This is a nice endorsement for Rudy.

Fiscal conservative Steve Forbes on Wednesday endorsed former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s bid to become the Republican nominee for president in the 2008 race for the White House.

Forbes, chief executive of Forbes magazine who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in 1996 and 2000, is considered a leader of the party’s pro-business and tax-cutting wings.

“He is the man who can lead America in a world that is uncertain, fight the forces of evil and at the same time increase economic opportunity here at home,” Forbes told a press conference.

According to an email I got from the Exploratory Committee Chairman, Forbes will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor to the campaign:

The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee today announced that Steve Forbes, President and Chief Executive Officer of Forbes and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. Mr. Forbes will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair and Senior Policy Advisor.

“I am honored to support Rudy Giuliani for President,” Steve Forbes said. “As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani showed how exercising fiscal discipline – including tax cuts – lowers deficits, spurs economic growth, and increases revenue. It is time the rest of the country benefit from a true fiscal conservative leader who gets real results.”

“Steve and I share an economic vision that embraces supply-side economics, tax relief, and spending restraint,” said Mayor Giuliani. “I look forward to working with Steve and am proud to have him as a member of our team.”

I saw Steve Forbes at an event here in Houston a couple of weeks ago:

I’ve received quite a response to my announcement that I’ve joined Rudy’s Exploratory Committee. Most has been supportive, which would tend to bolster what the polls are saying. But there are still some that question my choice. I feel obligated to respond to them.

There are two key components to a candidate: Acceptability and Electability

It wasn’t as easy a decision as it was when I worked on Bush’s campaigns, primarily because of Rudy’s positions on certain social issues. I know I’m not the only conservative that feels this way. But I met with Pat Oxford, chair of Rudy’s Exploratory Committee a few weeks ago and he assured me Rudy is by no means a pro-abortion, gay-marriage loving liberal in sheep’s clothing. Rudy is staunchly Catholic and very anti-abortion personally. He also believes marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.

But what of his policies? His track record would seem to indicate something different. Or does it? In the 8 years Rudy was Mayor of NYC, abortions in NYC declined at a greater pace than they did nationally.

Kirsten sees some hypocrisy in my stance:

But at the end of the day, probably more of them will end up being like the members of the Bible study group that Ace describes, who despite being “strongly pro-life” support Giuliani because they think he will keep them safe. What strikes me as strange about this is I can almost guarantee that these are the same people who would ask me how I could be a Christian and a Democrat, since the majority of Democrats are pro-choice. Yet, they overlook their pro-life views for Giuliani and seem fairly unconflicted about it.

The key difference is I don’t think Rudy will actively promote abortion as a social policy…

Regardless, I’ve come to realize that even a pro-life, anti-gay marriage President (like Bush) can’t really make a big difference in legislation anyway. Rudy is pro-states rights and says he would nominate strongly conservative justices… And it’s through the nomination of Supreme Court Justices that a President can influence substantive social policy. If he’s willing to nominate justices that would potentially reverse Roe v. Wade, that says enough about his stance on abortion for me.

On the gun issue - likely to resonate negatively among the NRA contingent - I’m probably more liberal in thinking. (Or maybe I just don’t fully understand the position of the NRA) I see no problem with some elements of gun control - mandatory waiting period, full background check, etc. I know many have a problem with the way Rudy approached gun control in his efforts to clean up New York City. But let’s face it, his policies led to a reduction in overall crime by almost 60% and a murder rate that was cut by 70%. He did something right.

He’s also got a terrific record in reforming welfare (though Bush had the same in Texas and it apparently doesn’t translate into success in D.C.).

And then there’s the national defense position.

From the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush, our party’s great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.

And our party is at its best when we make certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very, very dangerous world.
[…]
It doesn’t matter to him how [President Bush] is demonized. It doesn’t matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan. But like President Bush, they were optimists. Leaders need to be optimists. Their vision is beyond the present, and it’s set on a future of real peace and security.

Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.
[…]
In choosing a president, we really don’t choose just a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. We choose a leader.

And in times of war and danger, as we’re now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision.

There are many qualities that make a great leader. But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

That’s the “acceptibility” component.

