TO WHOM TO TURN?
RUDY GIULIANI EXPLORES REPUBLICANS' BEST OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD

BY DAVID HIMMEL

The people have spoken and, finally, President George W. Bush appears to be listening. The outcome of this midterm election has left America with the blues. No, not sadness. Rather, the understood color of Democrats. And now, as power changes legislative hands, the future ain't what it used to be.

Come January, more blue seats will occupy the House and Senate than red for the first time since 1994. The 110th Congress could very well be the thorn in the lion's paw, causing that lion to cower in a kingdom he's been ruling for six years.

What does it mean, now that the GOP has been ousted from power on Capitol Hill? It means Americans were tired of the elite, the lies and the scathing partisanship. Republicans didn't lose control over the Hill because Democrats own a great platform of awe-inspiring change and fair answers to the growing immigration problem. Democrats ran on little more than claiming that everything is wrong, and rode the coattails of Sen. Barack Obama's charming smile.

The Iraq war is not going so well while soldiers in Afghanistan are almost forgotten. There are many "known unknowns," which basically means the people calling the shots have no clue what's going on. The lack of civility of the war amongst Iraqis is growing and our boys and girls are becoming casualties of a war they don't know how to fight. 

Even with the cleverly placed death sentence of Saddam Hussein one day before the elections, it wasn't enough for the GOP to hang onto control. Then, a day after Blue Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down. If there ever was a moment for the phrase, "Too little, too late," Nov. 8 would have been that moment. Across the news wires and Americans' desktops, the story screamed liberation. If Rummy had a statue, discovering it toppled wouldn't have been surprising. The momentum that Rumsfeld and the rest of Bush's administration enjoyed following 9/11 ended as abruptly as it began.

So to whom should conservatives turn for answers? Liberty Watch: The Magazine began with the indomitable former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican who held his city together in the wake of disaster during his final days in office.

Giuliani was supposed to begin a lame-duck slide toward irrelevancy on 9/11. New Yorkers were headed to the polls to choose his successor in the city's primary election. After two terms, his place in history seemed secure, but 9/11 disrupted his legacy - one that centered around crime and welfare reduction. He was the first Republican to run the town in almost two generations and he restored New York's spirit, "boosting property values and incomes in neighborhoods rich and poor, redeveloping great swaths of the city," as Time Magazine put it. 

However, great swaths of the city were sick of Giuliani. People were tired of his temper and constant battles - against political enemies, black leaders, street vendors, jaywalkers and even his own wife, celebrity Donna Hanover. In a time when the city seemed ready for Giuliani to leave, the city - and nation - relied on him most.

In an exclusive, one-on-one interview, Liberty Watch: The Magazine sat down with Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" 2001 to pick his brain about the future of America. Able to calm and reassure New Yorkers five years ago, making hundreds of rapid-fire decisions about security and rescue operations, among other responsibilities, the now-political consulting partner could certainly provide answers for this less-pressing issue than, well, New York in 2001.

"I think it is inevitable that after six years of one party being in office, every presidency has difficulty," Giuliani said. "That includes Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. We still have President Bush and he is a very determined leader. He has never lead based on public-opinion polls."

Perhaps that was Bush's biggest flaw. Had Rummy stepped down, or had President Bush reassigned him before the elections, Republicans might have been able to hold onto power. But instead, all summer long, when the people were calling for Rummy's resignation - even military generals who Rumsfeld managed were supporting a step down - Bush and Rumsfeld would not budge. They had a war to run and changing the man at the helm was a bad, bad idea. Yet, the moment the power in Congress changed hands at the will of the people, it was clear - change indeed was in the air. Rummy had to go and instantly, Bush was "open to new ideas on Iraq."

Throughout the 2006 campaign, Republicans painted their Democratic opponents as clueless, weak, morally unstable shmoes. Now, Bush cries for bipartisanship.

In a press-filled meeting with potential Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.), the President said, "[This is] a great opportunity for us to show the country that Republicans and Democrats are equally as patriotic and equally concerned about the future and that we can work together."

It's a much different tone than that of The Decider a few months back. So, what does this new, friendly, almost cowardly, never-before-seen, brown-nosing attitude from the President and the Republican Party mean? Do the people really want bipartisanship or just fast change?

"The American people want the Democrats and Republicans to work together," Giuliani said. "They want the Democrats and Republicans to figure out how we can do things together."

The biggest complaint Giuliani said he receives when traveling across the country is that things don't seem to be correctly working in terms of the two leading parties setting aside partisanship and accomplishing anything. Important issues like the economy, immigration, social security and energy.

Now, with Bush ever willing (as suddenly as it is) to work with the majority, we'll see how well he can accept and encourage bipartisanship. As Giuliani pointed out, the President still sets the direction of the country and "he still sets the agenda. He still has veto power. There just may be more conflict and more debate."

Make no mistake; Democrats have an even bigger responsibility over the next two years. While, the Bush administration needs to play nice, Dems need to come up with some sort of plan. The finger pointing won't work if Iraq doesn't improve. If the energy issue is not resolved, there's no one to blame but themselves. After all, the mess we're in now - according to most Democrats - stems from Republican control on the Hill. 

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean released this statement the day after the elections: "Today the American people sent a clear message for a new direction. Voting for hope and opportunity, they rejected the Republican culture of corruption and the politics of fear and smear. Democrats are unified and ready to change the tone of politics in Washington to get things done for the American people."

Even after a victory, while Pelosi and Nevada's own Sen. Harry Reid sat in the White House with The President chanting, "bipartisanship," Dean's words have a sense of opportunity and righteousness in them. They might even be replaced by an excited "Heeeyaaah!" 

Now is certainly not the time to remind the people of the scandals that almost engulfed the Republican Party (Foley, Rove and the CIA leak, Abramoff, to quietly name a few). Those helped Dems move forward. Now is the time to prove whether or not they intend to move forward. 

"Scandals happen all the time," Giuliani said. "I think people can focus on the big issues: war and peace, the economy, education. Those are the things that we have policy differences on. There are Republican scandals and Democratic scandals."

So now, the Democrats have two assignments - come up with a working platform and keep their noses clean. And if that means Reid needs to relinquish some land deals, so be it.

On the local scene, Nevada draws itself a nice parallel to Washington D.C. Amongst a scandal of "did he" or "did he not" hit on the semi-weathered cocktail waitress, Jim Gibbons still took the governor's mansion. The point spread resembled the decibel difference between Gibbons' soft-spoken word and Dina Titus' screeching cackle. And now, just like President Bush, Gov. Gibbons has to work diplomatically with the blue Assembly and and barely red Senate. 

What's odd about the Nevada election's outcome is that the votes seemed to come in based on national feelings. With education such an important issue in this state, why would voters elect the so many Democrats who pair up with the teachers' union - arguably the one group standing in the way of a decently mediocre school system? And it's common knowledge that Democrats love taxes and love to spend any kind of surplus, as opposed to giving it back to the people. 

So why did Nevadans elect this problem so close to home? Why didn't voters protest their vote enough to at least give minor parties like Libertarians or Independent Americans 10 percent of the vote? At least then in 2008, Nevadans could hear a silenced, but fresh voice in that election's debates.

With the Democrats running the show in Nevada, if they expect to retain seats in 2008, they must be careful with spending. Republicans, on the other hand, might consider picking a better line up because the message of controlled spending and a union-free school district didn't seem to work. It was more like the voters just didn't like the candidates. Long-time taxpayer caretakers such as County Commissioner Lynette Boggs McDonald and State Sen. Sandra Tiffany were both ousted.

And now that Boggs McDonald and Tiffany and even the untouchable Rumsfeld don't have the protection of their positions, they could be facing some troubling legal times ahead thanks to ethics issues.

Rumsfeld faces charges by an international court in Germany for his alleged criminal involvement in the Iraq war and the situation in Afghanistan. Most specifically, he's being lowered over hot water for the atrocities and national embarrassment of the Abu Ghraib prison. Also named in the lawsuit are Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former director of the CIA George Tenet as well as other U.S. civilian and military officers. Shockingly, but maybe not surprisingly, after the military suggested Rumsfeld's resignation, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski must testify against them. Karpinski was in charge of the U.S. military prisons in Iraq. She's claiming the higher-ups indeed knew about the torture.

If both parties truly want bipartisanship, if that is really in the cards, each might consider hiring Giuliani's firm. Although a sworn member of the GOP, he could very well set a fair example. And should he run in 2008 for the presidency, as often rumored, he may have a chance to keep the oval office red. 

The next two years in American politics - national and statewide - are certain to be telling of the future. Careers and lives hang in the balance. Can we leave Iraq without losing face? Can we finally give oil companies a reason to be scared of corn-fed cars? Will we see our children actually learn and understand what their well-paid teacher is telling them?

Only true bipartisanship - or including a minor party's involvement - will bring us closer to a better America. Let's just hope America's votes don't inflate the heads of this election's winners. LW