There's an interesting discussion afoot about what Giuliani has proved himself to be to politicos. Ross writes, "Andy Ferguson, as usual, got here first, when he pointed out that Rudy has positioned himself as the candidate of "every voter who is at once pro-choice and pro-war, pro-gay rights and pro-Patriot Act, against guns and in favor of privatizing Social Security." Whatever else this is, it shouldn't be confused with libertarianism."
Quite so. But what's yet to be determined is to what extent Rudy Giuliani is able to convince voters that he's "their candidate"--whether that's a libertarian, a conservative or something else entirely. A sign of a truly talented politician is, I think, an ability to be at the same time a classical liberal, a hawk, a dove, a pro-life pro-choicer, who favors the free market unless it promotes personal perversion unless the people it perverts are being perverted in their bedrooms, but even that's not really ideal. Right? Giuliani is certainly not a libertarian. But the "medium-sized constituency for lower taxes plus less government regulation of sex"--people who might well call themselves libertarians--probably thinks he is. Meanwhile, he's been able to say pretty outwardly that he's pro-choice, but hat he wants to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, and this has for now allowed him to maintain his lead in the national polls, despite the fact that we were all supposed to believe that his stance would forever poison him with conservatives. It certainly might in the longrun. But in the short term, Giuliani's somehow managing to convince Republicans of wildly divergent views that he'd be a pretty acceptable president.