Wingers for Rudy?

| | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Ace links to a couple of reports that Rudy Giuliani might not be so bad after all, particularly on immigration. Hmm.

Romney is hard to pin down - listen to his speech and you'll see he's very personable and gives the impression of authenticity (which is the only way to do authenticity right), but does not have that much to say. If I had to give a one sentence impression after hearing him I'd say, "He's a good public speaker who has accomplished impressive things and sounds like a conservative."

Whereas what I'm looking for is the person who will make me say, "Where do I go to sign up to support this man?" Granted, not every speech will slay'em, but he does need to convey more than "conservative" and "electable".

The more I reflect on Jeb Bush's speech the less impressed I am with him. He practically sneered at the notion any decent human being with a brain would have concerns about illegal immigration. Keep him away from the White House, I say.

John McCain? HA!

Tancredo? Sure, absolutely .. but I don't know much about him as a candidate. Two people who do know him said he needs to kick up the charisma - which really just means projecting self-confidence - and give the impression of being better informed on a wider variety of issues. I guess we'll see.

So if Giuliani might be the one to help fix the immigration crisis, and he's not perfect on all the other issues, weeellllll ...

... To be perfectly honest, I think abortion is horrible and has resulted in what amounts to some kind of genocide or mass murder, but the best way to make it stop is via public education. People need to learn what abortion really is, and why they should want to keep their babies. Hell, they need to learn why they should want to have babies on purpose, but at very least they should be having them even if it's by accident.

Where this train of thought leads is to basic values and what life is about. Were we put on this Earth to dine out frequently, have fabulous vacations and raise pets - or to have families? Many people simply don't attribute much value to the latter. Also, what are kids: hindrances or blessings? Again, if you don't subscribe to the latter viewpoint, abortion will likely be part of your existential tool kit.

THAT'S the key issue if you ask me. Is it the government's job to fix that problem? I don't know, maybe they can do some things, but I can think of other institutions better suited and carrying a more compelling rationale. I mean, of course ...

CHURCHES. Where the hell are they? And I don't mean, in terms of "opposing" abortion. Many of them do that quite well. I mean in terms of evangelizing or at least educating about life and values.

Maybe it's no disgrace that secularism has prevailed in the battle over popular culture and Western mores. Maybe it's part of "God's plan." But I'll say this: If the goal is to assign blame for the number of abortions, divorces, and other such maladies of modern America, you can say the government has done mankind a disservice by doing too much, but you can also say the churches lost the battle for hearts and minds. Maybe there's a connection there, and maybe it's a chicken-or-egg deal.

So, I would certainly prefer a president who is against abortion and will appoint judges inclined to scoff at penumbras and emanations. But I'd rather have someone inclined to deal with specific, immediate problems like the influx of illegal aliens and the deep-seated corruption of our neighbor to the south, than a theologian-in-chief. Given the choice between an ostensible "socially conservative" country-club Republican and a hard-boiled realist who will do the things necessary to stop the invasion, I'll throw in with the one focused on the more immedate problem which it is DEFINITELY the government's duty to solve.

If Rudy really is serious about solving the illegal immigration problem, tacking right right now is a stroke of genius. Right now there are legions of erstwhile Republicans who have closed their pocketbooks to the GOP at every level, and yet not with any increased interest in supporting the Democrats. They are disgusted with our political "leaders" and I know a good number who in future elections are planning to vote with their butts by staying home and sitting on them.

If a guy were to rise up now, and say "I speak for you, and I have a good chance of being elected," the wallets will open up, people will ask "where do I sign up," and he could have $200 million in the bank before Halloween.

Newt Gingrich would survey the lay of the land circa September and say, "Damn, all the money's gone already, guess I'll just have to keep being the smart guy on TV."

Stroke of genius if it's for real.

Ragnar says, or implies, that Rudy is not so strong on the Second Amendment. That's too bad. That would be a dealbreaker for me before abortion would.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Wingers for Rudy?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Kevin said:

I've seen Giuliani recently in a couple of clips and one quick interview and he's awfully difficult to listen to, cadence-wise. . .which, I know is pretty unimportant. In the interview his eyes kept looking like they were going to pop out of his head every couple of seconds. He wasn't coming across very well.

I have not seen him much since the speech he gave at the 2004 GOP Convention. From that I got the impression of him as a great speaker, but the television interview is a rather different beast than a live stage performance. Gotta be good on TV in this day and age.

Kilo said:

Give Duncan Hunter look Joe. He has built a wall in his district and he is not for amnesty.
He is getting my support.

Thanks, Kilo, I will do that.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here