Rudy: A Problem-Solver Whose Time Is Now

National Review

David Frum

This is a difficult hour for the United States. It’s not just the strain of war. On domestic issues, too, discontent runs strong. The incomes of ordinary Americans have stagnated over the past six years. Health-care and energy costs have surged. In many cities, gang violence has surged. Over two-thirds of Americans now describe the country as “on the wrong track” — astonishing for a non-recession year.

In this difficult hour, the Bush administration seems to have lost its way — and its nerve. On issues ranging from the reconstruction of New Orleans to the Iranian bomb, the administration seems paralyzed, crippled almost as much by a lack of positive ideas as by the president’s record-scraping personal unpopularity.

Historically, Americans have trusted Republicans as the party of prudence and sound management. Iraq, Katrina, earmarks, and airport body searches of Eagle Scouts and wheelchair-bound grandmas have corroded that reputation. As a party, we are now widely perceived as uncaring, improvident, corrupt, and incompetent. Republican identification has sharply slumped, and Democrats enjoy large advantages in almost every way pollsters can measure.

The conditions are all in place for an epochal Republican disaster in 2008. Unless something happens to change the game radically, we are looking at a real possibility of a big Democratic presidential win combined with gains in both houses of Congress, an outcome that has not occurred since 1964. Democrats are beginning to talk of a new government health-care monopoly paid for by canceling the Bush tax cuts.

These are not pleasant facts, but they are facts all the same. They present us as conservatives and Republicans with the toughest challenges we have faced in years. How can we hold the line on government while addressing America’s genuine health-care needs? How can we sustain the competitiveness of the American economy against a Democratic Congress quivering to impose new taxes and new regulations? How can we win a war on terror that the congressional majority seems already to have written off as lost?

Rudy Giuliani is the answer to these challenges.

No living elected official has solved more public problems with more outstanding success than Rudy Giuliani. If there is one person Americans associate with competence in government, it is Rudy. As the primary race has warmed up, some have tried to diminish the mayor’s accomplishments. But in fact, the closer you look, the more amazing they become.

Yes, the crime rate for the whole country declined in the 1990s. But New York, with a little less than 3 percent of the nation’s population, accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s decline in homicides. Much of the improvement in former high-crime zones like Chicago, Washington, and Miami occurred precisely because New York’s success inspired other mayors to follow where Giuliani had led.

It is not just crime. Giuliani restored civility to New York’s public spaces, reformed welfare, broke the grip of organized crime on trash collection and food wholesaling, restored academic standards in the city university system, chased the sex industry off the streets, held the line on taxes, and set in motion one of the greatest property booms in city history.

In 1963, President Kennedy challenged those who suggested that Communism could out-compete freedom: “Let them come to Berlin.” Today, Republicans can challenge those who assert that liberals can out-manage conservatives: “Let them come to New York.”

Giuliani achieved his success by combining a fierce commitment to core values with an impressive flexibility in his methods. He listened to advice, tried experiments, built on what worked, discarded what did not work. He showed that a leader can be strong without being rigid.

Giuliani’s accomplishment was put to the ultimate test on 9/11. Compare what happened in New York that day with what happened in New Orleans four years later. The mayor did not panic. Public order was consistently maintained. There was no looting, no lawbreaking, no criminal activity. An evacuation of about half a million people from lower Manhattan proceeded smoothly and safely. The local economy recovered almost immediately. The disaster zone has not only recovered, but erupted into new life.

Giuliani’s record is the best possible reply to Democratic criticisms of Republican governance. It is also the best hope to recover lost supporters. Giuliani’s urban ethnic background resonates in key states like Florida and New Jersey, where local polling suggests he does best among the leading Republicans in head-to-head matchups against Hillary Clinton.

Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee are candidates of many excellences. But they cannot possibly hope to win in a year like 2008. Rudy Giuliani can do more than hope.

If elected, Rudy Giuliani would start his presidency with more knowledge of world leaders and world problems than almost any of his recent predecessors started with. He has been dealing with terrorism since his days as a federal prosecutor; he led a city where one out of every ten private-sector workers is employed by a foreign company. True, he lacks the gilded foreign-policy résumé of a George H. W. Bush. But compared with any other recent president, Giuliani has traveled more, met more foreign leaders, and thought more deeply about international problems. He will carry forward the foreign-policy goals declared by President George W. Bush — but with enough distance from that administration that he will be able to try new methods. This is not a contest that conservatives can afford to take lightly: To lose the 2008 election is probably to lose the war in Iraq.

Most Republicans agree with most of these positive assessments of Giuliani. Yet many continue to hold back, for reasons like those forcefully articulated by Hadley Arkes in an influential recent article: “The nomination and election of Rudy Giuliani would mark the end of the Republican party as the pro-life party in our politics.”

This is exactly wrong. Yes, there are Republicans who want to chase pro-lifers and other social conservatives out of the party. But Giuliani has emphatically taken a very different view. He has extended welcome to pro-life conservatives in almost every way a candidate for president can. He has promised to appoint federal judges who take the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito view of the Constitution. He has pledged that as president he would do his utmost to persuade Americans to turn away from abortion and toward adoption. He has declared his personal revulsion at abortion. He has stated over and over that pro-life conservatives will have his respect and attention.

Giuliani may not speak about life issues with the fervor and eloquence of a George W. Bush. But for all practical purposes, what he would actually do would look very similar to what George W. Bush actually has done. Maybe even better: Remember, Giuliani will be taking advice on judges from Theodore Olson — whereas Bush’s first choice for the Alito seat was Harriet Miers.

Arkes offers pro-life conservatives this practical advice: “It is conceivable, then, that from the standpoint of the pro-lifers it might be better to lose to Hillary Clinton than to win with Rudy Giuliani.”

Does this make sense? Here we are at a breakthrough moment for the pro-life cause. Four judges on the Supreme Court believe Roe was wrongly decided. A fifth is approaching his 90th birthday. The number of abortions carried out annually in America has dropped by about 300,000 over the past 15 years, and public opinion is slowly shifting in a pro-life direction. And this is the moment you want to lose?

Think what the consequences of losing would be for the pro-life cause: The next eight years are likely to see the first beginnings of scientific tinkering with the human genetic code. Neo-eugenics will become a real possibility. We may have, luckily, escaped an ethical dilemma on stem cells, but there are plenty more dilemmas to come. The rules that get written in 2009–2017 are likely to set the nation’s moral compass for a long time to come. Do you really want Hillary Clinton to be the president who writes those rules?

Remember, we will probably face Democratic Congresses at least until 2013. The pro-life cause will be on defense — and when you are under fire, isn’t Rudy Giuliani the guy you want on your side? He’s the candidate who brings the gun to the knife fight, who defies pressure groups, and who makes it a point of honor not just to demand loyalty — but to return it.

Something similar might be said about Giuliani on gun rights. It’s true that as mayor of New York, in the middle of a crack war, Giuliani supported restrictions on automatic weapons. It’s equally true that since 1994, gun control has vanished as an issue in federal politics — very largely because Americans are so much less frightened of crime than they were in 1994. It was Giuliani’s success in New York that did more than anything to take guns off the Democratic agenda. In practical political terms, Rudy Giuliani is the best friend gun owners ever had.

On same-sex marriage, Giuliani’s view is identical to that of most Republican politicians — and indeed most of the editors of National Review: civil unions yes, marriage no.

On immigration, Giuliani’s views are more permissive than most of us at National Review would prefer. But they represent a huge improvement over the status quo. Today, the immigration laws are barely enforced at all: By 2008, some 10 million people will have migrated to the U.S. during the Bush years, more than half of them illegally. The large majority will be very low-skilled people who will consume much more in benefits than they will pay in taxes. Over the longer term, we need to shift from lower-skilled to higher-skilled immigration. But the immediate need is to stop illegal migration by effective enforcement of existing laws, using new technologies that identify who is and who is not entitled to work in the United States. Giuliani has promised to do that — and if there is one thing he has proven he can do, it is enforce laws.

This is a wartime election. It is an election that will decide between a free, competitive health system and a government monopoly. It will decide whether taxes rise, whether the swing seat on the Supreme Court goes to a liberal or a conservative, whether illegal aliens get enforcement or amnesty. This is not an election that conservatives can afford to lose. But it is an election we will lose if we refuse to face realities.

We must avoid the mistake we made in 1996, when we picked a candidate because he made us feel comfortable — with little regard to how the majority of Americans would feel about him. When Americans look at our array of candidates on the stage, they see only one president up there. That’s the president we should offer them.

Mr. Frum, an NR contributing editor, is the author of the forthcoming book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again. He is an unpaid senior policy adviser to the Giuliani presidential campaign.

The Giuliani Tax Cut

WSJ.com

Steve Forbes

There is a lot of talk about change in this year's presidential race. But if Washington is truly broken, as many Americans think it is, then it doesn't merely need to be changed. It needs to be fixed. And the man who fixed up New York is ready to fix up Washington.

Rudy Giuliani has proposed the largest tax cut in modern American history and a dramatic simplification of the tax code. His proposal has received broad support from fiscal conservatives in Washington; yesterday it was introduced as legislation by Reps. David Dreier and Roy Blunt, and by Sen. Christopher Bond. Since Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race, there's no question which candidate offers the best tax plan, or is the best spokesman for advancing the tax-reform cause.

Mr. Giuliani's proposal is a remedy for a quintessentially Washingtonian problem: bloated bureaucracy. When the income tax was introduced in 1913, Congress adopted a one-page filing form and a maximum rate of 7%. The Office of Management and Budget estimates Americans now spend 6.5 billion hours a year filling out tax forms.

Our Founders drafted the Constitution with fewer than 5,000 words; with later amendments it is about 8,000 words. The federal tax code is more than 9 million words. So the document that created the government is less than 0.1% as long as the tax code that funds it. Such is the state of Washington today.

Mr. Giuliani understands how the tax code frustrates and confuses many Americans, and that's why he will give every taxpayer the option of using a one-page "Fair and Simple Tax Form." Under the FAST Form, there will be only three rates: 10%, 15% and 30%. Taxpayers who prefer to use the existing forms will remain free to do so. Prized deductions for mortgage payments, state and local taxes, charitable contributions, and child tax credits will all be preserved on the FAST Form.

Moreover, taxpayers can choose each year which plan works best for them. For instance, a small business owner might take advantage of the deductions in the current tax code one year, but choose the FAST Form the next.

For many families, the FAST Form will be an easy choice. A family of four earning $80,000 per year could see their estimated federal income tax burden reduced by $2,207 -- 24%. A single person earning $35,000 -- who pays approximately 10% using the 1040 Form -- will save 13%.

The FAST form is the centerpiece of Mr. Giuliani's tax plan, but it contains many other advantageous features. He will make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He will cut the corporate tax rate, currently second-highest in the industrialized world, to 25% from 35%, helping American businesses compete while protecting and creating American jobs. He will reinstate the Research and Development Tax Credit, a spur to American innovation that Democrats recently let expire. He will repeal the death tax, which unfairly forces relatives of the recently deceased to sell small family farms or businesses to pay the tax collector. He will cut the capital gains tax to 10% from 15%, sparking private-sector investment and economic prosperity. And he will index the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation and put in on the course to eventual elimination.

