February 27, 2007


Giuliani: 'Party of Freedom' Will Define Republicans (RUSSELL BERMAN, February 27, 2007, NY Sun)

Mayor Giuliani is calling on the Republican Party to redefine itself as "the party of freedom," focusing on lower taxes, school choice, and a health care system rooted in free market principles.

Delivering a policy-driven overview of his presidential platform yesterday, Mr. Giuliani outlined the agenda in a Washington speech before a conservative think tank that sought to make clear distinctions between his vision and that of the Democrats, if not his rivals for the Republican nomination in 2008. The former New York mayor's proposed redefinition of the Republican platform would signal a shift away from any focus on social issues, on which Mr. Giuliani is much less ideologically aligned with the party.

Running on a platform of making the GOP pro-abortion, pro-drugs, pro-deviance, etc. will boost his numbers in those national polls, but kill him in the primaries.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 27, 2007 4:40 PM

El Caudillo's positions on social issues are being skillfully spun for a win-win result. Pushing a conservative Supreme Court plus a states-rights approach to things like Kindermord are going to get him through between Scylla and Charibdis. NYC's values are not the nation's values.

He will have to give us some more of the GWOT, however. The tactical defensive is frequently a superior way of achieving the destruction of the enemy, but the strategic offensive must be maintained. We must still desire that the enemy's grandchildren live in freedom.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 27, 2007 5:34 PM

Even with conservative presidents from Reagan to today, abortion has not been eliminated. The WOT is the only issue in the dhort term that matters. I have no confidence in McPain taking it on as it should be.

My new bumper sticker reads:

Hillary = $ocialism

Posted by: obc at February 27, 2007 5:52 PM

Just one issue among many, oj, but I've long found that grassroots conservatives are as much in favor of drug reform as are the libs. The tribalism between the two sides masks their agreement, but try a few straw polls on your own and see what you see.

Hell, try one here. Devil in the details, everybody, we already know that, but would you favor drug reform? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Posted by: ras at February 27, 2007 7:31 PM


No, he didn't. He lost because he's less conservative than W on social issues. He's more conservative than Rudy or Mitt.

Posted by: oj at February 27, 2007 8:43 PM

would seem pj's comments never made it, ergo I wonder about your reply.
That said, Rudy and I disagree on abortion and gay marriage, but, he, as far as I can tell, believes these are issues to be decided at the state level, so would be moot as regards the Federal Executive.
He's a Federalist, mostly a really good thing for Conservatives!
We also disagree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, but I don't think this is in any way going to be the focus of Rudy's administration. And, btw, I believe him on his thinking regarding SCOTUS appointments.
Romney is totally unelectable in a National election, that's all that's needed to be known by Repubs.
As for McCain, I don't trust him to act in any way other than what he sees in the MSM mirror. McCain supported by Keating, Rudy by Ted Olsen, I know where I'm putting my end of life bet!

Posted by: Mike at February 27, 2007 10:44 PM

In reading the Sun article, I didn't find a wiff of "pro-abortion, pro-drugs, pro-deviance" language.

Rudy will have to address those issues, but to the extent that he can bring the tone down on these things, while reassuring conservatives with school choice, conservative judges and lower taxes, it's a winning position for both the primaries and the general election.

Posted by: Steve White at February 28, 2007 12:26 AM

Of course Rudy is not "running on a platform of making the GOP pro-abortion, pro-drugs, pro-deviance." Nobody who promises to appoint justices who read the Constitution without making stuff up is "pro-abortion," because it's a direct slam on Roe. "Pro-drug"? I thought Rudy had a rep as a real law and order drug warrior type. And I don't consider supporting civil unions or having gay friends as "pro-deviant."

Posted by: PapayaSF at February 28, 2007 1:03 AM

Oh, okay, if he's no serious about freedom then everything's fine.

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2007 7:52 AM


As the article states, the point of "freedom" is to enable him to get around the conservative social agenda.

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2007 7:56 AM

The essence of my lost comment was that McCain lost in 2000 because he chose to launch a public attack on a key part of the Republican base -- Christians. Moreover, I argued that when the left & the media organize a campaign of bullying and intimidation in support of some injustice, McCain has a record of frequently piling on, while Giulani has a record of resisting the left & media and standing up for what he believes is right -- e.g., policing New York. And that in the end, this pattern of behavior will matter more than the positions on issues. Conservatives are going to trust Rudy more than McCain, no matter their positions.

I think oj exaggerates the importance of positions and under-rates the importance of spirit and character.

Posted by: pj at February 28, 2007 2:12 PM

If character matters then Rudy has no shot.

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2007 4:58 PM