I’ve been feeling the heat – from my right, because I am an early supporter of Rudy Giuliani for President. I’ve got a number of reasons, but as a pro – life, anti – special rights and pro – second Amendment voter, the "single issue" voter now scares the heck out of me.
I’ve moved beyond conservatism as a standard for candidate support. Why? Because conservative rhetoric has become empty rhetoric. There has been no consistent "conservatism" practiced at any level of government in the last ten years. And frankly, when I hear members of our Party bloviating about "limited government", blah, blah blah, I could really care less. In my judgment, most of the Republican base has also lost faith. In California, where our "Republican" Governor believes centrism equals liberalism, the base is in no better shape.
So let’s look at the set of issues framing the 2008 presidential run. For me, its all about committing to the War on Terrorists. Romney has no experience in this area at all, and McCain’s recent comments validate to me his priority of seeking support from the anti – war, anti Rumsfeld left. Plus, as a Senator, he has no record of governing, and I don’t like his temperament. Finally, the Senate is where all the good legislation passed by the House over the past five years died, and I don’t remember McCain fighting that trend very hard.
That leaves Giuliani. Yes, he is pro – choice. But this issue is settled in law, and his only impact on the abortion issue is the appointment of Supreme Court and federal judges, and he has stated publicly his preference for Scalia / Alito / Thomas type of judges. Are we not to take him at his word? Until we have a reason to doubt, we should. In addition, the other two important issues to social conservatives, gay rights and gun rights, are most often sorted out in the same venues. At some level, I’ve got to trust Rudy.
Looking at the anti – war, terrorist emboldening statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama should frighten every American concerned with the fascist Islamic threat. Rudy offers our best chance of defeating these leftist wackos.
Finally, I believe single issue voters need to look at a candidate that has the managerial skills necessary to reform the federal government and the way it operates. Rudy moved mountains in New York and made monumental changes to its bureaucracies. He took on the teachers unions, and left the city in good financial condition. Where else in the country have we seen a Republican do that?
So, single issue voters beware. You might get want you want, but if America’s cities are burning, and the federal government continues to careen out of control with deficits and unregulated spending, just what have you gained?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The issue that should loom large for any candidate that wants to win the Republican nomination is the ILLEGAL immigration issue- border security in particular. This issue touches ALL domestic issues (healthcare, taxes, education, crime, prisons, infrastructure etc.) AND national security as well.
“Comprehensive” reform and any whiff of granting citizenship to those who have broken into the country since the last amnesty,
will not cut it with our voters.
I know many voters (and volunteers) who did not show up at the polls last November in large part due to anger over the administration and the Senate’s push for ‘comprehensive’ reform.
Rudy and the other so called ‘top tier’ candidates are not on the correct side of this issue yet, as far as I can tell.
Dr. MaryRose Consiglio
February 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
No candidate, including Tom Tancredo, has an answer that will work. There aren’t 60 votes in the Senate for any proposal, so the issue is dead. I’ve weighed in the side of fixing the entire system with help from the private sector. That’s probably dead too.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
As I have said before, not one of the three ‘front runner’ candidates for the GOP nomination is a natural fit for conservative voters. As I have also said, conservatives are going to have end up either sitting it out, or compromising something to arrive at supporting either Giuliani, McCain or Romney.
Mike is a close friend, I know where he is coming from on the issues. They don’t come more principled than he is — trust me.
Der Manouel’s priorites led his to his compromise candidate being Giuliani.
We’ll see where other conservative leaders end up…
February 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I have to agree with your analysis on this, Mike. I’m not committed to anyone yet — not that my endorsement matters to anyone — but, so far, Giuliani seems to be the best choice overall, for the reasons you cite. You’re also dead on about the problems facing us. Without a consistent conservative message — or, should I say, a consistently nonconservative message being relayed by conservatives — the best a conservative could hope for is a Giuliani: constructionist judges, taming bureaucracy, and absolutely committed to the War on Terrorists. Not to mention he may just be the candidate to reach beyond party lines to bring in the more libertarian-leaning Democrats, third-party types, and independents.
Maybe I’m endorsing him afterall! ;-)
February 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I agree, Mike. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, debating single issues is a luxury which will disappear if our cities are incinerated. These are serious, precarious times and the country cannot afford another Democrat President. Amy Lyons
February 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I would suggest taking advantage of this weekend’s opening of the movie Amazing Grace and go see it. William Wilberforce lead the anti-slavery movement in Great Britain for decades before seeing the slave trade abolished then, more decades later, just before he died, slavery itself banned in the British Empire. Along the way he suffered defeats, setbacks, people questioning his patriotism and ridicule for standing firm in his belief that slavery needed to be abolished. He also was not “single issue” as he also set out to reform Britain’s laws on poverty, health care, education, etc.
Why am I bringing up Wilberforce regarding Mr. Manoeul’s support and advocacy for Mayor Guiliani? I do not cast any doubt on Mr. Manoeul’s pro-life credentials or his conservatism (or neo-conservatism). That’s not my place or my intent. I also believe that any of the Republican candidates (that are currently on the horizon) would be better than Hillary or Obama on the war on terrorism.
However, I will not follow Mr. Manoeul blindly into Mayor Guiliani’s camp for the 2008 Presidential race. First, Mayor Guiliani is not just “pro-choice.” He also favors gun control and open immigration. Just because Mr. Guiliani says he would appoint more conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court does not guarantee anything. In fact, given his core values on abortion (and gun control and other issues), I would be surprised if he went against his stated values and appointed a jurist who he thought might overturn Roe v. Wade.
Also, I held my nose and voted for our current Governor for re-election mainly because he promised to not increase taxes. Then he turns around and proposes one of the biggest tax increases (which he calls “fees”) for a massive, bloated state run health care program. Like one well respected commentator on this web blog, I feel like a chump by voting for (and telling my friends to vote for) our Governor for re-election. I don’t want to make that same mistake twice.
Talk of “limited government” is not empty rhetoric just because some Republicans on Capitol Hill (and other elected offices) forgot their way and supported big government, earmarks and increased budgets. That does not mean that either I or other Republicans no longer believe in limited government or that it is possible. We just need elected Republicans who will “walk the walk” not just “talk the talk.”
Personally, I am waiting to see how the 2008 Presidential race for the Republican primary lines up before I decide who to support. But I am not throwing out my pro-life values (or my limited government, enforce the immigration or gun rights beliefs) to support Mr. Guiliani just because he did a great job after 9/11 (and he did do a GREAT job in crisis management).
It may not be that the likely Republican Presidential hopefuls are a William Wilberforce. However, several of them (Brownback for instance) reflect my value system far more than Mr. Guiliani.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I wouldn’t follow me blindly into anything. Wilberforce was a “doer”. Our current crop of “conservative leaders” are just talkers. If our current leaders were charged with ending slavery we’d still be hearing them wax on and on about it, without progress.
I did not vote for the Governor for re-election (left my ballot blank in protest)but I understand why you would not. Wherever you are from, you are likely being betrayed by your “conservative” representatives in one way or another. Watch what they do, not what they say.