Alarming News

January 3, 2008

Endorsement

If the point of an endorsement is to convey that you’ve made a choice as to who should lead your country and to encourage others to choose the same, then I’m afraid most people are going to get mixed messages from what I’m about to write.

I find myself in the minority among my party members: I am not dismayed at our candidate selection at all. In fact I would accept almost any of the men running on the Republican line as our next president.

Whether it’s Ron Paul pushing a disciplined low-tax, small government message, Mike Huckabee voicing the values that are important to so many conservatives, or Duncan Hunter never wavering from a Reaganesque list of principles, all of our candidates have something to offer.

Our so-called first tier is an even bigger excess of riches. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain are all good, strong leaders with generally good track records of doing what is best for the states they represented and the country as a whole.

Mitt Romney was elected as governor in one of the most liberal states in the country and managed to run it as conservatively as he possibly could.

National Review writes about Romney:

Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest.

Mitt has the business experience I appreciate, and I don’t hold it against him that he’s changed his positions on important issues. Until about 2003, I considered myself pro-choice too. People change.

Even John McCain, who I implore you all not to choose in the primary, would make a far better president than any of the candidates on the Democratic ticket.

But ultimately, for me, this race comes down to two people: Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani.

Since the possibility of a Fred run first came up, he was my candidate. He is well-spoken, has a good conservative record and seemed able to lead both our party and the nation. But, the more I thought about why Fred was my guy, the more I realized it was at least partly because he could win both the primary and the general election. And when it started to seem like, well, he couldn’t, myself and a lot of Fredheads had to ask ourselves what he was offering, exactly, if not that perfect package of conservatism, leadership and electability we were seeking.

I would be extremely happy to watch Fred Thompson get the nomination, but today I am endorsing Rudy Giuliani.

It’s funny because I still maintain to all who will listen that Rudy probably won’t win the nomination. I still hope to be wrong but I’ve said for so long that Republican primary voters just won’t choose a pro-choice ex-mayor from Brooklyn. But they should.

While it’s true that Rudy is no social conservative, he has something that all the other candidates ultimately lack: my trust. I know this man, I watched him lead New York out of ruins–both after David Dinkins as well as after 9/11. We all know him, even the bad parts, because he has never hid his positions or ideals from us, even when they were inconvenient to him politically. This is a man who will always tell you where he stands, even if you might not agree. Yes, he is pro-choice, but he will support judges who won’t legislate from the bench. Yes, he doesn’t love guns but that is more a product of being from New York (I too was anti-gun for most of my life, it was the default NY position) than his want to snatch yours.

He’s got the executive experience after running the most populous city in the U.S. He was the first Republican mayor in decades and he won election in a city that is 7-1 Democrat. He was able to lead, and lead well, despite that imbalance. He will be able to lead with a Democratic congress just the same.

9/11 changed me. And I know it changed Rudy too. This is not a man who will give up the war against terrorists. This is not a man who will roll over and let our purpose, the one where we defeat Islamofascism where it breeds, wane. He will be steadfast and strong in securing America. I know. I watched him secure New York.

So, if an endorsement is meant to predict a winner, this is not that. I support Rudy because he is the best candidate and would make the best president. Lucky for us, though, so would most of the other Republicans.

Posted by Karol at 12:09 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Exactly.

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 3, 2008 at 12:38 pm

I don’t like Rudy. I love him.

Posted by: Ari at January 3, 2008 at 12:59 pm

New Rasmussen: Giuliani, Fred Tied At 13%

Romney 18%, McCain 17%, the Huckster 16%. I can’t see how Thompson can drop out in this situation. The contest is fluid, and Giuliani’s supporters are going to go looking for a more viable candidate. (I know I have.) I…

Posted by: Ace of Spades HQ at January 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm

So I guess the question is how do you sell Giuliani the candidate to the primary voters who (for now at least) don’t see war/terrorism as the biggest issue and don’t have the same experience with or level of trust in him?

Posted by: Alceste at January 3, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Good. I don’t have to take after you with a bat. Also good to see you going back on your Karolisms (the pro-choice NY mayor thing). For the record, I’ve been using a Karolism a lot lately when people call Rudy the front-runner in national polls … “NATIONAL POLLS DON’T MEAN ANYTHING. WE DON’T VOTE AS A NATION!!!!”
Anyhoo, good work for picking the right man.

Posted by: Ken at January 3, 2008 at 1:12 pm

I love it and totally agree. Except the part about him not winning.

Posted by: charlie at January 3, 2008 at 1:16 pm

See my comment posted November 28, 2007: “I… predict Karol will be a solid Giuliani fan by this weekend.” So I was only off by a few weeks.

Posted by: LJ at January 3, 2008 at 1:20 pm

“While it’s true that Rudy is no social conservative”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at January 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Rudy would make a great democrat president! As far as a Republican I choose Thompson

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 3, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Rudy is a lot of things. He’s brash, often antagonistic and certainly bullheaded. However, he never ran one way and voted an other, he never bqacked down from a fight and he stuck with his position – popular or un. He’s honest, cerebral, unflinching and unashamed and that makes him a leader – but more importantly it makes him a leader that you/I can root for because the Rudy you vote for is the same Rudy you elect. How many other candidates (genuinely) have that going for them?

Posted by: Ari at January 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Good for you.

Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Rudy is a lot of things. He’s brash, often antagonistic and certainly bullheaded. However, he never ran one way and voted an other, he never backed down from a fight and he stuck with his position – popular or un. He’s honest, cerebral, unflinching and unashamed and that makes him a leader – but more importantly it makes him a leader that you/I can root for because the Rudy you vote for is the same Rudy you elect. How many other candidates (genuinely) have that going for them?

Posted by: Ari at January 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

You’re not that coveted.

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at January 3, 2008 at 1:56 pm

I concur wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Shawn at January 3, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Right there with ya Karol.

Posted by: Jennifer at January 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm

That’s exactly why this Texan is supporting Rudy. I don’t agree with him on Guns, Gays, or Abortions, but those things will be handled by Congress or the SCOTUS. When he says he’ll nominate strict constructionist judges, I believe him.
I like to hear Fred talk. The problem is, I don’t like to see him. Ever see the before and after pictures of presidents? He already looks like the after picture. If he’s elected, what will he look like in 8, the crypt keeper?
I don’t do sitting senators and Ron Paul is a nutjob. Outside of that, I’d be OK with any of the others.

Posted by: Kafir at January 3, 2008 at 3:24 pm

bout time! :)
now it’s time to start shoring up those odds so we can get a wager down.

Posted by: iggy at January 3, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Karol, I appreciate your piece on your candidate of choice, but I’m not sure if it’ll be relevant. Rudy will probably not succeed and it will come down to Romney & McCain. Rudy could possibly be McCain’s VP choice, but if Giuliani prefers not to be an understudy, I implore him to study up on State affairs and try challenging Spitzer in 2010.
I didn’t like Giuliani’s recent speech on Foreign Policy, which was discussed in yesterday’s NY Sun. http://www.nysun.com/article/68755 In it, Rudy talks about increasing the military. I don’t know, but when I read it the first time, it almost sounded like he’d be willing to reinstitute the Draft. Dems would have a field day if they thought that.
It’s also a theory of mine that rudy won’t do well with the Black vote. maybe it’s just me though. it hasn’t really been discussed much, but I’m sure if he’s the nominee, our buddy, Rev. Al will make it a point to point out Giuliani’s record with the Black populous.
I haven’t endorsed anyone yet, but a couple months back, I wrote an Op-ed at Urban Elephants on a possible McCain resurgence. It was aobut the time when Petreuas addressed Congress and the McCain strategy working over in Iraq. The next day, Ryan Sager wrote a piece on how ridiculous some supporters of McCain believing their candidate could bounce back. I even brought it up at a fundraiser to a Giuliani supporter and I was brushed off as if it won’t happen.
I really need to finish my evaluation of the candidates at the YR site.

Posted by: daniel p at January 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm

“Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government”
This was when I knew for certain that NR had lost it. How can Romney be described that way when that self-righteous prick decided to force people to buy something they didn’t want? There’s a special seat in hell for him, next to the Satan he serves. And lest someone think I’m a “fundie” who opposes a Mormon in office, there’s another seat in hell reserved for that self-righteous prick Hucksterbee.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 3, 2008 at 4:14 pm

“It’s also a theory of mine that rudy won’t do well with the Black vote. maybe it’s just me though. it hasn’t really been discussed much, but I’m sure if he’s the nominee, our buddy, Rev. Al will make it a point to point out Giuliani’s record with the Black populous.”
70th Precinct bathroom
Abner Louima
Justin Volpe
one longass broomstick
“It’s Giuliani Time!!”
Something tells me the blacks (or any New Yorkers of conscience) don’t need any reminders of what New York, particularly outside of Manhattan, really were like, when the serial adulterer, drag queen, and neocon wiseguy was at the helm.
I know I haven’t…

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 3, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Odds And Ends

It’s almost all over but the counting in Iowa, and the candidates are already looking toward New Hampshire. Phillip Anderson has started a caucus predictions threat at The Albany Project. Hillary Clinton referred to Warren Buffett as “my fa…

Posted by: The Daily Politics at January 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm

What? Karol’s not for Alan Keyes?

