jump to navigation

Rudy Giuliani April 4, 2007

Posted by Sobek in AA - Uncategorized.

CNN.com’s headline says “Giuliani Stands By Support of Publicly-Funded Abortions.”  Unless by “abortions” he means “his presidential campaign,” I cannot for the life of me understand what’s going through the man’s head.

A little while ago I did a post that was described in Ace’s comments sections as a take-down of John McCain.  I think it was more of a take-down of Ramesh Ponnuru, with incidental blowback hitting McCain, under the premise that if a guy as smart as Ponnuru can’t think of any better defense of McCain than what I saw in the article, that does not bode well.  But still, I wasn’t attacking McCain, per se.  He’s not my first choice, but I’m certianly not in the “I’ll stay home” camp, either.

Same thing with Giuliani.  I’ve never lived on the East Coast, so I don’t know anything about Rudy other than what’s come out on blogs during this election cycle.  I never had anything for or against him, knowing little about him.  When Ace first started pimping Rudy’s campaign, he did it effectively, persuading me that, sure, the guy’s a flaming liberal, but if he does A, B, C and D, he can still win the primaries, he’ll storm the generals, and his social liberalism won’t make much difference because, etc. 

And I think Ace’s analysis was great.  Well, except to the extent that Ace was assuming Rudy would take the advice.  But instead, Rudy seems more intent on deliberately antagonizing the conservative voters whose support he needs to win the primaries.  He won’t make the simple statement about “I supported gun control in New York, but I won’t touch it as President.”  He won’t modify his immigration stance.  He won’t denounce McCain-Feingold.  And now this”

“Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected.”

It’s like he’s deliberately trying to get all the Right Wing Sparkles out there to hate him.  I have a Constitutional right to defacate on the American flag if I want, but the government doesn’t need to pay me to do it.  Nor does the government have the obligation to subsidize my gun purchases.  So why should abortion be different?  And if abortion must be subsidized by government, why not any other elements of “health care” (such as it is)?  That’s big government talking, there, and that pisses off the federalists, in addition to the Right Wing Sparkles. 

No one needs to decide that I’m declaring I won’t vote for Rudy in the generals, if it comes to that.  But he’s making himself less and less attractive, and he seems to be doing it on purpose.  Keep in mind, Rudy’s biggest draw for a conservative is his stance on the War on Terror.  Why?  Certainly not because he ever personally picked up an AK, a case of Jack Daniels and a plane ticket to Tora Bora to hunt down and kill jihadis.  It’s because he (a) recognizes that the WoT must be won, and (b) is an effective administrator, so he sounds convincing when he says he can do it.  And conservatives can point to his ability to ram stuff through a hostile legislature, come hell or high water, and take some comfort in that.  I, as much as any other red-blooded American, would enjoy the sight of Rudy figuratively forcing Ted Kennedy to give him a sloppy wet one on the floor of the Senate.

But that’s just the thing: if he’s so damn good at getting his policies through, and he’s also irrefutably committed to pissing off conservatives, then why on earth would we want to elect him to an office where he can do just that?  The man just leveraged his greatest strength into a serious weakness.


1. dr4 - April 4, 2007

Let me be the first to say:


2. sobek - April 4, 2007

Okay, you can say it first. I actually meant to say that I’ve still got hopes for Mitt and Fred.

3. BrewFan - April 4, 2007

I’ve been kinda jokin’ around about this but Tommy Thompson officially announced today and I think he is one of the few Republican candidates that can appeal to the entire spectrum of the party. He doesn’t have much money but he’s the only candidate who has been actually organizing a campaign in Iowa. He’s visited 30 counties and 100 towns in the last several months, setting up an organization. You all might be interested to know that NY welfare reform that Rudy gets credit for was implemented by Tommy Thompson first. He also has extensive experience working with a hostile legislative body. He is also one of the most down-to-earth people you may ever meet. If Tommy has one ‘weakness’ he’s a middle-of-the-roader when it comes to fiscal policy but he’s certainly better then GWB.

4. dr4 - April 4, 2007

The scary part is this is the time when he should be moving to the right. Think what he would be like if he won the nomination. Every candidate moves more towards the center during the general election. Rudy has already crossed the center and moved into far left wing territory on some issues.

Not good.

Oh and did i mention….


5. Sobek - April 4, 2007

I’ve seen the joking about Tommy Thompson, but really, I don’t know anything about the guy (except that he doesn’t have money or prominence), so I’m perfectly willing to consider him.

6. dr4 - April 4, 2007

I like Tommy as well. He kicked some ass in the straw poll over at Aces too.

7. Mr Minority - April 4, 2007

I’d only vote for rudy to keep sHillary out of the White House.

FRED All the Way!!!