Mr. Giuliani's reforms also include a trio of tax-free savings vehicles to encourage middle-class saving: a retirement savings account; a general-purpose lifetime savings account; and a lifetime skills account (for training and education). All three would function as Roth-style accounts (funded with after tax income, but subject to no taxes upon withdrawal), and would be available to all Americans, regardless of income level.

The retirement savings account and the lifetime savings account would have $5,000 annual limits per individual, and the lifetime skills account would have a $1,000 annual limit, with an available employer match. Mr. Giuliani also champions a health-care tax exclusion of $15,000 annually for families ($7,500 for individuals) to increase Americans' access to affordable, portable, privately controlled health care.

Rudy Giuliani knows self-government, not centralized government, makes America great. His proposals demonstrate an opposition to centralized power and a commitment to a growth society. He'll have to work with congressional Democrats to make such proposals a reality, but he has done so before in New York, an overwhelmingly Democratic city.

In the presidential race, the Democrats' idea of "change" is in reality more of the same -- more power and more money for Washington. Mr. Giuliani has another idea. It begins by fixing the complicated mess of our tax code by offering something simpler, flatter and fairer.

Dennis Prager: The Case for Rudy Giuliani

Real Clear Politics

Dennis Prager

To the extent that I understand how most Republicans think, it would seem that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes closer to the Republican ideal than any of the other viable Republican candidates. They are all good and decent men who would be better for America than either of the Democratic front-runners. But it is difficult to see, from a conservative- and Republican-values perspective, what major shortcoming Giuliani brings as compared to the other candidates. And given the obsession of liberal news media with publishing negative reports about Giuliani and frequent praise of John McCain, it would appear that it is Giuliani whom Democrats most fear as the Republican presidential nominee.

On the "war on terror," no Republican contender but John McCain equals Giuliani in longtime efforts on behalf of that war or in understanding and articulating the threat radical Islam poses to America and to liberty on earth. And they both have great courage. If the only issue that mattered in the next election were the "war on terror," all those -- including Democrats and independents --who share this awareness of the Islamist threat could be happy with either candidate.

Anyone who does not understand the nature of the war that liberty is now waging against tyranny should not be president of the United States. And the Democratic candidates until now have shown no such understanding -- the term "Islamic terror," invoked by nearly every Republican candidate, was not mentioned once in any of the Democrats' debates. But while this understanding is necessary, it is not sufficient. America needs a strong leader domestically, as well as internationally.

And when it comes to being strong on both domestic and international issues, it seems that no presently viable Republican candidate matches Rudy Giuliani.

The current leading contender, Sen. John McCain, is a great American and a true American hero. However -- and this is written in sadness -- on too many significant issues, conservatives, and even many moderates, would not only disagree with John McCain but also would question his judgment.

John McCain is a leader in promoting legislation on behalf of "campaign finance reform." Aside from limiting freedom of speech, such legislation has done real damage to our democracy. For example, it has severely limited how much money one American can give to another American to run for public office. Consequently, increasingly only the very famous and/or the extremely wealthy -- e.g., California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former senator -- now governor -- Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg can run for office. The percentage of very wealthy members of the U.S. Senate is the greatest in American history. Thanks to John McCain and "campaign finance reform," Americans running for public office can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on themselves, but individuals can give only $4,000 to non-wealthy candidates.

John McCain, in a recent Republican debate, asked, "Why shouldn't we be able to re-import drugs from Canada?" (With its socialized medicine, Canada buys drugs at cheaper rates.) This is not merely not conservative; it is radical and it is foolish.

As George Will wrote this week, "That amounts to importing Canada's price controls, a large step toward a system in which ... new pain-relieving, life-extending pharmaceuticals would be unavailable. ... When Mitt Romney interjected, 'Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys,' McCain replied, 'Well, they are.' There is a place in American politics for moralizers who think in such Manichaean simplicities," Will concludes. "That place is in the Democratic Party."

John McCain twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts.

John McCain has wholly bought the politically correct view of man-made carbon emissions leading to global catastrophe. It is true that all the Republican candidates pay lip service to a hysteria that is capable of truly harming the American and world economies, but John McCain is the major Republican activist on this issue. He is co-author, with Sen. Joe Lieberman, of a bill empowering Congress to legislate carbon emissions, and he has dismissed all scientific questions with Al Gore's, "The debate has ended."

John McCain's view of drilling for oil in a remote corner of Alaska: "As far as ANWR is concerned, I don't want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don't want to drill in the Everglades." Any comparison of a part of frozen Alaska that has been seen by almost no human being in history with the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, which tens of millions of people have visited and always will visit, is, shall we say, odd.

John McCain is a good man, a good American and a good leader, but he is not a conservative in some important ways. That is why John Kerry considered John McCain as a possible running mate. Would John McCain be a better president than a Democrat? Yes, primarily because of his stance on the "war on terror." But conservative supporters of McCain need to acknowledge that some fundamental conservative principles -- as noted above -- probably would be rejected in a McCain presidency.

Rudy Giuliani may have made a great mistake by not campaigning in New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina. But between Rudy Giuliani (and, for that matter, Mitt Romney) on the one hand and John McCain on the other, there is little question as to who more embodies mainstream conservative and Republican principles.

But Giuliani is not merely more of a conservative than John McCain. In fact, if it is Ronald Reagan that Republicans want, Giuliani is extraordinarily close to that venerated man. Ronald Reagan stood for two great beliefs: that big government is a big problem for a free society and that America must be militarily strong and lead the war against global communism.

Substitute "global jihadism" for "global communism" and you have Rudy Giuliani's twin pillars. His one major weakness in appealing to all conservatives is that he is for abortion rights. Let me, then, briefly address all those who, like me, consider nearly all abortions immoral.

Ronald Reagan was pro-life, and it mattered little to the pro-life cause. Concerning abortion, what matters most in a president is the type of judges he appoints to the Supreme Court. As George Will wrote on behalf of Giuliani, "The way to change abortion law is to change courts by means of judicial nominations of the sort Giuliani promises to make." It is extremely unlikely that John McCain would appoint similarly conservative judges. After all, why would he appoint judges like Scalia and Alito who apparently differ with him on the constitutionality of McCain's own "campaign finance reform" laws?

Pro-life Republicans need to ask themselves: Will a Democrat or Giuliani as president render abortion less common in America? The best is the enemy of the better. And Giuliani is far better on abortion than any Democratic nominee.

Giuliani is for school vouchers, against bilingual education, for reducing taxes further, for reducing government spending. And he has well-thought-out positions on how to achieve these things. He also has the experience of cleaning up the most liberal major city in America.

I write this column aware that Giuliani may have lost his chance at getting the Republican nomination. But I could not live with my conscience if I did not articulate one week before the potentially decisive Florida primary why I believe Rudy Giuliani would make an excellent president of the United States.

Pod: A Very Cheerful Rudy Giuliani

John Podhoretz

On MSNBC, Rudy Giuliani is making a very smiley, happy showing of himself. The result in Iowa could not have been better for Giuliani tactically. Romney has been injured. Huckabee won, but did not apparently win by a huge margin, and there won’t be many other states where evangelicals make up fully three-fifths of the primary electorate. And John McCain did not, it seems, come in third with a surprising showing, but fourth with a very modest showing. If McCain beats Romney in New Hampshire, Romney will have a difficult time going on — but McCain clearly hasn’t yet turned the corner and brought conservative Republicans back in his corner. And Fred Thompson’s third-place showing wasn’t impressive enough to kick his campaign back to life. With no one especially strong on the Republican side through the first few states, the Giuliani strategy of betting it all on Florida on January 29 and the big states on February 5 is looking better than it did a week ago.

Steve Forbes in Support of Rudy Giuliani on the Economy

Pajamas Media

The lifeblood of the American economy is small business – that’s where most of the new jobs are created – and thus it is crucially important to determine which presidential candidate has the best record in protecting and promoting this critical sector of our economy. In doing so, we must keep in mind the fundamental role economic freedom plays in helping to grow our economy and what proposals the candidates have made to enhance our future economic freedom.

Alas, the term “economic freedom” seems little more than a sound bite to the leading Democratic candidates, who have all advocated raising taxes. But to those of us deeply committed to the free market principles that have enabled America to become the economic superpower it is today, we see it as absolutely essential to our future prosperity.

To our nation’s small business owners, “economic freedom” means the freedom to invest more of their hard-earned money back into their businesses rather than turning it over to the government to pay burdensome taxes. It means the freedom from excessive regulation that stifles ingenuity and opportunity. And it means the recognition by those constructing our economic policies that the business owner – not the government regulator – best understands the actions that will give that business the greatest possible chance of success.

Among the Republican candidates for President, any comparison of the records of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the arena of economic freedom makes it quite clear who will be the better friend to America’s entrepreneurs.

When Rudy came to City Hall as Mayor of New York, businesses, just like residents, were abandoning the city. Decades of governance by tax-and-spend liberals had taken their toll on New York’s private economy – prohibitive taxes simply made the city an unwelcoming place for business owners.

Rudy changed that. Over the course of his eight year tenure, New Yorkers saw their taxes cut 23 times, saw their tax burden decrease by 17 percent to its lowest level in three decades, and saw the creation of 423,000 private sector jobs.

With regard to small business owners specifically, Rudy cut commercial rent taxes, returned hundreds of millions of dollars to small businesses via the reduction of the patently unfair Unincorporated Business Tax, and encouraged tourists and residents alike to shop in the city with sales tax holidays and a significant reduction in the hotel occupancy tax. This is the record of a man who fully understands the damage that high taxes can do to small businesses and the benefits derived from small business owners’ freedom to make choices with their capital.

Governor Romney, a successful management consultant to be sure, has a much different record when it comes to small business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Set aside the fact that Romney could not achieve a single, broad-based tax cut for the people or businesses of his state, or the unfortunate reality that the Massachusetts economy lagged behind the national economy during his four-year tenure, Governor Romney significantly raised taxes and fees on small businesses.

Romney removed the sales tax exemption for gas, steam, electricity and heating fuel for successful small businesses. Before Romney became Governor, these small businesses were exempt from the so-called “Sting Tax.” Now they are forced to pay it, thanks to Mitt Romney. Governor Romney imposed sales taxes on companies using many kinds of direct mail advertisements such as mail order catalogs, department store catalogs, and telephone directories. Romney raised fees – or as some in Massachusetts call them, taxes in disguise – on small businesses more than sixty different times. And, tellingly, the preeminent accomplishment of his time as Governor, his government-mandated healthcare plan, not only requires that employers provide healthcare to workers, it actually fines them when they don’t.

The intention here is not to disparage Romney – as he often points out, he faced a tough environment in Massachusetts. Rather, the intention is to show that Rudy Giuliani, facing an even tougher environment in New York City, had far more success improving the economic freedom of his city. Rudy’s efforts translated into real, tangible benefits for the people of New York City, and if elected President, we should expect to see the same efforts going forward.

Steve Forbes
National Giuliani Campaign Co-Chair
President & CEO, Forbes
Editor-in-Chief, Forbes magazine

Rudy Giuliani: A Time For Leadership

RealClearPolitics

A Time For Leadership

By Rudy Giuliani

Thank you. Tested. Ready. Now. America needs a leader. I am running for President of the United States because I believe that I can lead America into a new era with bold leadership, optimism, determination, and distinctly American solutions. If you're looking for perfection, you're not going to find it. Not in me, not in any candidate. But if you're looking for a leader who has been tested in times of crisis; a leader who's ready to lead right now; a leader who's achieved results - results that some people thought were impossible --a leader who believes that there is no problem too difficult for American solutions and a free, American spirit. I believe I am that leader.

I've met adversity before. I've led in situations that seemed hopeless and dire, in need of a miracle. I don't just pray for miracles. I don't just hope for miracles. I expect miracles.

Some people look at the challenges we face as a nation and they fear the future. I welcome it. I welcome the opportunity to keep America safe and secure. We will win the Terrorists' War on Us.

I welcome the opportunity to restore fiscal discipline to Washington D.C.

While we empower millions of people to move out of poverty and achieve the American dream. And I welcome the opportunity to win this election.

Leading a revitalized, 50-state Republican Party into the White House.

But as I travel across our land, I've begun to hear a murmur that America somehow has lost the ability to achieve great goals. Some good people have come to believe that our country is on the wrong track. Middle Class families feel that the American Dream may be slipping away. They're worried about the future. They're worried that the future may not be as bright as the past. They're worried that this may be the time where the next generation of Americans doesn't do as well as the last generation. It doesn't have to be that way. We -- we, you and I -- can decide America's direction. We can determine America's future. After all, that's what an election is all about. So let's decide for optimism, not pessimism; for hope, not despair; for strength, not weakness; for victory, not defeat.

We can't afford a crisis of confidence at the time we need our confidence the most because our country does face real crisis right now. We're at war. The American people want to see victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, not humiliation and defeat.

They want their children to live free from the fear of terrorism. They're telling us, get it done. And we will.

Washington's culture of wasteful spending is out of control. Everyone knows that. The American people want to see real fiscal discipline. They're telling us, get it done. And we will.

Americans have heard presidents talk about energy independence for three decades. Now they're paying more at the pump and they're seeing their money go into the pockets of some of our enemies. They're telling us, get it done. Get energy independence done. We will.

The American people are angry that the federal government has failed to protect and secure our borders. And they're telling us, get it done. And we will.

What America needs in 2008 is a proven leader who will get things done. I've been tested. I'm ready. And the time is right now.

This is a time for leadership. A leader is someone who combines vision for the future with the ability to get things done. It's a person who can dream about a better future and then help bring it into reality, actually make [is] it possible. So today, I'm going to share with you my vision for our future, for America's future. This summer, we presented a bold agenda for the future. It was my 12 Commitments to the American people.

But today I want to explain it in a slightly different way. I want to explain it by describing my vision of the America that I want to hand over to my successor if you give me the honor of being your president. Because we all believe that everyone of us, no matter what our role or who we are in this country, all of us has an obligation, a responsibility to hand our nation to the next generation better than it was handed to us.

We're about improving our country for the next generation. We've always been about that. This generation has to be about that.

So we'll hand over an America where our schools are the best in the world - not 21st in Science, not 25th in Math like we are today. I've got a goal for America. How about being # 1?

We can reform education--primary and secondary education in this country and we can do it by creating and expanding school choice. We'll empower parents - not government bureaucrats - let the parents choose where their child goes to school. Who knows better?

All children - rich and poor, middle class or otherwise - all children deserve a quality education: whether it's public, private, parochial, charter or home-school. To me, this is the great civil rights issue of our time. Our children, all of our children, not just yours, not just mine, all of our children need a good education and if the parents are making the choice, if that's the rule in this country and not the exception, I'm confident that the decisions will be made in their interest. They're going to do it better than some bureaucrat who has never met their child, doesn't know their child. So let's give the power here, the main power to the parents.

We'll hand over an America that embraces [is] the global economy. That needs fairness. Of course we need a level playing field, but we should be less concerned about how much we buy from overseas, except from the point of view of safety and security, that's important. But on the economics of it, what we should really be focusing on is how much do we sell to overseas?

America is an entrepreneurial society. We should view the rise of China and India, the people moving out of poverty in China and India, we should view that as a great opportunity to find what America is always looking for: new customers. Right?

When they think of us as a country that's militaristic, they're wrong. The essential nature of Americans is not war. Americans only go to war when they have to and then of course we do it to win and to prevail and to be safe. So do it in a determined way. But here's the essential nature of America and Americans. Here's what we really want to do with you all around the world. We want to sell you something. Right?

Isn't that what America's all about. America is an entrepreneurial society. But we also need to keep our house in order here in the United States. We'll hand over a country that's more fiscally disciplined, with a government no larger than it has to be. It'll be a country where taxes, regulations, abusive lawsuits don't drive jobs and businesses out of the United States. And we'll create--

And we'll create hundreds of thousands of jobs, millions of jobs, in the process. We'll lower the income tax and the corporate tax rates.

We'll give the death tax the death penalty.

We'll find many ways to bring tax relief to middle class families where that tax relief is needed the most. And you know what else we're going to do? We're going to develop a single page, one-page optional tax form. How about being able to do it all on one page? Wouldn't that be great?

Ok. The print may be a little small.

But we'll work real hard to get it on one page. The Democrats running for president seem to want a nanny state. They want to run your life from the cradle to the grave. We don't want that kind of state. America's like a country that puts reliance on individuals, on people, what they can do, what they can accomplish. America's a country that works on initiative. And then we give people opportunity and help to have that initiative, but we don't try to direct their lives from the day [their] they're born until the day they die. We'll hand off a country that doesn't penalize success. We'll reward success. We want a country where the "sky's the limit". People can reach for the stars and they can have a hope that they can get there. We don't want to put a lid on their desires, on their ambitions. We want to encourage social mobility. What country has done it better than America in the history of the world? Move people out of poverty, create social mobility, have people in one generation go from the virtual bottom to the virtual top and all the places in between. We do that by being a country of initiative, a country that rewards success, not a country that penalizes success. So we want to encourage social mobility. That's how we move people out of poverty. That's how we strengthen the middle class and that's how we bring the American dream within the reach of every willing person in this country.

We'll hand over a country where decisions about your healthcare are made between you and your doctor, not between you and a Hillary-care custodian.

We can make health care more affordable, portable. We can do that through tax cuts, not tax hikes and government mandates. We can open the market, we can increase choice, we can empower individuals and all of that, all of that will drive down the cost so that people can afford health insurance and good health insurance, quality health insurance. That has to be our goal. We do it through an America, we do it through private decision-making and private markets not through socialized medicine.

We'll hand over a country with 200 new federal judges - or 400, if you give me a second term. Well let's work on the first one first. Ok.

These judges will be responsible men and women, people who understand that their role is to interpret the Constitution, not social activists who legislate from the bench.

To do anything less is to deny us the defense of liberty that comes from the separation of powers. We'll hand over a country where we've ended illegal immigration where it has to be done - at the border.

And also a country who's arms are wide open to people who come here, people who come here legally and openly. We want them, we need them, we will accept them, and what we want them to do, if they want to become citizens, is meet all the requirements and then be able to read English, write English, and speak English.

Ending illegal immigration won't be easy. It requires changing human behavior - but it needs to be done for everyone's good. I have the will. I have the way to do it, the plan to do it, and I have the track record to bring safety and order and fairness to a situation that is now [our] out of control. I've done it before, I can do it again.

We'll hand over an America that is stronger, safer and more secure. We'll make every community better prepared, more prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters something you know about here in Florida. The hurricanes of a few years ago where you had to deal with four all in one short season. The way you did it was a really good emergency response. The rest of the country needs to be at at least that level of preparation and we all need to be at a higher level of preparation. And as we do that, we'll build a more resilient society - ready to withstand anything that comes our way and ready to help those in need, whenever and wherever they need it. We're one country. We're in this together. Natural disaster, terrorist attack, you learned here in Florida. I learned that in New York. We embrace each other.

We'll hand over an America that is achieving energy independence. We can do it by increasing the diversity of our energy sources. And we can do it by having both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. The two things are not inconsistent with each other. The two things compliment each other if you do energy independence the right way and you move toward the right sources and you support it. And most the most important thing is we'll approach this goal with the same single-mindedness that America used to put a man on the moon. Remember? Well, some of you don't remember. You're too young.

You remember. I remember. You don't remember. But you're going to read about this in history, because it's one of our great historical moments. The Apollo Mission, the mission to put a man on the moon, it was started by President Eisenhower, a Republican. It was advanced greatly by President Kennedy, a Democrat. It was brought almost to its final stages by President Johnson, another Democrat, and it was completed under President Nixon, another Republican. This wasn't a Republican success. This wasn't a Democratic success. This was an American achievement.

That's when we're at our best. That's when we're at our best, when we're thinking like Americans. We were at our best to put a man on the moon, we were at our best to deal with the horror and the shock and the pain and the suffering of September 11th, weren't we? No Republicans, no Democrats just Americans. That's what we need to achieve energy independence and then maybe we can take that sprit and we can apply it to some of these other big problems that we face. What we really need is to reaffirm and we need a new era, not of Republican success or Democratic success, how about we look for things where we can have American success.

Finally, and this is the big challenge of our generation, we'll hand over a country that is safer, that is more secure from the Terrorists who are at war with us and around the world. We'll do it the same way that Ronald Reagan accelerated the end of Cold War. President Reagan used to be asked in the early days of his presidency, when the Cold War was in some ways you know very intense, they'd say to him "You know this Cold War's been going on for a long time is it ever going to end, how is it going to end? People couldn't see an ending to it, it'd been going on for so long. Will it ever end, can it end? Ronald Reagan listened to them, paused the way he used to, put a little smile on his face and when they were asking him how would it end, he just had that little smile on his face and he said: "They Lose. We Win."

That's the same approach that we need to defeat these enemies that we have. We need to stay on offense in this Terrorist War against Us, achieving peace through strength, that's the only way you achieve peace, through great strength, by being on offense, by being strong, by being confident, by having a military that we expand, not contract. We have to rebuild our military.

I have a goal in Iraq it's not the Democrats goal, they tried to legislate loss in Iraq, they're still trying to legislate loss in Iraq. I have a different goal. It will be a very clear decision for the American people. Here's my goal for Iraq, victory, success for America and for our troops. Let's achieve the goal that we went there to achieve, a stable Iraq that will act as an ally for us in the ongoing Islamic Terrorist war against us. That is a victory for us and a defeat for them.

Our men and women there believe they can achieve that. They've shown us unexpected progress; many people even opponents of that war have been surprised at how exceptional the progress has been. So let's help them and support them. And let's do the same thing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's make sure we finish the job and we eliminate Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

We will hand over an America that has stopped Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

And when we stop them we won't just be moderately confidant but we'll be totally sure.

But we also need to win the war of ideas and the war of ideals. Strengthening our ties with the Middle East, embracing those people in the Middle East, in the Arab world, in the Islamic world. The overwhelming majority of people who want peace, who below the cultural differences share the same values that we have. We've got reach out to them; we've got to get to know them better. We've got to get them to know us better. We've got to do more business with them. That part of the world is filled with people with the same entrepreneurial spirit that we have. The same love for their children that we have, the same desire for a safe and secure life for themselves that we have. There are a few people and more than a few but by no means anything close to a substantial proportion of people, that have perverted the thinking and turned it into a political ideology now of hatred and anger and viciousness and aggression. But that shouldn't stop us from reaching out to all of the rest of those people who have the same desires that we have. We should actually be having more contact with, doing more business with, having more cultural relationships with the Middle East now than we have ever had before. It is another way to win the Terrorist War against all of Us. And I will do that and I will make sure that we open up in the same way that we will be strong and on offense, we will also have a very big open arm for all those people who want to work with us. We'll embrace them, they'll embrace us, it's not the first time America has done that, it won't be the last and it will work. I guarantee you it will work.

So all of this is saying that America needs bold leadership to meet these very very big challenges that we have. But I know we have the strength to hand our nation to the next generation stronger than it's been handed to us. We have the capacity to improve things the way our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, mothers, fathers, people all over have done for us. I have faith in the Genius of America: the power of free people to solve whatever problems they face. That's why my solutions all begin with a simple thought, a simple philosophy: Give people more power.

America's not unique because of its central government. America is great because of self-government. We unleash the genius of America when we increase freedom. The freedom to pursue success, prosperity, happiness, fulfillment, in the way that you choose, not the way that the government dictates to you. The genius of America is you. The individual American. When you decide how to spend your money, you'll spend it more productively than any government ever will.

When you're the one deciding what school your child should can go to, you'll make a much better decision than some government bureaucrat can make for a child they never met or never known. And when you decide what kind of healthcare you should have, you will make a much better decision than some government custodian can make for you.

It's really simple. I believe in the strength and wisdom of the American people. Look at our history and you'll see why. Because no matter when or how your ancestors came to this country, we are all the proud descendants of pioneers and patriots. They created this for us, their optimistic American spirit, the defiant determination to do what some other people thought was impossible, that is our greatest inheritance. Each generation of Americans has been called to overcome great challenges. Previous generations fought for our independence, signed the constitution, ended slavery, healed the wounds of a Civil War, settled the West, overcame the Great Depression and secured civil rights. So when we see all of that, are our challenges any greater than theirs? They won the Second World War against Nazism and fascism and the Cold War against communism. That's the same strength that's in each of us. We inherited it, we have it. We've got to believe that we do. And now it is our generation's turn to make history in this new century. I know that this generation can overcome any challenge. I've seen your strength, I've been sustained by it.

I saw it on the morning of September 11th, 2001. There were points that day, that morning in particular where I wondered, I wondered whether we had the strength to deal with this[,] worst attack in our history, unprecedented, horrific, memories and images that will live with me until the day that I die. But immediately as a I saw the courage and the strength of our citizens and our first responders, when I saw the picture of the firefighters who put the flag up at Ground Zero, just like the Marines at Iwo Jima, many years before, looked just the same didn't it? You know what I said to myself and this gave me great strength to get through everything. I said to myself this generation, this current generation, our generation, we've got the same strength, the same determination, the same patriotism because it comes from our fathers and grandfathers who won the Second World War and did all of these things. Maybe sometimes, maybe sometimes it happens when we're put under stress and we're put in a moment of terror and horror and it just comes out. But you know throughout history, people who live in freedom have much more strength than people who live in oppression. That's been the story of the Old Testament, its been the story of the ancient world and the modern world. It was the story of the 20th century, people who live in freedom overcome oppression. We are on the right side of this. We have the strength, we have the ability. The 20th century taught us, if nothing else, that you have to stand up to tyrants, to bullies, to terrorists. It's in strength that you'll be able to achieve peace and vindicate freedom.

With bold leadership, America will meet and exceed any challenge we face. With bold leadership, America will face the future with confidence and reclaim our right to live in freedom from fear. With bold leadership, America will rise to new heights in this still very new century. This is a time for leadership. This is a time for strength. This is a time to roll up our sleeves, not wring our hands. I've been Tested in crisis. I'm Ready to lead. And the time is right Now.

Thank you.

Can Rudy & the Right Come to Terms?

RealClearPolitics

Daniel Henninger

One school of thought on the religious right holds that if Rudy Giuliani would commit to an unequivocal anti-abortion position, they could vote for him. A second school of thought, articulated by Richard Land, a leading figure in the politically important Southern Baptist Convention, is that he won't vote for any pro-choice candidate "as a matter of personal moral conscience," though Mr. Land says other evangelicals might find a way to vote for Mr. Giuliani.

Among the reasons politicians such as Mr. Giuliani are sensitive to this issue was the revelation, from exit polls after the 2004 election, that values and morals ranked high among voters' concerns. Thus this past weekend the very conservative Family Research Council pointedly named its Washington convocation the "Values Voter Summit."

Into this den of reproach stepped Rudy Giuliani on Saturday, dragging various balls and chains--liberal "social" beliefs, three marriages, alienated children, New York City. No matter that Ronald Reagan had two marriages, alienated children, Hollywood pals and live-and let-live social views. A straw poll taken after the candidates' speeches put Mr. Giuliani next to dead last, before John McCain but well behind the attendees' top choice, former Baptist minister and future talk-show star Mike Huckabee.

The focus here is on the speech Mr. Giuliani delivered to the values summit. He's the front-runner. He's the candidate who somehow has to get people like these evangelicals to decide whether votes in a presidential election ought to be cast for one or two issues or for a governing philosophy. Then there's the little matter of the candidate's character.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think governing philosophy is more important than the endless Chinese puzzle of moving this or that issue forward and back. American politics, right and left, has become obsessive about nailing where candidates "stand" on standalone issues--abortion, gay marriage, immigration, the North Pole melting or pulling out of Iraq. Trying to pin politicians down is honest work. But last time I looked, the thing you win was still called a "government." That means it matters if the candidate is able to govern, which has proven a challenge the past 16 years or so, in part because proliferating factions refuse to be governed.

That means it matters if the candidate is able to govern, which has proven a challenge the past 16 years or so, in part because proliferating factions refuse to be governed.

In the '60s, the left introduced the "non-negotiable demand" into our politics. It's still with us. It's political infantilism. In real life, the non-negotiable "demand" usually ends about age six.

Of necessity, Mr. Giuliani has to get voters on the right past this narrowed focus. Adult politics, though, runs in both directions. Rudy has to move toward them, too, and believably.

Mr. Giuliani didn't mention abortion--and adoption--until deep into the talk. He began by laying down a personal marker: "I can't be all things to all people. I'm just not like that. I can't do that." This opened the door a crack on the man behind the grand smile. He needs to do more of that (why in a moment). But his case against issues pandering is one of the better I've heard: "For me to twist myself all up to try to figure out exactly what you want to hear, and today say one thing and the next day another thing--if you do that too long, you lose the sense of what leadership is all about."

Then came the admission of their political legitimacy, and in a way they'd get. He told them that people of faith "should not be marginalized" in public debates. The "religious right" knows exactly what this means. This is what was at issue when this movement erupted at the GOP convention in Houston back in 1992. The no-apologies belligerence of the Christian right began then because they were marginalized, even mocked by the national press corps in Houston.

Mr. Giuliani, however, didn't exploit their enduring sense of alienation from the media. Instead, he argued with some force that their ideas deserved a seat at the national table. He didn't promise triumph, but he offered respect.

The speech's big set-up theme was "responsibility." Every right carries a duty, and every benefit brings an obligation. His argument to them was a "culture of personal responsibility" enhances both accountability and self-respect, and these in turn will result in less of the things that drive the evangelicals nuts. To the extent any politician can make it sound as if he actually believes this stuff, Mr. Giuliani does.

Still, there's a problem. "Responsibility" was a main theme of Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural speech. We believed him. A Wall Street Journal editorial, "Responsibility's Return," commented the next day: "It is good to hear any President, or anyone in a position of leadership in this country, talking about personal responsibility. Mr. Clinton is talking about it because in our recent history, there hasn't been enough of it." Then came the presidency.

Mr. Giuliani has a remarkable gift for political empathy. But I think he is acutely aware that no one talked this kind of talk better than Bill Clinton, and that the show-stopper ever after for charismatic presidential candidates will have to do with questions about character once in office.

So to the values voters he added: "We lose trust in political leaders not because they are imperfect; after all, they're human. We lose trust with them when they're not honest with us." A woman in the audience said, "That's right."

That's right. But twice in the speech, Mr. Giuliani tried to explain that his faith and his personal failings were difficult to discuss "because of the way I was brought up, or for other reasons." Other reasons? The way he was brought up--in the pre-Vatican II grade schools and high schools of New York City-- many of us understand. But he'll need to find a way to talk about "the other reasons."

It was a remarkable, effective and important speech. And more useful still if Mr. Giuliani and the religious right can reach some shared understanding of political and personal adulthood.

She's No Charity Case: Rudy's Judi Dives In

US News - Washington Whispers

The Rev. Peter Larsen knows a little bit about political egos and society snobs. A former assistant at Washington's St. John's Episcopal, the so-called church of presidents, and now a pastor in New York's Hamptons and chairman of Southampton Hospital, he's seen 'em all. But he really didn't know what to expect when Judith Giuliani, wife of GOP presidential front-runner Rudy, asked to tour the hospital a day before they were to host a charity dinner. "She didn't want to just come to a dinner and lend her name in support. She wanted to see what was going on," he says. "None of the hosts ever asked to do that."

What he found was a former nurse "who knew what she was talking about" when chatting with docs in the emergency ward, in the ICU, and at the mammogram screener. "It didn't look like it was just put on for politics," he says of Judi, the subject of some recent nasty news stories. Surprised that the Giulianis kept their commitment—made before the presidential campaign—to host the $1.6 million fundraiser, Larsen was also wowed by what the duo raked in on their own at the August 4 dinner: $30,000 for a round of golf with them. Better yet: They agreed to a second round when another attendee bid $30,000. Even more: Judi offered to continue helping. "She was not a phony," says Larsen. "I was impressed, yes."

An Unconventional Candidate

The Weekly Standard

Can a pro-choice mayor of New York win the GOP nomination?
by Matthew Continetti

The schedule for June 7 said Rudy Giuliani would address the 38th annual meeting of the Airport and Seaport Police at 8 P.M. at a Marriott hotel here in downtown Washington. Campaign and event staff said not to hurry, however. Giuliani routinely begins his events late, and in this case he had to attend a fundraiser at the Hard Rock Café downtown, where GOP senator David Vitter of Louisiana was introducing him. After that, he was to arrive at the Marriott and accept the first-ever Fred V. Morrone Memorial Award. Morrone was superintendent of the New York and New Jersey Port Authority police when he died inside the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Giuliani knows how to make an entrance. After the somber police officers emceeing the award ceremony go through their introductions, the former New York City mayor enters through a side door, accompanied by his two-man security detail and a few staff members. (Giuliani has five security guards; two of them are with him at all times.) The audience, almost all men and almost all wearing dark suits, rise for a standing ovation. Giuliani delivers his speech, saying Morrone was a hero who "found himself on the front lines of a war of terrorists against us." The delivery is smooth, but you can tell the candidate hasn't spent much time with the text. Giuliani keeps looking down at the words on the lectern.

The audience doesn't seem to mind. They applaud at the appropriate moments and nod their heads when Giuliani criticizes the Senate immigration deal and evokes the horrible events of September 11, 2001. "Political correctness cannot stop us from describing clearly, and seeing clearly, our enemy," Giuliani says. He outlines two programs--BorderStat and PortStat--that would track the government's progress in maintaining border and port security. Then he's done. He poses for a few photos, seeks out former Homeland Security undersecretary for border and transportation security Asa Hutchinson for a handshake, and leaves by the side door through which he came. Giuliani won't be available to the press, a communications aide tells disappointed reporters. The mayor will spend the night in D.C. and leave the next day.

If you've ever thought there's a fly-by-the-seat-of-one's-pants feeling to the Giuliani presidential campaign, you are probably right. None of Giuliani's senior staff--campaign manager Mike DuHaime, senior adviser Tony Carbonetti, political director Mark Campbell, and communications director Katie Levinson--has much experience in presidential politics. An aide says Giuliani is playing catch-up, having made a relatively late entry into the race. Compared with the hyperorganized campaign of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Giuliani's is haphazard. Sometimes schedules are handed out just 24 hours before the events in question. Statements from the candidate or senior staff happen on the order of a few a week, not the constant barrage of emails that come from Team Romney.

Giuliani is just beginning to assemble policy advisory groups in the areas of health care, energy, Iraq, and the Middle East. Former Indianapolis mayor Stephen Goldsmith and Stanford economist Michael Boskin are key domestic policy advisers, while Harvard's Stephen P. Rosen and Yale's Charles Hill handle foreign policy. Over the last few weeks Giuliani has outlined programs for restoring accountability to government and making health care more competitive and health insurance more individualized. He rarely delivers speeches from a prepared text, preferring to extemporize from notes.

The candidate's worst--and best--moments are unscripted. A few months ago Giuliani got himself into trouble over conflicting statements on federal funding for abortions. Conservatives and the press criticized his performance at the first GOP debate, when he seemed ambivalent about the future of Roe v. Wade. Still, Giuliani's attack on Rep. Ron Paul at the second GOP debate was also unscripted. And his humorous, ad-lib response when lightning struck outside the debate hall during his answer on an abortion question last week disarmed the audience.

It's an unconventional moment in American politics, and Giuliani is an unconventional candidate. "This is an unprecedented campaign," says a longtime conservative activist. It's the first time since 1952 that there is no incumbent president or vice president running in either party. There's also no clear frontrunner. The failure of the more conventional conservative candidates to connect with voters, combined with Giuliani's assured presence on the stump and in debates, has left the GOP race open to hizzoner. For now, it simply doesn't seem to matter that his campaign isn't as well organized as some of the others.

There are challenges, however. "Giuliani is trying to throw conventional wisdom out the door," says a GOP lobbyist sympathetic to John McCain. This was brought home once again last week, when campaign manager DuHaime said the mayor would skip the August 11 straw poll in Ames, Iowa. It was a difficult decision. It's been the subject of debate inside the campaign for months. The carnival-like straw poll is a fundraiser for the Iowa GOP. It costs millions of dollars for the campaigns to bus in supporters from throughout the state. Right now Giuliani has neither the staff nor the resources in Iowa to compete in Ames. Last week, there were "more than 12 people" in the state working for Giuliani, says a senior aide. That's not exactly what you call an army. What's more, DuHaime opened Giuliani's Iowa headquarters and named the campaign's state chair only last week.

The sudden announcement a few hours later from the McCain campaign that the senator would also skip Ames surprised Team Giuliani. They took it as a sign McCain's campaign is ailing. Giuliani still faces two problems in Iowa, however. The first is that no candidate in the last 30 years has ignored Ames and gone on to win the Iowa caucuses in January. Yet Giuliani aides say the mayor still plans to compete in the caucuses. Which leads to the second problem: Giuliani and McCain will remain on the straw poll ballot in August. They won't do well, which could demoralize their Iowa supporters preparing for January. Skipping Ames could be the first step toward leaving Iowa altogether.

And that could lead to more problems. Giuliani strategists believe their candidate's national celebrity, strong fundraising, and proven ability to appeal to disaffected independents and Democrats lend him a strong advantage in primaries in Florida, California, New York, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. With the new, frontloaded primary calendar, those states will all vote within a few weeks of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Giuliani seems to be banking on a January 29, 2008, Florida win to propel him to the next round of big-state primaries on February 5. "The calendar has changed things an awful lot," says the senior Giuliani aide.

Here's the question: Does the frontloaded primary schedule make the first contest, Iowa, either more or less important? One longtime GOP strategist thinks it will be more important. The bounce the winner(s) of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will receive should not be underestimated. The risk for Giuliani is that after Iowa comes New Hampshire, and candidates who have held statewide office in Massachusetts tend to overperform there. Think Dukakis in 1988, Tsongas in 1992, and Kerry in 2004. You can even go back to Amb. Henry Cabot Lodge winning New Hampshire in the 1964 Republican primary. So that favors Romney.

Then there's South Carolina. Voters there tend to go along with caucus-goers in Iowa--and the winner in Iowa and South Carolina is more likely to determine the GOP nominee than the winner in New Hampshire. In 1996, Bob Dole won Iowa, lost New Hampshire to Pat Buchanan, then won South Carolina and went on to receive the nomination. In 2000, George W. Bush won Iowa, lost New Hampshire to John McCain, then won South Carolina and went on to become the nominee. The historical record suggests it's difficult to win the nomination without winning two of these three states. The Giuliani campaign seems willing to risk testing that proposition.

Giuliani is unusual in other ways. The most prominent is his stance on abortion, which is not only pro-choice but also seems to be pro-Roe v. Wade. If Giuliani were to win the nomination, he would be the first GOP nominee in more than 30 years to hold these positions. Gerald Ford typically is cited as the last pro-choice Republican nominee, but the history is more complicated than that. The 1976 GOP platform was explicitly anti-Roe, but Ford himself was more equivocal. He said that he opposed abortion and that Roe had been wrongly decided, though he opposed a constitutional amendment to return the issue to the states. Betty Ford's strong support for abortion rights further complicated her husband's position and has shaped the historical record.

After his performance in the first GOP debate, when he seemed ambivalent and confused on abortion, Giuliani steadily lost ground in national GOP polls. Now those numbers appear to have stabilized. In some cases they've improved. The media attribute this to Giuliani's May 11 speech at Houston Baptist College, where he unequivocally supported abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples. The truth is the May 11 speech said little that was new, and Giuliani's stabilizing in the polls more likely can be attributed to his good performance in subsequent debates and his success at guiding the campaign back onto national security and economic policy terrain. A good day for Giuliani is when no one talks about social issues.

In the meantime, the peculiarities pile up. Giuliani would be the first Italian American to win the presidential nomination of either party. He would be the first Catholic ever to win the GOP nod. He would be the first former New York City mayor to win a presidential nomination. He would be the first GOP nominee to have supported Mario Cuomo for state office. All of this has never happened before. But I hear there's a first time for everything.

Matthew Continetti is associate editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Purity or Presidency?

Roger Simon

We wise heads in the Washington press corps have pretty much decided that Rudy Giuliani is leading in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination because of ignorance.

Republicans obviously know very little about him. And when they wake up and smell his stands on social issues, he will sink like a rock.

But … maybe not.

Maybe Republican voters are not so ignorant after all.

Maybe they figure that after losing both houses of Congress in 2006, after Katrina, after Iraq, after the current veterans' care scandal, and taking into account a natural desire for change, the Republican presidential nominee is going to have an uphill fight in 2008.

And maybe some Republicans figure that they are going to need something more than the same old hot buttons they have pushed time and time again.

Maybe they believe that if a Republican is going to win in 2008, the party must do something other than just "grow the Republican base," which has been the mantra for a while now.

Maybe a Republican who can attract some independent, centrist, swing and non-ideological votes, a pro-choice Republican who, because of that, could actually put California in play, would have the best chance of winning against a Democrat.

The wise-head theory has been that Giuliani is one of those candidates who could do well in a general election but could never win his party's nomination.

But what happens if Republicans decide that they want somebody who can win in November, rather than somebody who is more ideologically pure?

On Monday, Giuliani was endorsed by David Vitter, a conservative Republican senator from Louisiana.

When a reporter asked Vitter if Giuliani would be a "tough sell" in Louisiana, Vitter replied: "I don't think he is going to be at all, particularly post-Katrina."

Translation: When the next hurricane hits, people are going to want a president who knows what he is doing rather than a president who believes that abortion is murder.

'My 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy.'

Some Republicans will not buy this. Perhaps most of them won't. After all, Republican media wizards have sold them on the opposite message for years. They have said that ideology is what really matters in elections, not competence. Ideology, Republicans have been told in election after election, is what gets people to the polls.

Giuliani has a different message: He says he knows how to run things. He says he knows how to get the job done. He says America will be attacked by terrorists in the future and it would be a good idea to have a president who can handle that.

He does not ignore the Republican base. He just asks it to grow up.

This is what Giuliani said at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington: "Ronald Reagan used to say, 'My 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy.' What he meant by that is, we don't all see eye to eye on everything. You and I have a lot of common beliefs that are the same, and we have some that are different. You just described your relationship, I think, with your husband, your wife, your children."

He also said: "The point of a presidential election is to figure out who you believe the most and what you think are the most important things for this country at a particular time."

Conservative columnist George Will, who gave a rousing introduction of Giuliani at the conference, has written that Giuliani is doing well in the polls because Republicans know where he stands, not because they don't.

"This does not mean that the social issues have lost their saliency," Will writes. "People for whom opposition to abortion is very important might, however, think that in wartime it is not supremely important."

And they might also think they would rather win next fall than lose.

The question Giuliani poses to his party is a simple one.

Which would you rather have: purity or the presidency?

The Lure of Rudy's Executive Prowess

Rich Lowry

Rudy Giuliani might have been an inspiration in the days after 9/11, but what relevance does that have now? He might have cleaned up New York City, but why should most Americans care whether, say, Bryant Park is a drug-dealer-infested nightmare or a pleasant place for office workers on a lunch break? The power of Giuliani's presidential candidacy is in neither of these things per se, but in the allure of executive prowess.

A leaked strategy memo from the campaign of Mitt Romney said that the former Massachusetts governor could contrast himself with President Bush with one word, "intelligence." That is unfair to Bush, who is not an unintelligent man. But the memo was correct in noting how Republican candidates for president will have to contrast their styles and skills with those of Bush. Republicans don't need more sheer IQ in their next nominee, but more EI -- not emotional intelligence, as the popular book had it, but executive intelligence.

Giuliani demonstrated it in New York. He ran the fourth-largest government in the country, from an office that had awesome powers (unlike the governorship of Texas), at a time when the city was in crisis, without a strong party to back him and in the teeth of a hostile press. And he succeeded. That, in a few phrases, is the appeal of Rudy Giuliani.

Fred Siegel describes him in his book Prince of the City as having "a mathematical and military cast of mind," and quotes a former aide who explains that Giuliani is such a baseball fan because the game brings "together three things that he loves: statistics, teamwork and individual effort." Siegel compares Rudy's fascination with the intricacies of government to that of Bill Clinton, who had the same interest in details although without the decisiveness, and the late Sen. Daniel Pat Moynihan, who grasped how government worked but never was an executive.

Giuliani needed little sleep, which made extra hours available to him that he could pour into work. He had talented people around him whom he forged into an instrument of his executive will. Giuliani had daily 8 A.M. meetings to ensure that his deputies and commissioners were on the same page. As a former aide told Siegel, "You could draw a clear line on an organization chart for almost everything the Rudy administration did."

Giuliani's axioms of governance, described in his book "Leadership," now read as a kind of rebuttal to Bush's hands-off management style. One of his rules is "Always Sweat the Small Stuff." Another is "Prepare Relentlessly." He delivered annual 90-minute State of the City addresses without a prepared text: "I presented it from my own head and heart, not from a page." And "Everyone's Accountable, All of the Time." Giuliani kept a two-word sign on his desk: "I'M RESPONSIBLE."

Famously the first CEO president, Bush has had his reputation as an executive trashed by Katrina and Iraq. Bush had seen his role primarily as setting goals, then remaining resolute and confident about them. But the resolution and confidence are self-defeating if the goals aren't matched with the appropriate means. Bush has been ill-served by his willingness to stand by failed subordinates (thereby eroding any sense of accountability), by his relative lack of interest in details and by his inability to establish coherence within his own government.

This makes the Competence Primary very important in the Republican nomination contest, and Giuliani is the front-runner in it, although he has competition from Romney, a successful businessman with strong management skills. This doesn't mean that Giuliani will excel in the Temperament Primary. Some of the qualities that made him a successful mayor -- the hunger for power, the jealousy of other centers of authority, the egocentric drive -- don't make him the most pleasant person. And the Ideological Primary will be a major challenge.

But troubled organizations often look to hire an executive who has succeeded elsewhere. Hence the allure of Rudy Giuliani.

What America Sees in Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Tuesday

It’s a long way from 9/11/01 to 11/04/08. New Yorkers may be surprised by how far Rudy Giuliani has come already. But that’s only because we know him.

• By Stephen Rodrick - New York Times Magazine
  

T his is the sound of a presidential boomlet. Not that it seems like that at the moment. It’s Friday evening, January 12, and America’s Mayor, copyright pending, finds himself in Wilmington, Delaware, at the crusty Hotel du Pont, for what appears to be a routine stop on the rubber-sole-and-rice-pilaf circuit. Tonight, Rudolph Giuliani is receiving an award at an annual gala held by former governor Pete du Pont, the preppy descendent of the hotel’s founder who is best known for conducting an honorable pro-choice 1988 presidential campaign, which, as Rudy must surely know, resulted in zero delegates.

The 300 Republicans arriving for cocktails look desperately in need of them. And with good reason. It’s just two days after the speech in which President Bush conceded, sort of, that mistakes were made in Iraq, then unveiled his plan to send 20,000 more troops there. Congress has just reverted to the Democrats, and Hillarymania and Obamamania are sucking up all the political oxygen.

Rudy is cranky, too. The year is barely two weeks old, and it’s already off to an epically bad start. Right after New Year’s, a 126-page confidential campaign memo concerning a potential Giuliani presidential run fell into the hands of the Daily News. His campaign hadn’t even begun, and there was already a crisis. It was hard to tell which was more embarrassing: the cataloguing of Rudy’s potential weaknesses or the battle plans outlining the courting of GOP moneymen already committed to John McCain. It all suggested a kind of amateurism: My First Presidential Campaign brought to you by the folks at Playskool.

A few hours before his speech, Giuliani inadvertently wanders into a sparsely populated press room. He looks older and wearier than the last time we saw him. There’s the same dark suit, but the undertaker hunch is a bit more pronounced. When a reporter asks what he’s doing here, Giuliani skips the friendly kibitzing. Instead he snaps, “I’m calling my wife. I need privacy.” It’s been said that 9/11 softened Rudy’s edges. If there really is a kinder, gentler Giuliani, he’s not showing it.

Right, 9/11. Out in the dining room, after the salads are served, Delaware congressman Mike Castle takes the microphone. He talks about Rudy and the squeegee men. BlackBerrys continue scrolling. But then Castle tells of the ground-zero tour the mayor gave him and other congressmen in the days after the terror attacks. People start to pay attention. “He attended most of the funerals; he was there in every way possible,” says Castle. “I don’t think we can ever thank him enough for what he did.”

Now Rudy strides to the podium. The room rises. Suits at the cheap tables stand and a banker type sticks his fingers in his mouth and gives a loud whistle.

Initially, Giuliani squanders the goodwill. A bit on immigration lands with a thud. He notes that China has built more than 30 nuclear reactors since we last built one. “Maybe we should copy China.”

What? You can see the thought bubbles forming over people’s heads: Can this be the same guy we saw on television? The guy who was so presidential when our actual president was MIA?

But then Rudy finds his comfort zone. Along with McCain and Mitt Romney, his best-known fellow Republican presidential contenders, Giuliani is out on the thin, saggy pro-surge limb with the president. But Rudy can spin the issue in a way McCain and Romney, not to mention Hillary and Barack Obama, cannot. And now he does just that: Iraq leads to 9/11, which leads to the sacred image of construction workers raising the flag over ground zero.

“I knew what they were standing on top of,” Giuliani says. “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days. And they put their lives at risk raising that flag.”

The room is silent. Not a fork hits a plate, not one gold bracelet rattles.

“They put the flag up to say, ‘You can’t beat us, because we’re Americans.’"

The mayor pauses and, as if on cue, an old woman sniffles.

He continues. “And we don’t say this with arrogance or in a militaristic way, but in a spiritual way: Our ideas are better than yours.”

Applause reverberates off the chandeliers. Millionaires pump fists. Dowagers daub eyes. This is what they came to see! Seemingly every law-enforcement officer in Wilmington appears with a camera. Over and over, Giuliani grips and grins.

It may sound preposterous to a Rudy-savvy New Yorker. But in this ballroom full of lock-jawed Wasps, it sounds like presidential salvation.

Can Rudy Giuliani ride 9/11 all the way to the White House? That appears to be his game plan. Beginning that night in Wilmington, Giuliani spent much of the first two months of the year barnstorming around the country—New Hampshire, South Carolina, California—on his unofficial presidential-campaign rollout tour (unless you count his multiple pseudo-announcements, Giuliani has yet to formally declare his candidacy). In many respects, it’s been the standard early-season-campaign drill: Rudy has floated and discarded whole concepts, artfully repositioned his personal history, and studiously avoided all but the most friendly media.

On most issues, his spiel doesn’t sound that different from those of McCain and Romney. But there’s one exception. Over and over again, wherever he goes, America’s Mayor evokes 9/11. And over and over again, wherever he goes, people cheer. Whenever Rudy talks about anything other than the September 11 terror attacks, he’s just another Republican presidential hopeful with his particular set of strengths and weaknesses. When he talks about 9/11, he becomes something else: a national hero.

New Yorkers may find that hard to believe. Anyone who lived here at the time remembers the 9/10 Rudy: strong on crime and the economy, yes, but arrogant, bullying, and terrible on race and civil rights. And while it’s impossible not to respect what Giuliani did for the city on 9/11 and in the days afterward, New Yorkers have experienced an inevitable September 11 fatigue. The 9/11 story has been told so many times that the Rudy-as-hero narrative, however moving, has lost much of its power. Except for those who have a personal connection to the tragedy, people have generally moved on. Besides, it’s common knowledge that a pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights, thrice-married Catholic northeastern Republican is unelectable, right?

The rest of America sees a far different Rudy. West of the Hudson, the 9/10 Rudy doesn’t exist and never did. For them, September 11 was never so much a real day as a distant televised drama. It has more symbolic meaning than actual meaning: It’s equal parts Pearl Harbor and resurrection. And guess who plays the role of national savior? Not George Bush. Not John McCain. Not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Once the rest of the country sees Giuliani up close, the conventional New York wisdom once held, his campaign will surely fold. So far, exactly the opposite has happened. The more Rudy has put himself out there, the higher his numbers have climbed. Last week, a CBS poll showed Giuliani leading McCain by a whopping 21 points while a Quinnipiac survey found Giuliani running five points ahead of Hillary nationally, and dead even in blue states.

Yes, Rudy is the new horse in the race and thus, for now, the most compelling. Much of his popularity comes from the fact that he’s entered the race just as McCain’s ties to George Bush’s Iraq policy threaten to render his once inevitable nomination stillborn. At the same time, an idea has taken root that the 70-year-old Arizona senator, cancer survivor, and former POW, who would be the oldest person ever elected president, won’t be up to the job.

Giuliani’s pro-war stance and his moderate social-issue positions may yet bury him. So could a lack of money, a green campaign staff, his thin political résumé, his trifecta of marriages, and, not least of all, the fact that the 9/11 card, however powerful it is, could simply prove too flimsy to carry him all the way to the White House. With 21 months to go before Election Day, there’s still more than enough time for McCain to reassert himself—or any number of other scenarios to play out that don’t involve Giuliani’s becoming president. Still, no Republican presidential candidate in modern history has held this big a lead a year out and not scored the GOP nomination.

Believe it or not, America’s Mayor could be America’s next president.

I t’s nine below zero in Bretton Woods, deep in New Hampshire’s North Country. The snow crackles under a cavalcade of SUVs creeping up the driveway of the mammoth Mount Washington Hotel. The hotel once hosted FDR for a pivotal 1944 conference on postwar monetary policy. Now here’s Rudy speaking at the Littleton Chamber of Commerce’s annual supper. It makes sense, of course. New Hampshire still holds the nation’s first primary, and Rudy needs to test his material way, way out of town. On this, Giuliani’s first ’07 trip to the state, he has his third wife, Judi, in tow. The would-be First Couple looks a bit mismatched as they say hello to a pack of Girl Scouts stationed near the door selling cookies. Judi is all glamour in pearls and a black turtleneck. Rudy is in need of an ear-hair trimmer. But Giuliani proves he’s no George Bush the Elder—he whips out a fist-size wad of cash and gives the girls $80 for $70 worth of cookies.

September 11 comes up even faster than Rudy could have expected. One of the scouts tells Giuliani that she lost a cousin that day. Rudy smiles a bit and touches her on the shoulder while Judi gives her a hug. The girl asks how the mayor made it through that day. “With the help of loved ones,” he replies. The little girl smiles. Afterward, I ask the girl what her cousin’s name was. “I don’t know, I never met him,” she says. By now, another blonde girl, maybe 11, is tugging on the mayor’s sleeve. “You’ve been my hero since 9/11.”

Landov)

There’s more 9/11 bathos—New Hampshire seems awash in it. Holding hands, Rudy and Judi are shuttled into a conference room for photos. When Rudy emerges, Jan Mercieri, the wife of a local fire chief, asks him to autograph Portraits: 9/11/01, the New York Times book of short biographies of the 9/11 dead. Giuliani signs, Mercieri gets teary, and they embrace. Mercieri is then deluged by the media pack. What did he say? What did he write? What does she think about his stance on abortion? “Those issues don’t matter,” said Mercieri. “After 9/11, I’d vote for him in a second.”

Up on the dais, it’s Rudy’s turn to raise the subject of the terror attacks. September 11 is proving to be a versatile tool. In Delaware, he used it to invoke heroism. Here, it’s all about scaring the bejesus out of country folk. Someone asks him what his management style would be as president if there was another Katrina or terrorist attack.

The secret is to be prepared for anything, Rudy says. Terrorism can happen in New York or Boston or in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, “one of the smallest towns in the United States.”

The punchy good cheer of this small town is replaced with grave attention. Rudy notes that he once spoke to the Shanksville high-school graduating class. “But for the grace of God and the bravery of the people who brought that plane down,” he says, “those kids wouldn’t be with us.”

Tonight’s attendees, of course, have a far greater chance of being killed on an icy road on the way home tonight than via a plane falling out of the sky. But those are facts; Giuliani is playing on emotion and fear.

After his speech, Rudy never gets a chance to eat. There are too many people wanting pictures, too many people wanting a hug, too many people offering one variation or another of what one woman says: “Thank you for keeping us safe.”

Before 9/11, the idea of Rudy Giuliani running for president would have been laughable. That morning, Giuliani had breakfast at the Peninsula Hotel with Bill Simon, a longtime friend. Simon, a business executive and the son of a former Treasury secretary, was contemplating a 2002 California gubernatorial bid. Giuliani agreed to help, but wasn’t sure he would be of much assistance. “I could endorse your opponent,” joked Giuliani. “That might help you more.”

A few minutes later, Giuliani’s cell phone rang. As the towers fell, President Bush read a children’s story, and Dick Cheney disappeared into a bunker, Rudy Giuliani was in harm’s way. By 11 a.m., he was on television asking for calm. That night, he famously proclaimed, “New York is still here. We’ve undergone tremendous losses and we’re going to grieve for them horribly, but New York is going to be here tomorrow morning. And it’s going to be here forever.”

By the end of that day, Rudy was no longer just a big-city mayor with a mixed record. He was a legend.

September 11 has been Giuliani’s alpha and omega ever since. After leaving office, the mayor formed Giuliani Partners, an omnibus security-consulting firm. Giuliani offered his clients his post-9/11 expertise—and his gold-plated name; in return, they paid handsomely and basked in his fame. Mexico City paid Giuliani’s firm more than $4 million to help make its city safe. The makers of OxyContin hired Giuliani to beef up their security, and to help persuade the federal government not to curtail access to what came to be called “hillbilly heroin.” (Giuliani recently moved to divest himself of the investment-banking arm of Giuliani Partners, Giuliani Capital Advisors, to avoid potential conflicts.

Giuliani became a rock star on the speaking circuit. At first, he did the events for free. Eventually, he would charge $100,000 an outing. Last year, Forbes estimates, Giuliani made $8 million from speaking gigs.

Since 2002, Giuliani has also used his 9/11 fame to help his fellow Republicans, stumping for more than 200 of them, and collecting valuable political chits in return. In a three-day period the weekend before the 2006 elections, as we learned from the leaked campaign memo, Giuliani appeared on behalf of GOP candidates in Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.

Everywhere he went, he played the 9/11 card, dismissing the Democrats as squishy on terror. More often than not, it worked. “Ask anyone, and they will tell you that their Giuliani event raised the most money,” says Ralph Reed. (Last year, Giuliani campaigned for the former director of the Christian Coalition during his unsuccessful, scandal-marred run for Georgia lieutenant governor.) “People don’t forget that.”

On Meet the Press the Sunday before the 2004 election, Giuliani told Tim Russert that Osama bin Laden “wants George Bush out of the White House.” It may have been crude, it may have been crass, but just about everyone allowed it was effective.

Corbis)

Why does 9/11 play so well for Rudy? Our Calvinist streak dictates that the greater the adversity a man overcomes, the more we worship him—and Rudy certainly overcame adversity on 9/11. “Here on the coasts, we make fun of heroes,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. “We think it’s hokey. But the rest of America craves heroes. To them, Rudy’s like Eisenhower. Mothers bring their sons to see him.”

Post-9/11 events have only made Giuliani more exalted. The more the war on terror bogs down, the better he looks. September 11 has spawned two wars, cost us 6,000 American lives here and abroad, and produced precious few heroes. Those we got wilted under scrutiny. Donald Rumsfeld turned out to be a nut job, Jessica Lynch may or may not have actually needed to be rescued, and Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire. There have been no Pattons, no MacArthurs, no Eisenhowers. There is only Rudy.

Outside of New York, there is a still-unsatisfied appetite for revenge (that hunger seems to get stronger, strangely enough, the farther one gets from ground zero). Bin Laden is still at large. Saddam Hussein, it’s now tragically clear, had nothing to do with the terror attacks, however awful his other transgressions were. People seem to believe—wish?—that Rudy can somehow bring us justice. Who else could at this point?

To many Americans, Rudy fills the leadership vacuum created by Bush’s bungling of the war and Katrina. Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s former campaign manager, recalls running a Democratic focus group for a 2005 mayoral candidate in Los Angeles. “We were asking what they were looking for in a leader,” Trippi says. “One guy said, ‘Why can’t we have someone like Rudy?’ Then everyone joined in, saying ‘Yeah, we need a Rudy. We need a Rudy.’ ” Those were Democrats, and this was 2005. “It’s still that forceful,” says Trippi.

September 11 also gives Giuliani at least some credibility on the signature issue of the campaign: Iraq. So what if Rudy doesn’t have a shred of foreign-policy experience? The perception goes something like this: hero of 9/11 = expert in the war on terror = strong commander-in-chief.

September 11 could even help Rudy win over the hard right. Evangelicals see the war on terror as nothing less than a metaphysical battle for the soul of Christianity, with Rudy the Lionheart as their crusader. “Rudy has created great brand equity on terrorism with Christians,” says Reed. “They won’t give him a pass, but they’ll listen on the other issues.”

Rudy’s comment suggests a broader point: 9/11 gives Rudy a kind of golden glow that makes all his positives seem a bit more positive and all his negatives a bit less negative.

Never mind the southern hospitality and softly swaying palmetto trees. South Carolina is the killing fields of Republican presidential politics. Just ask John McCain. He arrived in 2000, fresh from his win in New Hampshire, as the Republican front-runner. Two weeks and a flurry of push-poll attacks later (telephone polling suggesting McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock was the most notorious), he was finished.

Eight years later, on a February Saturday, Rudy Giuliani arrives in Columbia to address the South Carolina Republican Party. Outside Seawell’s conference center, there are rumors that a pro-life picket line is going to materialize. It doesn’t, another break in a month of breaks for Rudy.

Inside, it’s a folksy affair. Chairman Katon Dawson, an excitable auto-parts salesman, gavels the meeting to order. He then asks the county chairs to introduce any guests. Fishing buddies and dads stand up and wave. This takes a while.

Finally, Dawson introduces Giuliani. There’s mention of Rudy’s crime-busting, budget-balancing ways—and, of course, September 11. “Rudy Giuliani,” says Dawson, “is known around the world as a symbol of the resilience of the American spirit.”

In seven minutes and change, Giuliani goes to 9/11. “Before September 11, we were playing defense,” he says. “President Bush said we can’t do that anymore. We have to go on offense. We have to go look for them and stop them before they come here and attack us.”

This may be the only place in Christendom where Bush is still popular. Everyone cheers. “The next president of the United State is going to have to continue to deal with this,” says Giuliani. “If you don’t think you’re going to have to deal with it, you’re not looking at the real world and you’re not going to be able to keep this country safe.” There’s more clapping (although it’s unclear which presidential candidate thinks the war on terror is about to end. Dennis Kucinich?).

Giuliani throws the crowd a few extra chocolates, parroting the White House line of Bush as Truman, a prophet who will be vindicated by history. It’s not until Giuliani has deposited as much 9/11 goodwill in the bank as possible that he addresses the real issue of the day. Dawson solicits questions from friendly faces. Eventually, someone asks Giuliani what his approach would be to judicial appointments.

“On the federal judiciary, I would want judges who are strict constructionists,” Giuliani answers. “I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret, not invent, the Constitution.”

Down here, of course, constructionist is code for pro-life. Supporting constructionist judges while remaining pro-choice is a Clinton-quality triangulation: It keeps the pro-lifers at bay without a Romney-esque flip on abortion. Half the crowd whoops, half sit on their hands. No one boos, perhaps out of deference to 9/11.

But even 9/11 has its limits. Later, I do a little push-polling of my own. I ask Max Kaster, a local pastor and party chair for Calhoun County, a half-hour south of Columbia, what people down here would think of America’s Mayor if they knew he had moved in with a gay couple after separating from his second wife. “Really?” Kaster says. He fiddles with a lapel pin that combines an American flag and a cross. “I think that would roll a lot of people’s socks down.”

September 11 or no September 11, Rudy’s still vulnerable on social issues. No matter how skillful his pandering, there are those on the right who simply won’t vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights candidate. Giuliani’s supporters like to point out that the South is trending more moderate. Still, Rudy is seeking an office that has been held by a centrist southern Democrat or right-leaning Republican southerner or westerner for four decades. The last president from the northeast was JFK.

It’s true that 9/11 gives Rudy credibility on Iraq, but not much. If the war continues to go badly—as just about everyone believes it will—Rudy’s pro-Bush, pro-surge stance, like McCain’s or anyone else’s, for that matter, could still derail him.

Rudy’s lack of experience is a weakness as well. The highest elected office Giuliani has ever held is mayor, and no one has ever made the leap straight from City Hall to the White House. The chatter among political insiders is that even 9/11 can’t cover that up. “There’s a reason Giuliani’s using 9/11 as an asset,” says Bob Shrum, political consultant to a half-dozen Democratic presidential candidates (not to mention David Dinkins). “It’s his only asset. He’s not even running on his mayoral record. He’s running on a few weeks. September 11 doesn’t change the fact that Rudy has no foreign-policy experience, and his foreign-policy record is limited to having the same position on Iraq as George Bush.”

Rudy’s campaign team is green in terms of national elections. His inner circle remains the same as that of a decade ago: Peter Powers, a longtime Rudy friend and former chief deputy mayor, lawyer Dennison Young, aide de camp and former chief of staff Anthony Carbonetti, and spokeswoman Sunny Mindel. Outsiders are viewed with skepticism, and Memogate, to their way of thinking, only justified that attitude. (Fingers were quickly pointed at Anne Dickerson, the campaign’s head fund-raiser and a former Bushie. She was summarily demoted to consultant.) Naming Mike DuHaime as campaign manager in December didn’t particularly impress political pros. Although talented, the 33-year-old DuHaime is not a proven winner. In 2000, he was deputy campaign manager of a failed New Jersey Senate run. In 2004, he ran Bush-Cheney’s Northeast campaign, which resulted in no breakthroughs and the switching of New Hampshire from red to blue. In the last cycle, DuHaime was the RNC political director in the year when the GOP gave back Congress.

On the policy side of the campaign, Giuliani insiders speak reverentially about the candidate being put through “Simon University,” a series of informal public-policy seminars chaired by Bill Simon. Alas, Simon is perceived in his native California as something of a lightweight. His 2002 California gubernatorial bid was essentially a series of train wrecks punctuated by the release of a photo purporting to show then-Governor Gray Davis receiving a campaign check in his office, an illegal act. The only problem was, the image turned out to be from somebody’s home. In New Hampshire, Giuliani hired outgoing state party chairman Wayne Semprini as his state director. Semprini was party chair for only one year, just long enough for his party to lose two congressional seats and the statehouse. In Iowa, Giuliani has been slow out of the gate; his biggest announcement was the support of Congressman Jim Nussle. Like Simon, Nussle’s claim to fame was a failed 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

Money-wise, Rudy has lined up some top-shelf donors, including Home Depot founder and former New York Stock Exchange director Kenneth Langone, whose Wall Street connections could bring millions. He also has the support of Roy Bailey, a former finance chair of the Texas Republican Party who provided some of the seed money for Giuliani Partners. Last month, Bailey organized a Houston fund-raiser for Rudy that raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. In California, Bill Simon recently coordinated a series of well-attended fund-raising events as well. But John McCain’s alliance with Bush, reluctant though it may have been, locked up GOP rainmakers like Texan Robert Mosbacher and lobbyist Thomas Loeffler a long time ago. And because Rudy was relatively late to the table, he may have missed landing the support of potentially sympathetic high rollers like Henry Kravis. Still, it’s early in the game for everyone—no one has yet raised anywhere near the money they’ll eventually need—and money flows from poll numbers. Anyone who can get and maintain a lead still has enough time to raise a fortune.

If all of those issues weren’t enough, there’s also Rudy’s temper. Sooner or later, Giuliani will have to endure scrutiny—and lots of it—on issues he doesn’t want to talk about. September 11 may well have mellowed Rudy (friends insist it genuinely has), but it remains to be seen if he can avoid being baited into exhibiting the kind of behavior that once made Jimmy Breslin call him “a small man in search of a balcony.” Maybe not. In California, I asked Giuliani if he has, in fact, softened. He laughed dismissively, then said, “Is there a mellower version of me? I don’t know. Other people are a much better judge of what versions there are of me. I am who I am.”

When you see Rudy and Judi together, it’s clear the couple is in love (a point they may have made too forcefully in an over-the-top March Harper’s Bazaar photo spread). And while some people see Judi as too slick for Middle America to embrace, others say she softens him. Regardless, the Judi game is tricky. One way or another, seeing her reminds people of the infamous Donna Hanover affair (Rudy informed the mother of his two children that he was divorcing her via press conference), not to mention the fact that Rudy’s first marriage was annulled on the grounds that he unwittingly married his second cousin (his defense was that he thought she was his third cousin).

Even 9/11, Rudy’s alleged magic bullet, could prove problematic. At some point, Rudy will inevitably air ads featuring heroic shots of him at ground zero with a voice-over that sounds something like, “On America’s darkest day, one man stood tall.” But overplaying 9/11 in any way is not without peril. “With most presidents, there’s a modesty to their heroism,” says Brown University historian and former Clinton speechwriter Ted Widmer. “George H.W. Bush was a war hero, but he didn’t talk about it. Eisenhower never used it. You have to be careful not to overinflate it.”

Or September 11 could simply lose its power. Right now, 9/11 is about all most voters know about Giuliani. “He’s like McCain in 2000,” says Mark McKinnon, the former George W. Bush consultant who is now working with McCain. “He’s a vessel people are pouring things into.” But in time, that could change. “Giuliani has legions of fans in the Republican Party, including President Bush, John McCain, and me,” McKinnon is careful to note. “But I think the traditional physics of a presidential Republican primary will be difficult.” That’s a savvy political pro’s way of saying his opponent will get creamed when the press starts looking more closely at him. Then again, McKinnon allows, “Conventional wisdom could go out the door, and the celebrity Rudy justly deserves will allow him to soar above the usual fray, and he’ll be president.”

In the end, of course, elections are about matchups. Right now, Romney, mired in single digits, is not a factor, which means the bid for the Republican nomination for the moment appears to be a two-man race: Giuliani vs. McCain.

In certain respects, Rudy measures up well in that fight. Yes, the two men hold essentially the same position on Iraq. The difference is that Giuliani is linked with Bush at ground zero in all the macho swaggering ways. McCain is linked to Bush as a bumbling quagmire creator. McCain may have conducted the war better if he had been president and he may have been an articulate critic of the Bush-Rummy fiasco, but voters see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution (assuming a solution exists). To them, McCain is a Washington insider walking lockstep with a hugely unpopular president. For the time being, anyway, Giuliani gets the 9/11 free pass.

In the battle for the hearts and minds of the religious right and social conservatives, neither Rudy nor McCain will ever be accused of being a movement conservative. In 2000, McCain called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” for their role in smearing him in South Carolina. He’s since made peace with both men, and even spoke at Falwell’s Liberty University. Last week, McCain announced that as president he would support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. The move was viewed by some observers as the senator’s first direct reaction to Giuliani, an explicit statement to the Christian right that he is on their side while Rudy, despite his constructionist-judges talk, is still officially pro-choice. Still, true believers can carry a grudge, and they’ve never liked McCain. And Rudy can play the 9/11-crusader angle to try to counter his morally wayward ways.

In the end, however, McCain may have the more meaningful advantages. Not only do his fund-raising and campaign operations compare favorably with Giuliani’s, but McCain has done this before. He’s also got a heroic story of his own, and he can clobber Rudy on the experience issue (four-term senator, ranking member of the Armed Services committee, champion of campaign-finance reform).

But let’s say Iraq continues to implode, and McCain proves too tarnished by his association with Bush to survive the fallout. No other credible candidate emerges, and Rudy somehow convinces Republican America that his handling of 9/11 and his stewardship of the country’s bluest city qualify him to be their candidate for the highest office in the land. Let’s say Rudy wins the nomination. Then what?

Conventional wisdom suggests if a Democrat can’t get elected president in 2008, the whole party should just pack it in. Still, Rudy creates problems for all three of the current front-runners. His weakness in the primaries—his centrism—would become a strength in a general election (and he’d only tack further to the middle at that point). Rudy’s lack of experience would be mitigated by Hillary’s, Obama’s, and Edwards’s own relatively thin political résumés (leaving aside her time as First Lady, Hillary’s got just six years as a senator, while Edwards has only one term, and Obama is in his first term). In some ways, all four candidates are running on image as much as anything. And Rudy’s 9/11 pitch is at least as appealing as anything Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are selling.

Still, the defining issue will again be Iraq. If there’s no turnaround, there’s no Rudy victory, certainly not against Obama (who has opposed the war all along) or Edwards (who now calls his war vote a mistake). Ironically, it’s Giuliani’s erstwhile 2000 Senate opponent who gives Rudy his best shot. Hillary Clinton’s Bush-like refusal to say “I made a mistake” makes her somewhat more vulnerable on Iraq. Rudy, meanwhile, has been careful to leave himself wiggle room on the issue by saying that he recognizes the troop surge may not work (at the same time, to protect his right flank, he’s careful to insist that whatever happens in Iraq, the broader war on terror must go on). And despite the fact that she’s not the demon she once was to the right, Hillary’s very presence on the ballot will still drive many hard-right Republicans straight to the polling place.

Of course, there is a wild card. George Will recently called Rudy the best answer to “the seven-minute question”: Which candidate is most capable of analyzing and responding to a global crisis? It may be an awful stereotype, but if there’s another terrorist attack in the summer of 2008, a lot of suburban moms who may lean toward Hillary or Obama or Edwards will, in the privacy of the voting booth, pull the lever for Rudy.

It’s a mid-February Tuesday, and Giuliani is in California’s Central Valley for the opening ceremonies of the World Ag Expo in Tulare, a.k.a. “The Greatest Farm Show on Earth.” With the Golden State threatening to move up its presidential primary next year to early February, California suddenly looks a lot more important than it used to. Rudy, in the midst of a weeklong trip, has already spoken to Silicon Valley tycoons, keynoted the state Republican convention, and smoked a cigar with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Today dawns overcast, but eventually the sun pokes through, giving glimpses of an endless blue sky. Amid the almond fields, overalls, and talk of irrigation reform, no place in America seems farther away from that gray, dark pit in lower Manhattan.

Still, five minutes into his speech, Rudy Giuliani, casually dressed in blue blazer, black loafers, and a V-neck sweater, finds his way to September 11. The mayor begins by admitting he doesn’t know much about ag policy, but that he’s a quick study. What he does know, he says, he learned on 9/11.

“We depend on each other. I always knew that, but that really got into my heart, my soul, in a way I’ll never forget, on September 11, 2001,” says Giuliani. “You realize how much we depend on each other. We depend on you a lot for food for sustenance.”

Rudy’s taking 9/11 local again, and he keeps working it. He tells the farmers what they could learn from that day. “We made a mistake on energy. I just met two Marines who were wounded in Fallujah before I came in here. It is very frustrating in a way that goes deep into our heart; we got to send monies to our enemies to protect a lifestyle in America. We can’t let it happen with food. The American farmer is the most productive, most innovative farmer in the world.”

The crowd cheers. Giuliani continues with his standard “They are at war with us” speech. But today, he adds a new wrinkle. “It was a very, very strange accident of fate or whatever, but I was in London, a half block away from the first bomb that went off a year and a half ago. I was six miles away when the first plane hit the World Trade Center and one mile away when the second plane it. I’ve lived through these attacks.”

This time, the crowd nods but doesn’t clap. The London addendum hit a bum note. It’s as if Rudy’s trying to make himself out to be the Zelig of terrorism. For the first time, he might have overplayed 9/11.

By now, however, the 9/11 song is so familiar that Rudy quickly finds his way back to the beat. “They believe their perverted ideas are stronger than our belief in democracy, freedom, decency, and the rule of law.” He pauses and surveys the room full of fourth-generation Japanese farmers, tractor salesmen, and a lone bagpipe player. “And they’re wrong. Absolutely wrong.”

There is a standing ovation.

After his speech, Giuliani is golf-carted to a nearby exhibition to try out some of the new farm gadgets. He even screws in a few screws with a newfangled drill. For no clear reason, a Marine in dress blue is never too far from the mayor’s side.

“You’re gonna run, right?” asks a worried farmer. “Don’t let us down.”

“I won’t,” promises Giuliani.

Then the former mayor of New York, standing in a California farm field surrounded by tractors and a two-story-tall thresher, pulls out a Sharpie, and signs a few more autographs.