On the “electability” side, I just don’t see that Mitt Romney (let’s face it, John McCain will never be the GOP pick) has that (He’d likely be my second choice of current candidates behind Rudy). I doubt he could pull New York from Hillary into a toss up like Rudy can. (In 1997, Rudy was re-elected with nearly 60% in a city in which Democrats outnumber Republicans five to one.)

I admit, my initial support for Rudy could be classified as “begrudgingly”… But that’s the horse I think is best suited to beat Hillary… And let’s face it, THAT is the important issue in 2008.

Some of you know by now, but for those that don’t, I’ve joined Rudy Giuliani’s Presidential Exploratory Committee in an effort to help raise funds for next year’s campaign. Giuliani has recently widened his lead over the other Republican candidates and will probably be the Republican nominee to face off against Hillary Clinton.

And if you don’t think the 2008 election means much, think again.

I’m not going out on a big limb here by predicting the next president is going to get a Supreme Court nomination. One justice will be 92 by the end of the next president’s term; three others will be in their mid-to-late 70s. And with the justices narrowly divided—four solid conservatives, four solid liberals and one wild card who frustrates both sides—the stakes are, well, let’s just state the obvious: The next president could affect the Court’s direction for a generation.

So who would President Giuliani appoint?

Giuliani himself has said he wants to nominate justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas. In an interview just last week he told conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt “that would be my goal,” praising those conservative stalwarts for the “intellectual honesty with which they interpret the law.” And this week, he tapped prominent conservative Washington lawyer Theodore Olson, his old friend from their days in the Reagan Justice Department, to chair his Judicial Advisory Council, heading up a team of lawyers advising him on judges and other legal issues. Olson has known Giuliani 25 years, when they both worked in the Justice Department under Atty. Gen. William French Smith. Giuliani was associate attorney general, and Olson was assistant attorney general, heading up the Office of Legal Counsel.

Olson, who argued Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court and was President George W. Bush’s first solicitor general, said he met with Giuliani for an hour on Monday to talk about his role in the campaign. Giuliani wanted to form a legal advisory team, and Olson agreed to lead it. “We’re making it up as we go along,” Olson said. “We’ll put together a group to provide advice, suggestions, ideas to write things, and we’ll go out and speak.”

Olson said Giuliani is “absolutely” committed to nominating solid judicial conservatives, and he pointed to his leadership role in the Reagan administration, which nominated a slew of appellate judges who would become conservative icons: Scalia, Bork, Winter, Easterbrook.

If you think this is an important issue, please consider a contribution (in whatever amount you feel comfortable) to support his presidential exploratory effort via Join Rudy 2008 website. Kindly include the “contribution referral number” 3003-13 when processing.

Also, if you’re interested in attending any Giuliani events, please let me know (and tell me where you’re located) and I’ll send you information on events near you.

UPDATE:
Some quotes from Rudy at CPAC:

“I believe the Republican Party’s greatest contribution is when we give more freedom to people.”

“America will prevail against the Islamic terrorists. I have no doubt.”

“Maybe we made a mistake in calling this the war on terrorism. This is not our war on them. This is their war on us.”

“This war is over when they stop planning to come over here and kill us. Until then, we have to remain on offense against terrorists.”

“America has the right ideas. We should not be embarrassed by ourselves. We are the luckiest people in the world.”

Rudy Giuliani, on Larry King this week, had a message for the supporters of the non-binding resolution that was just passed by the House.

GIULIANI: I mean, you can look at the practical and common sense conclusion on that anyway you want. But there’s something more important than that. We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect people to make decisions. Here’s what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what’s my view on that. The nonbinding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds, they have every right to that, that it’s wrong, you should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don’t like is the idea of a nonbinding resolution.

KING: Because?

GIULIANI: Because there’s no decision.

KING: But it’s a statement.

GIULIANI: Yes, but that’s what you do. That’s what Tim Russert does and that’s what Rush Limbaugh does. That’s what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide.

Seriously, what the hell is the good of wasting all this time on a non-binding resolution? Democrats (and a handful of spineless Republicans) are making the U.S. Congress look more like the United Nations everyday. Have the courage to vote on a measure that would truly end the war if you’re opposed to it.

He filed his “Statement of Candidacy” today as a Republican candidate for President in 2008.

Believe it or not.