RUDY: The Dems' REAL Nightmare Scenario

is not immigration, it is social issues and gun control. Many base members who would compromise on social issues because they believe the President does little on them other than appoint judges would have a very hard time voting for a gun control advocate. I am not sure if a VP choice would overcome this concern.

You may say the base is "Overrated and numerically small", but the whole base issue is a little more complicated than you seem to recognize, (or perhaps you simplify it intentionally for clarity). I posted on where Bush fits in the GOP and why the fence crowd should ignore him and focus their emphasis on the house and the future in my blog, and in that post I explained my view of the dynamic of the Republican base. Both parties are a challenging coalition of different advocacy groups, aligned because of shared values, but chafing over the differences. In most cases, they stay together because they fear the other side more than they dislike each other, but certain hot button issues are very close to fracturing both parties. On the left, the issue is funding the war while opposing it. On the right the issues is supporting comprehensive immigration reform before border enforcement.

On both sides, there is a real but slim possibility of a division leading to an independent run. Coupled with the Bloomburg apparent personal animosity for Guiliani (I don't know this for sure because I am a west coast guy, I just read about it in places like Rasmussen), it is unlikely but concievable we could have a 5 candidate race. It is far more likely that the differences will be patched over in both parties and the race will be the normal 2 party affair, but with some on each side pouting and staying home. The point is, Rudy can't count on healing the divide between his social, 2nd amendment and immigration views and the base simply by choosing a strong conservative VP. The divide is too deep and the VP is too irrelevant to a lot of these issues. He needs to clarify the differences (especially on gun control) between national and city policies and convince gun rights absolutists his New York City record is not a threat to gun owners in the west and south.

And for the record, while some who are against this particular immigration bill are "xenophobic and nativist", I think it is very important to recognize that border security is not a racist thing to support. If there were truly a committment to produce and verify a secure border in this bill, I would support it. I say this teaching at a school where over 1/3rd of the kids are children of Central or South American immigrants. Many of them have extended family in countries who are attempting to go through the extensive hoops to enter legally, and they and their families almost all passionately and vocally oppose this bill. Not because they are nativist, (since they are all bilingual and proud of their heritage) but because it rewards breaking the law, and unintentionally punishes their relatives.

Wil, very good post. As you suggest, the whole "base" issue (and the "base" in the Republican Party is changing) is extremely complex. Your analysis is much more sophisticated than anything we'll ever read on TH "Central." I will respond in more detail to your post this weekend. I'm "flamboozled" by a work project -- my word invention -- and I'm having trouble focussing right now. You're right (and the "base" may not understand it) that gun issues are different in cities where real people, including many children, are being shot and killed by people who don't give a d-mn if they're caught and put in jail. The "base" members who ignore this (including NRA people) who don't recognize that are complicit in murder, frankly. Civilized life consists of our doing many things that we'd rather not.

My short argument would be that the "base" probably will have a choice between Giuliani and Clinton or Giuliani and Obama. I don't expect certain TH types (Pasadena Phil, Virginia Patriot, some of the other "Paulines") ever to grasp that reality, but there are not enough of them to make much difference.

The Congress approach is good as far as it goes. However, the Republicans even holding our own in Congress depends on having a strong presidential ticket. Duncan Hunter would not be a strong national candidate.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." Rudy is the good. There is no perfect candidate this time around.

Wil, I'm not in any sense an "anti-gun" person. However, I want to make clear that I believe some of the Second Amendment Absolutists have defaulted on a critical moral obligation to have a decent concern for their fellow human beings. I said they are complicit in murder, and I mean that very precisely. Political fetishes are never a pretty sight to see in action, because they harm real people.

Interesting analysis...

I am totally jazzed after last night's debates...it shows we have smart, funny, engaged, qualified people on our side, compared to the robots on the left.

I loved Rudy's remarks about the Libby case...Hucakbee was great on the gotcha evolution question...they stood up to the Blitzed CNN leftie, love- the- libs- moderator.

Thompson will be entering the race, we're getting good TV time, we're putting the press on the spot...they are looking BAD along with the left.

