Snowballs In Hell

I dunno...I wonder if Giuliani might not be the GOP's version of Clinton in '92. He might come out as the consensus, moving the party to the center (if the Repubs realize that's what most of the country wants) unlike Romney or Frist, and not as old and kinda eccentric as McCain.

As far as being viewed as competent...who ever thought that of George W. Bush in 1998? (Or now, but that's a different story.) Being mayor of NYC's at least as complicated as being governor of Texas.

Mike -- THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS! Everything you say is spot on.

I don't think Giuliani will have broad appeal for being a centrist Republican. I don't think this country is moving to the center; I think it's moving to the right, and it has been for 30+ years. Tuesday's elections were not a victory for the center. They were a victory for the right.

Why is it that we can't win without people finding evidence that it means we're losing? This is not complicated arithmetic.

Well, you know me: a self-hating Jew, a self-hating fag, and now a self-hating Democrat. But I really do ask: At what price victory? We won the arithmetic by running Democratic candidates who are pro-war, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-stem cell research, pro-gun.... In other districts these people would be called Republicans. What is becoming of the soul of the left?

As I said in another comment thread, this just isn't true--it's a false characterization spread by people who want to demoralize the left. The new Democrats in the House are about as divided on social issues as the ones who won re-election. Among the new Democrats in the Senate, the only social conservative is Bob Casey, and he's from the state that elected Rick Santorum twice. And pro-war? The candidates who tried to be mealy-mouthed about the subject are the ones who lost, even one who had her legs blown off in Iraq and seemed to think it excused her from having to use strong language.

More to the point, the single most important thing the new Democrats are doing is giving their votes to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to enable them to set the agenda. It doesn't matter what their views on abortion or gay marriage are if they are never asked to vote on the subjects. They feel that it's more important to change our policies on the war and the economy and to investigate corruption than it is to talk about the culture wars. They sound like good Democrats to me.

Oh what I would give for a body of elected representatives -- of either party -- who only dealt with foreign and economic policies, and who had nothing to say (or do) about what sort of scientific discovery is morally acceptable for curing my mother. Or whether my love is less legitimate than someone else's love. But as long as these people are judging me on my beliefs, I'll feel free to judge them on theirs.

I think something we agree on, dear Master of the Epenthesis, is that this is a congress that will certainly interfere with the agenda of this White House. And that's a cause we can both get behind.

Giuliani will almost certainly get creamed in the primaries; all the wingnuts have to do is pull out the "Rudia" photos for the foaming base and he's gone Daddy gone.

and if that's not enough, there's the mistress business, and just for good measure some good old-fashioned Catholic baiting and New York baiting of course. there's no way in hell.

and as you say, there is also that um -erratic- temper of his...

-if- he somehow managed to win primaries, i am afraid that he probably would have a shot at the general, as if moderates and lefties are still willing to buy -McCain- as a moderate/maverick, they're sure to think Rudy's one of the okay ones: hey, he doesn't want to stone gay people to death! he's kinda pro-choice! he's from New York and -they- voted for him twice! he's alright.

and for everyone else he can bang his 9/11 performance to good effect: unlike Bush, he really did actually manage to provide some morale boosting at the time, i will give him that.

but i really don't think he'll make it that far.