Novak: Guilliani Running '08

[Annie]

I figured he would, but now it's unofficially official. I think the following is pretty intereresting, and sums up the quandry well. For myself, I'd vote for him, since I figure I know where he stands. Links at site:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/07/the_conventiona.php

July 08, 2006: The conventional reveals the predictable

Robert Novak ... that font of the most conventional of conventional wisdom ... tells us today what almost everybody has known for a year or three - Rudy Giuliani is running for President. [Hey, wasn't Novak the first to write that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent?-ed. That was even more conventional wisdom.] As almost everybody also knows, Giuliani has been leading the polls for the Republican nomination virtually since they started. But continuing in his preferred mode of CW, Novak goes on to write: Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.

But suppose he doesn't. Suppose Giuliani actually stands by his views and the Republican Party - enough of it anyway - moves toward him and he actually gets the nomination without altering those positions. [I just saw Novak reaching for his beta blockers.-ed. Make sure he gets proper attention.] It would certainly make things easier for the Republicans in the general election with a candidate (the hero of 9/11) outflanking the Dems in almost every important direction. And the public would get what it seems to want - someone socially liberal but strong on defense. That would constitute a sea change in American politics. Of course, I could be a dreamer, as someone once said. But I'm not the only one. (via Glenn)

 

[CockySOB]

Guiliani has a popular following, but his social stances may alienate him from some of the far-right social conservatives. I'm curious to see how his fiscal policies might be received as well.

When/if Guiliani throws his hat in officially, I can see the 2008 primaries being a defining point for the Republican party for the next 20 years. And I look forward to that series of debates.

 

[Dr Grump]

I reckon if Guilliani runs the GoP will have the WH for the next 8 years. I think a lot of Dems will vote for him...like Jillian....

 

[red states rule]

Guiliani has a popular following, but his social stances may alienate him from some of the far-right social conservatives. I'm curious to see how his fiscal policies might be received as well.

When/if Guiliani throws his hat in officially, I can see the 2008 primaries being a defining point for the Republican party for the next 20 years. And I look forward to that series of debates.

No matter who the Dems put up in 08 (Al, Hillary, or any other liberal pinhead) Rudy and Jeb Bush (his VP choice) will crush them like a can at a recycle center

 

[onedomino]

I would need to know a lot more before I voted for Rudy. I am tired of voting for Republicans with incoherent energy and immigration policies. If Bush could run again, I certainly would not repeat the mistake I made in 2004 by voting for him. I have no interest in Democrats, but Bush's immigration and energy policy failures have been so spectacular, it may cost the Republican candidate the election in 2008 regardless of who runs.

 

[red states rule]

I would need to know a lot more before I voted for Rudy. I am tired of voting for Republicans with incoherent energy and immigration policies. If Bush could run again, I certainly would not repeat the mistake I made in 2004 by voting for him. I have no interest in Democrats, but Bush's immigration and energy policy failures have been so spectacular, it may cost the Republican candidate the election in 2008 regardless of who runs.

Do you think John "I served in Viet Nam" would do a better job?

Name one lib who would do a better job the Pres Bush

 

[onedomino]

Do you think John "I served in Viet Nam" would do a better job?

Name one lib who would do a better job the Pres Bush

What part of "I have no interest in Democrats" did you not understand?

 

[red states rule]

What part of "I have no interest in Democrats" did you not understand?

So you will stay home, pout, and perhaps let the Dems win?

 

[musicman]

"And the public would get what it seems to want - someone socially liberal but strong on defense."

I'd like to know how in the world Simon arrives at that. Has he checked the general direction the electorate are taking on - say - gay marriage referenda? This sounds like one of those "wishing makes it so" deals.

As far as Gulliani, though, I've given it some thought - and I think the Republican Party could do a lot worse. Apart from social issues, his conservative credentials are AT LEAST as good as GWB's. And those issues - gay rights, abortion, and gun control - are, in the mind of any decent conservative, none of central government's business anyway. If he'd come out strong on THAT assertion, I'd support him.

 

[CharlestonChad]

If the Dems put up Hillary, I'll be voting for Rudy.

 

[jillian]

I reckon if Guilliani runs the GoP will have the WH for the next 8 years. I think a lot of Dems will vote for him...like Jillian....

Yup. But then again, Guiliani isn't insane or incompetent.

*sigh*

If he runs, I think the race is his.

Now where's Steffie, cause I think I said that to her a week ago.

 

[no1tovote4]

If the Dems put up Hillary, I'll be voting for Rudy.

If the Dems put up Hillary it would insure that I would vote Republican regardless of my Liberatarian views and general disgust of the current Party Line that people have walked for too long...

 

[no1tovote4]

It would truly be a nightmare if it were Jeb v Hillary in 2008...

 

[red states rule]

If the Dems put up Hillary, I'll be voting for Rudy.

Get ready to vote Rudy. What Hillary wants - Hillary gets

The Clintons care not about the people, the party, or the country.

The Clintons care only about the Clintons

I for one will be delighted when the Red Queen is the libs choice in 08

 

[Annie]

I'd like to know how in the world Simon arrives at that. Has he checked the general direction the electorate are taking on - say - gay marriage referenda? This sounds like one of those "wishing makes it so" deals.

As far as Gulliani, though, I've given it some thought - and I think the Republican Party could do a lot worse. Apart from social issues, his conservative credentials are AT LEAST as good as GWB's. And those issues - gay rights, abortion, and gun control - are, in the mind of any decent conservative, none of central government's business anyway. If he'd come out strong on THAT assertion, I'd support him.

Actually if you look at the bulk of Democrats, they do want strong defense, including the borders. The problem with the DNC, is their active base is to the extreme left, ala listening to Kos. Then as has been the case for the past 30 years, many of their most vocal, just do not vote.

There are plenty of democrats who live traditional lives, while seriously believing that others should be able 'to live as they want', or 'be living better, in such a rich country', assuming their are great hordes of people, (poor people starving en masse; poor women unable to get abortions; children living in crack houses; gays being left to die, without the comfort of their partners, rejected by their families, etc.), that need the support of government. Like Bill Clinton, 'they feel their pain.'

So you end up with 'socially liberal, strong on defense.' Someone like Guilliani does appeal to that. He would get more mainstream democratic votes, than he would lose from some at the far right of the GOP. I believe that Jeff, quite high on the 'right' side of the spectrum, has stated he could vote for Guilliani.

That's my take.

 

[musicman]

Actually if you look at the bulk of Democrats, they do want strong defense, including the borders.

Ah - I get you. So, when Simon speaks of "the public" wanting someone who is socially liberal, but strong on defense, his concept of "the public" is actually Democrats. Makes sense.

The problem with the DNC, is their active base is to the extreme left, ala listening to Kos. Then as has been the case for the past 30 years, many of their most vocal, just do not vote.

Right - they're too busy slashing tires on the vans at RNC headquarters.

There are plenty of democrats who live traditional lives, while seriously believing that others should be able 'to live as they want', or 'be living better, in such a rich country', assuming their are great hordes of people, (poor people starving en masse; poor women unable to get abortions; children living in crack houses; gays being left to die, without the comfort of their partners, rejected by their families, etc.), that need the support of government. Like Bill Clinton, 'they feel their pain.'

Excellent summation! And, I've long thought that it is arrogance which lies at the root of liberal guilt and self-hate - which is actually America-hate. "I'm better than you - I care more - I HURT for these people".

So you end up with 'socially liberal, strong on defense.' Someone like Guilliani does appeal to that. He would get more mainstream democratic votes, than he would lose from some at the far right of the GOP. I believe that Jeff, quite high on the 'right' side of the spectrum, has stated he could vote for Guilliani.

Contingent upon his willingness to assert the inviolability of the constitutional separation of powers, I'd support him, too. His opinions on social issues don't have to match mine exactly, as long he agrees with the main point: it would be his duty as president to protect and defend the constitution.

That's my take.

And a sound one it is, I think!

 

[CharlestonChad]

Well since the candidate the usually wins also get the majority of the moderate vote, I can't see any far left candidate beating a moderate(who sided with the RNC) like Rudy.

 

[red states rule]

Well since the candidate the usually wins also get the majority of the moderate vote, I can't see any far left candidate beating a moderate(who sided with the RNC) like Rudy.

Moderate are nothing. Mods are people who do not make up their mind on anything until they are certain which side is going to win

Tell me where I can buy the book "Great Moderates in US Politics"

 

[Annie]

Ah - I get you. So, when Simon speaks of "the public" wanting someone who is socially liberal, but strong on defense, his concept of "the public" is actually Democrats. Makes sense.



