look bad, and sometimes unfairly so. But the public is more influenced by the actions coming from the right side, and there are several groups that control those actions. Firstly, there’s the Bush administration, and it has proven to be incompetent and driven by the hunt for pipe dreams. Secondly, there are the leaders of the Christian right, and even though they might be more to the left than the group in average, their alls for demonizing gays and criminalizing abortion, not to speak of the ridiculous evolution and war-on-christmas campaigns shape the image. And then there are the neocons, imho not to be confused with the christian groups (Perle and Wolfowitz surely aren’t christian, and almost nobody would say that about Kristol and Ledeen, either). Their fantasies about US world domination and a global fight against evil is just to simplistic to persuade the broad public. And their influence on the WH has proven to be disastrous, so they rightly have become the target of widespread hatred.
Now, I admit that the GOP or the consevative movement in general is more than simply a sum of these three groups. But the sad fact is, this majority doesn’t play an important role in public discusion. It hasn’t come forward in opposition to the unfriendly takeover of the three fringe groups, and it hasn’t had many interesting ideas that were talking points in the media, either. The tragical shape the GOP is in today is simply a result of too many reasonable conservatives shutting up for too long, out of fear of hurting ‘their’ presidency. Sorry, but the wound is self inflicted, and imho it will take some time to heal. A moderate conservative, stepping forward and enhancing the standing of reasonable forces in the GOP would be helpful, but looking at the candidate pool for 2008, all options seem to be damaged goods in one way or another. Do you see any convincing personality that would be able to heal the rift and give the majority n the conservative movement a more decisisve voice, Upin…?
“even though they might be more to the left than the group in average”
Oosps, sry, they are more to the right imho, of course.
[...] Yes — as the other Michael reported earlier — it looks like Rudy Giuliani is running for president after all. (Maybe.) (By the way, did you know he was actually the mayor of New York on 9/11? Huh. I had no idea. I mean, he could have told us or something.) He polls well — vague memories of heroism and all — but I’m with Kevin Drum on this: “The average voter has vague, positive impressions of Rudy thanks to his 9/11 heroics, and these people are going to be unpleasantly surprised when they see him for the first time in years and he turns out to be nastier than they remember (not to mention being freighted down by a closet full of skeletons they didn’t know about). He has nowhere to go but down.” And that’s where he’ll go. Down. (If you want to know why he won’t make it through the Republican primaries, just watch Jesus Camp, which I finally saw for the first time over the weekend. Scary stuff. And very non-Rudy.) Posted on February 6, 2007 | Permalink | Categories Politics, 2008 Elections, Conservatives, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani | | View blog reactions [...]
Well to answer a few posts.
Jason……excellent questions. Questions that should be asked and questions That could never be answered to your liking. That is why their are sides to a political debate. I am not attempting to defend Neo Conservatism I was simply stating what it is.
Secondly the Bush Administration is incompetent without a doubt. But not for the reasons you espouse Gray. They are incompetent because as the President of the USA that by default makes him the leader of his party and the conservative cause of which NEO CONSERVATISM is a part.
The Bush Administration is NOT incompetent on other matters. Such as the economy is stronger then Under Clinton, Unemployment is better then under Clinton and on and on. There is much that is very good in the way of this country. The incompetence is that HE (GWB and company) have allowed the Liberals/left to define the debate, shape the argument and set the stage for the debate. They have failed miserably and as such they have ALLOWED THE LEFT to PAINT THEM EVIL.
The right has a few preachers who fall from grace………PREACHERS ARE EVIL. THE RIGHT HAS A GAY IN ITS MIDST…….Somehow we let them paint that as Conservatives are Deviants. The Democrats vote for war in Iraq then stab the president in the back……The president is clueless.
You see how you are defining the argument?
Hillary goes merrily along voting for the war and yet its okay because remember the name they used to give ole Bill Clinton……The teflon man. Nothing sticks to her……you the left/liberals are defining the argument.
Everytime I stand up and remark truthfully that Democrats saw the Evidence from a Democratic CIA DIRECTOR who said Saddam is bad and lets go get him……there is silence on the left and the argument is deflected to Bush is an Idiot because he Didnt see the light like the Democrats did or some such nonsense.
My little peep of truth is overwhelmed by the shouts, screams and bellows of the left defining the arguement with distortions of the truth.
No I disagree totally. GWB is incompetent but not for the reasons you espouse.
Upinsmoke…”excellent questions. Questions that should be asked and questions That could never be answered to your liking.” How indeed would you know my liking? Why we don’t even know each other! WE’ve just tossed a few passing posts at one another. Why not give some answers and just let me decide? i may surprise you or alternatively, you may surprise me.
See, what you said earlier was “I wholeheartedly endorse these tenets. Neoconservativism in the republican party is alive and well. Its a very strong part of what we believe and who we are and it does not need to be altered or changed.” Since you used the term “who we are” I am assuming you identify yourself as a neocon. All I’m trying to do is find out what the words mean. We can’t ask old Irving since he’s dead. Maybe we could ask little Billy Kristol, but I’m not sure he’d have any good answers either.
If these phrases are basic pillars of Neocons and if I’m not smart enough to figure out the words as Kristol wrote them, then perhaps you could enlighten me? I’m particularly interested in the “strong but not intrusive” thing. That’s kind of important don’t you agree? I realize that one person’s view of strength is another person’s view of an intrusion, but since it’s so basic I’m kind of curious what Neocons intend when they use such words. If you guys want the government to control, how did I put it, oh yeah, “highly personal decisions such as reproductive choices, sexual preferences, or medical issues,” well just let me know. At least I’ll know what you folks stand for even if I disagree.
I’m also interested in the “patriotism” thing since it’s my understanding that none of the really big guys, you know the ones, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, little Billy Kristol himself, and a few others, sort of forgot to do any military service. Maybe I’m wrong but I’d sure like to know. Patriotism has meant so many things to so many people throughout history that I’d like to know what the Neocons think it is.
These are indeed important questions because if the Neocons take over, or at least in your words, “achieve balance in the Neocon force” then I want to make sure I’m on the right side of things because there are indeed some scary implications behind old Irving’s words.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Well thats a loaded bait trapped filled with snapping crawfish. I am convinced that nothing I say will meet with your approval because of what you posted earlier.
I quote: Help me out because this sounds scary.
However I will be glad to offer up the basis of the fundamentals of Neo conservative movement tomorrow… Right now Im tuckered out and ready for bed…..so stay tuned and I will attempt to enlighten you on the tenets and their meanings.
I lived in NY during Guilliani’s mayoralty, and I remember that he was not popular because of his brusque, unbending style and speech.
Some years into his reign, opinions started to shift, because Ny was becoming a cleaner, safer and more attratctive city again. A big deal was that he got the homeless off public benches and into shelters.
I think a lot of the resentment lingered, though, until 9/11, when he really came into his own. It was a terrible time, with nonstop funerals for firemen and policimen. It seemed like he was in the front row of every one. A joke started going around that there are armies of Guilliani doubles around, because it seemed impossob;e for one man to attend so many funerals and other ceremonies, in between visits to hospitals to see the wounded. For New Yorkers all memories of 9/11 contain images of Guillidani in his baseball cap, being just everywhere. That was his shining moment.
His lack of diplomatic skills hurt his image. On the other hand, NY is a behemoth. It takes a little authoritrianism to get anything done. Now, if only he had been an authoritarian diplomat…
On the subject of Neo-cons, I have to confess that they scare me. The best known of them seem to be too mcuch in love with military prowess and war. I am not against war per se, but I do think that every other option has to be thoroughly explored first. Pre-emptive war has always concerned me, because it raises a moral murkiness that is difficult to resolve.
The other thing is this. Look at two groups of lawyers. The ones with the shiny faces, tidy dress code and with every hair in place will be the conservatives. Their lips are usually pursed and their laughs nervours titters.
I find the perfection of the conservatives intimidating. I suspect they will examine my fingernails for proper manicure.
