Or, Giuliani has converted to federalism because he is basically a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage New York City liberal with a dissolute personal life to match, who disagrees with his party's strongest supporters on many of the issues they care about most.

I like the way I say it better.

Rudolfus Giulianius is a beautiful human servant of freedom. He will do for America what he did for New York's Firefighters.

No wonder you silly liberals are quivering with fear. I am so proud of our nation for finding such heroes and delivering them to us at the right moment.

OK! Rudy will never carry my state, so that means I won't have to worry about him being my President.

Oh, that's not the way he wants it?

As a mayor, I would expect him to take that next step, and instead of breaking it down state-by-state, allow it to be broken down to urban and rural areas within a state (so urbanites can get gun control laws they need for survival, and farmers don't get the tools they need to run their farms banned) - This is the source of much of the political tension in this country; the urban/rural split.

Every state has cities.

A mayor ought to know that.

In any case - these days, a "Federalist" is just code for racist.
Unless they also think states should be able to legalize gay marriage, medical marijuana, euthenasia, when to halt vote-counts, etc. (most self-proclaimed "federalists" are opposed)

Zathras - if you were right he'd have my vote. Instead, I think he's an authoritarian whose sole instinct is self-aggrandizement and whose every political position his entire life has been motivated by its effect on his electability. But hey, I could be wrong.

OSB - when did that get codified? I, and all the federalists I know, missed the memo. I'm pro-all of that, except (probably) for what you mean by vote counts.

I like the way I say it better.

I'm sure you do, Zathras, but on what do you base your assertion that "Giuliani has converted to federalism"? Kevin's point that it's probably a sham better fits the available facts.

George Bush was all about states' rights when he campaigned, too. Now we know that not only was he not for states' rights, he wasn't for a strong central gov't either. He was just for power for him.

Republicans have decided this is the age of the Imperial Presidency. For without that and the everpresent bogeman of terrorists they would not be able to escape accountability and hold on to the reins of power.

Yeah, gosh, it's really rare for right-wing Republicans to declare they're in favor of "states' rights" whenever that means supporting regressive, reactionary, or outright barbaric policies.

And Ronald Reagan didn't launch his presidential campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi with a speech about getting the federal government off these locals' backs.

I love this characterization: "Uncomfortable for both left and right." Just what we want in a president: consistently and comprehensively irritating and wrong.

Ah, "federalism"...the last refuge of conservative scoundrels.

Is "conservative scoundrels" redundant?

Let's see, which campaign is Brownstein's wife working for?
Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein told readers last week that he didn't intend to treat John McCain any differently, despite the fact that Brownstein's wife, former CNN producer Eileen McMenamin, has become the Arizona senator's communications director. "I am confident that her new job will not affect my judgments," he wrote.
Maybe she will also be leaving rapidly sinking camp McCain for more promising berth?

Federalism mades a lot of sense for interstate commerce, but not much sense when talking about constitutional civil rights. Civil rights should not be decided upon by state legislatures, which are often the most vile and hideous expressions of mob rule in many states. It is scary to think Mr. Giuliani was not only educated to become a lawyer, but that his celebrity as a prosecutor propelled him to political success.

Great -- here we are in 2008 with the GOP's leading candidate advocating a platform of States Rights. Here we go, back to the 1940s and 50s.

Makes sense -- the Supremes just overturned elements of Brown vs. the Board of Education. We're fighting a protracted war and still debating evolution. The divide between the haves and have-nots is like it was prior to the New Deal.

I'm guessing Rudy only wants states rights when it comes to liberal causes -- when a conservative issue arises like renewing NCLB or domestic spying he'll be a drum major for strong federal government.

People have not seen or heard from the real rudi yet and they will be terified once they do. Hillary beat him in NY because he was Rudi. Rudi is a nutso. I can't wait for the general election to start.

Giuliani on gun control- he now approves of a federal court striking down the DC gun ban. But says he favors states having different rules. Favored the Brady Law and assault weapon ban when he was mayor. Participated in litigation to impose national restrictions on the gun industry.

What's the unifying principle here? It ain't federalism. It's Rudy '08, by any means necessary.

Yeah, I agree about Brownstein.

I used to think he was smart and informed.

These days I don't.

Giuliani sure as hell doesn't believe in Federalism --that limits his power!

Just look at the way he used his power as mayor of NYC and see if you can see him leaving policy and other decisions to other branches or government and other entities like states, etc.

Don't bet on it.

Of course, it would not reduce tensions one iota.

The tensions would merely be expressed at the local level, rather than the federal level.

Sorta like Bush's surge pushing insurgents out of one area in order to establish local calm, but with a consequent increase in violence in other areas where the extra soldiers are not present.

The overall violence remains the same or increases, but locally the violence abates (albeit probably temporarily).

Just as Bush is claiming, based on the narrow window of a local area, that violence is decreasing in Iraq (in his mind he's referring to the local conditions and ignoring the countrywide conditions, while misleading the public into believing he is referring to countrywide conditions), I'm sure that Rudy will claim that because federal tensions are less, tensions have gone down, ignoring any increase in local tensions.

Problem is that a large percentage of Americans are so utterly dimwitted that they believe both Bush and Rudy.

Sigh.

"Is "conservative scoundrels" redundant?"

No, conservative hypocrite is.

Rudy is not committed to anything except the notion that he should the power to do anything he feels like doing. This is a particularly ludicrous waffle because the whole point of the social conservative movement is against federalism: they want to set social policy for the whole nation.

The "federalist" label is just a marketing ploy. It enables primary voters to believe that Rudy Giuliani would actually side with THEIR values and beliefs if he gets into office.

It is a neat way to seem principled yet fuzzy at the same time. And it is similar to the way George W. Bush was softened up as a "compassionate conservative" who believed in a "humble" foreign policy.

Then as now, the words actually meant nothing, and were mere tools to confuse and befuddle the masses. Tell them that Giuliani is a "federalist" over and over again until they internalize the talking point and start repeating it to each other, as a given truth.

But ... as a native New Yorker, I recall NOTHING in Giuliani's background that actually supports his claim to be a "federalist" in actuality. No way. Feh. Big whopping Bronx cheer on that one!

Who else is behind Rudy? This federalism issue is just another part of a package that includes all the hot-buttons: energy, health-care, gay marriage, abortion etc. From this Rolling Stone article you get a glimpse of who's behind Rudy.

His political hires speak deeply to that tendency. Chris Henick, formerly Karl Rove's most trusted deputy;
One of his top donors, Richard Collins, is a longtime Bush supporter who was instrumental in setting up "Stop Her Now," a 527 group modeled on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that will be used to attack Hillary Clinton;
Giuliani has recruited some thirty Bush "Pioneers,";
he hired the woman who spearheaded the Pioneer program to be his chief fund-raiser.

Rudy seeks to emulate GwB. Think people will notice any differences?

Once liberals think about it, they will flock to Giuliani. They will realize that his policy will allow them to practice their deviant social values in their enclaves like Massechuttes and New York, while most other states uphold American values. This is a compromise worthy of Solomon.

And here's the latest laugh from Barack Obama:

"One thing I'm very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than any other candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat," Obama tells TimeWarner.

Darling, darling, darling, what are you on? Dear me, you so must send me some. Please, please, sweet boy, don't make me wait.

Giuliani on gun control- he now approves of a federal court striking down the DC gun ban. But says he favors states having different rules.

D.C. is not a state, so there is no necessary conflict there, though certainly an apparent one.

Hey Al

Can you point the way to "Massechuttes"?

Federalism isn't a policy, it's a process, and policy is what matters.

No one intellectually honest is committed to federalism for federalism's sake - one "believes" in it because one thinks it either results in better policies, or advances the policy goals one agrees with.

One big reason, besides race-baiting, why conservatives believe in federalism is because state governments (legislatures and agencies) are generally smaller and less professionalized, and can't run deficits. Therefore, they are less well able to defend against corporate lobbyists and regulatory capture. How is an unpaid state Utilities Commission with no staff supposed to evaluate, say, rate hike proposals by big telecoms or the Enrons of the world?

My own personal term of choice is "pablum-puking, pinko-commie liberal" as an hommage to the late, great Morton Downey, Jr., the underappreciated trailblazer who, despite being cancelled, set the standard all cable new personalities aspire to. May he Rest In Peace.

Guiliani is a racist.
Take that to the bank.

Rudy Rudy --

So lemme see - you believe so deeply in the principle of federalism that you are lobbying on behalf of a gaggle of Canadian businessmen that want to run powerlines through Upstate New York despite the overwhelming opposition of locals and their elected representatives.

IMO Rudy's just another sordid hack who's only interested in the almighty dollar slipped into his pockets, see:
http://www.udpc.net/threats/NYRI/nyrioverview.html

Greg Harris upthread asks after the basis for my assertion that Giuliani has converted to federalism.

I don't really believe he has. I was just rephrasing Kevin's assertion. Basically you have a number of strange candidates on the GOP side -- strange in the sense that you wouldn't expect to see them running in a year when there wasn't a huge yawning vacuum as far as plausible Republican Presidential candidates were concerned.

McCain is past 70, Romney was a one-term governor of Massachusetts. Fred Thompson had so lost interest in public service that he chose the eve of war with Iraq to go back to television. And Giuliani was a career prosecutor who ran to daylight in New York City when its Democratic establishment had all but run the place into the ground, and found national prominence when terrorists blew up some buildings there. Each of these guys has to make some complicated maneuvers in order to look like someone GOP primary voters are used to supporting, Giuliani maybe even more than the others.

That Rudy from the most liberal state in America, New York, can boast that he is leading among GOP contenders is surprising. Hillary may be progressive, Giuliani is LIBERAL. So his support of Federalism is the greatest "snow job" to cover up the "real" Rudy who is a power and control freak.

He may fool the conservatives-- but not me!!

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalticker.blogs.cnn.com%2F2007%2F07%2F25%2Fprotester-removed-from-fred-thompson-event%2F

As one can read here the conservative and neo-con name is taking a liberal beating as well.

I was just rephrasing Kevin's assertion.

No, Zathras; Kevin spoke to Giuliani paying lip service to federalism; you, by contrast, asserted that his conversion was genuine, so of coruse you like the sound of it better.

If you don't really believe he has -- a wise opinion, of course -- then your assertion, however pleasing to you, is a tad disingenuous, isn't it?

Of course, that's been the Republican dilemma for some time, hasn't it?

By the way:

Giuliani was a career prosecutor who ran to daylight in New York City when its Democratic establishment had all but run the place into the ground, and found national prominence when terrorists blew up some buildings there.

...after locating New York's terrorism response center in those same buildings -- the ones terrorists has already attacked. I agree with you that the Republican field is pretty lame, that several of them need to contort themselves to appeal to the Bush Cultists, and that doing so will pretty much disqualify them with the electorate -- but for the good of the country, not just the Democratic Party, that's a feature, not a bug. It represents the collapse of decades of sacrificing the long-term viability of the GOP to the short-term benefit of stirring up the reactionary vote, dating back at least to Nixon's odious Southern Strategy.

The GOP needs time in the wilderness until its moderates stop tolerating the loonies that form the "base" and relegates them back to the radical fringe where it belongs.

Re Rudy's 12 Commitments: The 13th: I will make the trains run on time!
I wonder if any of you out there have read a little history about that guy in Italy and how his politics varied over the years?