The choice

A Hillary presidency means we’ll be in a battle for our lives. A Giuliani presidency means we’ll already be dead.

- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

This requires a little more explanation please. Rudy is WORSE than Hillary? I find that a little hard to believe. But I’m willing to be educated.

LA replies:

It’s what I’ve said over and over. A Hillary presidency means the GOP/conservatives wake up and start fighting the left. A Giuliani presidency means the GOP/conservatives turn off their brains as they have under Bush and subordinate everytning to the task of defending Giuliani. The GOP/conservatives are so far gone that only defeat can restore them to their principles.

I’m not saying that such an awakening is a sure thing, only that it’s possible. Under Giuliani, it’s impossible.

Terry Morris writes:

Do you really think that a Hillary presidency has the potential to restore the GOP to its principles? Don’t you think that after the initial shock of the defeat, the GOP will most likely fall right back into its slumber; that the “awakening” will be short-lived and produce little in the way of restoring the GOP to its principles? I actually think that the GOP might be so far gone that even a Hillary presidency wouldn’t suffice to wake it up for any extended period.

LA replies:

I’m not predicting it, I’m saying it’s possible. I am predicting, however, that if Giuliani wins, the GOP/conservative march to the left that we’ve had under Bush will turn into a gallop.

Terry M. replies:

By the way, I wasn’t ignoring your last sentence in your reply to Richard W. I just happen to be of the persuasion that a Giuliani presidency might actually produce the kind of determination necessary within genuine conservatism to restore principle to the conservative movement, not the GOP. I’m not sure it’s really about “fighting the left” as much as it is about conservatives really embracing principled conservatism. Does that make any sense?

LA replies:

With Rudy as president, there will only be a continuation and exacerbation of the present situation, in which the GOP and the establicons give themselves heart and soul to a GOP president. Any anti-Giuliani—or, as you would have it, conservative restorationist—movement on the right will be a minority movement within conservatism. The ONLY way for the GOP/establicons to be against a liberal president and stand for conservative principles is if the liberal president is a Democrat.

Mark Jaws writes:

If Hillary is elected in 2008 and there are is no significant economic downturn in 2012, we can assume she will be on board for eight years. During that time the country will have become browner and more balkanized. We can expect more radically redistributionist policies from the Left aimed at taking from aging white baby boomers and giving to demographic cohorts of largely illegitimate Mestizos, along with a plethora of laws aimed primarily at predominantly white, gun-owning, home-schooling traditionalists. Moderate whites will also come to the conclusion that this is not their father’s Democratic Party and the country is in mortal danger. For me, an advocate of semi- or fully autonomous traditionalist enclaves, it will bring us closer to the make or break point. With Hillary and the new and emboldened Democrats, many of the heretofore dormant frogs will realize the water is boiling and attempt to jump out.

Sebastian writes:

I initially disagreed with your position, thinking that anyone in the GOP was better than Clinton. But last summer’s immigration fiasco showed me two things: 1) the new and improved GOP has no understanding of the differences between a nation and a state [LA asks: what exactly does that mean in this context?]; and 2) naked partisanship is what drives the neoconservatives and their acolytes. Taken together, this means that the same liberal initiatives WSJ & Co. would decry under Clinton will be supported if proposed by Giuliani. This is essentially what has happened under Bush. I can already hear Krauthammer and the rest explaining away “Rudy’s” bold initiatives to curb that redneck Second Amendment (“it’s sensible”), institute torture as official policy (“we’re in a war!”), approve national gay unions (“it’s compassionate and realistic”), open more immigration avenues (“we need the labor and we are all immigrants”) and generally apologize for the supernatural character flaws that make him unsuited for the Presidency. [LA: Not just apologize for them, but remove any judgment from them and make it impossible to criticize them.]

Perhaps she would be stymied where he would be successful. Giuliani will be more active, more vicious and more draconian with conservative dissent than even Bush has been. The sheer hatred GOP pundits and writers have for Hillary would cause a knee-jerk reaction that may prevent passage of her grossest policies. Whether this could restore the GOP, however, is a different question.

David B. writes:

A few months ago, I wrote that if Giuliani was elected President, we would be in the same dance we have had with Bush for seven years. Namely, a GOP President attached to open borders. I have no doubt that Limbaugh, Hannity, and company would reflexively defend him. Giuliani is more liberal than Bush on abortion, “gay rights,” gun control, and virtually all social issues. The Return of the Clintons would be a horror, but Giuliani would be even worse for the reasons you mention.

Giuliani hasn’t moved up in the polls, but still has over 30 percent. I have already said that this could win him the nomination in a multi-candidate field. That brilliant conservative writer, John Podhoretz, wrote last Friday in the New York Post that Giuliani was certain to be the Republican nominee. Podhoretz was very happy with this prospect. “A Rudy Giuliani-Hillary Clinton race is a tabloid newspaper’s dream,” he wrote. A revealing statement.

LA replies:

Vulgarity, thy name is J-Pod.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 04, 2007 11:54 PM | Send