Submitted by Alfred J. Lemire, Nov 15, 2006 18:45

[The editorial selected out an important prefatory paragraph. While not as complete as one might prefer, the following comment seeks to discourage a Giuliani candidacy. He might make a good ambassador to Italy or a high official in Justice. But presidential candidate? Maybe not. This is too long to be included on the site, but it's an attempt, under time pressure, to respond.] "It's unclear whether or not Rudy Giuliani will be able to just 'explain away' the fact that he's consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Throughout his career Giuliani has tried to paint himself as a moderate, but now that he's vying for his Party's nomination will he undergo an extreme makeover in an attempt to cozy up to the far-right?" In the DNC statement, Karen Finney, its communications director, questioned whether Mr. Giuliani "will be able to just 'explain away' the fact that he's consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear." Will he try to "just ‘explain away' " his positions? Probably not. "Throughout his career Giuliani has tried to paint himself as a moderate," she claimed. Hunh? That "tried to paint" oozes of malice. ("Moderate" may not be an accurate political term, since most moderates this writer has encountered are immoderate in their politics and rhetoric. Since most are wealthy or have a clue as to what creates wealth, they're not hot for schemes that make wealth creation difficult or wealth retention impossible. But how does that make them "moderate," and what positions do they moderate?) Ms. Finney continued, "now that he's vying for his Party's nomination will he undergo an extreme makeover in an attempt to cozy up to the far-right [sic] ?" Again, extreme nastiness: "extreme makeover," "attempt to cozy up," and "far-right" (one would insert the hyphen if the expression served as a modifier). My surmise is that neither he nor his supporters would try to "cozy up," since his record as a social "moderate" is beyond dispute. Further, the press, which remains a solid part of the John McCain base--few votes, but lots of influence --welcomes Mr. Giuliani, too. The welcome would disappear if he tried to tack away from his social issues positions. It's not impossible that he will find success in primaries. Several states have "open" primaries that allow both Democrats and independents to vote in Republican primaries. Others have "semi-open" primaries, allowing only independents to vote in the Republican primaries. One can surmise that people who share his social views among the Democrats and independents would flood a Republican primary, to crush their hated Other, social conservatives and anyone they might support. Whether the nutroots will back an opponent to Hillary Clinton is unknown and whether anyone will challenge her bid also is unknown, and thus, whether that would dampen any non-Republican attempt to affect the Republicans' primaries. Whatever, it's likely that many who are not Republican will back Giuliani, because they support his policies. Or because they realize a Giuliani candidacy will accomplish two important goals: ensure a Democrat will be President and shatter an already damaged Republican party. Social conservatives may not be to everyone's preference, but they have gone along with much that many don't care for, like financially empowering China but not doing likewise for the countries to our south, who are supplying so many economic migrants to the United States. And, in the nation, they represent a substantial part of the Republican vote, partly because Democrats have spurned their support. In Massachusetts, people with the views of Mr. Giuliani gave the state a Supreme Judicial Court that gave the state and nation the Goodridge decision, which found the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." One can debate whether those words lead ineluctably to gay marriage; the court's 4 to 3 majority thought they did. And the court further commanded that laws be passed authorizing gay marriage because the court so commanded. Does anyone think a President Giuliani would appoint a different type of judge? Kerry Healey, a Republican candidate for governor, made clear in ads that she and Deval Patrick were alike in being strongly pro-choice and pro-embryonic stem cell research. It may be that social conservatives are a minority of the Massachusetts electorate, but one can't imagine many of them voted for either major party candidate a week ago. One can't imagine a post-election poll or newspaper report determining whether her stance helped gain her defeat. She could declare that she was with NARAL in her pro-choice position, but NARAL backed the Democrat. How many feminists supported the female, pro-choice candidate against someone who was pro-choice and a Democrat? "True believers" on the social left likely would cluck approvingly about a Giuliani candidacy but also vote for any likely Democrat nominee. Mr. Giuliani fixed broken windows and got squeegee people out of motorists' faces. He also provided real, positive leadership to his city after the sickening attacks by Muslim fanatics on 9/11. However, while one might welcome the French attitude about keeping private lives private, one has to believe the partisan pres--after a Giuliani nomination--will enjoy recounting episodes of Mr. Giuliani's private life not likely to find favor in Peoria and perhaps even in some apartments in New York City. In Massachusetts, while one might not have voted for Deval Patrick, one could hope that his policies and programs would weaken the state's Democratic Party. The only possible plus to a Giuliani candidacy: the awareness of many that a Democrat as President will increase the power of the likes of Howard Dean and Karen Finney. (This Massachusetts voter doesn't know who chairs his state's Democratic Committee.) The great minus to a Giuliani candidacy: the suspicion of many that he would increase the power of the likes of Dean and Finney. His candidacy, like that of the choleric John McCain, sucks air and space from better Republican candidates for President. However, other than Mitt Romney, who likely will have to go before a group of ministers, not unlike the John Kennedy performance in 1960, no other worthy or electable candidate has yet appeared among the Republicans. One wants better choices to turn up. Bush was better than Albert Gore or John Kerry, but "better than" presidents, one knows, might still not be good enough, and Mr. Giuliani would be a "better than" President. For Republicans dispirited by a stupid Presidential decision not to replace Donald Rumsfeld months ago, a witless Dennis Hastert decision not to declare in early October, not a day after the election, that he would not be a candidate for a House leadership post, and dismayed by earmarks and other instances of legislative fecklessness, these are gloomy times. But one cannot lose hope. One must not lose hope.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.