8. BrewFan - April 4, 2007

He won’t be able to raise enough money unless he wins Iowa and he knows that. Thats why he’s working so hard there now. The caucuses are a funny thing; you can go in with a big war chest but if you don’t have people at every caucus all that money doesn’t matter. He’s very practical and has already stated he’ll drop out right away if he doesn’t win Iowa.

On the down side, he is also the only candidate so far who was part of the evil ChimpyMcHitlerBurton regime so you know that’s a big hurdle.

9. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

t’s like he’s deliberately trying to get all the Right Wing Sparkles out there to hate him.

I hate no one….;-)

But just being pro-choice is a deal breaker for me. The tax payer funded abortions are a deal breaker though for those less passionate about the issue than me. We should pay for this???

This is what I have been saying all along over at Ace’s. I cannot see what is basically a socially liberal Democrat getting the Republican nomination. I will be shocked if it happens.

10. Sobek - April 4, 2007

Sparkle, you’re convincing me, although perhaps not in the way you intended. All of your comments comparing Giuliani to McCain have had the effect of lowering my support for Rudy, rather than increasing my support for McCain.

Brew, you’re right about the Bush administration as a hurdle. I think the most successful dem candidates in the 2006 elections were the best able to associate their opponents with Bush. The guy’s got so much baggage that he’s starting to poison others. Rudy, Mitt and McCain all benefit from being outsiders from the Bush administration (McCain less so, because he has a voting record contemporary to the Bush administration that Dem attack ads can exploit, and bring in some guilt by association).

11. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007


Well over at Ace’s DIT asked me to explain why I like McCain so much. I will copy it here and see if I can make any head way with you.

Sorry this is so long, but this was as briefly as I could put it.

The bottom line here is how McCain has voted as a conservative. He has a lifetime rating of 83 from the ACU. For comparison’s sake Gringrich has a rating of 90 and he is the conservative god. McCain has made mistakes, but he has a solid conservative voting record. Period.

Now, I mention Rudy because no one here seems to be able to defend the fact that for all the things they are pissed at McCain, Rudy agreeswith him! I don’t get that. And on the most important issue of the day..the WOT, they are both qualified.

Rudy has the advantage of not being in the Senate and producing bills that tick us off or compromising with Democrats. But if you expect me to believe that someone as liberal as Rudy won’t compromise with like minded Democrats, I JUST DON’T.

Oh hell, I know your going to say yes, so I will just go ahead.


He has a rock solid pro-life voting history. (my main issue)

He opposed stem cell research

He supported Bush in this war without reservation. He truly believed in it (as I do) And he was the first to say we needed a “surge” long before Bush decided to.

Curbing the growth of entitlements McCain says will be one of his top prioties.

He has always supported Social Security reform. Letting us have personal accounts.

With decades in the Senate he literally has hundreds and hundreds of votes, from free trade to school vouchers. Too many to list here. But his conservative voting rating has always been high. Period.

But let me end on a personal note, and I’ve said these things before. Years ago McCain and his wife adopted a child of a different color. They didn’t have to. They had children. They have never made a big deal out of it. They felt this child needed them (from Mother Teresa’s orphange) and they didn’t care what people thought. This is a leap of faith. This is a child. A lifetime. This says something very special about them to me.

I want you to imagine for just a moment what HELL this man went through as a POW. He could have gotten out early, but he wouldn’t leave his men. CHARACTER doesn’t even begin to describe this. And now his own sons are in the military and will face even worse monsters to fight. Do you not think for one moment that he could have talked them out of it? Do you think he tried? No. Because he understands love of country. He understands the need to fight. He understands sacrifice. He understands it even enough to let his sons fight and perhaps even go through what he did.

Good GOD! Do we even make men like this anymore.

And if this doesn’t make my case, then so be it.

We need a hero. And he is one. And that’s it.

12. dr4 - April 4, 2007

McCain sucks.

13. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007


I’m starting to really dig your bright optimistic outlook on life.


14. Sobek - April 4, 2007

I read this all over at Ace’s, Sparkle.

1. “He has a rock solid pro-life voting history.”

2. He opposed stem cell research
I’m a stem cell agnostic, myself, so this one’s neutral.

3. He supported Bush in this war without reservation.
I think you’re wrong. His legislative attempts to “define” torture, which actually didn’t define anything (thus putting our interrogators at risk of imprisonment because he was too craven to provide anything like decent guidelines) cannot plausibly be defined as “support,” within any normal definition of that word. Undermining the President’s authority, combined with undercutting his ability to gather crucial information, is not unreserved support for Bush in the war.

4. Curbing the growth of entitlements McCain says will be one of his top prioties.
Good. But that kind of thing starts in the Congress. What has he done to achieve this goal while there?

5. He has always supported Social Security reform. Letting us have personal accounts.
Good. But that kind of thing starts in the Congress. What has he done to achieve this goal while there?

