In today's Washington Post, Michael Gerson, the Bush speech writer whose "Axis of Evil" speech insured that North Korea and Iran would fast-forward their programs to develop nuclear weapons, compares Rudy Giuliani to Richard Nixon. He argues that they both espoused a socially conservative vision, while not having a particularly deep belief in one.
Gerson is right to point our the similarly opportunistic and cynical views of both men. But Nixon actually had a desire to have a positive impact. Like Mr. Giuliani, he was willing to do absolutely anything to get and retain power, but he also needed to justify his amorality with a belief that he was doing good. Rudy's powerlust needs no rationalizations.
Nixon employed Daniel Patrick Moynihan - and then talked with him about ideas of ending poverty with a program that included a Guaranteed Annual Income. Nixon opened the door to China. Giuliani employed Bernard Kerik - and he slammed the door in the face of every African-American he could.
In commenting on Gerson's piece, Powerline writes in praising Giuliani that "he has embraced what loosely might be called neo-conservative thinking". It suggests that this is a brave stance. Recently, I offered an alternative explanation of Rudy the neo-con.
Time will tell whether or not Rudy's stance is stupid , but clearly bravery has nothing to do with it. Rudy has taken positions on abortion, gay rights etc, that he cannot disavow. It's not like he has a lot of room to manouever. Thus his passionate hug of a neo-con is his only option.
The left is terrified of Thompson as is evidenced by the level of ‘chatter’.
Say, did those billing documents that are retained in perpetuity, as required by federal law, ever show up or is the story still about the 1991 meeting notes? I am really not following this. Maybe Rather has the documents. He has access to this kind of ‘stuff’ you know.
Posted by: rick | July 19, 2007 at 07:05 PM