Re. Good News From the Far Right

by

Sweet graph, Ohio.  That’s some sexy blogging.

That also confirms what early internal polls were showing:  “Social” conservatives have always been receptive to Giuliani.  Furthermore, those conservatives are the generally the best informed on the relative merits of the candidates.

The self-appointed ringleaders of this important and valuable constituency within the GOP will do their best to guilt their compatriots into abandoning Hizzoner.  No doubt there will be some more tense moments between Giuliani and these folks down the road.  I bet you dollars to donuts, though, they will continue to support Giuliani in large numbers.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Re. Good News From the Far Right”

  1. Calvin Says:

    http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MGZhNjFjYjFjODgzZmMxNjgxZmY2Y2Q2NGRkNjE5Yjk=

  2. karlub - PA RudyBlogger Says:

    Let me say a few words about constitutional government and the sepatation of powers.

    If a president Giuliani nominated and and led the confirmation of the types of Supreme Court Justices he says he will– and what other grounds do we have to proceed with such a conversation– what would happen?

    First, one would expect the Court to adjudicate in a fashion consistent with the Federalist agenda of the administration, and the Federalist tendancies of the relevant individual Justices.

    Should these rulings– on a potential range of issues– discomfit Congress, it is Congress’ Constitutional preogative to legislate accordingly. If you have a problem at that point with what laws Congress decides to pass, your problem is then with the legislature. Not a President Giuliani refreshingly comfortable with the latter portion of the Bill of Rights.

    Of course, if the polling suggests the American people have a similar agenda to one’s own, then one ought to be comfortable with the range of potential legislation. If that is not the case, then one’s problem is with the vast majority of Americans. Not Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. If you have a problem at that point, then your problem is with democratic republicanism.

  3. Calvin Says:

    “If a president Giuliani nominated…the types of Supreme Court Justices he says he will…” Too big an if for my tastes, and considering that—putting aside the evil of legal abortion—Roe is a blatant affront to federalism, so it’s more than a little odd that the candidate who’s supposedly a devout Federalist (but not the ONLY one in the race, despite the typical JoinRudy lie) is not only not outraged by it, but openly indifferent to it!

    “If you have a problem at that point with what laws Congress decides to pass, your problem is then with the legislature. Not a President Giuliani…” If “President Giuliani” fails to exercise his rightful authority as President to veto such laws, then you better believe the buck stops with him.

    “Of course, if the polling suggests the American people have a similar agenda to one’s own, then one ought to be comfortable with the range of potential legislation. If that is not the case, then one’s problem is with the vast majority of Americans. Not Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. If you have a problem at that point, then your problem is with democratic republicanism.”

    I’ve been observing out-of-touch Beltway types for a good long while now, and NEVER have I heard a statement so incredible. Are you admitting that, in your ideology, polls trump principle? The acceptability of a decision is in no way contingent upon popularity contests. The very essence of leadership (a term that, despite what I’m hearing here, Rudy is allegedly familiar with) is the willingness to do what one knows (or at least genuinely believes) to be right in spite of opposition.

    According to your logic, we should have withdrawn from Iraq long ago!

    Should politicians violate the law & Constitution in executing their duty? Of course not, and to imply that’s what we’re suggesting (if that was the implication) would be distortion worthy of the DNC. But every elected official has the right—indeed, often the duty—to make decisions that the public won’t like. If the voters ultimately reject those decisions, that’s what elections are for. But conversely, tools like the veto are in place precisely for moments where legislative bodies—even when those bodies have the American people’s backing—are wrong.

    Besides official policy mechanisms, real leaders also have a little thing called the bully pulpit at their disposal. They have the full right and the moral obligation to draw the American people’s attention to serious problems (such as over 1 million killings a year), and to do their best to guide public opinion, to make their cases before the electorate in the hopes of moving them in the right direction for future elections and Congressional votes.

    Words can’t express how stunning it is to hear the case that we’re supposed to make Rudy Giuliani our leader precisely because he’ll act in ways which are the very antithesis of leadership.

    I don’t mean to presume that Mitt Romney is the second coming of Reagan, and I think that Fred Thompson is dramatically overrated. But if either one of these men (heck, as much as I dislike him I’ll even take McCain over Hizzoner!) manages to derail Rudy Giuliani, than the United States, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will owe that man a debt of gratitude for years to come.

  4. karlub - PA RudyBlogger Says:

    I live in PA, and do not work in politics. The other major contributors to this site are in Washington state and Ohio. Look for beltway types elsewhere.

    The point re. polling, which you’ve missed, is this: If particular social issues are electorial winner, as Ramesh Punnuru points out in the piece to which you linked, then adovcates of those issues should welcome the electoral opportunities a Federalist approach would deliver.

    Midwifing that approach to various social issues on which the Constitution remains silent would be leadership of the first order, reversing 50 years of history at the yoke of a judically activist bench.

  5. Calvin Says:

    1.) To suggest that there is something unique about Giuliani’s supposed Federalism (which, as I’ve illustrated before, simply doesn’t hold water) is a complete falsehood – McCain and Romney both favor restoring the states’ rightful authority to set abortion policy. The difference is, they openly talk about the fact that Roe v. Wade is a blatant affront to Federalism, and should be overturned on those grounds. Hizzoner? “OK either way.” Mighty suspicious….

    2.) “What I am not open to is removing the right [to abortion].” How much clearer can your candidate get? We’re supposed to welcome a man who is unequivocal on such an ethically & logically indefensible stance? Doesn’t it bother you – not on a political level, but on a moral, human level – that Rudy’s conscience can embrace something like abortion?

    3.) I eagerly await the rationale for why national pro-life political goals should apparently end with the Supreme Court….

  6. Karlub - PA RudyBlogger Says:

    Seems to me, Calvin, if you still need answers to questions 1 and 2 you have not actually been reading my gracious responses to your earnest advocacy.

    As for question 3 the answer is simply this: Social issues hijacked by the Supreme Court can only be remedied once the Supreme Court cedes its ill-gotten authority.

    May I ask how you envision your home state will deal with various social issues should a federalist realignment come to pass? As a sideways commentary on point 1, may I ask which current GOP candidate is more likely than Rudy Giuliani to win a national election and thereby effect such a Federalist realignment?

  7. Calvin Says:

    “You have not actually been reading my gracious responses.” I’ve read every word – which is exactly why I’m unconvinced. And your refusal to answer the question about Rudy’s conscience says more about Hizzoner than you probably intended to…

    “Social issues hijacked by the Supreme Court can only be remedied once the Supreme Court cedes its ill-gotten authority.” Bingo! But this is the point I’ve been making: once the Supreme Court cedes said authority, that simply ENABLES the problem to be remedied. It does NOT constitute the remedy itself. And even if we blindly assume Rudy can be trusted to deliver an anti-Roe judge, he fails the post-Roe test.

    Wisconsin recently passed a Marriage Amendment, and last time I checked, we have a pre-Roe abortion ban on the books that should reactivate once Roe v. Wade (y’know, the ruling Rudy says “eh, whatever” to) falls.

    On state abortion battles: even if one accepts the premise that abortion’s legality should be left to the states, presidents can (and should be expected to) still provide leadership, encouragement & moral support to the humanitarian activists in each state, urging state electorates to do the right thing. Rudy fails this test, too. (Again: “What I am not open to is removing the right.”)

    And, of course, the fact that ending abortion should be a national priority, not just a state one (we would recoil in horror at the notion of slavery, sharia, etc, being a “state issue,” no?). Rudy fails here, as well.

    Who’s more likely to win? Ultimately, I don’t think McCain is going to survive Amnesty-gate (good riddance, though while we’re on the subject, I’d appreciate it if you could demonstrate where, aside from bemoaning the lack of an identification measure in the latest bill, Rudy’s immigration stance is any different from McCain’s), but I think Romney & Thompson (Fred, not Tommy) each have the potential to win a general election.

    Yes, I’m aware of how much better the “Woman’s-Right-to-Execute” candidate polls against Hillary compared to the others. But I’m also aware of how often (& quickly) polls can change, or are shown to be flat wrong (some examples in this column:
    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=167).

    Those who are genuinely interested in advancing conservative principles rather than Republican politicians ought to be presenting those principles to the American people, making their cases, and devoting themselves to shaping and guiding public opinion to the best of their ability. I see the Rudy crowd doing the exact opposite: shaping their principles to conform to the supposed “electable” guy. If that’s what it means to be a “good Republican,” then I’m not interested.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: