Why Giuliani?

Over at Hugh Hewitt's site, there's been a poll asking participants to select their favorite presidential candidate. Results are here.

Interestingly, Rudy Giuliani is winning -- an intriguing result, given that many in Hugh's audience and readership are, like me, fairly straightforward social conservatives to whom Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gay rights record might seem to have limited appeal.

Here, in my view, is why Giuliani has done so well (outstripping 2nd place finisher George Allen, at the moment, by some 76 votes) -- or, at least, here's why I voted for him.

First, at the moment, I'm not overwhelmed by any of the other candidates. As I've noted before, I've found George Allen less than substantive, almost not-ready-for-prime-time. McCain is, of course, out of the question. Frist has often been a weak leader, prone to amateurish mistakes.

That leaves Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I like Mitt Romney a lot. But at the moment, Giuliani seems to be the best choice. First, (like Romney), he's from outside the Beltway -- a huge advantage at a time when most Americans seem relatively disgusted with both parties in Congress.

Second, he's got a proven record of success (I'm trying to learn more about Romney's health care bill and I admire the way he's tried to uphold the rule of law against an out of control judiciary, but I note that Giuliani ran for reelection; Romney didn't). In a country where the press has repeatedly tried to paint a picture of federal government inefficiency in episodes as varied as the response to Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq, a can-do reputation counts for a lot.

Third, Giuliani has experience tussling with the toughest press in the world -- although Romney, too, has done well in a climate that favors the other party, there's little that can compare with the left-wing vituperation that was visited upon Giuliani for almost eight years running. He was routinely compared to Hitler before being compared to Hitler was cool. He stood up to it well and never faltered. His mama certainly didn't raise any wimps, and I admire that.

Finally, we know for sure that Giuliani has guts and principle when it comes to foreign policy matters -- and he stood tough from the beginning in the war on terror. As the linked piece notes, he's not afraid to engender controversy, whether it's by ejecting Yasser Arafat froM Lincoln Center in an era when he was a prized (Clinton) White House guest or returning a $10 million check to a Saudi prince who criticized US foreign policy in the wake of 9/11.

And his persona is big enough to go toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton; the fact that he isn't immediately associated with the dreaded "Religious Right" likewise might be helpful in peeling off voters who aren't comfortable with the kind of leftism that Hillary Clinton has long stood for. (Though he isn't particularly associated with the Religious Right, he nonetheless has stood up against leftist religion bashing).

How could Rudy seal the deal? Promise to nominate judges in the Roberts/Alito mold. Without that, I'm taking a longer look at Romney. With it, I could be his -- politically speaking, of course.

Update: It pretty much should go without saying that my support for Rudy Giuliani is predicated on an understanding that his marriage to Judi Nathan is stable, and that the country wouldn't be treated to a series of personal life scandals during his term in office as President. Few would voice affirmative admiration for the way that the Mayor (and his former wife) conducted their mutual personal lives in the past; most Republicans doubtless would agree that there is plenty there about which anyone would be embarassed. That being said, for better or worse, the country seems to have reached a consensus that past behavior -- so long as it's definitely past, wasn't illegal and isn't otherwise deemed unusually aberrant in a sexual sense -- constitutes no bar to the pursuit of higher office. That stance strikes me as a pretty good balance of two competing considerations: Requiring accountability and a modicum of appropriate personal behavior from elected officials, and recognizing that none of us is without imperfection or sin.