Thursday, July 20, 2006

Personal Asides: Peraica Should Have the Support of a United GOP…Dissention Reported in the House of Giuliani…The Other Possibles are Not Impressive—but Wait!



There is no doubt that the authoritarian feet of the Cook county Democratic party have been set in concrete with the decision to go to the man ace Sun-Times cartoonist Jack Higgins shows as “the toddler.” That the Dem party is running out of steam is evident with the paternalistic choices of Dan Hynes for Tom, Dan Lipinski for Tom and now Todd Stroger for John. The fact that Todd hasn’t even matriculated through normal hurdles, just such minor posts as nonentity state legislator and nonentity alderman before being boosted to the super-powerful nomination, shows a brackish distaste for the voters. For Republicans it should mean that the bad blood between Peraica and other Republicans should be put aside and a strong, united effort should be made to elect Peraica. The fact that one of the, um Democratic blogs yesterday…but albeit a blog that’s very very very very good…had to cite Peraica’s stand as a pro-lifer in an attempt to fan any flames of passion for an old liberal rallying cry should be enough to show they’re desperate.


None other than popular conservative columnist Ann Coulter, herself a social conservative, has reported that there is an agonizing reappraisal underway in the House of Giuliani over whether the former New York mayor should change his position on key issues such as abortion and gay rights in order to be even more formidable in the pre-convention skirmishing. This Blog has found out that there are two camps engaged in frenetic argument. It talked to representatives of both sides based in New York.

One says the change should be made because when the going gets rough, the Republican party will defeat one who is so strongly identified with abortion as Giuliani. The other side says yes, but he would appear ridiculous to change his mind now. The first side says no, switching to pro-life happens all the time as per George H. W. Bush. The contrary side says yes, but Giuliani started as a pro-lifer, switched to pro-abort and now wouldn’t he be a laughingstock switching once again?

The first side says no, Giuliani’s strength will come from his stance as a dynamic leader in the mode of Teddy Roosevelt, one who is unwilling to let pure convention dominate, one who acts without regard to bureaucratic niceties as he did in New York, so what the hell let him be on the right side of the argument which means that those so wedded to pro-choice that they can’t face the dislocation are minor leaguers in the Republican party anyhow.

The second says that the pro-life issue will be met if Giuliani stays where he is and promises to nominate only strict constructionists to the Court (which, as the Justice aide who screened court nominees under Reagan he is on record for). It cites Giuliani’s position right now as per the Gallup Poll. Based on a poll of 441 Republicans when asked who would be most acceptable, Giuliani leads with 73 percent (Rice with 68 percent, McCain falling to 55 percent). The second side then emphasizes that right now Giuliani leads the pack so what’s the problem?

The first side says the poll itself makes our argument. McCain has fallen off because more people are aware of his infidelity to Republican principles. Besides, it says what’s so great about being the Justice aide who picked people like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy? Giuliani will be slugged in the campaign for this: he has to come out as a pro-lifer. The second side says now when you’re talking about O’Connor and Kennedy we’re talking inside baseball. The first side says: Inside baseball! What is more a symbol of a judicial selection process gone wrong than O’Connor and Kennedy? The second side says that can be rectified by Giuliani saying he’d love nominees like Scalia just as George W. Bush had said in 2004.

The first side says there’s a much bigger question. If and when the Supreme Court sends the issue back to the states, the position of the president must be firm. He will be asked what position he takes. Indeed he will be asked about it in the campaign. The second side says: let him say the issue is for the states to decide. The first side says: Issue for the states to decide, hell! He’s got to have a stand. The second side says…well, you get the drift.

This Blog’s position is that it loves Giuliani but originally said that it could not stand with him if he doesn’t change his abortion position and reaffirms it now. The gay rights position is allowable with some variation if he doesn’t endorse gay marriage. But if Giuliani decides to stick with his old New York mayor stand as a solid pro-abort, the train will leave without this Blog being on it.

Leaving Giuliani out of the equation for now, who would best articulate the conservative position and be in the best stance to delineate the party’s full philosophy with acceptable intellectual nuance?

Other Possibles.

The other possibles are not impressive. Rice won’t run: she’s clear about that so scrub her from the list. McCain is in decline. Jeb Bush would be ideal but the nation for now has had enough of the Bushes. Bill Frist is not attractive in the slightest, showing a wobbly stance as Senate Majority Leader. George Allen? There’s something too reminiscent of the young, cocky, not yet mature early-on George W. Bush in him before Bush greyed up and gained stature refusing to budge over principle. Allen: chewing tobacco and cowboy boots? Fred Barnes’ Wall Street Journal portrait of him reflects one who is so much a libertarian that he disdains talking about pro-life. A serious drawback. The others: George Pataki, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are wrong for many reasons: Pataki has nothing going for him in conservative values. Huckabee is good but aren’t these times too tough for someone with no experience in foreign policy? That leaves…

Number four—topped by Giuliani, Rice (who won’t do it) and McCain (who seems to be a falling star)…number four in the poll with 68 percent acceptable rating among Republicans and 20 non-acceptable is one whom I never would have imagined would be there: Newt Gingrich. There is no doubt that pound for pound Dr. Gingrich the historian is the best versed, most articulate, strongest intellect in the group with a range of knowledge so broad as to be reminiscent of Churchill, the writer, the painter, the lecturer, the historian out of power. There’s some personal baggage there but if Giuliani doesn’t change (talk about personal baggage: he married a woman he later found out was his first cousin, married a woman who starred in the “Vagina Monologues”, this Blog would seriously consider Newt notwithstanding what it said some time ago. Then it said Newt would be best for the country if he were locked in a room with orders to think-think-think with no power to run anything. That’s what Churchill’s enemies said about him when he was out of power. They said he was unstable, that he switched parties, that he personally supervised the World War I debacle at Gallipoli, that he had his fellows in Commons on the verge of mutiny when he was cashiered. They said he liked the bottle. They said that out of every four ideas, one was impossible to execute, one was utterly mad, one was poetic and the fourth was superb. But he was right about Hitler. And Gingrich, who has said we are already engaged in World War III, is right. The first and only one to say so.

If Giuliani doesn’t come `round, this Blog will seriously consider one whom it never thought it would…Newt. What? He’s had three wives! He’s not a choir boy! He’s a genius but irascible! This Blog knew him as a back bencher, plotting revolution that everyone said was quite mad. He led Republicans to victory. And he had Republicans in the House in mutiny which forced him to leave! But just as with Churchill, can’t you just see it? He’s a walking collection of idiosyncratic oddities: a love of dinosaurs, a voice that sounds like a ruptured duck wailing in the night, a forced, inadequate smile that looks like he’s experiencing hemorrhoidal pain. How improbable.

In 1940, the small ship pulled up to the giant ocean liner and a portly fellow with a pilot’s cap clambered up the gangplank, turns, doffs the cap, holds aloft a hand; between two fat fingers is the cigar and then, popping the Havana into his mouth he extends the V sign! They said, “Winnie’s back!” Now the portly fellow walks up the gangplank, turns, duffs his pilot’s cap to show a shock of white hair and conservatives lined up along the rail shout, “He’s back! Newt’s back! Just when we’re running out of intellectual ammunition and energy! We can take any eccentricity just to have him back as our pilot!”


  1. Lovie's LeatherJuly 20, 2006 at 11:22 AM

    Giuliani also had his share of wife problems. I know a lot of democrats will attack both of them on that point while committing adultery themselves. Personally, I like Giuliani because he is a strong leader, tough on crime, fiscal responsibility, and he has a great chance to win. Gingrich, who among independents has a somewhat blistered reputation, is an attractive candidate to me but doesn't fare as well. I don't like Senators, enough said there. As far as an unknown, I really like Huckabee and he doesn't have the personal baggage of Giuliani or Gingrich. You are definately right about Condi, Tom. There is no way she is running, otherwise I don't know how I would feel. The entire 2008 presidential race is wide open. I think everyone has a chance to find a candidate they really like... So Tom... when are you having John Cox on the show? I'll be sure to be busy....

  2. I don't want anyone with any talent, ability, brains or ambition within a thousand miles of the White House.

    I am sorely disappointed with the great "decider" currently in the White House, who claims to be conservative, but is in reality another in a long line of centralizers implementing Dick Cheney's "unitary executive" theory of governing.

    I'll take a Calvin Coolidge type, or even a Grover Cleveland, over any of the other "great" presidents of the twentieth century, who involved us in foreign wars, increased government spending, and consolidated and expanded power in Washington, DC.

  3. Lovie's LeatherJuly 20, 2006 at 3:40 PM

    No mention of one of the greatest presidents ever... TR... no, not Tom Roeser, Teddy Roosevelt. He got us involved in foreign wars and consolidated power. I can't speak much for increased government spending, I really don't know... but the only president ever praised for increasing government spending is FDR. But really, TR was a great president and he did 2 out of 3 of those things.

  4. Lovie's LeatherJuly 20, 2006 at 3:45 PM

    Does anybody think there is any chance of Christine Todd Whitman running for President? Just curious. I know she has her own PAC which usually means, when you don't currently hold office, that you are seeking a higher office than you previously held. Maybe she is fishing for a VP nomination if a southern conservative gets the GOP nod??

  5. "He got us involved in foreign wars and consolidated power. I can't speak much for increased government spending, I really don't know... but the only president ever praised for increasing government spending is FDR. But really, TR was a great president and he did 2 out of 3 of those things."

    You just made the man's point. You seem to consider him great because he got us into wars, higher taxation, massive regulation, pushed class envy, and consolidated power. He was a progressive big stater who usurped power and placed it in the hands of the executive instead of the hands of the people.

    Mark Twain said the man was "clearly insane." He was pro-war, pro-tax, and anti-market.

    In the book The Income Tax (p. 46), "Theodore Roosevelt advocated progressive inheritance taxation in 1906, and in his 1908 message to Congress he urged an income tax."

    TR was, of course, a radical Progressive, who advocated a massive statism at home, as well as colonialism and imperialism abroad.

    As William said - God save us from presidents who involve in unnecessary wars or consolidate power.

  6. Beside Mr. Peraica reportedly stating that he would not vote to end abortions at Cook County Hospital, it will be difficult to rally a strong united effort to elect someone who arrogantly can not admit their mistakes and who heartily believes that the end (his self coronation) justifies his (ruthless) means. A candidate with no apparent honor is difficult to support - even if he is perceived as the lesser of two evils.