Unlike many of my conservative brethren, I'm not apoplectic over Monday's filibuster deal. At this point, I think it's too early to pass final judgment on it. At first blush it appears to be a defeat, but, depending on how things shake out down the road, it could prove to be a positive for the GOP. While I certainly don't believe that the deal is a victory for Bush, I don't think that it's going to hurt him either. And, as the impact of the compromise starts to sink in (and as "out of the mainstream radicals" like Owens, Brown, and Pryor are confirmed), I think we're going to see more liberals react like this.
The big winners in the compromise are those whose names are being mentioned as possibilities for the GOP ticket in '08. Clearly, this deal spells the end of John McCain's presidential ambitions. (At least as a Republican. Last night, Hugh Hewitt was speculating on his talk show that McCain could pull a "Perot" and run as a third party candidate, which more than likely would ensure that a Democrat (Hillary?) would win the White House.) All the flirting, back slapping, and cheerleading for McCain by the likes of Chris Matthews won't help the Arizona Senator get back in the good graces of the GOP faithful now.
Bill Frist is also done. Weak leadership, vacillation, and indecisiveness don't look good on the resume when applying to be the CIC. Especially, when such qualities are on display for the whole country to see. The fact that the deal was made is not Bill Frist's fault. The fact that there existed an environment where such a deal could be reached is.
You also have to think that this doesn't help Chuck Hagel either. Even though he wasn't directly part of the compromise, when the Republican primary votes look back on these events, they'll likely connect Hagel (almost as much of a "maverick" and media whore as McCain) with those who stood on the podium with Robert Byrd.
For the rest of the field, the damage done to these three by the compromise certainly brightens their hopes for '08. Assuming that Rice, Jeb Bush, and Cheney don't run this means that Romney, Allen, Thune (Hugh's new dark horse), Owens, Sanford, Pawlenty, Pataki, Barbour, Santorum, Huckabee, Gingrich (Saint Paul's man), and Rudy Giuliani were all probably sporting sly grins on Monday night (assuming of course that they all have in interest in running in '08 and are capable of guile).
Last week, there was talk around these parts about the prospects of Pawlenty taking a run at the top spot, especially with the now controversial reception for bloggers at the Governor's mansion in St. Paul.. It was also a week that saw Rudy Giuliani come to town and speak at a Center for the American Experiment dinner. I was lucky enough to be able to attend both events and so had an opportunity to compare two of the men said to be in the mix to succeed George W. Bush.
In my opinion, Giuliani is much closer to having what it takes than Pawlenty does. Pawlenty is quite good at coming across as a down-to-earth, honest, common sense kind of guy who gets stuff done. This has served him well in Minnesota politics and helps explain why his popularity has not really been dinged, despite some rough political patches of late. But these are not necessarily the kind of qualities that work on the national stage. People are pleased with Pawlenty, but not many are passionate about him. I think that in order to emerge out of a crowded field of contenders, and to have a good chance of winning the whole thing, you need to inspire passion in your supporters.
Giuliani can do this. He's a gifted speaker and has a great story to tell. It's much more than just 9/11 too. It's about taking on the entrenched bureaucracy of New York City, reforming the city's institutions, and reversing the decline that the city was in. And Giuliani tells it with passion and conviction. He also has a presence. It's hard to put your finger on it exactly, but you see him and you think, "He could be the President" (at least I did). I don't feel this with Pawlenty (at least not yet).
This is not to say that I'm going to be in my garage this weekend spray painting "Rudy" signs in anticipation of the 2008 Republican National Convention. It's far too early for me to pick a horse in this race, although South Carolina's Mark Sanford did catch my attention already. But last Thursday was the first time that I've seen Giuliani speak live and I was impressed by what I saw and heard.
What is a little distressing to me is how ready and willing a number of Republicans are to write Giuliani off. After the speech, I talked to several people about Giuliani's prospects in 2008 and the reaction was almost universally negative. "He'll never get through the primaries." "Too soft on social issues." "I could never vote for someone who isn't pro-life."
Having been around GOP politics for some time, I recognize these sentiments and understand them. However, I think that Republicans eager to throw Giuliani overboard already do so at their own (and the party's) peril. Yes, he's got a divorce (and a messy one at that) under his belt. Yes, he's not as conservative on social issues as many Republicans would like. And yes, he isn't pro-life. But ask yourself what exactly has been accomplished in the fight against legalized abortion in the four plus terms of pro-life Presidents since Roe vs. Wade was handed down. Restrictions on partial-birth abortions, limits to federal funding, and parental notification aside, we're not exactly talking about much of a rollback here, are we?
And consider what kind of judges Giuliani would appoint. The real problem with Roe vs. Wade isn't pro-life vs. pro-choice, it's that the decision took the abortion issue out of the hands of the states, where it rightfully belongs. I'm only speculating here, because I know nothing of Giuliani's legal philosophy, but I have a hunch that it's probable that he would favor judges likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade on these grounds. This is a topic that obviously deserves further consideration, but it's at least worthy of discussion instead of simply slamming the door and dismissing Giuliani out of hand because he's not pro-life.
It's also a little inconsistent for conservatives, who just got done hectoring libertarians that they had to vote for Bush because the War was the overriding issue of the day (I know because I was one of those doing the hectoring), to once again go back to an absolutist position that it's all about abortion. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the GWOT ain't going be wrapped up when 2008 rolls around, and having a guy like Giuliani to continue its successful prosecution seems like a desirable option.
Again, I'm not on the Giuliani bandwagon yet. There's a lot more I need to know about his positions and, at this point, we don't even know who else may be in the hunt. But I do know that the GOP is going to need a strong candidate in 2008, with at least some appeal to moderate voters. We're not gonna be running against John Kerry or Al Gore again (sigh). Take a good hard look at the now slightly narrowed GOP field and tell me who you think is going to be the kind of candidate with a realistic shot of preventing a Clinton sequel. I'm not saying that Giuliani is definitely that candidate. I'm am saying that we should at least give him a chance.
UPDATE: Doug at Bogus Gold has a good post with more on Giuliani and conservatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment