9 thoughts on “A States-Rights Conservative?”

  1. In other words, Giuliani is a federalist/states-rights proponent when it comes to sound bites. When it comes to actually government he won't be a “rigid slave to federalism.” He might be a serious contender for the nomination, but he most certainly is not a serious candidate.


  2. Giuliani's new-found “federalism” seems to me to be entirely a consequence of the fact that he can't run away from his record as effectively as Romney can (not sure why, probably because of those crossdressing videos). Due to his character, I would expect a President Giuliani (writing that phrase gives me the creeps) to attempt to accumulate as much power as possible, federalism be damned.

    While Thompson seems to me to be merely a stupid (not evil) man and Romney seems without principles (thus would do whatever the polls told him to), Giuliani scares me.


    Rolling Stone – Giuliani, Worse Than Bush


  3. TDL,

    You're right to not take everything on trust. The way federalism is presented appears to be as a synonym for “strict constructionist' or even “Federalist Society.” President's naturally try to expand their powers, so those that appoint federalist judges (like Bush, for example) are all the more remarkable.


    The links you provided make me MORE supportive!


    Could you explain your first comment?


    I take it your a George Willite [1]?

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/06/the-dardanelles-of-the-beltway.html

  4. I don't think the eventual winner is among that bunch of candidates.

    Fred Thompson was in Houston today raising tons of money.

  5. I think the Roberts court has far to go to prove it is a constructionist/federal court. Giuliani is not a constructionist. I also want to point out that he equated liberty with submitting to authority. This guy is power hungry and does not belong in the Oval Office. The only states rights/constitutionalist running in the GOP primary is Ron Paul, it will be interesting to see how he performs in the 3rd quarter.


  6. For the record – for any Secret Service readers – I will do no killings if Fred Thompson is nominated.

    I just had to get that out of the way.

    I just don't see his attraction. He can strike a presidential pose? He can turn on gravitas in his speaking voice? So the what. He seems like a lightweight to me, who has had some good lines on Law & Order 5 minutes a show for a couple of years. Oh he had a a turn the US Senate? That doesn't raise his profile for me.

    May god protect America from Senators who want to be President!

    I just don't get it.

  7. Dan, I'm pretty disturbed as to how linking Giuliani to something like Japanese internment camps makes you MORE supportive of Giuliani. The guy is a creep and a fascist-in-waiting.

  8. Adrian,

    Hysteria against any candidate makes me tend toward that candidate [1]. There are valid criticisms against Giuliani. It's just that your post and Rolling Stone's article was relatively free of them and relatively full of hyperbole.


    Thompson's advantage is that he's relatively unambitious and surrounds himself with party insiders. The GOP is a “follow-the-leader” organization where these attitudes tend to be pluses. The only time since FDR when it wasn't the “turn” of the GOP candidate was 1964. As McCain's imploded, this means the GOP will be looking for the next-best-thing.


    Prose before hos. Heh.


    I've commented on the Roberts court before [2,3]. Needless to say, I'm a fan.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/02/21/judging_hilary_by_her_enemies.html
    [2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/18/gonzales-v-carhart-alone-justifies-the-second-gw-bush-admini.html
    [3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/06/28/against-the-racial-gap.html

  9. Adrian,

    Perhaps, but using “concentration camp” rhetoric against a politician because he believes that different foreign policies will produce different outcomes sure doesn't make Chicken Little more credible!

  10. Dan,
    What exactly is Giuliani's foreign policy? I do not think he really has one, except “more of the same.” You are right when you imply hysteria is unnecessary. The argument that Giuliani is a fascist (or at least a proto-fascist) can be made without hysterics. I would claim that Giuliani believes that the individual should be subjugated to the interests of the state and that the existence of the state should be glorified and that no criticism of the state should be tolerated. This is how he “ran” NYC and his critics in NYC. He also benefited from secular trends in lower crime and increasing economic activity and claimed that the results were of his own activities; I would say that this makes him a glory hound as well.

    If you truly believe in states rights, Giuliani is not the man you would want to support. I would argue that he comes from the nationalist, New York political tradition that started with Hamilton, R. Morris, and G. Morris with heavy fascistic (in the political philosophical sense not the contemporary pop culture sense) undertones.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *