Who's Party is it Anyway?

A couple of thoughts on Giuliani's candidacy and the current state of affairs in the major parties.

Much of the reaction to Rudy running centers on the theory that he is "too liberal" on social issues to be nominated. This "theory" is based upon the "fact" that the GOP is completely controlled by the "religious right". My Democrat friends have been chiding me for years on the idea that Geo. Bush and the GOP dance to the tune of the Falwells, Robertsons, Reeds and the like.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that the GOP is the more inclusive party. I do not believe that there is any position that is an absolute litmus test for a GOP candidate. That is certainly not true of the Democrats. No Democrat can be nominated for national office unless he or she is pro-choice. The Dems didn't even let a sitting Governor, Robert Casey (PA), speak at their convention because of his pro-life stance. The NAACP and unions (particularly, teacher's unions) have similar status. Any Democrat unwilling to toe the line is an apostate. Opposition to the Iraq War is quickly becoming one of those ultimate tests.

The GOP certainly has its share of interest groups which demand support. But an objective look at the make-up of the GOP and the candidates it has run on a national level shows that GOP candidates get a little more leeway than their Democrat counterparts.

I'd say the candidacies of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton will provide a proving ground for my theory. Hillary is facing attacks from the left, particularly on her initial Iraq War stance. Rudy faces the suspicion of the GOP right. If their runs for the White House are scuttled by the extremists in their respective parties, we'll know whether or not the days of moderation are over.

I'll make my prediction here:

Rudy will have an easier time with the GOP nomination than Hillary will with the Democrats.

Time will tell.