Right - they're too busy slashing tires on the vans at RNC headquarters.



Excellent summation! And, I've long thought that it is arrogance which lies at the root of liberal guilt and self-hate - which is actually America-hate. "I'm better than you - I care more - I HURT for these people".



Contingent upon his willingness to assert the inviolability of the constitutional separation of powers, I'd support him, too. His opinions on social issues don't have to match mine exactly, as long he agrees with the main point: it would be his duty as president to protect and defend the constitution.



And a sound one it is, I think!

MM, I've come to the conclusion that while details may vary, there is little separating the middle DNC and the middle GOP, OTHER THAN perspective. We live similar lives; we raise our children with similar values, though different ways of perceiving the world and even our politics; what we ultimately want our country to be may as an end game if you will, not be all that different, though how we should get there and regard it may well be different.

It's pretty complex, certainly not fully formed, and not a damn link to back it up. Actually I did find one. Doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, but it’s illustrative While most 'conservatives' I know have values they try to base their lives on, they are politically pragmatic-to a point. There are some things they just won't bend on, which of course may change as a 'deal breaker' in reaction to the events of the times.

For some, it's abortion, (much easier to have used as a holding point when the DNC was using it as a 'vote getter' and seeming to advocate for it). For others, illegal immigration, (wasn't such an issue outside of the Southwest, prior to 9/11). For a few, taxes, (more important during Reagan's and GW 41's terms, when the WOT was not quite as 'real'). There are other issues, but as examples, those should suffice.

For the great many though, they are looking for someone to vote for that matches their highest concerns, without espousing the issues that are 'deal breakers.' For me, the GWOT and the related issue of homeland security are currently the most important. Sure I have opinions on education, (the feds should stay out of it); social security, (abolish it); abortion, (state's should determine); marriage, (state's should determine); etc.

For most of my friends that vote Dem. I'd say the GWOT is very important to them also. They tend to get more upset though at the administration's 'attitude' and 'what the rest of the world, ala UN' perceptions of the US are. But when pushed, they ultimately come down on the side of the war must be prosecuted; they just think a different administration could do it better.

The differences though that my more liberal friends and I cannot seem to bridge are those dealing with 'domestic' issues. They see the government as the source of fixing 'wrongs', BUT not necessarily for themselves or their children. Rather they seem to believe, sincerely, that there are a great number of people in this country that are less intelligent, privileged, responsible, who need to be taken care of. They need a 'boost up' from the government, to get a 'decent education', a job, a home, food, clothing, training to raise their children, etc.

Quite of few of them are educators and our perspectives effect not only our politics, but also influence our expectations of our students, though not so much of our own children, (and that's where I perceive some 'condescension' on their part, while they probably perceive some 'intolerance' on mine, hey I'm guessing, but you'd have to be with us at our 'after school meetings.' BTW I'm not speaking of my own school staff, though some of us are there. I'm including some lifelong friends who also meet up with us about once a month. It's splits about 5 parochial/private teachers to 7 public school teachers. To no one's surprise, there are only two of us 'educators' out of a group of 12 that are 'conservative').

Just as I held my own kids responsible for their behavior and performance, so I do my students. I have developed and teach a challenging curriculum, which I make sure they have the tools to develop the skills to master. If they choose not to utilize the tools, develop the skills, well that's their choice. I believe in the choice to fail or succeed.

I see no reason to hold different standards for children whose home life is not as 'enriched', 'privileged', as others. Do I know those that are not well supported at home? Yes. Some have parents with lots of money, little attention. Some have parents with little money and little attention. Most have enough of both. That doesn't mean that I do not 'adjust' if a child is going through a very rough patch. (I've had students that have been into cutting themselves, anorexia, potential sucides). Sometimes it's nothing more than a fight at home and any caring adult will give extra time for a regularly responsible student.

