The following comparison demonstrates why Rudy Giuliani won last night’s debate in South Carolina:
Like Ronald Reagan in his famous, “I am paying for this microphone” moment that so endeared him to conservatives, Rudy Giuliani proved that he wasn’t going to sit back and play by some set of effete, country club rules when another individual on the same stage was blaming America for the slaughter of thousands of U.S. civilians on 9/11. Nary a peep was uttered by any other candidate on the stage during Ron Paul’s despicable monologue on this subject. Only Mayor Giuliani displayed the temperment of a leader, and of one who truly loves America, with his aggressive, no nonsense, emotive reply. In so doing, Giuliani broke out of the pack, and out of a multi-month slump that had many questioning whether Rudy really wanted to be president. Any doubts on that subject were removed last night.
I think Rudy emerged the clear winner of last night’s debate. Regular readers know I was hard on Rudy during the most recent GOP presidential debate in California, and longtime veterans of R4′08 know that I demand a lot of Rudy and frequently call him on moves and statements that I feel fall short of his potential as a candidate and a leader. That’s because I am neither a sycophant nor a shill; I am an American, a citizen, a voter, and I support candidates that I believe in, but genuflect to none. Against that backdrop, you can be assured that my assertion that Rudy came out on top last night is my intellectually honest opinion, however subjective it may be.
I feel that Rudy won for several reasons. First, as stated above, Rudy came across as the most Reaganesque candidate on the stage. He stood out as the frontrunner for the nod, or at least as a frontrunner, and his strengths as a candidate, which ultimately lie in his ability to lead, were evident. Additionally, Rudy positioned himself as a pro-growth fiscal conservative as well as a relentless terror warrior, and one who despises Hillary Rodham as much as anyone reading this site.
On social issues, Rudy has decided not to take my advice in total. He’s no longer trying to reach entente with social conservatives by emphasizing all of the things he can do to help make abortion illegal, such as by appointing judges who will overturn Roe. To the contrary, Rudy refers to abortion as a “right” that he believes women should have and, as near as I can tell, he plans to appoint reasonably conservative judges with no abortion litmus test. Meanwhile, he points out the obvious: abortion is legal, and probably will be legal for some time, and the way that he and pro-lifers can come together is by working on policies to further their mutual goal of reducing abortions in ways that don’t involve banning them. Fair enough. Rudy’s not going to make the grand compromise that I had hoped for, which called for explicitly condemning Roe, and I can respect that. Rudy is who he is. But his support for the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds for most abortions, and his support for judges on the rightish side of the judicial spectrum still make him better for pro-lifers than any Democrat. As I pointed out the other day, the worst pro-lifers will get out of Rudy is another Justice Kennedy. The best they’ll get out of any of the Democratic frontrunners is another Justice Ginsberg. If you’re a pro-lifer and you don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between those two options, you’re either misinformed or highly irrational.
Now, it’s true that, say, Sam Brownback will definitely fight for a Janice Rogers Brown while Rudy might not. Or, again, he might. But either way, conservatives will have to decide what their priorities are. Rudy is supremely electable. Current polls show him more electable than anyone else in the field. An unelectable candidate who will give conservatives JRB will logically lead to one and only one result: a Democratic president appointing another Ginsberg. Rudy won’t win the votes of conservatives whose main issue is abortion, or the courts, or social issues in general. But we already knew that. But what Rudy is counting on is that he can cobble together a majority of Republicans who want a conservative candidate on the war and economics, as well as one who will at least not do any harm on social issues by appointing rightish judges and ensuring that we don’t wake up tomorrow with a national ban on handguns or national same-sex marriage. Rudy isn’t running as the operationally pro-life candidate. He’s running as the pro-choice candidate who won’t hurt the interests of pro-lifers. There’s a real difference there, but given Rudy’s other strengths, it’s also an acceptable one in my opinion.
As for the performance of the other candidates, I thought McCain did well, Romney treaded water, Huckabee helped himself, and Paul ended his candidacy, as if it ever had a chance. McCain wasn’t as good as last time, but a lot of that is due to the expectations game. Few expected McCain to win the last debate, as I believe he did. In order to win this one, McCain would have had to outdo his last performance. He didn’t succeed in that endeavor, but he did come across as intelligent, competent, presidential, and conservative enough for most GOP primary voters.
Huckabee is being touted as the come-from-behind victor by some. I’m not really feeling the Huckster, but a lot of that is due to the fact that I didn’t catch the debate until Fox replayed it at midnight and I largely tuned out the minor candidates in order to read blogosphere reax. I did catch the Edwards line, which was Huckabee’s best of the night and quite amusing, and I suppose Huckabee may have helped himself among disgrunted evangelicals who don’t care much about fiscal issues and who are looking for an interesting fellow evangelical to support.
And then there’s Mitt. The former Massachusetts governor seemed whiny and defensive. His demand that all of the candidates should be provided 30 seconds to respond to Paul’s commentary in order to prevent Rudy from having some sort of unfair advantage seemed immature. This reminds me a lot of the reaction of George H.W. Bush, who, as a candidate for the GOP nod in 1980, participated in the debate with Reagan detailed in the video above. I remember seeing an interview with Bush the Elder years later in which Bush 41 admitted that he felt at the time that what Reagan did was unfair. He was breaking the rules, after all. He didn’t wait for his turn to speak. Such are the rules of aristocracy, from which both Bush and Romney emanate. Rudy, like Reagan, had no such birthright. They both had to fight for everything they got. Rules or otherwise. Rudy is Reagan to Romney’s Bush 41. And we all remember the way that race turned out.
Additionally, Romney is beginning to remind me of those interactive ads from the movie, “Minority Report.” You know the ones; they scan the retinas of passers-by in order to identify the prospective customer and personalize the sales pitch. That’s the way Romney operates. We saw this last night as he scanned the retinas of South Carolina Republicans only to give a very bizarre answer to the question of Guantanamo Bay. Romney’s statement that we ought to “double Guantanamo” seemed forced and imprecise. What exactly are we doubling? The number of individuals being held there? The amount of funds spent on the project? The size of the institution? The size of the bay itself? I doubt even Romney knows. He is, ultimately, a salesperson — a walking advertisement that constantly changes depending on its audience with the solitary goal of making the sale, or in this case, of becoming President of the United States. The fact that Mitt’s raison d’etre is simply to be president is also why he never will be.
The big losers last night, aside from Ron Paul, were Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. As the Giulianis and the McCains and the Huckabees prove themselves perfectly acceptable options for Republicans and conservatives of various stripes, the rationale for an insurgent candidacy dissipates. If Thompson and Gingrich want to stay relevant, they’ll get in very soon.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Awesome Dave! This is absolutely one of the my favorite moments of one of my absolutely favorite people (my first born will be named either Ronald Reagan Nikrad or Reagan Elizabeth Nikrad).
Thanks for posting it!
May 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Dave,
Thanks for posting the vid of Reagan’s mic moment – I’ve been looking for that for quite some time. I appreciate it!
I disagree with your analysis of Romney, of course – the reason he was defensive was he was continually asked to explain and defend himself. I think he pulled it off as well as someone could under those circumstances.
I do agree, though, that Rudy won the night. He needs to thank Ron Paul personally for allowing that to happen, though, because he was weak on everything except Iraq and terrorism last night.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
100% agree, thank you! GO RUDY GO!
May 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
What is interesting to me is that in all of that, you didn’t once mention why Giuliani is the better national security candidate. That, my friend, is the reason why Giuliani is bleeding to death in the polls, and it’s instructive that you can’t articulate the case, either.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
So is the newest meme that Romney is a retina scanning android from the dystopic near future? Your creativity knows no bounds.
Kudos to Rudy for handling himself better than the last debate, but swatting down Ron Paul is akin to shooting fish in a barrel with banned automatic weaponry. Well, at least his relevancy is proven to most of the nation now.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
No JF, he is bleeding do to a non stop attack on his social views… you don’t hear anything in the media about Rudy that is postive…. until last night, going into today.
His poll numbers will rise starting next week with new Rass.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Kavon; how does your other half feel about having children named after the Gipper? Very cool if you can pull it off. My wife put the axe down on my plans for a son named Greg Maddux Bauer…but I did get a Holden (after H. Caulfield of course). Good luck with that.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“Additionally, Romney is beginning to remind me of those interactive ads from the movie, “Minority Report.” You know the ones; they scan the retinas of passers-by in order to identify the prospective customer and personalize the sales pitch. That’s the way Romney operates.”
