Rudypalooza
Over at NRO, the chorus of praise for Rudy Giuliani grows louder. David Frum has announced that he has become a senior advisor to Giuliani, whom he praised for his "character." William Simon and Deroy Murdock wrote separate pieces to explain why social conservatives should support Giuliani. And, on Wednesday, Kathryn Jean Lopez made clear that criticism of Giuliani would need to come to an end if Giuliani were the Republican nominee, since "Hillary must be stopped."
So this is where the mainstream conservative movement has led us: to more and more "conservatives" signing on to support the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights Giuliani, who as mayor of New York favored gutting the Second Amendment and protecting illegal aliens from possible deportation in his "sanctuary city." The NRO crowd has no shame, if we are supposed to take seriously praise for the character of the adulterous Giuliani, who cheated on his second wife before marrying wife number three, herself the veteran of two prior marriages. But it does have principles of a sort: If the GOP were to nominate Ron Paul rather than Rudy Giuliani, one can be sure that Lopez would fill NRO with invective denouncing Paul. All NRO cares about is support for endless war in the Mideast, and all of Giuliani's many flaws will be overlooked, since he has made it clear he fully supports the way Bush has waged "the War on Terror." Indeed, with both Norman Podhoretz and David Frum as advisers, Giuliani promises to be even more mindlessly belligerent than Bush.
41 Responses »
Trackbacks
- magazine subscriptions » Rudypalooza
- Volunteer Voters » Will The Mainstream COnservative Establishment Colease Behind Guiliani?
Entries(RSS)
That is exactly correct Mr. Piatak. But tell me, where are the social conservatives? What about the Christian right ? This election will prove how empty they are. All their talk about restoring a moral culture and defending life will be revealed as a sham. What happens in the Middle East means more to them than what happens down the street. If they had roots, perhaps things would be different. But they have no heritage, no history, in short no home. But they do have the Party. Summon Pope. All hail King Log!
Your criticism of the social conservatives assumes that they actually have some influence inside the Beltway. As is becoming obvious, they have no power and have been eagerly snatching whatever table scraps the NRO-approved candidates toss them. Say what you like about James Dobson, but at least he has the guts to threaten a Christian right boycott of the Republican party. Go here to see Sean Hannity desperately try to persuade him to support Giuliani ("at least it's not Hillary"). The only influence social conservatives will have in this election is to cause a Republican defeat by voting for a minor party candidate or staying at home on election day. Maybe that will force one of the major parties to wake up, but I suspect they can get along just fine without social conservatives . . .
I think you mean Deroy Murdock.
This whole Rudy and will/should the social conservatives bolt if he is the nominee debate drives me up the wall. If a "conservative" can somehow justify a vote for Rudy, then that term no longer has any meaning at all.
I think a main battle we need to fight as far as the purely political goes is the age old purist vs. pragmatist debate. As long as "conservatives" can be scared into voting for Rudy in the name of anybody but Hillary we will get nowhere.
I don't disagree with you on any of these points Brad. I think the likes of Hannity and Hewitt and so on will keep bringing up the boogie man....well boogie woman...and tell us how bad HRC is. Social conservatives may not have that much power but social conservatives think that the GOP is an ally. It is not despite all the smoke and mirrors from Bennett and Bauer and so on. As for a third party campaign to beat the GOP over the heads with, I like the idea but it depends on who the candidate is. I suspect Alan Keyes will offer himself. He needs to pay off his campaign debts after all and pay himself a salary. Can' say I am a fan of his. Tom Tancredo is flopping now and I don't think he will do any better any time soon. I suppose Roy Moore could offer himself though I have not heard from him much after being burried in a landslide in Alabama. I guess there is Ron Paul but too many social conservatives will not vote for him due to his foreign policy-he cares more about the US than the Middle East which will not do for too many Christians who have breathed in the gas coming from Trotsky and Bill Kristol.
