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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.