6. But his conservative voting rating has always been high. Period.

But let me ask you this. You have argued before, and I think it’s a pretty good argument, that one basis for your opposition to Rudy is his view on abortion — not necessarily because he will have an effect on the issue if elected as president, but because of what it says about his character. After all, how can we trust the character of a man who is willing to discard a human life for the mere convenience of another human life? Again, I think that’s a valid point, because character is critical.

So critical, in fact, that I submit a poor character cannot be rescued by a conservative voting record. To that end, you mention his adopted child and his loyalty to POWs in Vietnam. I won’t criticize either of these things. Indeed, I’ll praise him for it. But as great and good as those acts were, what can I learn from his character when he is more willing to posture to the MSM for popularity and a reputation as a “maverick” than he is to provide credible support to the President during a time of war? What do his reputed blow-ups and incidents of arrogance suggest about his character? What does his willingness to flush the First Amendment down the toilet to protect his own incumbency suggest about his character? How about his anti-federalism, and his apparent assumption that the best response to a crisis is more legislation?

How about the fact that he lurched dramatically to the left out of spite after the 2000 elections? He won’t stand by his conservative principles because Bush hurt his feelings? And if he is so easily governed by his feelings, what will he do when the MSM turns on him while he’s in the White House? Can I trust him not to lurch leftward again when there’s a Supreme Court nomination on the line?

15. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

Did it ever occur to you that he really is a “mavrick?” How can one explain his dedication to his beliefs that cost him support??? Maybe he really believes what he believes.

I just don’t buy the whole “egomanic” thing. He is no more of a camera lover or egomaniac than any of the others running. He just happen to get the attention from the media. I mean, come on. You can say many things about Rudy, but you can’t say he is modest. He is just as much of a lover of the spotlight as McCain. In fact all politicans are.

How did campaign finance reform protect his imcumbency??? I think he has gotten nothing but grief over that. He simply doesn’t look at it as a first amendment thing. He looks at it as a corrupt system that needed fixing. He was wrong. But he isn’t DAMN PERFECT.

I just see the good FAR outweighing the bad.

16. dr4 - April 4, 2007

Im having some computer problems. crappy internet. Anyway.

“He opposed stem cell research”

No he doesnt:


He is very much in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

17. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

Oh, and as far as the torture thing goes, I have always said that a guy who was actually tortured everyday for 5 1/2 years, we might give him a bit of a break on that. But here on one of my posts I let McCain do the talking and he made his case for me.


18. Sobek - April 4, 2007

“You can say many things about Rudy, but you can’t say he is modest.”

Okay, I won’t say he’s modest. Fair enough.

Did it ever occur to you that he really is a “mavrick?”

Well then, let’s get back to the conservative voting record you mentioned. Can he really be both a consistent conservative and a maverick? He got the “maverick” label from an MSM that complimented him on bucking the conservative line. Why would I consider that a good thing?

19. Sobek - April 4, 2007

“…a guy who was actually tortured everyday…”

Yeah, he was actually tortured. Not fakey fake “tortured,” as in with belly slaps, shirt grabs, and having to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. That the man was subjected to the worst the frickin Vietnamese could give him could then turn around and equate that to “Power of Equality” turned up to eleven is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Oh, and he’s now good friends with John Kerry, who publicly defamed every single soldier who went through what McCain went through. That’s something else I can’t comprehend.

20. Blake - April 4, 2007

Ah, the memories are flooding back now, RWS. But, at least your’re consistent, steadfast and back up your support well.

21. JunkYardBlog - April 4, 2007

Rudy aborts campaign; Romney flip-flops on Oklahoma appearance

Neither of these are good. Rudy Giuliani affirmed today that he still thinks there’s a constitutional right to abortion in this country, and that abortions for poor women should be supported by federal money. I admire him for sticking to…

22. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

Geeze, how about getting the info from direct the horse’s mouth?


“This bill authorizes federal support for embryonic stem cell research, but limits that support to scientists who use embryos originally created for reproductive purposes, and now frozen or slated for destruction by in vitro fertilization clinics.”

This is issue is complicated. I don’t agree with embryos being created in clinic AT ALL for any reason, but I am never going to get that. If you read the whole thing you see that McCain focuses on adult stem cell research and gives his reasons for supporting this bill. What he is against is creating embyos to experiment on. He feels these embryo at clinics will be thrown away anyway. I just think that while that sounds good, it only encourages experimentation of life.

There were three important bills though. He describes them. But this is the part I like:

“In promoting stem cell research, one of the lines that must not be crossed is the intentional creation of human embryos for purposes of research rather than reproduction. A second bill before us, S.3504, draws a line that says we in the United States will not abandon our values in pursuit of scientific progress. This bill bans the practice of what has been referred to as “fetal farming.” It makes it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo that was created for research purposes. This bill also makes it a federal crime to attempt to use or obtain cells from a human fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a non-human animal. These provisions close important gaps in our existing laws, and I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this bill.”

I can’t have everything. But I will take what I can get.

23. dr4 - April 4, 2007

McCain has changed his tune again RWS. Heres what he said about using stem cells from ABORTED fetuses:

“McCain, an Arizona senator, is the only Republican candidate who said he does not support restrictions on fetal tissue research. He said he has voted in the past to permit such research. ‘I believe the practice of abortion is morally repugnant, but my abhorrence for the vast array of diseases that inflict such great pain and suffering on millions of people is also profound,’ he said. ‘We must support medical research that will save lives.'” (Okamoto Lynn, “GOP Candidates Split On Litmus Test,” Des Moines Register, 8/8/99)

Thats from the link i posted above.

I asked these questions at Aces, but you didnt really answer all of them. Not that you have to or anything. These are a few of McCains positions. Do you agree with them?

1) Gitmo should be closed down

2) McCains soft stance on immigration is the right one – You said that you supported amnesty RWS. So i guess you dont have a problem with this one.

3) McCains desire to treat Global Warming with the same seriousness as the Europeans is the correct policy for the US

4) Do you think that McCain Feingold does or does not restrict free speech – You said that you disagree with him there. I bet McCain is having second thoughts now that Democrats are taking in more money than Republicans this year.

5) Bushs Tax cuts should never have happened – you said he was wrong at first but now he’s changed his mind.

6) The Gang of 14 maneuver which kept the Republicans from being able to break a democrat filibuster was the right thing to do. Like Sobek pointed out, the Wikipedia article leaves out some important information. The Republicans had the power to push through all the nominees They could have nuked the Democrats ability to filibuster completly. McCains “Gang of 14” agreed never to use the nuclear option in exchange for up or down votes on 2 judges. They gave away the farm in exchange for an agreement we didnt even need.Do you still think this was a good idea?,/b>

24. daveintexas - April 4, 2007

Well over at Ace’s DIT asked me to explain why I like McCain so much

You’re puttin words in my mouth. I asked for a comparison to other candidates. You didn’t do that.

And this exactly where I thought we’d all wind up, sooner or later, having the same goddam arguments with RWS over McCain here that we can have anywhere else.

Not me.

25. Sobek - April 4, 2007

Hey Dave, what’s your view of a candidate who supports a constitutional right to parrafin wax hand treatments? How about federal funding for that right?

26. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007


There is always more to the story.


I don’t agree but I see his point.

1) I have no strong feelings about Gitmo. If Gitmo closes, do you think we will set prisoners free? Of course not. They will go to other prisons. It’s a symbolic gesture. I understand it just as I understand why some would be upset by it.

3) Again, I think this is symbolic. But who is saying anything different? Those who are dark horses? People are always saying to me “What can a President do about abortion anyway? I say the same thing about global warming.

6) Yes, I think it was a good idea.

27. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007


I quote:

tell us why he’s better than the rest of the field.

I think I answered that. I explained his conservative credentials and voting record AND why I like him on a personal level. Character, a conservative voting record and being a hero make him better than the rest of the field. And I explained how Rudy didn’t have the voting record to compare to. I think Rudy’s stances are well known.

I didn’t put words in your mouth. I thought that was what you were asking.

28. dr4 - April 4, 2007

There is always more to the story.

What do you mean? Clearly you thought he was against embryonic stem cell research on aborted babies – you were wrong. So do you think its ok to do this research is ok as long as it will help one o John McCains friends? I know that sounds snarky, but i cant think of a better way of putting it.

1)Do you think its ok for embryonic stem cells to be taken from aborted fetuses? McCain thinks its just fine – do you?

2) If Gitmo is closed down, and the prisoners are moved to the U.S. i belive our courts then have jurisdiction over them. They dont have that as long as they are on foreign soil. Sobek could probably tell us more about the impact of moving them here.

3) What can the president do about Global Warming? What do you think Al Gore would do about Global Warming if he were president? New taxes. New laws. More government intrusion. John McCain: “I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular.” Is he running to be the president of Europe or America? Why is he kissing their asses?

4) We had the power to keep the Democrats from filibustering ANY of Bushs judges. McCain makes a deal to get an up or down vote on a couple of them in exchange for the Republicans not using the nuclear option of breaking up the Democrats filibuster. We get up or down votes on 2 judges, but now we cant do shit about the rest.

Is that a good deal for Republicans? No. But it was for McCain. He got to become a powerbroker in the Senate and get some nice media coverage from the MSM out of it.

But John McCain

29. dr4 - April 4, 2007

I cannot type. Even i cant make sense out of what i just wrote.

Screw it.

30. Dave in Texas - April 4, 2007

I’m not voting for any SOB that can’t comb his own hair.

I held the line in 96.

I’m holding it in 2008.

Sobek, I’m actually conflicted on that. I’ve searched the Federalist Papers on the whole paraffin thing, but as near as I can tell, they were using paraffin to see at night, so it probably has to be left to the states.

31. Sobek - April 4, 2007

“If Gitmo is closed down, and the prisoners are moved to the U.S. i belive our courts then have jurisdiction over them.”

Yes. If you’re on U.S. soil, you get the full panoply of U.S. Constitution protections, including but not limited to a right to a fair and speedy trial. That, of course, is quite impossible to do when the eyewitnesses are on the other side of the planet, still trying to fight a shooting war.

RWS’ attempt to minimize Gitmo as a symbol fails for another reason. To the extent it’s just a symbol, symbols are still very big deals because we’re fighting a war of ideas. If we send a symbolic message that we don’t take our intelligence-gathering seriously, or that the craven surrender monkeys in Congress can usurp Bush’s authority as the Commander in Chief, who benefits from that message? Hint: not our soldiers.

32. BrewFan - April 4, 2007

dr4, I think I can summarize your thoughts; McCain sucks canal water. I agree completely.

33. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

1) No I don’t think it’s ok. But I think McCain is far from “ok” with it. I understand a struggle with this kind of thing. I do. I would LOVE to have someone as pro-life as I am, but that ain’t gonna happen. I will vote for the one who has voted pro-life most of the time.

2) No. They will be moved to other prisons in other countries. We aren’t stupid.

3) McCain is no Al Gore. Please. Look, all presidential candidates say things the people want to hear. McCain will beat Hillary if he appeals to the “moderates.” You know, the ones who actually elect the President.

4) These weren’t just any judges! These were the judges we dreamed of! And there was a distinct possibility that it wouldn’t have happened. You say it would have. Would you really have wanted to take that chance?? Especially now that we have Democrats in control.

34. dr4 - April 4, 2007

John McCain:

“I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases,” he said.

I dont think im explaining this Gang of 14 thing right. NO MATTER WHAT we would have gotten Alito and Roberts confirmed. The “Nuclear Option” is just a parliamentary procedure that would have allowed a simple majority to cut off debate. That means the Democrats couldnt have stopped Bush if they wanted too. Their filibuster would have been broken.

McCain traded the nuclear option away in exchange for NOTHING. he agreed not to use Nuclear Option in exchange for an up or down vote for 2 judges, which screwed us with all of Bushs other nominees. Does you understand wht im saying? In exchange for some nice press McCain sold out the rest of Bushs nominees.

35. Sobek - April 4, 2007

“No. They will be moved to other prisons in other countries. We aren’t stupid.”

That remains to be seen, but I’ll put that aside for the moment. Moving prisoners to other countries has been enormously complicated by the fact that U.S. news outlets have published information on black prisons in Europe, and now there are reports about Africa. This does not sit well with the foreign countries that assumed we could keep quiet about stuff that makes the local populace angry.

36. Michael - April 4, 2007

Sobek, I’m actually conflicted on that. I’ve searched the Federalist Papers on the whole paraffin thing . . .

Screw the Federalist Papers. Surely Jefferson had some thoughts on the subject . . .

37. rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

Ok! Ok! I’m not saying that you guys have no reason to be mad at McCain. You do! I totally understand it. As I have said, I’m not thrilled with some of his votes or issues either. But you don’t ever have a 100% perfect candidate. But ask yourself this? On all the things you are ticked off about regarding McCain, can you honestly say that you absolutely trust Rudy to not be the exact same way or even worse??? Why are you trusting him? And if you don’t trust him, then who are you left with? Mitt? Who can’t seem to buy popularity now.

My point has always been to point out that I think McCain will win the nomination based on the fact that he is conservative and he has star power. Rudy isn’t conservative and has star power. Mitt is conservative and doesn’t have star power. See where I am going here? McCain is the only one with both.

The only thing I have to convince you of is to vote for McCain in the general election.

38. Michael - April 4, 2007

The “Nuclear Option” is just a parliamentary procedure that would have allowed a simple majority to cut off debate.

No, it’s far more than a procedural gimmick. The nuclear option was a double-edged sword that the Republicans did not have the balls to use at the time. For good reason. McCain and the Gang of 14 actually deserve credit for the two Supreme Court justices that we got.

39. BrewFan - April 4, 2007

McCain and the Gang of 14 actually deserve credit for the two Supreme Court justices that we got.

How do you figure? All they did was preserve the rule of cloture. Had there been no Gang of 14 the rule would have been changed, a vote taken and the justices confirmed.

40. dr4 - April 4, 2007

I think that most of the people in this thread arent too crazy about Rudy either.

I cant say that im very enthusiastic about any of the guys in the race…so far.

Ive made my point about why i wont vote for McCain.

I think that Rudy is far too liberal.

Newt has good ideas but is too sleazy – supporting William Jefferson was the last straw for me.

Mitt looks good on the surface, but i think its all an act. Here is a very good article from NRO that illustrates Romneys many flip flops.


Its short, but definitely worth a read if youre thinking about supporting the guy.

Which pretty much means im going to be supporting one of the lesser known candidates, or Fred! if he decides to run.

41. Sobek - April 4, 2007

RWS said: “On all the things you are ticked off about regarding McCain, can you honestly say that you absolutely trust Rudy to not be the exact same way or even worse?”

No I cannot, hence my statements saying precisely that in this very post. Worse, in fact: I’m afraid McCain will be squishy on his conservative views, and I’m afraid Giuliani won’t be squishy on his liberal views. So for now, I’m left with Romney and Fred.

Actually, because it sounds better I think I’m going to start calling him The Fred.

Michael said: “…the Republicans did not have the balls to use at the time. For good reason.”

Whether they had the balls or not, we’ll never know. My recollection is that we had enough votes to nuke, but some of them were siphoned off into the Gang of 14 so we no longer had enough. I’ll admit the possibility that the Republicans at the time would not have gone nuke, and that we would have lost Roberts and Alito. But only as a possibility, and not a lock.

And I totally disagree with you on your “for good reason.” The fact of the matter is, once the Republicans started discussing the nuclear option, the judicial filibuster died. Gone. Kaput. Know why? Because literally the only thing keeping its last vestiges in place is the good will of the Democrats who will eventually be offered a Supreme Court nominee by a Democrat President. When that happens, how far will that good will go? Anyone want to seriously argue that Pat Leahy, for example, will still oppose judicial filibusters? Anyone trust Chuck Schumer’s word of honor? Anyone think for a second that Robert Byrd would hesitate to throw that switch?

42. lauraw - April 4, 2007

Fuckin’ A.

The elections are in November of ’08.

Do you all want to spend another….


*counting on fingers and toes*

Ten Plus Eight plus One Big Toe months to hash over this same junk?


43. geoff - April 4, 2007

Do you all want to spend another….

Yeah, that’s why I’m staying mum on these threads for at least another 6 months. It’s way better to let the libs exhaust themselves arguing over Clinton, Obama, and Edwards while we sit back and catch some rays.

Except for BrewFan, of course, who apparently lives in some sort of hostile clime.

44. Michael - April 4, 2007

How do you figure? All they did was preserve the rule of cloture. Had there been no Gang of 14 the rule would have been changed, a vote taken and the justices confirmed.

Because the rule would not have changed. The Republicans well knew that they were going to be a minority party again at some point. They would have given up the power of the minority party to insist on a consensus nominee.

The power equation here is not primarily Republicans vs. Democrats, but more importantly, the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Senators from both parties do not want the President to have the ability to cram a Supreme Court nominee down the throat of the Senate against the wishes of a substantial minority of Senators.

45. BrewFan - April 4, 2007

Because the rule would not have changed

Maybe, but I think the obstruction had gone on long enough with the lower court nominees that the Republicans would have *had* to change the rule if they wanted to be re-elected and so they would have changed it.

46. Sobek - April 4, 2007

You’re living in denial, Michael. The rule has changed. The second a Dem president and a Dem Senate have a Supreme Court nominee to get through, the only thing standing in the way of confirmation is Pat Leahy’s scruples.

Gimme a freakin’ break.

47. Russ from Winterset - April 4, 2007

Me? I get to have the first say of anyone here, due to my residence in the wonderful socialist state of Iowa (we just elected as our new governor the Iowa Secretary of State who took a WEEK to count the votes in ’04 and made Iowa the laughing stock of the country).

Who will I support next winter? I couldn’t tell you right now.

Rudy? I like his head-on style, and a mob prosecutor and former mayor who cleaned up Times Square could do some good things in Washington. He’s got liberal views, sure. His positions on abortion and gun control aren’t my cups of tea, but he’s also said that he’ll appoint strict constructionists to the Supremes, which would help chip away at legal monstrosities like Roe/Wade. He might still get my vote, but only if he emphasizes his conservative views and minimizes his liberal ones. Not a perfect candidate, but he’d do in a pinch.

McCain? I respect the way he conducted himself in Hanoi, but he’s also a press-loving “maverick” who considers first amendment rights to be negotiable. His position on the laughable allegation of “torture” by American troops are also a problem for me. He’s also got a legendary mean streak and temper, which turn me off. The way he handled criticism in South Carolina in ’00 makes me think ol’ John is a little wire-happy still, and he’s come full circle on ethanol from a hard-core critic to a full-fledged supporter. That particular flip flop really galls me, because he thinks all of us in Iowa as morons who don’t remember what he said a few years ago. I won’t vote for the man, unless he’s running against Satan. Even then, I’ll have to get drunk to go to the polls (just like voting for Dole in ’96).

Newt? Forget it. I think he’s a brilliant man who has flaws big enough to sink a Nimitz Class Carrier. His support for that twit Jefferson broke the camel’s back for me. Give him a cabinet post, or let him be an adviser, but don’t let him sit at the “adults table”. Besides, the cheap shot that James Dobson took at The Fred on Newt’s behalf makes me want to say “I don’t think so” to his candidacy.

Tommy Thompson? I like the guy; he’s a fellow midwesterner who’s done great things as a bureaucrat. I just don’t think he’s ready to sit in the “big chair”. I hope our eventual nominee involves TT in his administration, but I’m not going to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. If he gets the nod, sure, I’ll vote for him, but I just don’t see TT as a “war consigulari”.

Brownback? He’s squishy on immigration (like McCain) and a little known man outside of Kansas. I could vote for him if he tidies up his immigration views & sets himself apart on other issues, but he’s a longshot right now.

Romney? He seems to have trouble staying with a position longer than eight seconds. That might be enough for bull riders, but I like my candidates to have a little longer track record for their conservatism. I don’t hold his Mormon faith against him (last time I checked, Mormons still pray to the same God that I do – they just embellish their faith with a few more bells & whistles), but it will be a factor in the general election. He might still get my vote, but he’ll have to make one hell of a sale to do it.

Tancredo? He’s a one trick pony on immigration. That’s not a bad thing, but it’s not enough to win the nomination IMHO. I hope the nominee gets Tancredo to advise his campaign and gives him a role in the administration, but I don’t think he’s White House material.

All the others like Paul et. al. might as well be wearing red Star Trek uniforms for all I think of their chances.

My fave? Other than Chuck Norris, I’d like to see The Fred throw his hat in the ring. I think he’s got a long-standing conservative world view, and his experience as a prosecutor (in the real world, not just on L&O) makes up for his law school background IMHO. His presence seems to be almost Reaganesque, and he’s got the mental chops to run with the big dogs. Maybe he’ll announce the appointment of Chuck Norris as his “Secretary of Righteous Ass-Kicking” and seal my vote.

Right now, my plan is to attend the Iowa Caucuses in late January and vote for The Fred. If The Fred fails to run, I’ll have to find another horse to back in this race, and I’ll choose between Romney, Rudy or one of the lesser entities.

Sorry for the TPS report, but I’ve really been thinking about this election lately.

48. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

Have you been to hear McCain speak yet this year?

49. Russ from Winterset - April 4, 2007

I haven’t seen Rosie O’Donnell win a spiral-sliced ham eating contest yet this year either.

Anything McCain has to say that will impress me will be in direct contradiction to his prior positions on those issues (see my ethanol flip-flop comment earlier). Hence, he will be “telling me what I want to hear”. How does this make him any better than Clinton or Obama?

50. Rightwingsparkle - April 4, 2007

Maybe he isn’t better. Maybe none of them are. But I think you owe to the frontrunners to hear what they have to say now.

51. Russ from Winterset - April 4, 2007

Why? So he can lie to me? I’ve already heard his statements, and like I JUST SAID – “anything he says to change his positions will be obvious pandering”. I don’t trust McCain, and I probably never will. It doesn’t mean he’s a bad man – I’ve got lots of friends I’d never trust to sit in the White House – but it means I won’t be voting, working or hoping for “President McCain”.

Your argument that “none of them are better” could be just as aptly used to rally support for Rudy. McCain’s only a front-runner because of his dislike for Bush (the media can’t get enough of that) and his willingness to stick his thumb in the eyes of Conservatives when it can get him some favorable press.

I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you RWS, but I’ll drink my own Kool Aid this election season rather than line up at the McCain lemonade stand, thank you very much.

52. BrewFan - April 4, 2007

I’ll vote for him, but I just don’t see TT as a “war consigulari”.

Russ, did you hear his Iraq plan? At first I laughed but after I thought about it for a while I thought it was classic Tommy and would go a long way to shutting up the Dems. He also has more executive management experience then all the other Republican candidates *combined*. Keep him on your short list.

Ok, I’ll stop now 🙂

53. Dave in Texas - April 4, 2007

No, it’s far more than a procedural gimmick. The nuclear option was a double-edged sword that the Republicans did not have the balls to use at the time. For good reason

Yes. You’re right.

The good reason being Republicans realized when McCain and the gang would stab them in the back to assuage McCain’s pettiness over losing in 2000 they didn’t have the power to make it work.

Otherwise it would have.

I blame J-Mac. A man who cannot trim his own nose hair is no Commander in Chief.

54. Russ from Winterset - April 4, 2007

True dat, brewfan, but I’ve gotten to the point where I realize that attempts to shut up the Dems are like attempts to perfect cold fusion. I’d rather my president focused more on the war itself and not give a damn about what the Dems have to say (unless they finally come up with more ideas than BUSH BAD, CHENEY EVIL).

