Let me start off by saying that I would never vote for a candidate because his name ends in a vowel any more than I would vote against a candidate because she is black or female or both. If it came down to a choice between Mario Cuomo and Condoleeza Rice, Rice would get my vote. I wish everyone were like me in this regard but I fear they are not. Yet another reason to cast a jaundiced eye on the political scene and on the human condition generally. But I'll rein in my pessimism for the space of this post.
Seeing Giuliani on Hannity and Colmes last night, I was once again impressed by him. He is sharp, personable, and articulate. (By the way, in calling a wop 'articulate,' am I insulting him in the way G. W. Bush supposedly insulted Barack Obama when he said the same of him?) The former mayor of The City has proven himself in the crucible of stress. He has reasonably definite views for a politician. He inspires confidence like JFK and RR and unlike GWB. He is obviously very competent. He kniows how to come across as a regular guy. He learns from experience: trying to improve education in NYC he came to see the wisdom of school vouchers. They say he cleaned up NYC and replaced a deficit with a surplus. His record as a crime buster and prosecutor is impressive. And I think he can beat Hillary.
He is perhaps too much of a liberal on gun rights. But then he said something that impressed me, namely, that different laws are appropriate in different places and that in a place like New York City, with its high population density, stricter controls may be in order. He backed up this remark with a reference to federalism which he did not define but which I will.
Federalism, roughly, is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that the central and constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will. Giuliani seemed to favor federalism, a point in his favor as far as I am concerned.
His 'pro-choice' abortion stance will be a sticking point with many conservatives. But politics is always about the lesser or least of evils. It is a practical business in which one is a fool if one lets the pursuit of the best preclude the attainment of the good. To illustrate, if you refuse to vote for Giuliani over Hillary should they get the nods of their respective parties, because Giuliani is not perfect, then you give your tacit support to someone clearly worse. Holding out for a nonexistent candidate is senseless. For more on politics as a practical business, see my The Losertarian Party.
UPDATE: John Lott on Giuliani on gun control
This is crucial. As a student at Georgetown with friends from both NYC and Nebraska, I witnessed far too many caffeine- and alcohol-fueled gun control debates to count. In most instances, the debaters were talking past each other. The city folks failed to understand how the rural folks-- by which I primarily mean farmers-- viewed guns, while the rural folks didn't quite get what so alarmed the city folks. It makes a world of difference whether you look at a gun and see a personal threat, or merely an efficient tool for ridding your land of varmints.
Kevin
Thanks for the comment. It's a 'hot button' issue for sure.
Michael,
Another reason to like him.
It was very interesting to see the reactions of the various political and social groups here in Gotham when he showed that thug the door.
I thought it was outstanding.
Balls &brains indeed. Both are needed. GWB is weak on the second, Jimmy Carter on the first.
I crossposted at Right Reason, and there is further discussion there. The fire-and-brimstone cons don't think much of Rudy. Feel free to jump in there if you like.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.