March 08, 2007
Rudy in 2008? Why One Conservative Says "No"
Regular readers will know that I am an early supporter of Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee for 2008, but my endorsement is not official, as it's much too early to be making such decisions. Much can happen between now and the primaries.
I admire Rudy's strength, commitment to national security and fiscal responsibility, and his willingness to get the job done. However...
John G. sent me this piece, which explains the thoughts of one conservative about Rudy. The writer finds much to admire, but there are strong reservations, and those have to do with tradition. Here's his main point:
[...] Rudy Giuliani has a philosophy in his personal life that is antithetical to the American tradition. Giuliani has secular-elite morality . . . more libertine than conservative. Can traditionalists trust his basic impulses?
What do I mean? Nobody can anticipate the challenges a President will face . . . remember 9/11 and George Bush. Gay marriage was not the issue it became in 2000. How will a man react to new challenges? His personal life philosophy is a good measure.
Rudy Giuliani’s personal life indicates that in any new challenge his deepest predispositions will be hostile to traditionalists.
When he does not need our votes, he will forget us utterly. He has no friends in our camp or memories that can stir him to sympathy with our point of view.
My mind is definitely staying open. Every candidate has baggage. The question is, how will that baggage affect his ability to govern?
Show Comments »
I don't understand why you conservatives think personal life has anything to do with ability to govern.
Guiliani is a perfect example of my confusion. You say he did a great job as mayor while simultaneously treating his wife like absolute garbage during their divorce. How is this possible if one is related to the other?
Posted by: paul at March 8, 2007 11:51 AMPaul, the historians I respect tell us that the man who was selected as the first President of this country was chosen exactly for that one reason: his character, his honor, his personal virtue.
That has mattered in the past of America. Were the stories we have thrown at JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, others, known at the time, these men could not have gained or held office. You will play word games perhaps, but I'm not sure why the insistence on a moral character should bother you.
It's simply the history of America.
Perhaps it will take the election of a moral leader who is a Mormon to undo the disordered thinking that plagues you.
Remember that NY Republicans would be Democrats in much of the Midwest and South while NY Democrats would be institutionalized as insane. When Giuliani was elected NYC mayor, he was the most conservative major candidate.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at March 8, 2007 08:23 PMWhen Washington became president, we were in a unique situation. The country was divided to the point it was about to fall apart, and he was the only person all sides could agree on.
I don't deny Americans want character; I simply think people who disqualify good leaders due to personal flaws are fooling themselves and denying themselves a full slate of choices for a reason that hasn't stood the test of history.
Posted by: paul at March 9, 2007 04:22 AM
