Giuliani for President?

Robert Novak is reporting that "inside sources" are indicating that Rudy Giuliani is planning on running for President in 2008. While the conventional wisdom has been leaning against a Giuliani run for some time, I've always thought that there was a very good chance he was going to go for it.

Most politicos scoff at the notion of Giuliani succeeding in the Republican Primaries, because he is at best a moderate Republican and at worst a RINO. Since the primaries tend to be dominated by the "true believers," the logic goes that someone like Giuliani can't attract the necessary level of support.

I don't necessarily believe this, however. Giuliani is likely to have very strong appeal amongst moderates of both parties and center-leaning Republicans. He has tremendous name recognition, and is viewed as the kind of hero who's image is hard to tarnish. There is a distinct possibility that many people who normally wouldn't vote for someone with his ideology would do so for him.

More interesting, however, is the potential situation that the candidates will be facing when they enter the primary battle. There is no Republican front-runner right now on the arch-Conservative side of things, and the result is a great many will probably be running when the first primaries roll around. If no frontrunner emerges, they are likely to splinter the vote, opening the door for McCain and/or Giuliani to galvanize support amongst the more center-leaning groups. I firmly believe that this dynamic is going to make the 2008 Republican primaries as interesting as any primary fight that I've seen in my lifetime.

My early money is on Giuliani losing out in his fight for the nomination, but I refuse to discount the possibility that he emerges from a crowded fight. And really, wouldn't it be fun to see Rudy vs. Hillary in 2008?

War-Related Hunger Strike

This story about Cindy Sheehan and her crew of apparantly jobless war-protesters got me thinking:

What exactly is the point of a hunger strike? And when you suggest that your hunger strike is going to last until the troops return from Iraq, don't you realize you look like a moron?

Is there any more idiotic way to protest something? Any way more likely to fail? And at what point does Cindy Sheehan just look like an opportunistic crazy? Oh...wait...

Christian Film Rating kerfuffle

I don't have a problem with religion. I thought Jesse Ventura's statement that religion was a crutch for the weak-minded was out of line and generally inaccurate. But I find it highly absurd when individuals of any religious stripe get up in arms over what they perceive to be affronts to their religion.

In the most recent example of how religion can (not "does," but "can") make fools out of people, I submit the following article from CNN. I guess there is a film out there that is Christian themed, and said flick received a PG rating rather than the G that the film-makers and its supporters wanted. Ostensibly, the PG rating was given because of the religious theme of the film, although the MPAA disputes that.

First, I think film ratings are stupid in general, because trying to pigeonhole every film into one of five categories just doesn't work effectively (what one parent thinks is dangerous for his or her children would be viewed as just fine by others), and I think the PARENTS should ultimately take charge of these things by, first, previewing TV and movie offerings that their children are interested in seeing until the children are of a certain age (and what that age is would be another parental decision), and second, trusting their children not to be idiots once the magic age is reached.

That said, I think exposure to religious views, especially if the film is proselytizing, is worthy of a slightly higher rating. PG simply means that parents should be paying attention, and I know a LOT of Christian families who would object to a movie that presented an overtly Muslim viewpoint receiving a G rating. As a result, this "signal" to parents that the content is not, say, about an animated deer traipsing through the forest with his forest friends is perfectly appropriate.

Now, onto the good part. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt said this in connection with the rating debacle:

This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous to children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence.

Ummm...no. This statement by Blunt raises the disquieting possibility that the third-ranking Republican in the House is a raving lunatic. Gratuitous sex and violence are virtually guaranteed nowadays to result in a rating of PG-13 or R. Back in the day, films that contained quite a lot of questionable content snuck through with a PG, but that's not the case anymore. The only things that get "G" ratings are utterly harmless trifles, containing not a whiff of sex and usually not much violence. Hence, "Christian themes" aren't even being considered to be "as dangerous" to children as are sex and violence; quite clearly a PG rating is lower on the "danger scale."

The point? Blunt is a fool who either doesn't understand what he's talking about, or who doesn't care. Either way, I'm pretty glad right now that John Boehner won the race for House Majority Leader over Blunt . . . at least Boehner hasn't proven himself to be a reactionary nutcase.