You can recognize the liberals by their untidy hair, the forgotten neckties and the food spots on suit lapels. They read Tennyson during intermission. They won’t check my fingernails but might well question me extensivley about my hiking experiences.
I am torn between
A. rumpling the hair and unbottoning the collar button of a donservative, and
B. giving a liberal a haircut and sending his suit to the cleaners.
My quandary: which one will save America?
My excuse: I stayed up too late and now can’t sleep at all.
1. Cutting Taxes. Its proved to work. Cut taxes put money into pockets, people spend money, economy grows, more jobs created, more people making more money pay more taxes. No brainer. At least for a neocon. Look at Europe. Stagnant economies as they wallow under heavy tax burdens. True they have health care……they need it to pay for all those anti depressants they have to take for not having a job.
2. Counterculturism. They believe in a United America. People who fight against the status quo of our culture are not looked on with approval. Therefore if you are a drug addict that is counter culturally unacceptable. Nothing spectacular here. It just means Neo Conservatives believe in taking responsiblity for their own actions which includes being a fine citizen of a great country.
3. Strong Governement. Iraq, the Middle east and about half the countries in the world that have failed to have a strong government prove daily the need for the “HUMAN BEING” to be governed. To have rules and laws to maintain law and order and to provide a stable, steady and safe environment in which to thrive and raise a family. Without a strong government to enforce these rules and laws then chaos reigns.
However having said that a strong government does not mean a government that is dictating to you how to live or what to do. There is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we do believe in. We just happen to believe that your happiness should not infringe on my happiness. Laws must reflect the overall good of the masses not the overall good of a pac or group that has only their interests at heart and not the best interests of the nation. Therefore no law to allow drunk driving would ever be passed. No law to legalize drugs would ever be passed no matter how large a MINORITY of you think its a good idea.
Therefore if you are a drunk driver……..that is not a right. The government therefore must step in and curtail that behavior for the welfare and benefit of the vast majority of its citizens. Most of you like to refer to it as the Nanny State and over at GTL I started referring to myself as the NANNY KING.
HUMAN BEINGS are incapable of getting together in a group without disagreeing on something. Therefore a strong government is needed to keep order while at the same time attempting to promote constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.
4. Ronald Reagan made us love America again after listening to Jimmy Carter bemoaning in Public speechs how terrible the world was, how terrible the economy was and please cant you all just try to love each other. It was embarrassing to listen to some of his speeches. During this time The Neo Conservative movement was beginning to stir in America.
Americans that loved their country, would fight for it and would die if needed for this wonderful country. Not Americans that went out looking for a fight but Americans that were Proud of the country they lived in. Ronald Reagan if he did nothing else once again installed this in Americans and the power of Loving ones country, taking pride in its accomplishments and feeling a kinship with each other was amazing and turned this country from a depressed drug culture to one of a hard working ME
ME>ME> Culture.
Guess theirs a limit to the size of the post.
It is this very strength in national unity that promotes peace around the world. Ronald Reagan never had to go to war or fire a shot as president because he United America and rebuilt our Armed forces into something to be fear……..BUT NOT USED.
The strength of the Military and the Strength of its citizens are what make a country strong…..without both working together you end up uncertainty and a depressed nation. I give you America circa 2007.
And lastly the social conservative thing is to be described like this. Neo Conservatives believe in a strong family. Family values that foster a responsible and nuturing home life and a strong education system that allows for ones family to be nutured to foster the old army slogan “Be all that you can be.”
This by its nature puts it at odds with certain liberal values. Such as Gay rights, Abortion rights, Drug legalization, drinking irresponsibly. NeoCons did not wake up one morning and say OH we oppose gays. Its that Gays oppose us because our beliefs in the traditional family does not allow easily for Gay membership. Therefore it is the Gay rights movement that has risen up in opposition to the Family rights advocates of the social Conservatives.
I know a lot of strong, strong family men and women who DO NOT even go to chruch. They are social conservatives with very little Christian practices in their daily lives.
Perhaps its the cart before the horse syndrome but as Ive watched over the years the battle unfold I have noticed that it seems to be the Gay rights movement that is much more active then is the Family Values movement.
