As pretty much everyone over at NRO’s The Corner acknowledges, Rudy Giuliani was the big winner of tonight’s debate. Lowry has the best overall analysis, and one that covers most of the points that I would have, had I beaten him to it. I didn’t, so here’s his post:
If any pro-choicer can win the Republican presidential nomination, it’s Rudy Giuliani. His abortion answer was bad, but what people will remember is his joking around about getting struck down by lightening during it. Otherwise, he was quick, commanding, authoritative-sounding altogether the Big Man on stage, projecting the image of the kind of guy you can trust during a time of war. He kept taking digs at Washington, burnishing his outsider credentials, and was frank and feisty in taking it to the enemy both metaphorical (the Dems, the media) and real (Islamic terrorism). For all the invocations of Reagan during these forums, Rudy’s strength and emphasis on freedom is probably what is going to strike most voters as really Reaganesque. (All this said, I wish he cared to try to reach an accommodation with pro-lifers that would make his candidacy even stronger).
As Chris Matthews would say, here’s what I really think. I think Rudy is basically an American Tory. As George Will is wont to suggest, Rudy is America’s Margaret Thatcher. As our own Kavon Nikrad has often opined, Rudy is our Churchill. I think Rudy cemented his status as Thatcher without the dress (except when he’s playing Rudina) during tonight’s debate performance. I don’t think that anyone could come away questioning Rudy’s commitment to two things: 1) the need to spread freedom and liberty abroad and 2) the need to maintain economic freedom here at home. Rudy is the liberty candidate. And such a candidate would be good for the GOP and great for America.
I think Rudy demonstrated his Reaganesque optimism regarding America, viewed through a Tory prism, when he was asked to identify the greatest moral issue facing America. The question was designed to force the candidates to identify a shortcoming in American culture that presumably the government should do something about, indicating a pessimism regarding the American people as well as support for more government intrusion in people’s lives. Rudy, with true Reaganesque optimism, turned the question around, and hit the ball out of the park. The greatest moral issue facing our world, said Rudy, is that so much of the world does not operate around the principles that have made America so great: individual liberty, freedom of religion, women’s rights, and the rule of law. America, then, is not the nation with the problem. Everywhere else is. Especially anywhere else that gives less weight to the primacy of the individual. Reaganesque optimism applied to a Tory philosophy. Be still, my heart.
But the most telling moment regarding Rudy’s Tory sensibilities occurred when a nice, moderate Republican lady in the audience politely asked the candidates just how they planned to bring back centrists into the GOP fold. Romney responded by suggesting that the Reagan model be followed, a model comprised of three components: a strong military, a strong economy, and strong families. Rudy’s response? The future Republican majority in this country stands on two legs: the destruction of Islamist terrorism abroad and a growth economy here at home. Now, for those of you ready to reflexively dump on Rudy for his clear and purposeful rejection of the “social issues” prong, first answer this question: which approach do you think is more likely to attract that nice, moderate lady who asked the question, as well as her nice, moderate friends throughout the vast American north? You know, the ones who gave Democrats double-digit victories last year in what used to be swing states?
As readers know, I take every chance I get to compare Rudy to Reagan. But I’ll admit something here and now that you may want to bookmark. Rudy is not Reagan. No one is. Fred Thompson isn’t. Mitt Romney isn’t. John McCain isn’t. Ronald Reagan was a candidate whose person and philosophy fit the times in this country 27 years ago. Well, the times are different now. There’s been a generational shift in attitudes regarding some social issues. Not all, but some. In a good portion of the country, in plenty of states that Reagan won, social conservatives no longer win statewide elections absent some sort of fluke. Are we really prepared to write off the entire northeast and west coast forever when it comes to presidential politics? It’s a serious question, and one that needs to be asked and answered.
But Rudy’s model for a new GOP coalition is about more than a debate over social issues. Another change that’s taken place in our world since Reagan’s time has been the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union is no more. The war that’s on now is a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy, and one that will take a different kind of approach. Military strength is certainly a necessity in this war, but the threat of mutually assured destruction that is maintained through strength cannot be effectively utilized against this enemy, which is embodied not in a nation-state, nor in an empire, but in a horde of crazed, ideologically-perverted, sexually-repressed madmen bent on mass murder. Peace will not be won only through strength, but through action, and it will take a man of action to defeat this enemy.
A certain former senator from Tennessee who is thinking about running for the GOP nod often says that the man running for president has to fit the times. In times like these, when the core Anglo-American values of reason and liberty are threatened on all sides by mysticism and tyranny, it will take an American Churchill, an American Thatcher, an American Tory to rebuild the country’s conservative party and to prevent the principles of the Constitution from being slowly suffocated out of existence. As the last presidential election showed, nearly half of this country would be just fine living under the reign of a European-style social democrat as president. Meanwhile, the current president, and many of the members of his party, have spent much of the last seven years turning the Republican Party into a collection of big-government, European-style Christian democrats. Tonight convinced me more than ever that Rudy can’t fail. And neither will we.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
“Tonight convinced me more than ever that Rudy can’t fail. And neither will we”
Rudy is our guy!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
The more debates there are with this forum, the lower impact these debates will have. There are just too many participants and too little time. I was frustrated as I wanted each candidate to have more time to hear them out. I was annoyed Wolf was constantly having to cut them off. This forum only servers for one liners and headlines.
Because this is the 3rd Republican debate like this, it will have the least impact on the polls. Nobody made any major gaffes. Rudy did decent, Mitt performed good, I thought McCain was weak, Hunter was strong.
I think Romney’s numbers will go higher as he is well polished attractive on camera which plays nicely to these 30 second sound bites.. Other than that, I don’t see how any candidate really helped or hurt themselves with this debate performance.
They need to cut it down to about five or six candidates. Either that or consider adding an hour or two.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
DaveG, this is the best post on Race42008 so far.
By the end of the campaign this will be the substance of the debate.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
You make a very good case for Rudy, and I certainly thought that Rudy’s answer was just fine, even great. No, he’s not Reagan, and yes, I wish he were pro-life, but he is a great leader that takes no crap from the press and also never misses an opportunity to remind the people of the stark contrast between conservative vision and the libe world view. And that is like Reagan. I see where you are coming from.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
This was the worst debate so far, mostly because the questions had a liberal slant which disinterests Republicans. They also didn’t want to ask Mitt Romney questions, unless the question was really a thinly veiled criticism. I think Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback were asked a lot of religious questions because CNN wants to make an issue against religious candidates.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Bravo for the performance, DaveG, and I mean that seriously – really a wonderful, positive, interesting and well-grounded expression of the rationale for Rudy. It’s too early to count him in or count McCain or Romney out, but at this precise moment the dynamic looks like Rudy vs Fred. I think Rudy’s got the energy, and the others split the ABR vote to keep everyone in through GigaTuesday.
If Huckabee would accept the VP slot (I never would have considered that before, but people really do love his performances, even those who disagree with him), or if some other trustworthy pro-life representative could be persuaded to join a Rudy ticket, then 3rd party diversions become less likely, and the South could be steadied. For agreeing to hold their collective noses this time around, pro-lifers would get the heir apparent slot. Of course, it would have to be an independent minded person – if there’s no hope, as it seems, of getting a movement SoCon on board…
June 5th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Brownback laid it out during the debate – a pro-choice candidate won’t get the republican nomination – the religious right will ultimately decide the nominee – and they won’t bend on abortion – it’s a fundamental principle of the republican party. Doesn’t matter how well or poorly he does in the debate or in the campaign – to the core republican base, this issue is more important than Iraq.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Anyone who claims anyone other than Huckabee or McCain won isn’t honest. The others sucked. Especially Romney.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Don’t bet your life on it this time,KevinP.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Look,
I will just say this once.
If someone is completely wrong on one of Romney’s 3 legs, as Rudy & Paul are on Family & GWOT, they do not have the reagan mantle or my vote.
Romney is with me 80% (or more) of the time. Rudy is missing 1 leg.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
oops
in (12) it should say
…GWOT, respectively…
June 5th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
CK McCloud;
The answer is neither of the above. Republius is doing just fine.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
You wrote : “Another change that’s taken place in our world since Reagan’s time has been the end of the Cold War.” However, the situation with Russia is beginning to simmer, and has been for some time as Russia continues to restrict personal freedom and Putin coalesces his power into absolute power. Something to think about, and Giuliani would be a great candidate to confront this.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
If they insist on keeping all ten candidates in these debates,then devide them into 1/12hr to 2hr discussions on specific issues,one issue per half the debate: Controlling Govt. Spending./Intitlement Reform, Iraq/Foreign Policy, Energy Independence/Tax Reform, Health Care/Social Security and Medicare etc.
Then mabey we can get so real answers as to where these guys stand and what ideas they have to solve our nations problems.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I agree with TennJoe. I’m getting mighty tired of the moderator cutting off a candidate after 42 seconds.
Rudy came off well tonight. Is this just a good night, or is he hitting his stride? I’m guessing the latter.
Romney came off well also, though I noticed a few questions aimed at him that were simply veiled attacks. We know who Wolf doesn’t like.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 am
That is a good idea TennJoe. I think one debate could be about Iraq, the GWOT and foreign policy in general with immigration fitting in here as well. Even though that is a pretty narrow focus with 11 candidates at the next debate, (unless someone drops out) that would give each candidate less than 10 minutes total to talk about those issues. We need to get back on the offensive about these issues instead of running scared because people want out of Iraq. This debate would probably favor Rudy, though Romney could do well as well. McCain would be neutral because his strength on Iraq would be neutralized by immigration.
Another debate should be about domestic policy including the economy, healthcare, trade, and social issues, like abortion and judges. This would clearly be a Romney debate though Rudy could do well if he actually found a coherent position on abortion and stuck to it.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Did anyone watch FDT on Hannity tonight?
Hannity saved Thompson’s butt when he cut Fred off before he finished his statement about abortion. Thompson said that he wants it to be a state issue, which is a good answer, but then he followed that by saying that if he were back in TN voting HE WOULDN’T CRIMINALIZE A YOUNG GIRL and… then Hannity sensing a terrible answer cut him off. Am I the only one who noticed that?
That sounded a whole bunch like what he said in his 1994 youtube clip when he was pro-choice. Also the whole I don’t remember about that form where I checked a box on abortion is weak. He said maybe a staffer filled it out and thought that was my position. Weak Fred, weak. He needs to explain that instead of dance around it. He wants to send it back to the states and he would be great on judges, but it really sounds like he is closer to Gilmore’s position on the issue than he is to Brownback, Huckabee and Romney.
He also said he wants the ban on soft money to continue. That is one of the biggest problems conservatives have with McCain-Feingold. He has changed his mind and is against the restrictions on advertising in the days leading up to elections. My take-away though is that he still supports McCain-Feingold other than a few minor changes. Not a good position to be in. Also, not what his supporters over at fRedstate have been saying.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I’m becoming underwhelmed by FDT. I’m wonder if he’s a stalking horse either intentionally or not.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Things that caught my eye in tonight’s debate…
Rudy calling out Biden for his utterly delusional statement in the Dems’ debate the other night that Iran is a good 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon.
McCain calling out Hillary for saying Iraq is Bush’s war, and reminding her that “nations lose wars”, “not presidents or political parties”.
I know Tommy Thompson is from the great state of Wisconsin, but is it really necessary to remind us by wearing a real Wiconsin Badger on his head?
Ron Paul, who discovers new ways to be wrong on foreign policy each time he opens his mouth, says our national security is actually more threatened by staying in Iraq. Well, according to the new WP/ABC poll, just 14% of Americans think remaining in Iraq would increase the risk of a terrorist attack occurring here in the US.
Duncan Hunter wants Bob Gates’ job so bad he can taste it. He’s back in his hotel room right now throwing darts at pictures of Bushehr and Natanz he’s got pinned to the wall.
None of the candidates think English shouldn’t be the official language.
McCain dropping Jeb’s name re: the immigration bill was interesting.