Posted by: Von Bek at January 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm

There’s a special seat in hell for him, next to the Satan he serves.
I’m not exactly a fan of Romneycare, but don’t you think you’re being a bit harsh?

Posted by: Gerard at January 3, 2008 at 7:47 pm

“I am not dismayed at our candidate selection at all. In fact I would accept almost any of the men running on the Republican line as our next president.”
I agree with your statement with the exception of Huckabee.

Posted by: Jake at January 3, 2008 at 9:07 pm

It’s kinda funny.
To New Yorkers, to those of us who live in the now-greatest-city-in-the-world because of him, it’s impossible to understand why folks can’t see how great he is.
There’s not a phony bone about him, and you know you can trust him.
Why some Republicans would want yet another big-spending religious conservative, is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Posted by: Sean at January 3, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Gerard, if I erred or sinned there, it was by not being harsh *enough*. Romney is a big-government believer who happens to be conservative in a few morals. Did you see my previous post explaining LDS theology and its emphasis on individual choice? That’s the irony. Or maybe not. As a Mormon friend of mine puts it, he belongs to the same church as Romney, but not the same religion.
FDR forced people to not buy things they wanted (rationing), no matter what price they were willing to pay. Nixon forced people to sell at a price they did not want. Romney began Massachusetts’ use of force to compel people to buy something they didn’t want. I won’t get into all the subsidies that skew prices, either. But all these people, like a Spanish Inquisition of economics, commit the nearly unpardonable sin of forcing others.
Sean, I wholeheartedly agree. I almost wrote this in my comment yesterday. I’m still registered in a Repub, so I’ll probably vote for Giuliani in the primary, and Thompson if he somehow wins the nomination (doubtful). Otherwise, as a libertarian, I’ll vote for Ron Paul, even though I disagree with him on Iraq.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 4, 2008 at 11:40 am

Karol at Alarming News endorses Rudy…

for most of the same reasons I do:

It’s funny because I still maintain to all who will listen that Rudy probably won’t win the nomination. I still hope to be wrong but I…

Posted by: Exit Zero at January 4, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Hashfanatic, you need to cut back a bit. What black people saw in the Giulani years was a sharp drop in all kinds of violent crime in their neighborhoods. Bad behavior by a few bad cops doesn’t change that.

Posted by: Eric at January 4, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Really, Eric?
A FEW “black” neighborhoods saw SLIGHT declines in crime, largely because of changing demographics, and changes in the physical plants of those neighborhoods at the time (ex. Nehemiah in Brownsville, etc.)
Did crime in Harlem, portions of Bed-Stuy, Fort Greene, and Clinton Hill decrease back then? Yeah, but that had more to do with the fact that Rudy relocated many of the undesirables to economically depressed cities and towns upstate, in the Poconos, and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. New York taxpayers continue to foot the cost of this little experiment in social engineering, and, ultimately, did any of these areas live up to their promise?
Even if you wanted to proclaim the whole nonsense a success for the cause of urban renewal and gentrification, could you look at what has actually materialized in those areas and claim victory on Rudy’s behalf?
Most black areas continued, and continue, to experience escalating levels of crime, despite the cheery “Compstat” stats.
I can point to SEVERAL overwhelmingly black nabes where crime and every manner of deterioriation that comes with it worsened considerably during Rudeleh’s reign.
The most notable examples include Canarsie, Flatlands, portions of Marine Park bordering Flatlands, Wakefield, Williamsbridge, Hollis, Queens Village, Rosedale, Laurelton, the portion of South Ozone Park east of Lefferts and west of the Van Wyck, and Rochdale Village.
That’s just the middle-class areas. Rudy’s idiotic patronage appointments to agencies like NYCHA resulted in the savaging and ethnic cleansing of the Glenwood Houses (and, to a lesser extent, the Pelham Parkway Houses), PJs that, under previous administrations, were well-run examples of how working-class public housing can WORK. Rudy’s deliberate diversion of essential law enforcement resources, asinine reapportionment and shell games with authority and breakdown in relationships with community orgs decimated the outlying areas, in order to create new, more remote ghettoes.
Crown Heights crime went down, because a well-connected favored interest group had the bad fortune to experience a very public pogrom, and Rudy wanted to appear their savior.
Is Crown Heights now safer than it was prior to Giuliani? No, Eric, Crown Heights is now a killing zone…and so is Brownsville, East Flatbush, Remsen Village, East New York, Morrisania, Gun Hill, Far Rockaway, etc.
Giuliani never, ever addressed the fundamental law enforcement issues inherent in these communities, and, in fact, cultivated a rancorous, adversarial relationship with the NYPD rank and file.
This has culminated in huge numbers of the good cops voting with their feet and bailing out, and most of the new, ridiculously underpaid recruits are little better than perps themselves.
There are prettier buildings (private, of course), virtually every street corner in Manhattan has been renamed for a “hero” during the 9/11 occurrences, and the facade of Times Square obviously looks markedly better than during the Dinkins years, but 42nd Street between 7th and 8th is once again a cesspool for the same reasons it became one in the sixties, substantially more New Yorkers are armed to the teeth, and the only “black” areas I know that have improved substantially are the northern end of Flatbush around Maple, the “Prospect Park South” district, and portions of Ditmas Park and Gowanus (again, ethnic cleansing will clean up a neighborhood like that, just as it had previously ruined them).
If this is the brilliant law enforcement template that Rudy has in mind for America, much less the blacks, I’m not sure we will survive him.
We barely survived the first time around, Eric.

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 5, 2008 at 2:21 am

I can live with any Republican in the White House (yes, even Huckabee) other than John McCain. Let’s all work to sink this guy fast. I’ve been a Thompson guy but I’m donating to Romney today.

Posted by: John LaPorte at January 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

He is well-spoken, has a good conservative record and seemed able to lead both our party and the nation.
You seem far too intelligent to have every really believed this statement. The man was sold as someone who could reach out to middle-America, but if you ever spent any time in middle-America, you’d realize they thought he was full of arrogance, and laziness from the beginning. And I’m not sure anyone, anywhere, could characterize him as “well-spoken”
Good that you came around. Rudy is one of the less-evil-options (if you’re on the blue team)

Posted by: katie g. at January 6, 2008 at 2:50 am

Thank you for your great article. I agree except that you say Rudy probably won’t get the nomination. They said NY couldn’t be saved either. They said the city was ungovernable….unmanagable. I guess Rudy wasn’t listening. There’s a difference between talking about conservative things, crime reduction, welfare reduction, cutting taxes, etc. etc., and actually acomplishing all these things and then some. The best predictor of the future is past performance, and if anyone would just unbiasedly examine his astounding record, how could we Republicans even think of nominating anyone else? I agree with the one guy who commented about Rudy not being as socially conservative as some others. The guy said, “You say that like it’s a bad thing.” I agree! We musn’t make the same mistake the Democrats made by moving so far to the Left that they alienated a vast number of Americans. In our case, we don’t want to be so far to the right that we do the same. The vast majority of Americans live somewhere more near center, not on the lunatic fringes of the Left or the Right.
Regarding some of Rudy’s personal issues, many Americans have been divorced, have had difficult relationships with their kids at various times…most of us have gay family members or friends that we love or care for deeply. While I agree with Rudy, that I do not support Gay Marriage, I like Rudy, would be okay with recognizing civil unions……and I think most of America would, too. I notice when the talk turns to Rudy and about his life, nobody ever seems to remember that he remained a faithful and loving son to his mother until the day she died. Rudy’s like most of us…….a complex being, who’s had his share of ups and downs in his life……….and like none of us, and certainly like no other candidate. He’s head and shoulders above the rest. All anyone would have to do is just read his record.
We are not electing an elder or a deacon to our church consistry, we’re electing the next President of the USA. Do you know that in the book, “Smoozing with Terrorists,” written by Aaron Klein, that Rudy is the ONLY candidate mentioned by name that the terrorists HATE and do not want elected? How’s that for an endorsement. They don’t mention John McCain.
I’ll be caucusing vigorously for Rudy here in Las Vegas Nevada tomorrow and I pray he will be our nominee and our next President, because I believe our nation has a multitude very serious problems and issues and we need a proven, gifted leader. God help us if we, as a party nominate the very liberal, very elderly (72 year old) John McCain. It will be political suicide for our party and a disaster for our country. While I respect Mr. McCain’s patriotic service to our country, Viet Nam has been over for a long, long time. We have an entirely different set of problems and an entirely different kind of enemy than we did then. I don’t care what the polls are saying today (the election is a year off, folks) when push comes to shove, and if McCain would get our party’s nomination, (God forbid,) when America steps into that voting booth, we are NOT going to put a 72 year old man into the White House. Wake up my fellow Republicans. We’d better start rallying around the best we have to offer and get busy for Rudy.

Posted by: Janet Anthony at January 19, 2008 at 1:18 am
Post a comment