You make some good points about Hill's worse nightmare...something to chew on...LOL

I think too many are "following" on our side after being scolded about not seeing things clearly enough... instead of thinking independently.

I believe we need to focus on the future, as Wil said in his last blog (a very good one).

We can do our due diligence to get a good immigration bill, but we need to quit beating ourselves and Bush up(he's not running)...it only helps the left and the press defeat us.

I've noticed a lot of us are falling in lock- step behind the negative "we have a rotten party and president" mantra...not a perscription for victory...

Good post!

Sheila, I'm also jazzed after last night's debate. Some of the "religion" (and evolution) questions were meant to embarrass the candidates, but had the opposite effect. It was an extremely impressive performance by many people. This is a major step up from anything else we've seen in the past decade-and-a-half.

"However, I want to make it clear that some of the 2nd Amendment Absolutists have defaulted on a more critical moral obligation to have a decent concern for their fellow human beings."

I do have a concern for my fellow human beings and I am a 2ndAA. I believe you miss the point in the 2nd amendment. The purpose of the 2nd is self-protection. Having lived in New York State, one of the biggest problems I saw was not enough people were armed. One of the reasons that the criminal use of guns in large cities is so much of a problem is the fact that the criminals know that the law abiding citizens are unarmed. As the military would say, "it is a target rich environment".

Everytime the MSM hears about another state passing a "right-to-carry" or "castle doctrine" law, they go into fits saying there will be gunfights in the streets, road-rage will cause deaths on the highways, etc.

What actually happens? Crime and gun crimes go down. Why?

The answer is easy. The criminals do not know who is carrying a gun. They have to be very careful of how and where they enact their crime. The NRA magazines every month have an article detailing citizens using their guns to stop the criminals in their criminal acts.

If you actually want to lower crime in large cities like Washington DC, Chicago, LA, and others, then allow the average citizens to have their 2nd Amendment rights. Unless these cities are totally different than the rest of the country, their crime will go down.

As I said at the first of this comment, I do have a deep concern for my fellow human beings. However, I am not God, I can't be everywhere at the same time to protect them. Allowing them the right to protect themselves by giving them back the rights given them in the 2nd Amendment is caring for my fellow human beings.

is that the reason that parts of the conservative base are worried about Rudy is his gun record. We know the truth about more gun laws; they don't work.

If you want a revolution to begin, no matter who is president, than pass a handgun or semi-automatic confiscation law. Most of the gun owners I know and speak to on a regular basis (MS, AL, AR, TN, FL, GA, OK, TX, IN, KY, Ohio, and MO) say the same thing. This is also true of appointments to the Supreme Court.

Again, this is why we have our reservations about Rudy, his gun record. If it is Rudy vs. Hillary, we will hold our nose and vote for Rudy. But we will not be happy about it.

This country has 30 times as many murders per capita as Canada, and the reason that happens is because people recite the same slogans you are. Gray Ghost, your argument is nonsense. In Texas, "everybody" is armed and the body count is piling up. Most people don't want to walk around with guy -- most sane people, I mean. They're afraid their kids will start shooting each other, or they'll accidentally shoot themselves. If you'd ever spent one minute thinking about the subject, other than reciting slogans, you'd agree with me. Rudy Giuliani sharply reduced the homicide rate in New York City. You have not a clue how he did so. Read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, and you will find out. I regard people like you as complicit in murder. Sleep soundly.

Gray Ghost, as far as your "holding your nose and voting for Rudy," please don't bother. He doesn't need you, and truth be told, he doesn't want your vote. It is people like you, mindless cretins, who are doing untold damage to the Republican Party.

I'll vote Rudy if he wins the nomination. I thought Huckabee and Hunter were great last night, and McCain also shone, btw. Rudy was great and I liked that he challenged on the Libby thing. As we saw in the last debate, Rudy has the will to go for the jugular, which is what it might take to defeat Clinton.

Right now, with the war on terror, we NEED a strong leader who can keep us safe. A Dem would be a disaster. As far as illegals - Rudy understands that from a SAFETY POV, he needs to close the borders. As far as guns and abortion - I doubt he will make liberalizing laws in those areas a focus of his presidency. He'll have too much going on with national security. I also loved his proposal for health care, which was a real plan with some details, and I think he will be good for our economy.