McCain being OK with public school boards teaching creationism made my jaw drop and the Kansas Board of Education rejoice with hallelujahs.
McCain, the pandering populist, having a problem with oil company profits and presumptiously speaking for everyone, saying “sure, I think we all do.”
No Republicans think gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military.
Brownback calling out Bill Clinton for inappropriately interjecting himself into policy matters as an ex-President.
McCain’s moment, standing up to speak to the sister of the fallen soldier. Call me a cynic, but that was a brilliant political move.
Giuliani’s left uppercut to the jaw of CNN and the liberal mainstream media, asking Wolf Blitzer if Petraeus comes back in September and says things are going pretty well, will they report the good news with the same attention?
Ron Paul has a suicidal foreign policy that says it’s our constitutional obligation to wait until we’re nuked before we have the justified in defending ourselves.
Any remote thoughts of Brownback being Rudy’s Veep…now buried six feet under along with Sam’s presidential aspirations.
And, while on the subject, for the first time I won’t rule it out, though it would probably require bad blood to come between Giuliani and Thompson or Gingrich, but after observing Mitt’s adorable little mancrush for Rudy on stage, there’s an outside possibility that a Rudy-Romney union could be in the offing.
In a post-debate interview, Larry King said to Giuliani, “You were the one attacking the Democrats the most…Are you running already?”
Rudy responded, “Well, you know, I’m running against them (the Democrats). I’m not running against the people on that stage.”
Larry challenges Rudy, saying “Well, you are…”
Rudy comes back at Larry, telling him “Well, not really. I have some disagreements with them, but I largely hear things that I agree with. A lot of the things Senator McCain said I agree with. Mitt Romney, at least three or four times tonight said ‘I agree with Mayor Giuliani.’ I probably agreed with him most of the time. My disagreements are with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Perhaps it would behoove all of the Republican candidates to adopt this strategy, focus on the true political opposition on the Democratic side, and the intended office for which they’re running, and avoid violating Republicans’ 11th Commandment.
Ranking of tonight’s debate
1. Giuliani
2. McCain
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. Tancredo
6. Paul
7. Huckabee
8. Brownback
9. T. Thompson
10. Gilmore
June 6th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Dskinner,
Yeah I really just can’t take people seriously who are looking to Fred as a conservative messiah, although I have an awful lot more respect for him if it turns out his position is identical to 1994 (which is certainly what it sounded like in that interview). And since he’s always been anti-Roe, it wouldn’t affect the likelihood of my voting for him. I’m hardly a “my way or the highway pro-lifer”. I want a constitutional amendment defining personhood as beginning at conception, but I think a gradation of abortion positions are acceptable, from moderately pro-choice and anti-Roe, to Sam Brownback pro-life (which is more or less my position).
June 6th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Go ahead, I’m tired of defending him or my positions, or the seriousness of the supporters. I’m not going out of my way to defend every argument. If anyone has a question about a position, look it up.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Go ahead and lay it on him. Take what you guys want. I’m tired of having to defend him constantly, when nothing positive is being posted on this site except from me. People are going to be skeptical because they are firmly in other camps, and I’m fine with that.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am
From the Corner, this is what excites me a lot about Rudy:
June 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
[...] boys over at race42008.com make some interesting observations about last night’s debate. The one comment that caught my attention, though, and the point I agree [...]
June 7th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Sam Brownback never would have been Rudy’s VP, anyways — the ideological differences are too great, although for someone like McCain I think he could be a really good fit. It’s better that he distinguishes himself from Giuliani than offers him support. I don’t think his comment in the first debate was beneficial to his candidacy.
Rudy did do a really good job at the debate – he was one of the best, no doubt. And he did sound a lot more diplomatic than he has in the past, which was good. He allayed some of my fears, a little. He still makes me nervous, considering some of his past comments and actions, and I still prefer all of the other candidates to him, but I will try to keep an open mind on him because I don’t want a democratic president. I hope he continues to keep the diplomatic tone he established in this debate. I think we need a diplomat as president, a diplomat who is strong on defense and strong on the war on terror, but a diplomat nonetheless..