Social Conservatives are basicly being told where the door is, if they don't like the power base of the GOP. The Neocons are gambling that the Christian Zionist have been indoctrinated sufficiently enough to compromise values and principles. The neocons know that fear tactics(Hillary will get you killed!)have worked in the past, so they are ready to go to the polls with Rudy. They also know that behind the curtain, many of the good "Brothers" and "Sisters" of the Church will be voting their pocketbooks while wearing their prolife lapel pins!............The problem is that we paleos allow neocons to be activist as much as liberals! Educating a voter that hates politics is work! And it's slow! I will be voting 3rd party for the first time if ANY Top Tier candidate get's the nomination because "It's a countable vote" unlike low voter turnout.......I regret NOT voting for Perot, but at that time NAFTA was confusing to me.........NOT AGAIN!......I refuse to be a GOP worshiper for the sake of some stupid party loyalty or fear.
I gave up on NRO years ago.
If Rudy gets the nomination, I hope a loser in the Repub field, (Tancredo, Paul, whomever.....) runs as a third party candidate.
Last time out, I said "to hell with it" and voted for a thrid party candidate that I saw on the back of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE because I refused to back Senor Bush and his Likudnik warmongering "machine" along with Cheney and the petroleum-prostitutes. By God I'll do it again in a heartbeat. I refuse to let the neocons have my vote.
How did this happen folks? How did the neo-conservatives who are open border-globalist-'wars for Israel' former Trotskyites and leftists themselves (do the research people, find out what these people were for in 1975) GET IN CONTROL OF REAGAN'S PARTY?
Even if it means Hillary, Obama, or Edwards-----its worth throwing an election and BADLY (I mean an electoral creaming) to discredit the neocons.
Conservatives should also be open about the National Review. That has been infiltrated and taken over by neo-cons. Its a joke and is in no way "conservative". I knew it was happening as the old writers were being put out to pasture in the nineties while jerk-off likudniks like Frum, Lopez, and Goldberg, etc. took their place. William F. Buckley is an establishmentarian conservative, and neocons are now the establisment beltway conservatives. The former rebel (Buckley) has become the "establishment". Its time for new blood like Chronicles, Amconmag, Taki, etc.
"Its time for new blood like Chronicles, Amconmag, Taki, etc."
Yes, but not in the form of transfusions or the perennial attempt to work with traitors. The neo-cons are vapor locked and the pain in their chest is beginning to feel like a semi-truck collapsing their body cavity. The "ANYBODY BUT HILLARY " montra is their only hope.
Hold their hands, tell them to take shallow easy breaths, to be sorry for their sins, that they are still worthy of God's mercy, etc. but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEEEAASEE ! don't resuscitate or donate blood. Let them either go in peace or the hellish understanding of what it means to have ones way forever, but let them go. Our survival depends upon their demise. Food and water ? Yes. But aid and comfort to the enemy ? No . Hell no.
Folks, politics is about power not principle. It has always been thus. There is no Golden Age of purity in which principle guided politics. The NRO crowd is fishing for jobs and influence in a Giuliani administration. GOP headquarters in DC has sent out the Memo: Rudy is the candidate. And like public "intellectuals" in the past, they are acting accordingly.
One of the problems with traditionalists is our lack of Machiavellian gamesmanship (like Machiavelli himself, who never practiced his principles). The neoconservative takeover of the GOP was accomplished through ruthless politics and typical divide and conquer strategies. We are being naive by wringing our hands in moral indignation at their lack of character. Very few people who make their living writing for the public are immune to power. When they stick to principle they suffer the fate of Sam Francis. Looking for bravery from a bunch of uneducated thirtysomething mediocrites is foolish. If traditional conservatism is to make a comeback, it must be willing to gets its hand dirty and play with the majors. This includes money, something they have in abundance. Anyone who thinks me a cynic should re-read their Roman, Venetian, Florentine or English history.
1) "Folks, politics is about power not principle. It has always been thus. " False
2) "One of the problems with traditionalists is our lack of Machiavellian gamesmanship." False. It is a virtue for traditionalists in contrast to the familiar vice it has become for neo-con job seekers.
3) "The neoconservative takeover of the GOP was accomplished through ruthless politics and typical divide and conquer strategies." True. But you forgot to mention lieing, cheating, character assasination, calumny and detraction.
4)"When they stick to principle they suffer the fate of Sam Francis." And what is so dishonorable about that ?
5) If traditional conservatism is to make a comeback......and "This includes money," Vote for Hillary or Gulliani, they also believe in money working closely with Government.
Folks, I am very much afraid the "Anybody but Hillary" scam will work once again. The "Christian right" has never accomplished anything except payoffs for its leaders and idiot support for the Republicans---which was all that it was ever about from the beginning.
Isn't it misguided for Chronicles to criticize the foreign policy of National Reivew -- stay the course in Iraq -- since Chronicles -- or at least its leading lights, Thomas Fleming, R. Cort Kirkwood, and Serge Trifkovic -- also agree that we need to continue to occupy Iraq?
Is Chronicles trying to win kudos from the Neocons? Or have they finally seen the wisdom of the Neocon foreign policy?
Bob: I was only trying to be helpful. There is nothing dishonorable about the late Mr. Francis; quite the opposite. I am not suggesting anyone vote for Mayor Giuliani or make an alliance with those people. I am only suggesting we stop diagnosing the problem and start thinking of what to do about it.
Thanks
"Is Chronicles trying to win kudos from the Neocons? Or have they finally seen the wisdom of the Neocon foreign policy? "
Of course they are trying to win kudos. Anybody that knows Tom Fleming and Trikovic know that winning kudos is what they are all about. That is why they stood practically alone during the hysteria of WMD's, cakewalks, Iraqi oil funding the war, mushroom clouds in New York harbor, Iraqi crop dusters flying across the Atlantic and other such nonsense and simply said no to invasion. They were unpatriotic Americans.
And now that they are saying we need out of Iraq, still keeping in mind American interests and the safety and welfare of American troops, you insinuate they are looking for kudos.
Sir, have you considered writing for National Review, or taking a position with Ralph Reed and the Christian coalition ? Perhaps a talking head position with AEI or Ethics and Public Policy Institute ? You certainly have the mind and prowess for such organizations. And in a few more months, I suspect they will be either trimming staff or staffing more Trimmers. Apply early. Cheers
SPQR, though we can't act outside of Christian morality, I very much agree with you.
SPQR
Never mind me, I am old, cantankerous, bitter, and near the end of the race. You young fellows are the soldiers carrying the colors for our cause now. I really don't care if you cheat a little, given the great odds against you, I just want somebody to whip their asses. Carry on. Bob
"How did the neo-conservatives who are open border-globalist . . . GET IN CONTROL OF REAGAN’S PARTY?"
Reagan didn't do diddly-squat domestically. 'Twas he who passed the first amnesty. He was a strong anti-communist overseas but that's all. Establishment conservatism has long been controlled by Business Republicans, and that's all they are, they'll dump anyone and any principle as long as it doesn't threaten Big Business. The idea that neo-cons have somehow slickered them is nonsense, the only difference between them and the BRs who have controlled the movement for decades is the neo-cons greater emphasis on the Middle East, that's all. Reagan had communism to take his supporters minds off his lack of domestic performance, Bush had to artificially whip up Iraq and the war on terrorism to do the same. He was desperate for the neo-con embrace.
Reagan was a great man. But obviously, the One Worlders got control of his presidency via Geroge Bush 41. No one man (as President), no matter how great and principled can have any effect on our country. For example. Even if Ron Paul, somehow miraculously became the nominee, the invisible hand (of one-world government) would attach a VP, like Bush 41 that would thwart his vision and still keep our country, what is left of it, headed in their top-down, elitist direction.
The embrace of Rudy by Nat'l Review and the rest of the GOP "Establishment" should take none of us by surprise. The GOP's sole argument for winning the presidency and Congress is the "fear" of the Hildabeast and the Communists, I mean Democrats. The conservative movement should view a Hillary presidency with the same anticipation as we did Bill's. Mr. Clinton, more than anyone, was responsible for the 1994 'Republican Revolution'. Can you imagine what would happen if a much more leftist Hillary got in, and the GOP actually got it's act together? There would be, I think, a repeat on '94, but only on a more massive scale. However, they would need to elect 'Paul Republicans' to leadership positions and articulate a real philosophy and show some spine.
The GOP long ago ceased to be "conservative". Goldwater was the last "true" conservative to win the nomination. Everybody waxes passionate about Reagan. Reagan was a neo-con: he did virtually nothing to halt, let alone even slow down, the growth of gov't domestically. His sole claim to fame was our "victory" in the Cold War. Yet even that was a violation of standing conservative principle. Wasn't it JQ Adams who famously said that America shouldn't go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Ever since FDR and the 'Raw Deal', America has needed a foreign enemy to distract us from the ever growing domestic threats to our freedoms. The Democrats set us firmly on this path, aided and abetted by "Me-Too" Republicans and RINO's like Ike and Nixon.
If the social conservative movement is serious about the direction of this country, then they'll abandon their leaders like Robertson and Jones, who are Israel-obsessed, and make common cause with the Constitution and Libertarian parties. James Dobson alone cannot dictate who Christian conservatives will support, but he certainly can influence. Why hasn't he embraced Paul? RP is strong on the issues Dobson cares about: he's pro-life, he's hostile to the degredation of our culture and society. Is Dobson's hesitation based on something else perhaps? Perhaps it's based on the idea that if he threatens to bolt the party and take his faithful followers with him, that the next GOP administration will show him what he feels is proper deference? The "leaders" of the Christian Right (or whatever you want to call them) are more interested in Israel and their own power and influence than they are in electing a true conservative to the White House and like minded majorities to Congress. It's all about the money. And the power: the Jones-Robertson-Dobson Axis of Idiocy doesn't want the gov't telling them how to make money, but they want it to make every American hetero and Christian. RP doesn't cotton to that, so perhaps that's why they won't go for him.
In reality, it doesn't matter: the GOP will nominate a candidate who, if elected, will be just as bad as the Hildabeast or B. Hussein Obama (thanks to Ms. Coulter for that!), because they won't honor the conservative principles the Republic was founded on.
If you read "The Triumph of Politics" by David Stockman, you will understand how Reagan really tried to slash the bureaucracy, but Stockman and the invisible hand of state capitalism or corporatism blocked his every move.
Giuliani = Bush on a bad day.
Hillary = Bush
Reagan kept the grain shipments to Russia going; he let the Communists win in Rhodesia and to a modestly lesser extent, South Africa. He continued the deregulation policy of Carter, but at the same time, hired underlings that increased regulation on a variety of fronts.
Sure, he was a moderate social democrat, about the best we can hope for within the Establishment, but had the Democrats run to his Right in 1984, arguing against that Big Government tax hiker Reagan (tax hikes in 1982,83,84), the world would be a different place today.
But what can we make of a time period with an incident in March 1981 and Sept 1 1983 that claimed the last Hard Right Democrat in power?
It should be noted that Pat Robertson suggested support for Paul in 1988, and several in Robertson circle financially backed him, particularly in Michigan. It can happen again, and whether we win or not, institutionally, the Hard Right, if it is disciplined, will take a Great Leap Forward over the next 13 months.
"It should be noted that Pat Robertson suggested support for Paul in 1988, and several in Robertson circle financially backed him, particularly in Michigan."
Do you have a link for that?
A few points, if I may ...
Tactically, SPQR is right, and so is Frank: Traditioanlist conservatives must always act within the bounds of Christian propriety and morality. Whether we can square the two I leave to greater minds than mine.
One corrective, Richard. I do not support the "continued occupation" of Iraq, at least in the sense you mean it. What I support, and I believe what Mssrs. Trifkovic and Fleming support, is a policy of extracting ourselves in the most sensible way that does not worsen the situation. This is not identical to the neocon position of full-blown support for the war, nor does it concede their points. It merely recognizes the reality of the siutation and that we must act accordingly.
On Reagan: Back in the 1980s, Morton Kondracke observed on television that Reagan was not the conservative his backers thought he was. Whatever the accuracy of that statement, his spear carriers weren't conservatives, and that's one reason none of his announced goals -- balanced budget, no deficits, eliminating the Education and Energy Depts. -- never were accomplished.
The Reagan Administration was doomed the minute he chose Bush as his vice-presidential nominee. Not to speak for him, but I believe Clyde Wilson might say it was all a Republican charade anyway; there was never a chance to slash government under a Republican president, whatever his alleged conservatism. And perhaps he would be right.
Red;
Here you go (I should have included the link):
SOME REPUBLICANS BACK FOE OF BUSH
NY Times August 10, 1988
In a move that could embarrass Vice President Bush next week, some key supporters of Pat Robertson are quietly pushing the candidacy of Ron Paul, a former Republican Congressman from Texas, as a Presidential candidate.
In a move that could embarrass Vice President Bush next week, some key supporters of Pat Robertson are quietly pushing the candidacy of Ron Paul, a former Republican Congressman from Texas, as a Presidential candidate.
If you examine Reagan's record as California Governor, he was actually quite liberal: he signed one of the most sweeping pieces of pro-abortion legislation into law; he raised taxes; he pushed environmental issues; spending hiked while he was in office; etc. I used to be a hardcore "Reaganite" before I looked at his record. As I said before, the last true conservative to get the GOP nod was Goldwater, and he had to outfight the Rockefeller wing for it.
I see a tremendous opportunity for conservatives: if any of the neocons gets the nod, chances are they'll lose to either the Hildabeast or B. Hussein Obama. To ensure that happens, we conservatives should stay home on election day. A Hildabeast or Obama presidency, with a lefty Congress, guarantees our victory in 2010. I don't subscribe to the notion that we should vote GOP just to keep the Democrat nominee from winning. With the exception of RP, they're all just as bad as whoever the Dems put up.
SPQR,you are exactly right.We are moralistic rather than truly moral.The supreme moral choice is in the correct use(as well as acquisition) of power.Aquinas put the intellectual virtues above the moral.And incidentally,sexual morality or CONSTANTIA at the very bottom.The Julio-Claudians,the Borgias,Mussolini,and even the Mafia,are all preferable to the crowd of sickening and pathetic specimens that populate the government and all other higher posts.
Before "free market capitalism",the Confedera-cy,and John Paul II's Ecumenical prayer services there was the flesh and blood(and brains) of European Man.Sharks are circling that flesh and blood hoping for a generous portion,or at the very least a savory morsel.
Niccolo' Machiavelli was familiar with sharks.He wanted to see 16th century Italy unified and strengthened in order to counter the power of France,Spain and Austria and end their predations on his beloved land.He turned to the Roman Republic-I DISCORSI SU LA PRIMA DECA DI TITO LIVIO-and later when there was no hope in a Republican model,to the Roman Empire-IL PRINCIPE.
We instead are preoccupied with tight bluejeans, States Rights,and a 5% return on investments(not necessarily in that order).
Italy made a better showing four centuries ago.Can we hope that Israel,Mexico,China and Arabia will be more merciful with us than Italy's tormenters were with her?
The question answers itself.
J. Croll,
I agree with you. Reagan was, by no means, a true conservative. He had many shortcomings and there is very little positive to show from his tenure. However, I think he was a great and principled man who simply succumbed to the helplessness of his position. He really was the best we could hope for. Two steps forward and one step back, unfortunately. Also, while I admire some of Barry Goldwater’s convictions, he was no conservative, either. His views were largely libertarian. He had disdain for social conservatives and stated that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act (SHAM) of 1964 was because “you can’t legislate morality.” Never mind its unconstitutionality.
Such an avalanche of Giuliani of endorsements fell this week, one cannot help but wonder whether it was all orchestrated. They are certainly shaping the sense of "inevitability" in peoples minds.
Although it would be out of the norm, I thought it might be advantageous for Paul and Tancredo to team up now. One could preemptively declare the other his running mate, which would combine their grassroots support. I know that many do not like Tancredo's support of the war - I don't like Tancredo's support of the war - but he's much better than Paul on immigration, and he seems to be slowly changing his views on Iraq (and trade), perhaps from the influence of the Buchanans. If Tancredo and Paul were to come together, they would pull together two very vibrant grassroots movements.
In reality, though, what will come of the mainstream "conservatives" backing Giuliani? Predictions?
(1) If the Constitution Party could field a strong candidate, they could lay the groundwork for future gains; and perhaps field some strong candidates for Congressional seats. Any chance?
(2) If the GOP openly returns to its northern, liberal roots, what will become of the South? Will it blindly follow another neocon?
(3) Will the religious right prove themselves "useful idiots" and back Giuliani, or will they make a stand and support a third-party candidate?
For those fed up with the GOP, a Giuliani nomination could be a good thing. He is openly liberal (unlike Romney, McCain or Thompson who at least pretend to be conservative), and it will allow many to see the neocons for what they truly are.
Bede,
Those are some really great points. Where will social conservatives go?
@ SEMPRONIUS
Thanks for mentioning the Discorsi. I'm actually mentioned in the acknowledgments to the Mansfield/Tarcov translation, work I did as an undergrad at Chicago. But here and for now I must be undercover.
I think the neoconservatives have effectively divided us into little warring camps. Consider:
Lawrence Auster is running VFR but many Christians think he is too racialists. So what? Many neocons are openly ethnic about Israel and the Dems welcome balck supremacists.
He, in turn, broke from the Buchanan, Amcon guys. They, in turn, don't get along with FrontPage (for some good reasons, I know). Spencer JihadWatch is excellent and all camps involved in the struggle for Western Civ. use it. Protestants find Taki tacky and too Euro, but actually he has been writing about and fighting this battle longer than they. The fact that he likes young French women recommends him frankly. Over at Taki, some complain that Paul Belien's Brussel's Journal is too republican, for only a monarchy can save us. Diana West, who bridges the gap between paleo and neo (as in a way I do), falls from the graces James Pinkerton because of professional ambitions. And on and on and on.
We know there is a hard core group of real, committed neocons who are the enemy within the GOP. Instead of looking for perfection, we should find a way - and some money - to pull together, for there is strength in numbers.
And you are right, finally, to point out that what Islam and the Left threaten is not only "the right" but the whole of Western Civ., the high and popular, from Monteverdi to Lynyrd Skynyrd. We need to get past insultng "JPod" or whatever their names and get real. Yeah, the Mafia would help.
Of the National Review journalists mentioned by Mr. Piatak, we know that David Frum is of repellant character who uses and disposes of people as he sees fit. Miss Lopez and Mr. Murdock are of no importance and have even less to say than Jonah Goldberg, the Bart Simpson of the "conservative movement." Most of the National Review crowd, just like their neo-conservative cousins, view the world from the prism of New York City, the cesspool Rudy "saved", a city which most normal Americans despise and want nothing to do with.
What is more worrying is the continued majority conservative and Republican support for the so-called "War on Terror" and its bastard child, the war in Iraq. Millions of conservative Americans, and not just a few neo-conservative intellectuals, seem to have become mentally unhinged after the September 11 bin-Laden terror attacks, an attack very unlikely ever to be duplicated. The world of Islam, and especially the Arab world, would have little more economic clout than sub-Saharan Africa if not for oil. And we are to be engaged in a multi-generational death struggle with the collection of backward tribes of the Middle East? For many deluded conservatives who subscribe to a War on Terror, tough-talking Rudy Guiliani is the man to prosecute this war. And that is just one of many reasons not to be vote for Rudy Guiliani, even if he is all that stands before the perils of a Hillary Rodham presidency.
All these folks who see Rudy as the only hope to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency---what is the difference, pray tell, between Rudy and Hillary? Both are pro choice, pro gay rights pro gun control government control freaks who think the government can run your life better than you can.
I actually would prefer Hillary if it came down to that, as even though she is just as much a Wilsonian interventionist as the neo-cons, I don't thnk she's as much of a warmonger as Rudy. She doesn't seem to want to get us into WWIV and attack half the middle east. Rudy has Norman Podherentz as a foreign policy advisor!!!! Shudder!!!!
The real hope to prevent a Hillary presidency is Ron Paul. He is quite a long shot to get the nomination but it is not impossible. However, my daughter's boyfriend (firm Paul supporter like many young people) says he doesn't believe for one minute that the Republican party apparatchiks would let him have the nomination. He says "the fix would be in". At the very least, they would offer him no help or support. Sort of like Goldwater in 1964 I suppose.
So I will write Paul in in 2008. Or if the Libertarians or Constitutionalists make him their nominee, and it's on the Virginia ballot.
Unless the Rudy-Hillary contest in Virginia is actually competetive, then I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary. It's just appalling that people who present themselves as Christians, pro life, or conservative, would reward these people who have hijacked the Republican party with their votes.
I am not an Ann Coulter fan, but she gets it about Rudy. She and James Dobson rained all over Sean Hannity's Rudy love fest recently on his TV show and he looked "Like a 2 year old whose ice cream cone has been snatched away."
To think I used to subscribe to National Review! It's become a pathetic shadow of its former self!!
The fix IS in: the neocon establishment that runs the GOP wants Rudy, and that's the way it'll be. And, unless she peaks early and stumbles, the Hildabeast will be the Communist Party's nominee. So what are we conservatives to do? I will tell you that here in California, who I want for the state legislature or Congress or statewide office is irrelevant: the districts are gerrymandered, so whatever Republican the state GOP fronts for Assembly or Senate gets the nod; same with House of Reps. While the ratio of Dems to Repubs on the voter rolls is ridiculous (how many illegals can the Mayor of LA sign up anyhow?), so they always win statewide office. The Republicans that do get nominated for the legislature or Congress or statewide office are all neocons, so I restrict myself to protest votes for the Constitution or LIbertarian party candidates, and vote for ballot initiatives and local offices. So I ask once again, what are we to do?
I think we should not vote for ANY Republican who isn't a true conservative; we boycott the party totally this election cycle. Yes, the result will be a total takeover of gov't at the state and federal levels by the Reds, but in two years, after the worst of their excesses, we can reclaim our majority.
It's really the only way.
Unless each of us wants to pool our resources and relocate to say Vancouver Island, New Bunswick, Tasmania, Prince Edward Island, or Nova Scotia and establish our own country.
There is some truth to the 'fix', but folks are missing subtleties. The Walt-Mearsheimer (both CFR connected) book on the Lobby, plus Bush I's comments via Brent Scowcroft, suggest the Establishment doesn't like the arrangement anymore and is seeking a divorce.
Paul represents an opportunity for a pause, or at least, the ability for the parties to function again--even if they pull a Goldwater Act (our only concern is the nomination right now.) Even the bankers who at first blush don't like the idea of competing currencies, don't like their complete loss of power under the Greenspan-Bernake regimes to the DC-regime. Those hedge fund boys in NYC, now they have power like we once did, they say to themselves.
There is a real opportunity for an alliance against a common foe in the form of Rudy G.
@ c Brown
Very true about the bankers not being necessarily pro-Giuliani, who was such a vicious prosecutor of financial misdeeds. The i-bank that employees yours truly seems split, at least among the traders and brokers, between Hillary and Ron Paul. It's amazing how many of the laissez-faire types really do want Ron Paul.
Why the old establishment acquiesced in the face of the neocons is something I'll never fully understand. I just saw Pat Buchanan's 1992 GOP Convention speech and was moved by its gravity and noticed his obvious reluctant endorsement of Bush the Elder. It was an incredible betrayal.
I think the most important tactical need now is to wipe out the conservative-hack movement (hannity, hewitt, et al). Awful now, they would be insufferable under Rudy. I hope for a HRC or Obama win, and hope for them to govern well, so as to de-legitimate the conservative-hack movement permanently. In its place, let new Goldwaters be raised up.
You bet U.S. elections are a sham, carefully choreographed for the feeble of mind. See how "people" even get "excited", just like in that "Superbowl" idiocy. Why are Americans so stupid? ('t was the subtitle of that nice recent article, keeps ringin'...) Suppose, if you can believe in virgin birth you can then believe in anything ... (such as "dying for your country" ... and voting...)
...
Thought the following from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7053562.stm was kind' a picturesque:
"Once a social conservative becomes competitive in the polls, or comes within striking distance of being competitive in the polls, you are going to see Republican primary voters dropping off Rudy Giuliani like fleas off a dead dog."
Humor-?-:
Gulliani = Bush on a no hair day
Hillary = Bush (like 'bush I' & Bill C. touring the world together)
Obama = O'bombya
Fred Thompson = probably blowing his acting career
Mitt = mitt
Ron Paul = two first names you can trust
Are there any others = are there any others
(I'd vote for mitt if he had multiple wives at the same time)
-my kind of guy
sorry... mea culpa, mea culpa
_______________________________________
Nuts to the GOP. They use people of "traditionalist" leanings like whores: use them when you want, then go home to your wife (big business/government; warfare/welfare state; "pro gay, pro choice "big tent" Republicanism, globalization, etc). Forget "family values." That tripe from political leaders from both parties is superficial. The fact that the GOP is even considering nominating someone like Guiliani (or the others for that matter) pretty much says it all. I don't expect to have candidates that reflect everything that I believe, but I really expected better than this. I should have known better.