Like I said, I like TT, I just don’t see him as president. That may change, depending on what Tommy says between now & January.

Oh, and I should also amend my previous statement about McCain’s popularity. He gets a lot of support from “couch commandos” like me who admire what he did in the custody of the North Vietnamese. I hear a lot of people say “I don’t like what McCain has done, but I can’t criticise a man who’s been tortured for his country.” I think he’s a brave man, but bravery isn’t enough when you’re talking about putting someone in charge of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD. You’ve also got to have the proper attitude and a good record of conservativism. McCain’s anti-abortion stands are a plus for me, but they’re not enough to choose a president on. Not when others in the race have the same convictions.

55. Russ from Winterset - April 4, 2007

OK, at the risk of becoming “WickedRuss”, here’s a movie reference that summarizes my position on the ’08 election:

“The Man Who Would Be King” was on Starz a couple of weeks ago, and I can’t resist watching that one all the way through every time I see it on the schedule (kind of like “The Great Escape” – I figure if I keep watching that movie over & over, Steve McQueen will make it over that damn border fence eventually). In that movie, when Danny & Peachy team up with the villagers to vanquish the neighboring village (“who keep pissing in the river upstream from where we drink”), instead of letting the village strongman they backed execute the men of the vanquished village, they declare that the tribesmen of both villages will henceforth be brothers and take their battle to other, more powerful villages who have “dissed” them.

This is how the eventual Republican nominee should treat the other candidates as they drop out. Not a cursory alliance that is transparent, but a true meeting of minds where the good ideas of the also-ran candidates can be incorporated into the campaign of the victor. Tancredo can eventually become someone’s Homeland Security director, Thompson can go to work on reforming entitlements at the federal level (and maybe even go after Big Game – Social Security Reform), and Brownback can bring social conservative issues into the new administration.

Where’s the job for McCain, you ask? I don’t think he can be trusted to back his president, so he’ll become a new member of the McLaughlin Group.

56. John McLaughlin - April 4, 2007


57. Sobek - April 4, 2007

“I’d like to see The Fred throw his hat in the ring.”

All right, “The Fred” is already catching on. Just remember that was my idea when he starts putting it on his bumper sticker.

58. Barry - April 5, 2007

Hey RWS-

we can admire McCain’s service to his country while still despising him for McCain-Feingold.

What part of ‘Congress shall make no law’ don’t you understand?

59. Pupster - April 5, 2007

I don’t like Rudy’s position on abortion or gun control or McCain-Feingold. I do like the fact that he has not flip-flopped on his positions like so many others.

The man should get some props for standing by his words and actions at the cost of popularity with the base.

What other candidate can claim such consistency?

I have a much larger problem with his wife’s pupicidal tendencies.

60. Dave in Texas - April 5, 2007

By the way, FWIW, Rudy’s unwillingness to concede this position, which he could easily have done, is gonna ice him with the base.

The base really doesn’t like mavericks all that much.

Take note J-Mac.

61. rightwingsparkle - April 5, 2007

we can admire McCain’s service to his country while still despising him for McCain-Feingold.

Sure you can. I never said you couldn’t. One can also vote for him and still despise him for McCain/Feingold. Just like would have had to if regarding abortion if Rudy had gotten the nomination.

62. Sobek - April 5, 2007

“The man should get some props for standing by his words and actions at the cost of popularity with the base.”

It’s when he goes beyond his words and actions, venturing ever further into the realms of liberal anti-federalism and penumbra-embracing, that those props become entirely unnecessary.

63. harrison - April 5, 2007

Just like (you) would have had to if regarding abortion if Rudy had gotten the nomination.

Past tense?

64. Pupster - April 5, 2007


Touché monsieur Sobek.

65. Rightwingsparkle - April 5, 2007


I ‘m only saying that because the most dedicated Rudy supporters over at Ace’s and HotAir are even saying he’s done. I mean, they may overlook abortion support but they sure as hell aren’t going to pay for it.

If the diehards are this angry, I don’t see much of a chance for him.

66. Sobek - April 5, 2007

RWS, Ace has since walked back his analysis, although I’m not convinced. But you’re right — his comment drew pretty much universal condemnation, and his stock dropped 15%. At a bare minimum, the fact that Giuliani phrased his response in terms that strongly suggest he’s talking about federal funding for abortions (and he certainly didn’t limit it to Hyde Amendment considerations in the original CNN reportage) is enough to make me (who was ready to support him if he got the nomination) decide he can’t be trusted.

Ace’s argument that a strict constructionist can still support Roe was weak. He basically claimed that the historical gloss can actually become strict constructionism, given enough time. But that’s utter nonsense — historical gloss is historical gloss, and not strict constructionism. The two terms are diametrically opposed.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: