Don't Bet on Rudy Yet

Mark Levin:

We are not electing a secretary of defense. We are electing a president. And when Rudy's early supporters brush aside social or character issues and tell us to only focus on his post 9/11 response or his law enforcement record, they demonstrate a naiveté about the political process and the conservative coalition that may well put Hillary Clinton or another equally troubling Democrat in the White House. Maybe Giuliani will be or should be the Republican nominee, but he will be a sure loser in the general election if his supporters insist that social and economic conservatives ignore his record and past statements.

It is said, or at least assumed, that Giuliani would be better than others in the Republican ranks on the war. Why is that? Mitt Romney has been just as gung-ho about supporting the president and our military as Giuliani. Does Giuliani bring some expertise to the table in waging this war than Romney or even John McCain? I don’t think so. Of course his response to the attack on New York City was outstanding. Nobody questions that. He showed great leadership. And in no way do I seek to diminish it. Indeed, contrast it to New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s response to Katrina. But when it comes to actually waging war against al-Qaeda, Giuliani has no more or less experience than McCain or Romney.

McCain has been calling for an increase in troop levels in Iraq since early in the war. Giuliani has not. Does that make McCain a better potential commander-in-chief? Probably not, given that McCain has pushed for other measures that, in my view, have weakened our war effort, including conferring constitutional and treaty rights on terrorists. It should be said that Giuliani hasn’t exactly been an outspoken opponent to McCain’s efforts.

Let me put it this way: Other than Sam Brownback, I’m not aware of any Republican seeking his party’s nomination who is wobbly on the Battle of Iraq or more generally using our armed forces to destroy the enemy.

As an aside, there are some here who’ve questioned President Bush’s democracy project. I am among them in the sense that I believe it is secondary to military victory. But to the best of my knowledge, those who’ve criticized the president’s position and who support Giuliani have not explained how Giuliani’s foreign policy would differ from the president’s in this regard. More importantly, Giuliani himself has not staked out a position different from the president’s. And, some here have rightly argued for the longest time, if we do not neutralize the regime in Iran, we cannot win this war. Yet, I’ve not heard any policy from Giuliani or the other candidates on how they’d do that. In the context of the debate over Giuliani’s foreign policy or war-fighting credentials, I hardly see how he has separated himself from the pack.

Giuliani’s supporters don’t deny that he’s weak on a variety of other issues that are important to various parts of the conservative base, they just want us to ignore them, or accept Giuliani’s conversion. The same can be said of McCain on taxes and Romney on abortion.

Or Mitt Romney for that matter:

As former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney declared his presidential candidacy Tuesday at Dearborn, Michigan’s Henry Ford Museum, he could not have been more telegenic. With an angular jaw and a head full of slicked-back, dark hair, Romney is the GOP’s George Clooney. Who needs the White House? Romney should fly to Hollywood and become a movie star. He’s already a highly skilled actor.

Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.

Studying Romney’s lines only muddles things. His present and past statements on abortion, gays, guns, taxes, and Ronald Reagan each conflict diametrically, like pairs of locomotives racing toward one another from opposite directions.

Election 2008 is shaping up to be the year the Rockefeller Republicans rise from the dead. There isn't a candidate in the race yet whom a rock-ribbed Reaganite can support wholeheartedly. More depressingly, there isn't a true social conservative in the bunch.

The GOP continues its march back to the good ol' days of electoral irrelevance. Why not dig up Bob Michel and put him out front?

Is there really no true-blue conservative who can run and win in the GOP ranks 12 years after the Contract with America and 27 years after the Reagan Revolution?

Have these guys been doing anything but having dinner on K Street?