You’ve been saying things like this for months DaveG. You said something like this after the first debate, when you decided initially that Romney had come in 6th place, only to revise it later once you realized it made you look like an entirely unserious commentator in light of general opinion. Frankly, I’ve tuned out everything you have to say on his candidacy, as it rarely bares any resemblance to reality. Which I think is a real shame. You’re supporting Rudy, as is your right. Everyone is well aware of that. But for someone who often has alot of very significant things to say, it’s unfortunate that I’m now forced to take all of your commentary with a huge grain of salt, as a result of your animus towards one candidate. Yes, Rudy won last nights debate. I admitted that pretty candidly in last night’s open forum. As did other Romney fans in a way that was noticeably absent from Rudy supporters during Romney’s similarly impressive performance in the first debate. But Rudy’s success didn’t come at the expense of Mitt, nor did it diminish an otherwise fine performance. Four men were impressive, one just happened to have a better night then the other three. But, by all means continue to denigrate Romney with childish monikers or tepid allusions. Call him a lifeless, soulless, pandering, robotron. Or slick. Yes, always slick. And I take it as a compliment, and I’ll quote National Review’s TJ Walker here. “Mitt Romney is too slick. Of course by ‘too slick’ what I really mean is that I can’t think of a single way to fault Romney’s style, intelligence, grammar, emotion, or ability to connect with an audience. (‘Too slick’ is the last refuge of a scoundrel political/media critic who can’t think of any other way to attack someone who has communication gifts beyond mere mortals)”.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The problem with Huckabee is that he has yet to scrutinized. Once that happens, people will find that he’s pretty unelectable. If you think Romney’s got a problem in the south, just wait till Huckabee gets out of the south. Do you know how many loons will come out of the woodwork to vote against an evangelical Baptist Minister? Reason 2, he’s hardly a fiscal conservative. He is basically ‘Bush Lite.’
Personally, I like Huckabee, and would have considered him my second choice until I looked at him thoroughly. Nobody that gets an F grade on fiscal responsibility more than once will appeal.
Dave, also, you’re the first out of all the bloggers and analysts I’ve read today, and I’ve read a million of em, to say that last night hurt Gingrich and Thompson. In Thompson’s case, he helped himself tremendously with his rebuttal of Moore, and got red meaters extremely fired up. Number 2, I’d go down and see who is lining themselves up with Thompson, and you also might want to look into who is supporting him behind the scenes until his announcement. Gingrich has been on a rise lately too. I don’t think he is electable, but he could make it exceptionally tough for everyone in the election. He’s probably the smartest guy in Washington, and I’m not going to underestimate his potential at this point.
I was one of the first last night to say that it was Rudy’s night, and I have not gone after him, only after some of the claims made by a few here. I like Rudy, but I agree with little of what he says. He’s going to have the Christian Right and the NRA out for his blood, and it’s going to leave a very bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. He is doing well now, but after he gets dragged through the mud, and we all know that abortion is not the only weakness he has, then how do you think he will hold up? It’s going to drag the bad blood from the firefighters out, it’s going to drag his personal life out. It’s going to drag Diallo out. It’s going to drag Kerick out, all into the spotlight. If he wins the nomination, his strategy is going to have to be to attract democrats to make up for his loss of the socons, and how splintered will that leave the GOP? Ultimately, we’d see a third party Perot type run from somebody like Zell Miller (not him, but somebody like him) and, throw in Bloomberg for good measure, and the GOP will be crushed.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Anyone know approximately how old DaveG is?
May 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Tommy, I think you are wrong about F. Thompson…. everyday he is losing ground in the ground game… and the $$ race.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Tommy,
Understandably my opinion is very biased and I am quite negative on Thompson, but here is my reaction to the Moore thing. Very few people saw the Thompson video. The video it self had last I heard a 200,000 hits (could be more now) the debates had over two million. That’s not counting all the replays in MSM news. Thompson helped himself with the Redstate crowd, but that is about it. If he had actually decided to debate, a time honored campaign strategy, he would have made himself a wee biut more legitimate in my eyes. For now he stays in the unsubstantive rock star category.
The video itself was ok. It was a tad contived with him at his desk turning around, and I think it was cute knock on Moore, an easy target for those who would be following Thompson at this point. But I prefer a gentleman rather than a guy spitting with a swagger.
Dave,
We can all pull out the punches on speaking style. After all not everybody gets the joy of supporting a candidate with a lisp like you do. It was probably cute in high school for picking up girls, but between tough talk and speaking with a lisp Rudy won’t fly to high in European diplomatic circles. We need articulate gentleman for a diplomat.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
It’s over 750,000 now.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Thompson video was played on Tucker, O Reilly, Glenn Beck, and CNN repeatedly today also.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Also Shepherd Smith
May 16th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Jason,
That last paragraph alone shows exactly why you are in such a close minded minority.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Jason, you also are well aware that he can’t do anything until after L & O and his HBO movie. Don’t be an idiot.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Sure Tommy,
Did you read what Dave wrote. Did you think about what I was responding to? Did you take the time to consider that I was making a point? Or are you flying off the handle again?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I called Dave out too for it. I’m not flying off any handle. I’m just suprised by the lack of class that the two of you are showing.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“The former Massachusetts governor seemed whiny and defensive. His demand that all of the candidates should be provided 30 seconds to respond to Paul’s commentary in order to prevent Rudy from having some sort of unfair advantage seemed immature.”
What a load of rubbish that statement is. Why should Giuliani have exclusive right to commentating on 9/11? His move was smart, though against the rules, but Mitt was right on the ball.
Why is Giuliani clever for breaking the rules to get an advantage (which is smart politics) but Mitt is “whiny” when trying to enforce the rules to minimise the advantage (which is also smart politics). Pathetic!
May 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Tommy,
Are you frustrated? Why the name calling?
Also, I am talking MSM. Where most people still get there news. It would be nice to see Thompson actually get off his pants and do something. Right now Huckabee holds more credibility than Thompson after last nights debate.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“Lack of Class?”
this from the guy who just called me an idiot. OK…
May 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
What also bothers me (and I must admit, I prefer Mitt to Rudy – Rudy’s pro-abortion is a circuit breaker for me) is how people are trying to paint this debate as a “Vitory for Rudy, he’s much better than the rest, Mitt was awful”. Where were they after the first debate?
Sure he did well, and better than Mitt. But Mitt was still good. Be reasonable people, don’t just unreasonably champion your bloke & trash your key rival. Save that for the General!
May 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Neither one of you is showing any class. By talking about somebody’s lisp, you are basically questioning their manhood.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I said don’t be an idiot. There’s a difference
May 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Has nothing to do with manhood, I actually have lisp myself. I think your stereo typing. But I am making a rebuttal to Dave remark that Romney is a silver tongued android. Come on Tommy, you can do better. Plus don’t forget you just called me an idiot; there’s no more room (at least on this thread) for you to determine who has class and who doesn’t.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
“I said don’t be an idiot. There’s a difference”
Please, the implication is the same. No need for the Clintonian what the definition of “is” is.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
However, making fun of a guy because he tends to come across as a slick politician is a lot different than making fun of the lisp the guy has. That’s a low blow.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
“However, making fun of a guy because he tends to come across as a slick politician is a lot different than making fun of the lisp the guy has. That’s a low blow.”
That’s your opinion. He brings up speaking style, it’s now fair game. You think a lisp is real bad and being articulate is not as bad. Thankyou, I rest my case. You made this all to easy.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
No, Jason. “Don’t be an idiot” means I think you made an idiotic statement, there’s a huge difference from saying “you’re an idiot” which basically means that I think you’re an idiot.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Jason, you’re the one that made fun of the way he talks. I said its a low blow, because there’s nothing wrong with the way he talks. When people make fun of people with a lisp, then they usually are implying that they are effiminate.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Ok, can you two stop? Its getting ridiculous.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Jason,
I got to say that nobody could be a bigger Romney fan than I am. I have come close to harming personal relationships by nagging people to death about why he is so great until they will sign up and donate money. I also have made quite a few people read “A Mormon in the White House”. My wife who hates politics knows everything there is to know about Mitt as I made her read that book and Mitt’s own book, “Turnaround”. That being said…
The Thompson video was great. How can anyone not love a smackdown of Michael Moore? As far as people seeing it, I would venture to guess that many more people saw that clip than anything great from Mitt last night, as Tommy has already pointed out. The clip about Mitt that’s being played is usuall the exchange between him and McCain, which cuts both ways.
Be happy, Mitt got his 24,000 which seems incredibly impressive. Hopefully most of them donated money. Either way that is a huge network to tap for money in the future.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“Don’t be an idiot” only holds merit when you think someone is being an idiot. “Being” means you are, whether temporarily or long term. You just should steer clear of telling someone they have no class while telling them they are an idiot.
If you wanted to say it’s an idiotic statement you could have just said that. But you told me to not be an idiot, with the implication that my being an idiot was a likely possibility.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Jason, I was basically asking you not to belittle yourself, or stoop to the level that Dave apparently stooped to, in your view. That’s not showing class.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Dskinner,
Thankyou, but I am sorry, it was an ok video. It wasn’t bad, but I wasn’t turned on by it. I apologize. I am happy with Mitt’s stuff, and I am glad you like Romney a lot. But I have an opinion, which I share.
Take it or leave it, it doesn’t bother me.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Tommy,
You said what you said. If you really didn’t mean I was an idiot, than I will accept that. If you don’t think it classy to discuss speaking style, that’s fine too.
But it should be noted you referred to me as an idiot in regards to Thompsons HBO contract, not in regards to Dave’s comments.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
take it outside
May 16th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
DaveG,
Are you threatened by Romney? That is the only reason I can think of for you to go out of your way to criticize him. I think every Romneybot but perhaps Jason gave the night to Rudy, at least from a soundbite and news generating perspective.
One of the truest facts of life is that people who feel the need to be a critic always do so because they are insecure. For the record. You should be afraid. Very afraid. Mitt, is gaining steam and last night is your best news in the last 2 months. Oh yeah there is this guy Thompson I wonder what his candidacy will do to all of Rudy’s soft support?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I lost track of which thing I was responding too. If that’s what I said, then I was saying that he was under contract, which I have told you on more than one occasion, so why knock him for it.
I know the video might not do anything for you, and that’s fine, but you can’t deny that it’s gotten a lot of play. Even DSkinner said that.
And #2, you can ask Heavy, or DSkinner, or Matt, I have shown Mitt a lot of respect lately. I’m a homer, for sure, but I don’t belittle candidates. You can have your opinions, but when things apparently do the job, you shouldn’t deny it just because you don’t like it. After watching the first debate a second time, I decided and revised my statement that Romney won it. Last night, I think Huck and Hunter did well, but out of the top tier candidates, Rudy obviously had the big night. Even if you don’t like it, you can’t deny that he will get the biggest boost from it.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Dskinner,
I haven’t given the night to anyone since I have only seen the last half hour of the debates due to time constraints. At somepoint I will watch the whole thing.
I do think the comment by Giuliani was good, I cheered for him when he said it. But it wasn’t substantive beyond the idea of reproaching the anti-war left.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
You havn’t a clue. Where do you people come from? Try taking a political science or modern history class. Giuliani did one thing in the debate: declare himself incompetent and completely unschooled in foreign policy or diplomacy. Ron Paul should probably charge Rudy for the lesson.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Tommy,
You have been fair to Mitt, and it’s duly noted. I have several candidates I like beyond Mitt, it just doesn’t happen to be Fred or Rudy. I like McCain in many ways and enjoyed him in the first debate. I like Huckabee, other than some of his nanny state stuff. Brownback is ok, and I think T. Thompson is great too, just a poor debator. I think Rudy actually is a very comfortable speaker and fun to listen to, he is just bad for my view of Conservatism. I could like Fred, but nothing I see has really made me excited for him.
It’s easy to write me off, because I knock on Fred on Rudy. Sorry, I just put them at the bottom of my list. If they win, they will have my support. I am a critical person, part of that is being an orchestral musician where you spend you whole day critiquing everything.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
That’s cool with me. I’ll call out candidates for their positions, but I try not to cross the line, even when it’s a candidate I hate, and believe it or not, their are a few in the running that I can’t stand. I’m not going to talk about that though, because basically, I choose not to badmouth those who rub me completely the wrong way. I have been patient to slowly learn about Romney, and all I ask is for you to let Thompson play out his strategy, nd at least let his NBC and HBO FEC clauses free him up first. He can’t do much at least until the end of the Month. If he falls on his face, then you can criticize all you want, but at least give him the chance to fall on his face. You’ve been after him for just mentioning he might run. Let him in and at least let him convince you, and not me, or anybody else.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Tommy,
I have been negative of Thompson because I see little in his history that qualifies him for the job. He could win me over, but number one we need someone who can run an orginization and make things happen. I have seen nothing on that scale. Until then I will criticize things I don’t like, say when I think something is ok, and if I see something I think is great I will tell you, it just hasn’t happened yet.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Oy.
Okay, let’s see here…
Matt: I didn’t change my opinion on Romney’s performance during the first debate because I thought it would make me seem “unserious” otherwise. I changed my opinion because, after reading various commentaries and synthesizing other points of view, I concluded that folks seeing Mitt for the first time were probably impressed. I can change my mind, you know.
JF: Cute.
Jason: Lisps just may be great for getting girls. But I actually wasn’t criticizing Romney’s speaking style. I was criticizing the manner in which he formulates positions. More on this below.
Tommy: Dude, again, you need to develop a thicker skin. If you’re going to freak out every time someone says something remotely negative about Thompson, well, you’re going to be freaking out a lot.
All Romney supporters: I hesitated before I posted the above segment about Romney, not because I don’t think it’s true (I do), but because, despite popular belief around here, I’m a nice guy and I didn’t want to make you guys feel bad. But ultimately, I have to articulate what I believe, and I continue to believe Romney is basically a salesman with a platform calculated to match his audience and with no real policy rationale behind his candidacy other than to be president. Hearing that probably doesn’t make you guys feel so good, and that’s not my intention, and I think it’s unfortunate that supporters become so joined to the hip with their candidates, as I often am myself. Supporters of a candidate shouldn’t take so personally honest criticism of said candidate, but we all do. Ultimately, I think we all need to step back and realize that none of us are going to make or break any of these candidacies. A post by DaveG that criticizes Mitt Romney in the penultimate paragraph is not going to put a dent in Romney’s campaign. The millions of dollars that John McCain pours into negative ads against Mitt Romney in Iowa and South Carolina will do that. But I’m not going to stop saying what I think, and I just hope that the bulk of the folks here, who are good folks, don’t somehow think that because I think Romney’s slick, I think they’re slick, because I think Ron Paul’s crazy, I think they’re crazy, etc.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:16 am
DaveG,
I found your comments regarding Romney very heavy-handed and extremely critical. I honestly can’t think of any events that would warrant such harsh criticism. It is also a big stretch comparing this to Reagan’s 1980 debate.
He’s a whiner for sticking to the rules? You stated that:
“His demand that all of the candidates should be provided 30 seconds to respond to Paul’s commentary in order to prevent Rudy from having some sort of unfair advantage seemed immature.”
Immature – what? Rudy already got the unfair advantage which nobody else received by breaking the rule in the first place. I think Romney could have articulated a response better than Rudy, but never was given the chance – So what, water under the bridge. Perhaps next time Romney will ignore the rules of the debate for a smack down.
Nonetheless, the remark to Paul was a spot on and needed to be said. Ron Paul needed to be called out publicly for such lunacy.
I’m sure your opinion is different, but Romney’s debate performances – both times was quite solid.
The comment came at the expense of Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney no matter how you’d like to think otherwise.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Dave,
No real policy rationale????
That is laughable.
He is the one guy who has actually put forth policy. Rudy is the dude running on an aura mand an image that many here apparantly just don’t see. Tell me one policy idea Rudy has put forth other than Telling Ron Paul he has never heard the idea we were attacked because we attacked Iran on a consistent basis (which I have heard many times)?
But I do agree with most of what you have said.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Seriously, I think this can be said of all candidates:
“I continue to believe Romney is basically a salesman with a platform calculated to match his audience and with no real policy rationale behind his candidacy other than to be president.”
I think this certain applies to both McCain and Rudy. This “straight talk” routine is a sales pitch, is it not?
I’m not offended by the comment at all, I just don’t think that it is a boogie that will stick.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Excellent comment Jason with #47.
Romney has put fourth some of the most detailed, innovative, and articulate policies to date of the candidates.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:53 am
DaveG,
You give yourself too much credit if you think you hurt my feelings. What? I doubt it, but maybe you are inexperienced blogging and you think if I respond critically then it must be because my feelings were hurt. I think I speak for all the Romney supporters when I say that we responded because your criticisms were childlike and not based on rational fair analysis of the debate.
It seems like every time you post you confirm what we already know about you and many of the Rudy supporters at this site. You don’t have enough positive arguments or news about Rudy to last more than one post per thread. After that you resort to attacking other candidates.
I don’t think anyone here has a thin skin. We are just tired of the Rudy camp only attacking other candidates. It seems like if Rudy were so great you would be putting forth arguments FOR Rudy instead of arguments against the field.
By the way we know the Rudybots think nobody else can win in the general. We have heard that tired line ad nauseum and we disagree for many, many reasons that have been posted too many times to count.
One more piece of advice. Provide evidence for your claims. If you think Rudy will be the best on terror tell me why. I have yet to hear why a few months of cleanup of NYC makes him any more qualified than the rest of the GOP field.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Dave, I didn’t freak out. I merely argued against your points.
and it’s already starting
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55736
May 17th, 2007 at 1:30 am
From the above article, Dave:
Family advocate James Dobson, widely considered an important GOP rainmaker, says he will not vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani under any circumstance in the upcoming presidential elections because of his positions on abortion, domestic partnerships for homosexual couples and other moral issues.
Dobson says today in an exclusive WND column, speaking strictly as a private citizen, “I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008.”
“It is an irrevocable decision,” said the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family. “If given a Hobson’s Dobson’s? choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran or if worse comes to worst not vote for the first time in my adult life.”
Dobson said, “My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.”
May 17th, 2007 at 2:13 am
I daresay none of you guys are in line for a job in the next administration. So why not cool it a bit with all the cheerleading, and focus on the real task at hand – negotiating with your fellow citizens over choosing the best person to be the next president. Might not even be the one you think you prefer right now…
Might not even be a Republican
May 17th, 2007 at 3:03 am
DaveG (#46), the underlying issue is that you hold Romney to a standard that you hold no other. You claim, without any apparent embarrassment, that you don’t see any redeeming values in a Romney candidacy, that it is spin on top of calculation on top of zero substance. Admittedly, I don’t follow Giuliani as much as a Giuliani supporter would, but it says something to me that his stump speeches and his website are almost entirely backward-looking, examining his accomplishments in NYC, and do not address to any significant degree any forward-looking program for how to behave as an executive in charge of the whole of the United States. You consider that substance, but be aware that many (if not most) voters do not. You consider Giuliani’s repeated proclamations that he took charge on September 11 as a sufficient replacement for a policy platform for how to conduct the war on terror and confront growing dangers in Iran, South Korea, China, and Russia; be aware that many (if not most) voters do not. You consider Giuliani’s changing position on social conservative issues to make him principled; be aware that many (if not most) voters do not.
It’s easy to belittle rivals with name-calling and superficial sloganeering (whining, flip-flopping, etc.), but that accomplishes one thing: it destroys a rival. Bravo. Romney may yet be annihilated by the onslaught. However, it does nothing to build up the credibility of Giuliani, so instead of looking to Giuliani as the next logical choice, many of us turn to Gingrich or FDT. If you really believed in your candidate, you would be engaged in a high-minded campaign to persuade us why Giuliani would make a better candidate to advance our agendas. Repeating that Giuliani is the only candidate who can win against the Democrats is neither convincing nor effective; unlike the denizens of Redstate, many of us don’t believe that the world will implode if the Democrats come to power, so nominating Giuliani simply to take power out of their hands isn’t going to do the job.
That said, I’m sure you’ll decide to continue taking the low road and slinging insults, but be aware that we will continue to view such tactics for what they are: ineffective and immature.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:07 am
i would hardly compare that to the reagan moment. Reagan’s moment was not as easily given and every other candidate was about 2 seconds away from doing the same thing. He was more LUCKY than anything in my opinion.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Dave, excellent commentary. Regarding your observation about Romney:
“He is, ultimately, a salesperson a walking advertisement that constantly changes depending on its audience with the solitary goal of making the sale, or in this case, of becoming President of the United States. The fact that Mitt’s raison d’etre is simply to be president is also why he never will be.”
You hit the nail on the head. I totally agree. That is the way he has impressed me from the very beginning. Kind of like an investment banker pitching to close the deal by telling the respective parties whatever they want to hear. We (the GOP) have been down this road before (2000 comes to my mind). I for one do not want to go down that road again, and that’s one reason that I support Rudy. He has the confidence and honesty to take a stand that might not always be the most popular rather than pander in a salesman like fashion.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Dobson and Land do not control the Republican Party. If the Republicans nominate a sure loser like Romney, I don’t have to waste my vote either. Don’t start a showdown, because our chances of winning the election are pretty low as it is.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I agree that Giuliani won, damnit. Romney did nowhere as bad as you say, but Giuliani took the night.
I hate that he did, because you’re statement is flat wrong: “He’s running as the pro-choice candidate who won’t hurt the interests of pro-lifers. There’s a real difference there, but given Rudy’s other strengths, it’s also an acceptable one in my opinion. Giuliani hasn’t really done much to reassure pro-lifers that he won’t hurt their interests, especially when it comes to Roe v. Wade. As far as I can tell, Giuliani will be looking for one thing and one thing only when he goes for judges, and thats whether they can keep from meddling in the war on terror. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a good thing, but its not enough, not near enough. Pro-lifers are closer to getting somewhere than they have been in 20 years and a Giuliani victory would piss it away. I will vote for and donate money to whichever candidate seems the most credible anti-Giuliani candidate in the primaries. And I can’t be sure that I would vote for him in the generals, either. I would have to think seriously about a third-party protest vote. I was talking to a Ctholic friend last night and he feels the same way. In fact, he was the one that persuaded me that I should donate money to whoever the anti-Giuliani candidate is and not just vote for him.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:40 am
You’re right, Dobson and Land don’t control the GOP. But they do share the same sentiment of many others, such as myself.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Chris L. (#57), that is not the way investment bankers operate. Poorly done.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
FYI: Interesting new poll from Rasmussen. Hillary is only leading Romney now by 3 points. He trailed her by 9 points in March.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_leads_both_thompson_and_romney_by_three_points
May 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I’m betting you’d get the same results if you matched up Hillary with a generic Republican. Voters don’t know Romney well yet.
That said, this does show how silly it is for Giuliani folks to base their decision on polls like this.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Ron Paul is right. Giuliani knows nothing of history, not even of the event that so tragically affected his own city.
According to the 9/11 commission report and Osama bin-Laden’s own statements before and after 9/11, the reasons for the attacks have absolutely nothing to do with being jealous of or hating our freedoms. As bin-Laden himself said “we did not attack Sweeden.” The reason we were attacked on 9/11 was retaliation for our foreign policy. The US has been meddling in the affairs of the middle east for 50 years. We have had troops staioned there for decades. We have bases there. We have bombed factories, water and sewage plants, schools and hospitals. We have killed thousands of children. THIS is why thy hate us.
Ron Paul is right. If we are to have a foreign policy that actually protects America and American citizens, we must adopt the foreign policy of the Founders. We must stop interfering in the affairs of other nations, all around the world. We must bring our troops home immediately, from all of the 130 countries where they are stationed. There is no Constitutional authority, absent a declaration of war, for the positioning of troops outside our borders. For that matter, there is no Constitutional authority for even having a standing army.
A perfect example of what will happen is Vietnam. We fought there for 10 years. Nearly 60,000 American soldiers died there. For what? The politicians of the time told us that we could not “cut and run.” We had to “stay the course” or else S. Vietnam would “fall” to the communists. Then every nation in SE Asia would also fall, followed by Australia in a “domino effect.”
Well, we did “cut and run” out of Vietnam. We pulled our troops out, saying that the S. Vietnamese army could handle it. They didn’t. S. Vietnam fell. So? Since that time, Vietnam has not invaded us or any of its neighbors. There have been no Vietnamese terror attacks against the US. We trade with them, Americans even vacation there. “Communist” Vietnam is gradually becoming a capitalist country.
We are supposed to be the beacon of freedom for the world. We are supposed to lead by our example, not by force of arms.
Ron Paul is the only Republican who is truly in touch with the feelings of the American people. Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat the Democrats.
Ron Paul is right. Rudy owes him an apology.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Would someone send me the link to the Mind-numbed robot poll that showed “Benito” Giuliani as the winner? Or was that limited to the select group chosen to fill seats at the SC debate? I didn’t see BG swat Ron Paul. I saw an attempt that resulted in the fly-swatter bouncing back an showing Giuliani for the corrupt, dishonest, and power-hungry politician I thought him to be.
As one of Ronald Reagan’s strongest support’s ever, I would suggest that Giuliani and any of his minions who would compare him to Ronnie apologize to Nancy, the Reagan family, and all who truly admired him. As a life-long law enforcement professional involved in security at the state level, I recognized Giuliani’s attack on Ron Paul as the desperate efforts of an inept liar. Anyone not employed 24 hours a day as a mushroom farmer has heard (or simply had the intelligence to discern) that our years of interventionism has only served to provoke the wrath of middle-eastern radicals. Giuliani’s antics were not unlike a five-year-old at recess asking the kindergarten teacher to make another child apologize for calling him a sissy.
Grow up, rudy. Why should anyone expect you to honor a promise or an oath of office any more than you honored the numerous wedding vows you’ve made?
May 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Rudy Is a bigger liberal then Ron PAul. He’s pro-choice, and as anti-gun as the most rabid Democrat. Rudy is just a male version of Hillary Clinton. Paul is the only candidate talking about shrinking government. Part of that includes the warfare apparatous. Rudy made him self also to look like a fool. He needs to read the 9/11 commission report.
Tracy
May 18th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, “You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.”
Don’t let chest thumping American pride get in the way of the facts, what Dr. Paul said is directly reflected in the report on 911.
People who think that we are the target of terrorist attacks because they hate our freedom are misled. Terrorism by definition is political in nature.
Eddie
May 21st, 2007 at 1:39 am
[...] race42008.com Tags: election 2008, Rudy GiulianiAdd to: [...]