Overall, I can be jazzed about a Rudy presidency, though I would prefer a Duncan Hunter or a Fred Thompson or a Huckabee. However, of the rest, I think only Fred Thompson might be able to defeat Hillary, and that goal has to be the primary focus for the GOP. Hillary is evil....

I agree with much of what you said. I thougt most of the guys performed well last night.

I don't think Thompson, who seems old, tired, and not enthusiastic, could defeat Hillary. I like Fred, but he complained about the "long hours" he had to put in as a Senator. If he runs, his hours are about to get a lot longer.

Giuliani and McCain have built a national reputation. Hunter and Huckabee, both of whom I like, haven't built such reputations yet and don't have enough time to do so -- although maybe one of them will prove me wrong.

On guns: as a people, we have a moral obligation to keep them out of the hands of people who are crazy (Cho) or criminals. We also need to keep them out of the hands of children, just as we keep sharp scissors away from them. We haven't come anywhere near fulfilling that obligation.

Too many innocent people are being killed. What are we going to do about it? As I said, "nothing" is not the correct answer.

If you believe gun laws actually work, you are the one lacking gray matter. At best, they do nothing. At worst, they disarm the law abiding citizens. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the logic (Not to mention the crime statistics).

Check your facts about Texas, buddy boy. You are the person wrong. Washington DC is the murder capital of the country as reported by the FBI. Texas is not even in the top 5 states. (Check the FBI records for the state of Florida after the "right-to-carry" bill passed.)

I do sleep soundly, knowing that the police can not be every where at the same time and that self-defense is better than no defense. Can you sleep soundly knowing that your actions will cause the deaths of more people?

Be advised that when I lived in NY and worked for GE under Jack Welch, I met Rudy. His view point at that time (middle 70's) was not quite the same as yours. In fact it was closer to mine.

As for your comments on "no gray matter" and "mindless cretins", if you have to resort to name-calling instead of open, polite debate than perhaps you realize (deep inside) that I won.

Don't worry, I won't be back.

Oh, by the way, most of the children here in Mississippi are brought up to hunt and fish. Extremely few (less than 1/1000 of one percent) go off the deep end, get their gun, and start killing people. As a Christian, I believe in trusting people to do what's right.

Obviously, you have trouble with trusting all types of people (young, old, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, poor, rich, etc.). I feel very sorry for you.

Though I prefer someone that agrees with my conservative views on the social issues, none of those issues will matter if we don't deal with the terrible threat posed against us by Islamofascism. In the primaries I will vote for someone like Duncan Hunter, but if Rudy, for example, wins the ticket, I will vote for him because the Left offers defeat, and voting for an independent that may agree with all of my other conservative viewpoints will only be handing a vote to the Left. We cannot let anyone split the vote like Ross Perot did, or else we will be stuck with a socialist in the
White House that is prepared to sell us down the river.

Douglas, I agree with you on your main point. If we don't win the WOT -- and we're not doing real well right now -- then all the other "nice" issues are irrelevant. I believe the two people best able to conduct the WOT are Rudy and John McCain. Hunter is a good man, but he doesn't have the kind of national presence to conduct an effective WOT. He would try hard, but he would fail. Sometimes doing the right thing is painful. Doing the wrong thing is always easy.

To a degree, Rudy is trying to reconstitute what we've known as the Republican Party. To a more extreme extent, Arnold is doing the same thing in California. They both believe the "old Republicans" make up something like a permanent minority, and one that's shrinking. I agree with them, reluctantly in fact, but reality is reality.

Thanks for visiting and for commenting.

Hello.

I am contacting my fellow Townhall bloggers.

I would consider it a privilege if you would add my blog "The Tygrrrr Express" http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites if you feel the quality is high.

eric

P.S. I am as I said on Townhall, but my main blog is on Wordpress.

Will give your blog a look-see. I find many of the bloggers are producing material far superior to TH's "All Romney-all-the-time" hamhanded attempts at manipulation.