When a social conservative places themselves in the line of fire they are way more susceptible to attack because they have set a higher standard morally for themselves then say a drug addict or a drunk driver. Hell the drunk driver can pretty much stagger around doing what he pleases and his only response is the middle finger when social conservatives demand accountability. ON the other hand when a social conservative fails it becomes a national media day for the liberals and the press.
Its the nature of the beast. In the end one has to question themselves and decide which is more important to them. Family values and personal responsibility or a lifestyle that fosters a do what I want and to hell with what anyone thinks. It really does boil down to those two positions IF….IF there is contention between the two positions.
“Well thats a loaded bait trapped filled with snapping crawfish. I am convinced that nothing I say will meet with your approval because of what you posted earlier.” Nice metaphor and you’re right. My posting was pretty sarcastic, maybe more than needed, but I am absolutely serious about Kristol’s words creeping me out.
Thanks for your efforts in responding to my loaded questions. You made some points about as well as they could be made, but alas, did not give all the answers. I’m concerned about your polarized vision of America where the choices are between some kind of drunken, orgiastic chaos and something that looks too much like Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, or Mussolini’s Italy. I really believe that you are drawing the alternatives much too starkly and, together with some of your rhetoric, that’s what scares me.
For example, “Counterculturism. They believe in a United America. People who fight against the status quo of our culture are not looked on with approval. Therefore if you are a drug addict that is counter culturally unacceptable.” I am neither a drug addict nor a drunken driver. I pay my taxes, maintain my property, and act responsibly. I never voted for either Reagan (gosh, how is that even possible?) or Bush. I am not gay but I have gay relatives and friends and I don’t understand your overwhelming hostility, indeed you virtually demonize gays. They are PEOPLE who pretty much want to live their lives as quietly and peacefully as you do. I just do not understand why you feel that YOUR version of morality has to be imposed on everyone else. I have this sneaky feeling that you would be happy is everyone who disagreed with you would either shut up or leave. That’s not the way it works – not here, not anywhere. Oh sure there have been places where “shut up or disappear” has been tried, but let’s not go there.
If you want to live in a “traditional family” (whatever that is?) then do it. The fact that well over 50% of Americans no longer live their domestic lives in a “daddy, mommy, 2.5 kids” arrangement is the result of complex social and economic forces – not because of the existence of gay people. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t have one. If you don’t support abortion, then don’t get one, but do not impose your views on others.
Oh and by the way, your comment, “I know a lot of strong, strong family men and women who DO NOT even go to church. They are social conservatives with very little Christian practices in their daily lives” is curious. Why is church or christianity even an issue? Who even brought it up? Not me – I’m a “freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion” kind of guy. See, I’m an atheist (there, I said it, are you happy) but I believe my morals and ethics are every bit as strong as yours. You may think you have a “higher moral standard” but let me suggest that it’s only in your mind. What I see is too much anger coupled with resentment – this is not a healthy brew.
Two more comments and then I’ll leave. The first is that I guess you forgot to answer the part of my post about patriotism and the fact that the big mouths who define Neocon (Pearle et al) somehow forgot to do any military service. i guess that’s not what you meant by “When a social conservative places themselves in the line of fire.” That’s OK, because i was just being sarcastic and besides, everyone knows about those guys.
The other point is from one of your posts of yesterday where you said “The Democrats vote for war in Iraq then stab the president in the back.” That’s a terrific metaphor. Indeed, I believe it was first used by an angry group of people after World War I who believed in social unity, strong government, patriotism and a whole bunch of other cool stuff. They didn’t much like gays either (or Jews, gypsies, liberals, etc). Remember those guys? The ex-corporal, failed artist with the little mustache? Sure you do.
Hey, have a nice day – but I’m still creeped out.
You state your an aethiest. Okay. You must be gay too for it seems that to be the focus and centerpiece of your response to my post.
You are obsessed with Gays and their rights. I am not aware that any rights of Gays have been taken away. I am aware that they are trying to get Gay Marriage passed. Good for them. I support Civil Unions.
As you so eloquently point out the disintergration of the family it is precisely this that NeoConservatives are working for and trying to protect. We attempt to protect the traditional family values and ways just as environmentalists attempt to protect the environment.
Its okay for you to work toward the subtle continued errosion of the Family and that makes you enlightened but its not okay for me to work towards the preservation of the family because that makes me closed minded?
Your entire response as well as I knew it would be was one gigantic closed minded, holier then thou attempt to put me down without calling me HERR UPINSMOKE.
And thank you for once again concluding your diatribe by pointing out that anyone who disagrees with you is a hitlerite who wants to reinstitute Nazism in America.
And you call me closed minded??
Number 1. I stated that I’m not gay but that I had gay friends and relatives. Sorry you missed what I said.
Number 2. As far as being “obsessed with gays” I was responding to your post in which you said:
“This by its nature puts it at odds with certain liberal values. Such as Gay rights, Abortion rights, Drug legalization, drinking irresponsibly. NeoCons did not wake up one morning and say OH we oppose gays. Its that Gays oppose us because our beliefs in the traditional family does not allow easily for Gay membership. Therefore it is the Gay rights movement that has risen up in opposition to the Family rights advocates of the social Conservatives.” So you used the term “gays” five times in one paragraph.
Number 3. I never called you closed minded, only that I disagree with you. Are you projecting?.
Number 4. I never called you a “Hitlerite.” See response to number 3.
Number 5. You have still refused to define your terms. Either you cannot or will not provide some clear definitions and that’s OK, because I’m growing a bit weary of this exercise.
Number 6. How am I eroding the family? Are you serious?
Number 7. I’m not sure what you mean by “reinstitute nazism in America.” Last time I checked my history books it never took control here (OK, I remember the efforts by Rockwell and the American Nazi Party and the German American Bund, etc.) but it never took over, OK? BTW, I didn’t use the “stab in the back” metaphor, you did. My guess is that many more people will start throwing that one around as this entire Iraq misadventure falls deeper and deeper into the black hole of disaster.
Number 8. Please point out in any single posting where I personally insulted you as an individual or called you a bad name. Do I disagree with you – yup, but so what? The fact is, I don’t care if compared to mine, your mind is open, closed, or undergoing renovations. My point is simply that whatever is in your mind does not give you the right to impose those views on anyone else. Who is the real libertarian here?
Number 9. I am truly sorry you felt the need to avoid some genuine questions about the tenets of Neoconservatism by resorting to groundless accusations. That’s your privilege; it’s just not a particularly creative or convincing debate technique.
Number 10. You can still have a nice day.
I posted 3 posts on Neoconservativsm. You dont want to know about NEOCONS. You just want to bait and switch. You want to bash and trash and conclude your remarks by once again pretending to take the high ground with your vain “you can still have a nice day.”
I am the one sensing anger. I did not want to defend Neocons. You wanted me to defend them. You wanted this debate. I said I was only stating what they believed not defending them but no that was not good enough. You wanted me to post my thoughts so you could tear them to shreds. I suspect you are the one harboring the anger and resentment
Are we projecting.??
1. My vision of America is a drunken orgasm.
2. You compare my world view to Franco and Moussolini.
3. I don’t understand your overwhelming hostility to gays. Where have I been hostile to gays….please as you said point that out to me.
4. I dont understand why your version of morality has to be imposed on everyone else. I agree…….However I dont understand why your version of morality must be imposed on everyone else.
5. If you dont want a gay marriage dont have one…….Dont impose your views on anyone else. Exactly right. But why do you impose yours on me?
6. What I see is too much anger coupled with resentment. Yes a perfect definition of not calling someone a name Technically. Perhaps it is you that is projecting.
7. And last but not least once again I repeat that if you compare my views to hitlerism you have called me a nazi. Your cute rhetoric and fancy language does not need a genius to figure out your implications.
I did not want this debate. I actually was hoping that we would have a discussion of merit but when you start comparing me to Franco, Moussolini and end up by calling my movement Hitlerite then Im sorry there is not much in the way to discuss.