Some of the children are more capable than others; most are 'average.' I believe that each child, (for me I'm talking 6th grade, 11 years old) needs to approach the 'material' from the place they are at. So, let's say the 'lesson objective' is to understand the Hobbesian idea of 'a state of nature.' I expect all of my students to be able to explain what it is and give examples of how one can relate it to the idea of a breakdown in government. All of them will hear my lecture notes; all will see the video clip that expands on the idea. All will have the 'text' that explains the philosophies underpinning government making. For the 'bright, enriched, privileged kids' they probably could complete the objective then and there. The average students are grappling with finding examples of 'no government'. The lower ability students are probably confused. A two-minute assessment will tell me who needs to be directed to which assignments.

Those that have mastered the objective will be given time to do something like 'put together a skit that is set in a lunchroom that illustrates a 'state of nature' incident. Provide a closing that would demonstrate 'government' guarding against this state.'

For most of the students, I would provide more literal examples of how bullies, gangs, riots are all examples of 'a state of nature.' Together we would look at the safeguards that government provides. (Especially the lowest ability students have a hard time understanding that police, firefighters, etc. are part of the government). By this point the average kids are feeling in control. I might assign something like working alone or in pairs, compose a poster that illustrates how government helps us go about our lives, in relative safety.

Some of the lowest students are going to need more one on one, but that is why I provide different levels of activities. Sure the highest ability kids understand the idea on a more complex level, but at the end of the lesson, all of them will have the basic objective met. They would be able to identify how what we perceive as criminal acts are in fact, Hobbesian choices, which are best dealt with through an agreement with the many to safeguard against. They do know what those safeguards are. They will have enough of a base, to understand later thinkers such as Locke, and make the connections between the two.

My more liberal friends tend to think that all the children should have the same opportunity for 'enrichment'. I ask how they would do that lesson. They wouldn't. They respond that the concepts are just too difficult for 'all the students', so they would just stay with the basic Constitution. Which are what most schools are doing. Which is why most students do not see the connections between history and their lives. Between civics and the health of the country. Indeed about the idea of nation as an entity.

This analogy is way too specific, but I can't think of a better to generalize from. We do not all have an equal start and will not all finish the race at the same point. Some of those with the least 'gifts' may finish way ahead, if allowed to develop the gifts they do have to the fullest. If their curriculum is ‘enriched’ enough to give them the tools they need to compete with their more ‘lucky by birth peers.’ To assume those with more 'money, better parents, innate abilities' are somehow destined to achieve more, is hubris at best. That they, indeed all students should be taught for the lowest in the class, I sincerely disagree.

I can't give all my students equality outside of school, heck I can't even give them equal lessons in total. But I can give them the same 'big ideas' to be learned and built upon. If they choose not to do what is necessary to get that, well that is a choice.

By expecting less from all, means that all will accomplish less. To think that children do not understand when adults, even 'well meaning' ones, believe they are being 'kind' by treating all the same, they know they do not have to do their best. Indeed, they can dumb all of it down further, by claiming that ‘they can’t get it.’

How much more does this pertain to the difference between liberals and conservatives in adulthood? To achieve 'equality' amongst all means we need to set the standards at the lowest point. For example, to achieve 'universal health care' means all will receive the type of treatments found only for the poor. We certainly won't help the poor with this, but can level the playing field, but hurting all equally.

To say that the top achievers should be penalized, by paying more for taxes, provides disincentives to work/create more. Likewise, if someone making 20k per year pays no taxes, but someone making 23k has to pay 3k in taxes, why work harder? If the government will pay my rent, food, clothing for my children, and because I receive that, the public schools will waive the fees for school and the cost of textbooks, why would I work at a job for $12 per hour plus overtime? I come out the same in the end? (possible answer would be example you're setting for your children, but that would mean the person in that position recognizes that.)

If the bulk of our citizenry were educated in schools that held all to high standards they would be ready to excel when they leave school. Perhaps the analogy wasn’t that bad. Maybe someone can do better?

 

[William Joyce]

How much more does this pertain to the difference between liberals and conservatives in adulthood? To achieve 'equality' amongst all means we need to set the standards at the lowest point. For example, to achieve 'universal health care' means all will receive the type of treatments found only for the poor. We certainly won't help the poor with this, but can level the playing field, but hurting all equally.

An important distinction between the conservative and the liberal view. Of course, conservatives are right. Nothing has brought on more human misery, more waste, more hate, more resentment, more failure, more crushing of spirit, more horror than the drive to make everyone and every thing "equal."

K, it must be tough to be a conservative teacher --- education is a profession shot through with libbies.