My Latest Column For Human Events: The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008 + More On Rudy
The folks over at Human Events liked my, “Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008,” post so much, they asked to run it for them as a column this week. However, there is one twist. I’ve added a chapter on Bernard Kerik for the HE version of the post.
You can check it out here.
PS: Also, I wanted to tackle an argument that came up several times yesterday, in response to the Rudy column. Here’s Martin from My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy making the aforementioned case for Rudy:
“First. I’m not attacking Hawkins personally, indeed I enjoy his site.
But he is simply wrong if he thinks the 2008 election should or will be fought and won on partial birth abortion, the second amendment, or even illegal immigration.
There is one issue that the 2008 election should and will turn on – the global struggle to defeat proliferating Islamic Fascists.”
First of all, I would agree that fighting the war on terrorism will be a big issue in the 2008 election, especially since the Democrats have become such wusses that they make Neville Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.
However, the war on terrorism probably WILL NOT be a decisive factor in the Republican primaries simply because most of the candidates will probably have very similar positions on national defense. In fact, other than Chuck Hagel, I believe all the major candidates could, at least at this point, be fairly called hawks on national security issues.
Does that mean that there won’t be differences between the candidates on the issue? No, but it’s also fair to say that Rudy doesn’t objectively seem to have any big advantage on the issue over most of the people he’ll be competing with for the nomination.
Granted, he did perform magnificently after 9/11, built up a tough guy reputation battling crime, and has certainly talked a good game on national security — but, when it comes right down to it, what does that mean exactly?
If, let’s say, one of the big issues is whether to bomb Iran or not in 2009, what makes anyone think Rudy could handle it better than Sam Brownback?
If we have to decide whether to hit a terrorist training camp in Syria, what makes Rudy more capable of handling that than Mitt Romney?
If a decision needs to be made on whether to take out a North Korean missile site, is Rudy better equipped to make that decision than Newt Gingrich? What about George Allen, Tom Tancredo, or Bill Frist?
The reality is that there isn’t, at least at the moment, any sort of gap between Rudy and the other contenders on national security. Since that’s the case, what will likely happen is that the primary voters will move well beyond national security and on to other issues. And unfortunately for Rudy, he is a middle-of-the-roader who will have the unenviable task of convincing conservative voters that he better represents their views than — well — actual conservatives. Once we get past these early polls, which reflect little more than name recognition, Rudy’s numbers are going to plunge.